UK Defence Forum

Is it just me or is the manpower plans for Army 2020 weirdly insulting? Yes the UK has one of the most, if not the most capable armed forces in the world but 112,000 troops is minuscule when compared with other world powers.

Also, will Army 2020 be revised with the new government in power? With Philip Hammond promising looser austerity I guess we'll also see a fluctuation in defence spending...

P.S I'm new here.

Well it is really 82,000 (trained), but we are currently well below that mark.

UK Armed Forces Monthly Service Personnel Statistics 1 May 2016

On page 6, you will see that the British Army has only 84,760 "trained and untrained" (excluding the Gurkhas). Of those, 7,840 are the untrained! That leaves a mere 76,920 trained army personnel! Over 5,000 less than required.

As far as I am aware, the Gurkhas are not to be included to meet the 82,000 requirement, but even if you do include them, we are still way below.

Edit: Welcome to the forum 111.

Just want to say welcome 111 to the forum. I hope you enjoy your time here.

WhitestElephant wrote:the British Army has only 84,760 "trained and untrained" (excluding the Gurkhas). Of those, 7,840 are the untrained! That leaves a mere 76,920 trained army personnel! Over 5,000 less than required.

Put back in the numbers in Gurkha units, and you will have found the missing 5k (even though the Br. Army website does not acknowledge the numbers, just that ex-Gurkhas are now being recruited into the army reserve).
- and, just to be on the safe side, add in the RM (now much devoid of their supporting army units... I hope that will soon be reversed!) and you've got the gap covered

I would worry about the Reserves strength... that plan was smoke and mirrors from word Go!
- copied from the US and Oz, who, however have been cultivating the concept of One Force much longer (the kit and training cycles/the length of them being crucial to readiness and deployability)

Even if you include the Brigade of Gurkhas -some 2,500 (trained)- we are still way short. But the crucial point is, the Gurkhas have never been counted with the regular army. Over the years, MoD publications on personnel have been very strict on this fact.

We were promised an army of 82,000 regulars (trained), we only have 76,920.

We had an army of over 102,000 regulars (trained) back in 2009-ish.

How many cap badges have we lost since 2009?

WhitestElephant wrote:some 2,500 (trained)- we are still way short. But the crucial point is, the Gurkhas have never been counted with the regular army

I know that you are talking about the trend (line) and I am talking about what we actually have... it is a very useful discussion to have.

RN is quite good at specifying what the critical "trades" are and how much we are short by
... try to get that kind of picture of the Army manning?

RAF has been put in an especially tight corner, with their ISDs/OSDs in constant flux, and the specific training and the length of it, to get anything up and running (on a reliable basis); BUT, this is an Army thread, so that is just a sidenote

I wonder what Mr Wallace will have to say about this :-

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 7-04/29937