Britain’s Army Crisis: Is It Ready for a Russian Conflict?
Article Summary: The British Army faces its most significant manpower crisis since the Napoleonic era, with just 73,000 active-duty troops. A recent House of Lords report criticizes the army as inadequately prepared for high-intensity conflicts, lacking resilience and the ability to sustain prolonged engagements.
Key Point: Despite Britain’s historical reliability as a U.S. ally, decades of budget cuts and downsizing have severely limited its capacity to provide meaningful force. Experts argue Britain’s current army couldn’t effectively mobilize a full combat division, let alone sustain it.
-Rebuilding the army is crucial, especially as threats like Russian aggression highlight the necessity for credible land forces.
Why Britain’s Smallest Army Since Napoleon Is a Problem
The British Army is the smallest it has been since the Napoleonic period. Years of budgetary cutbacks have left the British Army with only 73,000 active duty troops.
A damning report from the House of Lords committee in Parliament warned civilians must be ready to fight in the event of a war with Russia. The Armed Forces “lack the mass, resilience, and internal coherence necessary to maintain a deterrent effect and respond effectively to prolonged and high-intensity warfare,” the report stated.
The report added that all the evidence it had heard “points to the current size of the British Army being inadequate” and questioned “whether the British Army is prepared to meet the growing threat posed by Russia to European security.”
It called for the country to adopt “the mindset of a nation under genuine threat.”
British Armed Forces Stretched Dangerously Thin
Of all America’s allies, Britain has always answered the call. In Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places in the world, the British military has always had America’s back—and vice versa. The island nation nearly sunk in World War II from the weight of accepting all of the US forces, tanks, aircraft, and equipment we brought there for the invasion of Europe.
The British adopted the phrase at the time that “Americans are overpaid, over-sexed, and over here.”
Just recently, the British RAF joined American attack aircraft in bombing Houthi missile sites in Yemen that were attacking commercial shipping in the Red Sea. Ben Barry, a land-warfare expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank (IISS), said: “Despite the legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan, Britain’s armed forces, with the support of the British public, have a willingness to use force against enemies deep in their DNA that in Europe is matched only by France.”
However, huge cracks are beginning to show despite the British military continually rising to the occasion. In the NATO plan, Britain is supposed to supply a heavy war-fighting division in a reasonable amount of time. On paper, they have two, but the military would be hard-pressed to flesh out a single division today.
Poor Planning and Decisions
In 1989, the British Army had 156,000 troops, more than double its current number. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the government slashed the military to the bone. The downsizing was due to a perceived lack of need, difficulties recruiting soldiers, and the mistaken belief that precision-guided weapons meant fewer boots on the ground.
The Reserve forces number only 28,000, so the Army lacks the workforce to replace losses in wartime, help create new units, or train new recruits.
“As things stand, the British Army is a one-trick pony,” Nicholas Drummond, a British defense expert and former infantry officer, said. “It would deploy, fight for a maximum of six months, and then be fully depleted.”
“It simply doesn’t have the supporting units needed to sustain it when deployed.”
“We have no second echelon force to provide a third, reserve division, casualty replacements, or to create the basis of a larger wartime Army,” Drummond added.
Russia Attacking Baltic States?
Recently, a leaked German document was found about a possible scenario involving Russia beating Ukraine due to dwindling Western support and unleashing cyber attacks on the Baltic states of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia to destabilize them.
The Institute For the Study of War said that, while improbable, Russia could push to the borders of NATO states if Ukraine’s support dries up.
Challenger 2 Tank. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
The UK Needs a Bigger Army
General Patrick Sanders said the British people needed to change their mindsets to be mentally prepared for the possibility of war with Russia.
“Our friends in eastern and northern Europe, who feel the proximity of the Russian threat more acutely, are already acting prudently, laying the foundations for national mobilization,” he said. “Ukraine brutally illustrates that regular armies start wars; citizen armies win them.”
The British Army has always played third fiddle to the Royal Navy and RAF. But as Ukraine has shown, wars are won on the ground, sometimes a few yards at a time. They need to rebuild the Army.
A Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank of the Royal Welsh Battle Group on Exercise Prairie Storm at the British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS) in Canada. The prairie of Alberta has provided an excellent opportunity for the British Army to train on a large scale since 1972. The British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS) is an organisation situated on one of the most sparsely populated areas of the Alberta plain. BATUS is equipped with in excess of 1000 vehicles including a full complement of Challenger 2 tanks and Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Each year a Regiment is sent there for six months to take the part of the ‘enemy’ for the other Regiments that are there to train each year.
About the Author:
Steve Balestrieri is a 19FortyFive National Security Columnist. He served as a US Army Special Forces NCO and Warrant Officer. In addition to writing for 19FortyFive, he covers the NFL for PatsFans.com and is a member of the Pro Football Writers of America (PFWA). His work was regularly featured in many military publications.
