The government has announced the most wide ranging changes to the structure of the British Army for more than a decade. Defence secretary Geoff Hoon told MPs that the number of battalions would be cut from forty to thirty-six. He said some historic regiments would be merged into larger, regional units.
Critics say the changes could leave the army overstretched but Britain's senior Army officer, General Sir Mike Jackson defended the changes saying the army would be in the "right shape for the future".
What do you think of the proposed changes for the army? Does the army need reform to cope with modern warfare? Or should the army stay the way it is? Send us your comments using the form on the right.
This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.
Your comments:
One of the things that has made our military the best in the world is its traditions and the morale that is created with it. The Army shouldn't be turned into some type of business.
Daniel Richmond, Plymouth
 |  Hoon should be delivering the so-called "smart procurement" in the MOD before appeasing Gordon Brown |
Our armed forces don't have enough ammunition for the amount of practice they need to have that "edge" over the possible opposition. Their uniforms are either inadequate or supplemented by personal purchases. They don't have enough body armour for every "front liner" to wear. Their communication system was designed in the 1970's and it still isn't delivered and working. Similarly the RAF have a 1970's design front line fighter just coming into service. With the disastrous computer system procurements what makes anyone think that this government can deliver a "networked" battlewagon" never mind a system which simply prints giro cheques? So much for the Hi-Tech bit. It seems to me that Hoon should be delivering the so-called "smart procurement" in the MOD before appeasing Gordon Brown with cost cutting at the front line.
Trevor, Colchester, UK As a former solder the only logical reason that cuts have been made is to pay for the illegal war in Iraq. The British Army needs to be as strong as its strongest enemy but this Defence Secretary has made sure it is not. If you want an example, if the Argentines were to launch another attack on the Falklands the already overstretched army could do little about it.
Chris Naylor, Nottingham, England
You never shrink your way to greatness.
Mike, Ipswich UK
Of course structure and manpower deployment may need to change if the situation warrants it, but the Defence Secretary has not shown us - the British people - the reasons why this change is taking place. He should either explain himself properly, and gain support for his actions, or stay any changes until the relevant situation arises.
Jai Gomer, UK
During my 35 years in the Army I saw many changes and welcomed them, as I do this reorganisation, because the role of the Army is forever changing. I was in Military Ops in the War Office in 1960 when Harold Macmillan held his 'Chequers Weekend' which started the reduction and reorganisation. It is only the old 'has-beens' who want to cling on to outdated traditions.
Thomas Moffatt, Chesterfield, Derbyshire Will someone please explain to this ex- soldier with 25 years service how a reduction in the numbers of troops available can make the army stronger?
J Morris, Manchester UK
Hundreds of years of tradition have been wiped away in a single pen stroke to hide a very real recruitment shortage by reducing the official strength of the army. A sad day for all serving and ex servicemen and women.
R E C Binks, Spital, Cheshire
The British armed force's primary function is to protect the British Isles from attack. This purpose is achieved by the trident submarines. All other forces should be reduced to a minimum! Bring on the cut backs.
Scott, Leeds, UK
| We serve historic regiments with the loyalty that we show our families |
As a serving soldier, I am disgusted with the treatment of all soldiers in this debacle that is a country. We serve historic regiments with the loyalty that we show our families, some can trace connections back generations and hold true to traditional values. We have been betrayed by the government.
SG, Scotland As a serving Scottish soldier, the KOSB, "Scotland's finest" should be left alone. The infantry is the backbone of the army! With the state of the world today this decision is crazy!!
Anonymous, Stranraer, Scotland
I am an ex-serviceman. The very thing that the Americans didn't have and so emulated was the identification of their battalions. By tying them together they obtained an esprit de corps. It is the cement that holds our troops together and they put their lives on the line because of that. This government hasn't got ONE national serviceman's time in the forces between the lot of them. They have no idea of the priceless cement they are throwing away.
Stan Cooper, Sale, Cheshire
Is it perhaps significant that Britain would only require "a lean, mean fighting machine" in order to provide an element of a European army?
Cliff Payne, Doncaster S. Yorks
| The reservists already make up too much of our fighting force abroad |
How can the army be cut even further when so many reservists are already in Iraq, let alone the many more that have to be sent out? I have personally seen all those who are capable in my company in the TA sent out already. Literally there are very very few left to send (maybe none). The reservists already make up too much of our fighting force abroad. British soldiers should be able to do their jobs. To enable them to do that, they need rest between tours, not constantly being sent from one war zone to another.
D. Carter, Halifax, UK It's about time. Defence experts have been talking about the need to cut heavy armour since the early 90s as no potential enemy has heavy armoured formations for them to fight and they are a liability with modern man-portable anti-tank weapons. Although it is sad to see historic regiments disbanded or merged, a one battalion regiment with a full regimental administrative tail cannot make sense.
Paul Braham, Southampton, England
I serve with The Royal Scots as a Senior NCO and am very disappointed with this announcement. We were asked months ago about these changes by our CO, what structure we would prefer if the changes were to go ahead. On the COs parade I attended NO arms were raised for change. These changes have been forced upon us by government penny pinchers who pull the strings of Gen Mike Jackson and co who look and act more like politicians wearing military uniforms.
Anonymous, Edinburgh, Scotland
How long before we outsource our defence to a call centre somewhere in Asia?
David, GB
Annabel Ewing's only failing was being too moderate in her language regarding Hoon. If he is offended by what she said he should steer well clear of the troops themselves lest he hear a few home truths!
D. Dods, Livingston, West Lothian
The History of many fine and honoured regiments will disappear due to "Reform". Recruiting will drop overall, County pride is a very strong and deciding factor in the smaller regiments. Regimental pride will disappear and will ultimately have an overall effect on combat efficiency.
Peter Stapleton, Belize, Central America
I think it is correct that these decisions are made by Generals, but why stop here. If we need to reduce costs, then let's cut out the cost for all the dress uniforms which vary across regiments. Practical working clothes are all that is required for a practical army. We don't need to dress soldiers up like male Barbies to please tourists.
John G, Aberdeen
Yet another defence cut. Already the Armed Forces are stretched thinly, hit also by recruitment problems. Of course, changing times call for adjustments, but every year the numbers are cut.
John T, Essex
The army has lost 1,500 posts from over 100,000 whereas the RAF has lost 7,500 out of less than 50,000. In reality, the Army knows that it has been virtually unscathed by this review.
Daniel, Marlow, Bucks
Only someone who has never served with these battalions would say that traditions are meaningless.
Lynn, Glasgow, Scotland
It's stupid. I left the army last year, friends of mine returned from Iraq in the May of that year and went out to Kosovo that same November. The army has poor retention as it is, this will make things worse as soldiers will be working non stop. It was almost relentless before I left, I dread to think what it will be like in the near future.
Anon, Birmingham, England
Armed Forces reform should be at the top of every government's agenda. It was failure to reform and get rid of anachronistic traditions that led to acts of incompetence like the Charge of the Light Brigade and most of the battles First World War. A changing world requires armed forces structured to cope with modern demands, not infantry regiments armed with dirks and targets.
John Hays, Goatacre, Wilts, UK
I can appreciate the need for the armed forces to move forward with the changing global challenges, and adapt to new strategy and new equipment. However I cannot understand how we can expect fewer personnel to do what is expected by the government.
Pete Partlett, Guisborough, Yorks
This shake up will end hundreds of years of history that the British Army has had!
Antony, Coventry
As a former serving member of the armed forces I don't believe that there should be cutbacks in any of the forces. We should be expanding. One of the reasons I left was due to undermaning. We need to decide what our armed forces are for. Are they to defend the realm or to protect foreign interests? Before long we won't have enough soldiers to do both. As for it being left to the so-called "top brass", well I wouldn't be too sure they know what they are doing.
A. Mooney, Motherwell, Scotland Led from the rear by dashing grey-suited accountants, this constantly outmanoeuvred government, superbly drilled to recognise the price of everything and the value of nothing and always to surrender to superior market forces, will, I predict, soon lay down all our arms for the greater short-term financial good of the nation. The elite Pay Corps may just survive, but they will be reduced to firing dud cheques.
Mike Bettney, Long Eaton
Naturally the armed forces have to be ready and capable to meet any threat. However, it is only the day before yesterday that we had the news that a large number of reservists are being called up to help in Iraq. This, combined with the widely reported equipment shortages/failures and logistics shortcomings during the Iraq campaign would seem to contradict the need for smaller more responsive units. This smacks of yet another round of ill-conceived defence cuts hidden behind a smokescreen of "modernisation".
Andy D, Oxford UK
It seems that the government's long term strategy is to downsize the salaried army in a futile and dangerous attempt to further cut costs. Not only have they robbed pensioners over the years, I've no doubt with the next call to arms they intend kitting them up Dad's Army style!
Patrick V. Staton, Guildford. UK
I think such moves are long overdue. The army should be adjusted as required to respond to the UK's needs and change should not be stalled on account of sentimentality. We could go further and remove all our troops from Germany, as the area has not been of strategic interest since WWII.
Graeme Phillips, Guildford, UK I am a solider in 3PWRR, we are losing a battalion. How can a smaller, massively overstretched army be more robust and flexible? Any new challenges won't be met as there will not be enough man power to meet them. Let's just hope we are not called upon to defend our own country soon, as most of us will be abroad looking after someone else's.
Richard, Canterbury
Where is the sense in cutting the number of regular forces (volunteers) when we are sending 900 reservists (civilians) to their possible deaths in Iraq? Let us bring back national service so that politicians' children are called up and then see how fast their parents back-pedal.
Cliff Payne, Doncaster, S. Yorks
We are supposed to be waging a war on terror so what is the point of decimating the armed forces even further? Not only that, if they keep on cutting the forces back, soon there will be no-one available to help the Americans out.
Nickie Tustain, Bury St Edmunds, England
If terrorism is such a threat, why are we now reducing our forces? Mr Hoon clearly has little or no concept of what it means to be a part of our armed forces.
Peter M, Bristol, UK
No. Our armed forces are already cut to the backbone. The regiments should have been left alone and if anything, we should be extending our army. That way we can cope with all the calls to our armed forces for taking part in peace keeping missions!
S, Hove
The army should be reformed on the advice of those that know, i.e. the army top brass, just what has happened now. All this stuff about traditions is meaningless if the army is not in the correct structure to get the job done in the modern world. The cavalry had a tradition of charging on horses, but that is no longer relevant!
J.G., Scotland, UK
Firstly "J.G, Scotland, UK", you are right in that when things need changing they should be. However our infantry regiments are not letting us down at all. In fact they are more committed than ever. Hardly comparable to the cavalry no longer needing horses. If the government go ahead with these changes then they will find it increasingly hard to recruit. Regiments created in the last lot of "improvements" have found it difficult to recruit due to a lack of identity. The Highlanders are highly undermanned as they do not have their old regimental identities. This will not attract young soldiers, especially in Scotland. Regimental identity is not an obsolete, unuseful tradition but a key factor in recruitment, which as far as I am aware is important in any army.
Paddy Sexton, Gloucestershire
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
