One of Britain’s leading defense analysts has called for a sweeping reform of the Army Reserve and a substantial increase in the size of the British Army, warning that the current structure leaves the country unprepared for future conflicts.
Writing on his X page, defense commentator Nicholas Drummond argued that the Reserve is being used in ways that undermine its intended role, while the Regular Army remains too small to operate independently.
“Britain’s Army Reserve needs to be reformed. At the moment, the Regular Army is only deployable with Army Reserve personnel backfilling gaps,” Drummond wrote. “But when the Army Reserve is used to make the Regular Army usable, it cannot focus on its proper tasks, which are: to provide a second echelon force, battlefield casualty replacements, specialist personnel, and the capacity to enlarge the Army as a whole quickly in an emergency.”
Drummond’s core argument is that the Army Reserve should not merely act as a stopgap for personnel shortages but function as a cohesive, deployable force in its own right. That means creating units that train and fight together, rather than providing individual soldiers to plug gaps in the Regular Army.
“Army Reserve units also need to be complete entities that train together and fight together. When organised like this they perform much better,” he wrote.
To achieve this, Drummond argued, the British Army must restructure its force model so that the Regular Army is capable of deploying independently. That, in turn, would allow the Reserve to focus on its intended missions: acting as a second echelon, supplying casualty replacements, providing specialized skills, and enabling rapid expansion during wartime.
Such a shift, he said, will require a larger Regular Army. “If we reform the Army Reserve so that it can respond in an emergency, then the Regular Army must become independently deployable. This means the Regular Army needs to grow,” Drummond wrote.
He noted that as an island nation, Britain’s naval and air forces will always be higher strategic priorities than maintaining a large standing army. But the ground force must still be credible enough to contribute meaningfully to NATO and defend the U.K. if needed.
“As an island nation, Britain’s navy and air force are more important priorities. This means we do not need a massive peacetime army. Two Regular Divisions and an Army Reserve Division are sufficient. This is more or less what the Army aspires to provide. But to do this job properly, it needs 90,000 regulars and 30,000 reservists,” he explained.
By contrast, the British Army today is well below that target, with a Regular force of around 73,000. Drummond called that figure “not credible” for a nation with Britain’s global responsibilities and defense commitments.
“It doesn’t need the 160,000 regular soldiers it had at the height of the Cold War. But 73,000 is not credible. Increasing the headcount of the armed forces is a bullet we will need to bite sooner or later,” he wrote.
The debate over the size and structure of Britain’s land forces has intensified as geopolitical threats mount. Russia’s war in Ukraine, rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific, and growing demands on NATO allies to provide conventional deterrence have all underscored the need for ready, deployable ground forces.
With the U.K. facing renewed calls to meet NATO readiness targets and strengthen its deterrent posture, Drummond’s warning adds weight to the argument that Britain must invest not just in ships and aircraft but also in a credible, properly structured land force — one capable of responding decisively when called upon.