Could army restructuring limit the impact of troop cuts?

HAVE YOUR SAY

no matter how the army is restructured you are still left with less troops on the ground.
Using reservists isnt practical in the long run as they may have to be taken from civilian jobs leading to higher costs to employers having to cover the loss to themselves of their employee/s. employers may then have to think twice about recruiting former service personnel.
Using civilians to cover some of the secondary roles of the army could entail people refusing to go to certain area's of conflict, this then would lead to legal challenges and/or strikes,

Governments can't keep cutting numbers and expect the few who are left to take up the slack, they will eventually need to be rested, retrained as required or we could end up with no-one wanting to join our armed services.
How about making MP's serve as reservists on the frontline, let them lead from the front and not from the safety of London? They cut the numbers, they get the perks, our troops pay with their lives.
JC - UK

JC-UK Well said that man!! HMG seem rather naive to assume that there will be a queue to join the reserves, especially by those made forcibly redundant, no doubt many of whom will leave the UK to find suitable work abroad, in particular those with specialist skills.
Hereman - Wirral, England

A left wing think tank at the end of the cold war proposed massive cuts in UK defences. Even they did not want to cut the Army below 100,000.
Global economic chaos is bound to lead to trouble, no matter how hard we try to avoid it.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

The primary threat to our country is without a doubt the current economic threat. We must remember to bear that in mind!!

HOWEVER, in answer to the question above no it won't. You CANNOT do MORE with LESS... At least in the way the government is talking. That is a misnomer. Whoever invented it was a clever politician indeed to get the phrase coined and frankly they should be shot!!

I also feel that areas like the NHS, Benefits and other points should be looked at. We all like to moan about how over budget the MoD is however the NHS is not exactly a picture of efficiency and value for money.
Anthony - Bristol, UK

Imposing an accountant's solution cannot hide the reality that one soldier cannot be in two places at once. And can someone please start reminding the MoD that a greater role for the Reserves will mean that they will have to undergo more training meaning more investment and a greater engagement with employers.
Terry Hales - London

I voted because many of my former colleagues still serving will be impacted by this process.
Richard osborne - Uk

While I do not doubt the skill and commitment of our reservists they still need regular people to train them. The more reservists the more training establishments we require and the more regular personnel taken away from the front line.

This issue is more relevant now than ever as equipment is getting more complicated and the overall UK culture of people having to have a certificate (from an approved provider) for everything the do. Even core skills like weapons handling common to all 3 services requires many hours of training to teach and maintain ability. This takes weeks for a full time regular and months for a reservist. If you look at more complicated IT, radios and specific drivers qualifications and so on you can see just how much training out reserves will need and just how many resources that are needed to provide it. In short they will never be ready and out ability to react quickly will rely on our shrunk regulars.
Wibble - UK