The British Army has shrunk to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars

• The British Army is now smaller than those of Romania and Bangladesh.
• Its size raises questions about the UK's ability to support NATO, confront Russia, or fight a war.
• "Right now, the British Army cannot generate a single division, let alone two," an expert told BI.

What has happened to the redcoats that defeated Napoleon and helped win an empire that stretched across a quarter of the Earth's surface?

The British Army has shrunk to its lowest level since the early 1800s. Years of relentless budget cutbacks have left it with just 73,000 active-duty soldiers . That's a far cry from the Chinese army of 2 million soldiers, Russia's 1.3 million, or the 460,000 active-duty troops of the US Army .

Britain's Army is now smaller than those of Romania and Bangladesh, and just slightly larger than those of Canada and Armenia. Until now, its lowest manpower level over the last two centuries came in 1823, when it had just 72,000 soldiers. But that understates the current problem. Britain's population in 1823 was just over 20 million, versus around 67 million today. Adjusted for population, the British Army of 1823 would have around 225,000 soldiers today.

This raises questions about the ability of Britain to support NATO, confront Russia , or to engage in any major or long-term conflict. "As things stand, the British Army is a one-trick pony," Nicholas Drummond, a British defense expert and former infantry officer, told Business Insider. "It would deploy, fight for a maximum of six months, and then be fully depleted."

The British Army has never had it easy. For centuries, it was the poorer cousin of the Royal Navy , which was seen as the guardian of an island nation and its empire. The writer Rudyard Kipling pointed out in poems like "Tommy" that Britain doesn't support its army until there's a war:

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"

But it's "Savior of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;

Thus the British Army's muster rolls have fluctuated depending on the world situation, and the perpetual parsimony of His Majesty's Treasury. In 1812, when it fought Napoleon and burned down Washington, DC, it had 246,000 soldiers . In 1918, it ended the First World War with 3.8 million personnel, and 2.9 million in 1945.

In 1989, the British Army had 156,000 soldiers, or more than twice its present size. Like many armies after the end of the Cold War, it was downsized due to a perceived lack of need, difficulties in recruiting soldiers, and the belief that precision-guided weapons meant fewer boots on the ground.

However, the shocking casualties and trench warfare in the Ukraine conflict suggest that future wars will be attritional, with victory going to the nations that have the most stamina, industrial might and resources to sustain losses. Yet with just 28,000 Army reservists, Britain lacks manpower to flesh out undermanned units in wartime, or to replace losses. Even the Army's current two combat divisions aren't fully capable.

"Right now, the British Army cannot generate a single division, let alone two," Drummond said.

"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 argues that today, Britain needs two readily deployable mechanized divisions, one using tracked vehicles and a lighter unit on wheels, each of 25,000 troops. "In addition to this, we need training regiments and Army schools, and a regular reserve. Historically this has required 30,000 to 40,000 additional personnel. So the irreducible peacetime strength of the Army is 80,000 to 90,000 soldiers."

If money is the root of all evil, then the British armed forces have been sinned against for 35 years. In 1984, the UK's defense spending was 5.5% of GDP. It is currently a bit over 2 percent, with the newly elected Labor government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledging to honor the previous Conservative government's to raise the defense budget to 2.5%. This is less than America's 3.5% spent on defense, though it exceeds NATO's goal — which many members have yet to fulfill — of 2% of GDP allocated to the military.

It's not just the Army that is struggling. The British armed forces have been cut back to 183,000 personnel, and even then, they can't find enough recruits. A shortage of sailors has forced the Royal Navy to decommission warships , and the Royal Air Force can't attract enough pilots .

To be fair, the problem is caused by more than stingy government bean-counters. With many nations abolishing conscription, and civilian careers seen as more lucrative, this is not a good time to be a military recruiter anywhere. But as a nation past its imperial glory, Britain has prided itself on punching above its weight. A skeleton army won't help.

Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds an MA in political science from Rutgers Univ. Follow him on Twitter and LinkedIn .