Over on the Multinational forum we've been dissing/discussing the sad state of the Canajan Armed [?] Forces and the [un]funding support from the government.. Got me thinking about the Brit gripes about the ' rationalization ' of the UK Military under Bliar and, of course, Dubya is being pressured over the cost of committments in Afghanistan and Iraq and the drain/strain on the Reserves back home.. so, question is.. What's a good number? Canada claims 65,000 all ranks/branches and the figure bandied about is 12,000 at NDHQ as pencil pushers...US has 150,000 in Iraq [ give or take] but only about 35,000 are pointy-end types...haven't heard what the ratio is in Britland.. We all know that back in WW2 not everyone was a Para/commando taking out the Hun behind enemy lines or ' at the front ' sticking it to the Boche..more boys earned their campaign medals getting paper cuts and dropping supply boxes on their toes.. not to mention those that held down the ' home front '.. So, what is a good tally of support personnel to fighting troops.. 6 for 1?? Just what does it take in manpower to keep those who shoot to kill operational? Right now, I know, that we in Canuckistan aren't at ' optimum ' [ whatever that is ] by a long shot.. or that we have enough numbers to meet our committments.. as a percentage of the population, our military is pitiful [ but, given financing, we couldn't afford to keep a higher count ].. What's the scoop on UK/US Force strength/ratios.. back end to front end balance..etc? Given the cost to Dubya and the limits expressed America-side [ despite the fact that the US spends a whackload of dough on its military -far in excess of any other country ] how much is just enough/too much [ %of GNP ] I know what Canada spends and its pennies.. what's the UK figure?