Is an army of 72,000 soldiers an army?

The great British Army is to fall in size again. Just 72,000 soldiers. This is the Boris Johnson government's idea of an effective 21st century fighting force. Ok I know restructuring armed forces these days is all about artificial intelligence and unmanned planes and ships and super technology but there is no substitute for having brillantly trained hot combat troops to seize territory and hold ground and keep the enemy at bay. Just like there's no substitute for tanks when you need to advance at a rapid pace and, again, hold ground. Some might say this is all old-fashioned stuff and that all you need today to win wars or at least to fight off the enemy is to have things you can launch from several thousand miles away and people to twiddle knobs sitting in a wargame chair. But I bet you that at some time in the future there will be a crisis that requires British troops and more British troops, not fancy missiles and oddly-shaped drones. The trouble is troops are expensive, they need paying, feeding, housing and equipping and then pensioning off when they've done their duty to Queen and country. So cut back form 82,000 troops to 72,000 troops and look at all the savings. It's a sorry business. I know we can't afford everything anymore. But for heaven's sake the UK is spending billions of pounds on two huge aircraft carriers which will need new frigates and destroyers to escort and protect them. Something is out of balance. It cannot be right for the British Army to have just 72,000 soldiers, many of whom won't be combat troops but enablers, as they call them, and support staff. The Royal Marines have been redrawn into some new fighting force that will take on some of the special forces roles. That might work ok. At least they're not being abolished. But with an army reduced to such a pygmy size, what on earth is its role going to be? Will we ever again be able to send a division of 25,000 soldiers to war? I seriously doubt it.