The sum will be paid to anyone serving in what is called a hazardous operational area - like Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans.

About 15,000 serving troops are set to benefit from the changes, which Defence Minister Des Browne announced to MPs.

Soldier Sean Thomas told BBC News the move had come as a "huge boost" to him and his friends in Iraq.

"We're not paid massive amounts, however we do not moan about it as we knew this when we signed on," he said.

"Credit to the government for the tax bill, however much it's worth."

And Corporal Andy Morgan, who was speaking at RAF Benson, said he and his colleagues "work hard and deserve the recognition".

He said the change may also encourage more people to join the armed forces.

'Right direction'

Meanwhile, members of the unofficial but popular Army Rumour Service website have been sharing their thoughts on the news, which follows a campaign to stop soldiers paying tax on their earnings - something that American GIs do not do.

A number of users welcomed the move.

"Considering that most people didn't really expect anything I would suggest it's a move in the right direction," writes one user.

And another argues that "any bonus we get from the government has to be a good thing".

However, this sentiment is tempered by the same contributor's observation that "the old line 'give in one hand and take with the other' does spring to mind in this case."

The prime minister ordered a review of the complete support package available to armed forces personnel several weeks ago.

But some users of the website are not convinced.

One member asks if the move is "a knee jerk reaction to something which has been raised in the press".

"It is hardly likely to be well thought out and as people have said already there will only be one winner and I doubt Gordon Brown will be out of pocket," writes the contributor.

And he is not alone in expressing doubts.

"I bet a penny to a pinch of the proverbial, that if it's a lump sum paid at the end of op tour equivalent to tax paid in that period then it will be taxed," writes a user.

And another person writes: "It should be backdated to when the Labour government came into power! You just know that it'll be hardly anything, there's only ever one winner and that's the government."

One user reacts to the scepticism expressed by many, by writing: "Thank Gawd for the inbuilt cynicism of the British Army - I thought it was just me that saw this as a PR inspired fudge," writes another.

Rank query

Meanwhile, some have questioned the effect that the changes will have where junior soldiers are concerned.

"Figures show that the most senior officers would benefit most from a tax break. Junior soldiers would hardly notice the benefit because their tax bills are low," writes one sceptical serviceman.

However, another responds by arguing "it stands to reason that those with the highest wages (and tax bill) will receive the greatest reimbursement if the system were to be based on income tax paid!"

But, elsewhere on the website, others welcomed the move for what it represented.

Campaign effects

One member writes: "It is a victory of sorts because it establishes the principle that service personnel can call for change through their own representative body - BAFF [British Armed Forces Federation] - and get listened to in the corridors of power.

"We started publicly calling for tax breaks on operational service a month ago, long before the politicians and journos got in on the act, and we first raised the issue of comparison with the minimum wage."

Ultimately, despite the degree of scepticism expressed in some circles, the overwhelming sentiment appears to be summed up by one user, who writes: "Yes, it is obviously a step in the right direction.

"Who cares if it's a knee jerk reaction? If it means a bit more dosh in the bank for the troops I'm all for it.

"Well thought out or not, that remains to be seen. I'm not qualified to comment on how the government sorts it out."