The best and most intelligent quote I've ever heard from an officer during my time in the British Army is "I'll never ask you to do something that I am not prepared to do myself." As a young soldier, that meant more to me than anything else.
It's one thing saying that and another thing actually acting it! IF you actually believed it from your officers, then that's brilliant, and exactly how it should be! I have very little in the way of memories of officers from my time (Partly due to a degree of brain damage), and partly due to my lack of interaction with officers. From what I did see, it was the NCOs running the show.
My son served with the U.S. Marine Corps. in Afghanistan and after his return I was surprised by his admiiration of the soldiers of the British military. He went on quite a bit aboout them.
Please thank your son for his positive words. Tell him that we also hold the USMC in the highest esteem. I had the pleasure to meet some of them personally in 1991. True allies and Brothers in Arms. Our two nations are always stronger when working together. HM.Gov politicians may have repeatedly (stupidly) slashed the budget for the British Armed Forces. But they cannot cut that which money cannot buy. Fighting spirit and the traditions that maintain it.
The key one with training British Army leaders is that they learn leadership and decision making in a field environment. Regardless of corps, all officers have dug a hole, done sentry, lost a piece of kit and got all their warm kit wet. They also get taught by the Army’s best SNCOs. This experience builds empathy, aggression, humour, humility, integrity and an understanding of reality. They don’t get given a commission for having a university degree. They earn their commission in the field.
We've all met bad officers with all met very very good offices it depends on the unit and the training. For example a para officer. Normally fills he's got more to prove.
Out of all the foreign troops I spent time with overseas, the Brits were the best. Good sense of humor, professional, physically fit, smart, and capable.
Having served in the US Army as an NCO and in the British Army as a Padre, I have to agree. The standard of leadership in the British Army is miles higher than that of the US Army. The sense of humor helps but what really makes the British officer shine is the fact that they do not take them selves too seriously. The mission, yes. Absolutely. But themselves? No. This gives the best of them the ability to command with strength of character, not coercion. The ability to make on-the-spot decisions comes from a confidence in themselves borne out of real testing and character formation. The year they spend in Sandhurst is a year of grind, suffering, and reality check followed by reality check. When they Pass Out, they know: 1 - that they know nothing about the real army, but 2 - that they know themselves very well and that whatever the army throws at them, they can cope -- because if they couldn't, they would have washed out. The British Army does not suffer shit-sacks... at all.
@@thodan467 that's just the nature of Americans always others to as they say don't you see how they treat small countries that doesn't obey they train and arm rebel groups or send in NGOs to fund riots or bribe the government if all fails they assassinate the leader the story of Africa🤷.
Most of the Army Padres were superb. I never did the god thing and never felt the requirement of an imaginary friend but that does not detract one iota from my opinion of these most excellent of men.
Second most dangerous is the JNCO who thinks he know everything and can't be taught. Esp when they carry that attitude into SNCO and Warrant rank. 😉 in my 50s, three decades of service and every day is still a school day.
Not this former American Infantry 2LT. There’s an exception for us Prior Staff NCOs that served in the Ranger Regiment, Airborne, and Leg Infantry units.
which sadly is a direly dying thing. Hell even Australia is full of thin skinned narcissists these days, look at any of our politicians or officials? They are every bit as insecure and quick to snap as american politicians.
The tradition that is baked in with the British Army is awesome! History, experience, and the basic fact that the British are natural warriors are reflected by their officers.
@@AK-hi7mg Yes it was for two years doppy bollox and you didn't beat us so you're talking rubbish. Infact Germany had the whole Axis against us (some 8 Countries)? and you still didn't beat us. You talk shite.
Great video! Best manager I ever had in the corporate world so far turned out to be a former British Army officer. He was so far ahead of anyone before that, he was a joy to work for. It was a sad day when he moved on to another company.
In the recent evacuation from Afghanistan the reports back on the paras performance was a totally positive on their professionalism and skill. American Washington post reporter praised them in a piece she wrote about British troops going out to rescue people.
Having worked with Brit’s I truly believe they are held to a higher standard. Worked a lot with the cavalry units in the British army and they were damn good. I was impressed
For one they aren’t like a lot of American officers I’ve served with or come across. They let the ncos completely have control of the lower enlisted soldiers, they were out on the OPs in the hides with the soldiers. Do American officers do that, sure, some. But for the most part it was the understand of the missions, op orders being briefed and the way they carry themselves compared to our officers. More professional in my opinion. They also spend way longer at a rank and position then America officers do being able to master that craft and position better.
@@1986coldsteel But this wasn't just American vs British officers it's British vs all officers. If you haven't see them all how can you make a proper judgement?
The old way of officers leading their men from the front has been the strong point of the British army and for better or worse it has been transmitted to all their children in the commonwealth of nations related be Australia New Zealand India or Pakistan all these armies are officer centric
I always get the impression that many commonwealth armies are stuck in the old fashioned model of officership that was handed down to them during the days of Empire. British Army by necessity has had to move with the times. There is massive investment in soldiers and as officers we should be serving, facilitating, empowering and enabling our men and women to be the best they can be. Culture eats strategy for breakfast (but you still need a strategy).
@@iatsd Impression formed from reading books, RUclips videos and comments, things I have heard second hand from colleagues who have worked with Commonwealth militaries, direct experience of spending time on the ground alongside a Nigerian unit in Sierra Leone and seeing MalBat and PakBat at work in Bosnia, and having worked with many Commonwealth soldiers serving in the British Army. Worked with Canadian, Kiwi and Aussie officers and SNCOs on exchange, and remember the Kiwis at Santici Camp in Vitez in the 90s. So yes, limited exposure but enough to form an impression about many (perhaps 'some' would have been a better choice of words) Commonwealth militaries.
As a Brit, I did an attachment to a German Mountain Battalion in 1972. My Company commander there (German ex Wehrmacht WW2) was one of the best officers that I have ever met. I would have followed him anywhere!
I used to be a Lieutenant in the US Army and I very much consciously valued humor as a stress relief strategy. In a forward deployed combat unit, we did not have alcohol or women or the ability to hop in our car at the end of the day and take off or other basic stress relief strategies in the civilian world. Our basic vices to relieve stress in no real order were cigars, bitching and humor and possibly eating. Of those humor is the heathiest and actively improves the morale of the people around you. The basic phrase that summed it up was Embrace the Suck or if you want to go the philosophy route, Viktor Frankel said that the last thing we have control over is to decide how we will react to any given situation. It was also made clear to us that we were expected to screw things up but that we needed to focus on learning from our mistakes and not making the same mistake multiple times and that generally it is better to take action and be partially wrong than hesitate and do nothing.
Back in 1981, one of my first encounters with an officer was while training to be an RAF fireman at Catterick. After tea, I left the mess and went to the NAAFI, as I rounded a corner, the sun was low on he horizon and blinded me. At that moment something hit me, so hard it knocked me over into a flower bed. After blinking for a few seconds, my sight returned and I was greeted to the sight of a young rock ape officer, stood on the foot path facing me. He was saluting me (still lying in the flower bed) and screaming "Well then, well then" I came to attention and saluted him, from my prone position in the flower bed... He grunted and ran off, leaving me with the sense of... WTF just happened!
The old adage taught to British officers was; First, you feed and water your horse. Second, you feed and water your men. Lastly, you feed and water yourself. When attached to the Army, I found this culture was mostly, still true today. And that, I believe, is part of the strength of the British army, coupled with the SNCO system providing the links between officers and men.
Every officer in the US military, regardless of service is taught that the men eat first and if they don't, you don't. They get bedded down first and if they don't, you don't sleep, either.
I was told this by a Major when I asked him if he wanted to go ahead of me in the line for food (I was on my seconds), inspired me and made me realise the responsibility and duty an officer has to his men. I hope to commission sometime soon.
Great video Matt. Joined as Pte, made it to SNCO and commissioned, retired as a Major. Returned to service on FTRS. Everything I did and the reason I sought progression was to lead and care for soldiers. When lads and lasses said "this is shit" I would always challenge them to unpack why they felt that way and how they thought it could be done differently or better. From Day 1, OCdts at Sandhurst are repeatedly exercised in command appointments as Sect Comds, 2ICs, Pl Sgt and Pl Comd. Infantry training is used as a vehicle for leadership development. Dreaded words at 0300 in a gopping forestry block in honking rain: Hollow Square - Appointment Change... Same goes for the Brecon model of developing SNCOs and JNCOs. Best I saw was in Afghanistan after a very tough firefight on a company patrol; Pl Sgt pulled the lads in "Okay, good attack? Bad attack? What are your thoughts?" If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined! The best story I saw recently was the OCdt who won the sword of honour at Sandhurst, she had nice sleeve tattoos and had been homeless before getting her life on track and joining the Army.
I was working with a british MP officer for the past week and what i found is that he really makes his mbrs shine and really find them moments to shine. I was wonderfully surprised!
Monty Python, Little Britain, a Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy... In the Netherlands we call the British humor 'dry', being funny by acting serious. Love it. I can imagine it must be very motivating and fun at work, having a manager/boss/officer who can pull that kind of jokes.
Above its weight? The biggest empire in history by enslaving and conquering people with sticks? Then fighting germany with all other available superpowers on your side?
on your point about humor in the army: the roman army had something like a requirement to have a good sense of humor to be accepted to become a legionaire
Well, there is an old saying, that historically the British army lost most of it's battles but won most of the wars it was in. On the other hand, the German army won most of it's battles but lost most of the wars it was in. In any case the British stubbornness is legendary and I think this makes them win in the end, regardless of what happens while getting there. As far as today's British officers you know them better than me.
@@osmacar5331 It all depends. The part about the battles is an international expression, probably based in the history of the 20th century when in the two word wars Britain was going from one disaster to the other. Take the battle of the Somme and Gallipoli in WW1 and the disasters in France, Greece, Crete, Burma, North Africa was not going well either (until the second Battle of El Alamein) during the initial stages of WW2 as well as operation Market Garden in Arnhem. These are few battles that I can think off, giving a basis for the old saying, that definitely refers to the fighting against Germany, given the comparison.
As for winning ww2 (i prefer to put ww1+ww2 together and call it the second thirty years war): The allies won because they (yes that includes the US as well as the UK) broke international laws earlyer and more and acted more ruthlessly than the axis did. That`s atleast the case with Europe. I don`t know enough about asia to speak on it. This in addition to their propaganda machine. Especially atrocity propaganda. Parts of the movies done Alfred Hitchcock and by Billy Wilder (while they worked for the US psychological warfare division) made it even into the nuremberg trials. This hasnn`t even ended but is still going on (e.g. Steven Spielberg who has interesting critics, with interesting claims, including jewish critics like Dr. Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce, who wrote a quite interesting open letter to him), combined with lawfare.
When I was a Cavalry volunteer I found that the people I met of higher rank were generally straight up heroes and the sort of people that you'd trust with your life.....Some of the best men I'd ever met...... Sadly quite a few of the screws and half Jack's were usually proper wankers.
I can only speak to the officers that I have served under. Let me bring 1 or 2 to light (Combat Deployments). Officer #1 on day 1, he was transferred in around month 2 of our deployment, stood up [paraphrased] and said "I am your Platoon Leader, I serve you but I also lead you and I will make mistakes but with guidance from the NCOs and Soldiers I will learn to be the best officer I can." Well, that is alright, but doesn't inspire a lot of confidence knowing this guy went through College ROTC, OCS, etc. and is basically saying "yeah, I went to school but I still know nothing". Well, he actually did turn out to be one hell of a fast decision making and awesome officer whom unfortunately got wounded (I blame myself for this; we all make bad decisions). Then you have Officer #2 who comes in and says "This is the schooling I have and I am confident I will be great in this role as your Platoon Leader with help from some Senior NCOs." Turns out this guy did not make good decisions; but at the end of the day he was MY Platoon Leader and I "dug into" him one day. In the end he said this [paraphrase] "Look Sergeant whether you like it or not I am not perfect; I make the best decision I can at the time without delay because good or bad we don't have time to wait under fire." It hit me like a tonne of bricks and I made it my duty to not yell and complain and bitch at him but rather Mentor him into and try and mold him into a better decision maker and Leader. But bottom line is ..the U.S. Army has some issues with the Method they train and not necessarily the Subject Matter in my personal opinion as small as it may be in the grand scheme of things. Cheers! Stay Healthy and Stay Sane!
I was a young IN LT in 1987-91. Both those examples are good. The division between officers and men is responsibility. I agree from my time that IOBC (now IBOLC) was not stringent enough physically or militarily. It was more a qual course and not a teaching and developing course. British tng is far longer for EMs and Os as they teach and develop the candidates.
If you are an American as you claim to be, why did you use the British spelling of "tonne" while we spell it 'ton.? I am a retired member of the US Army and USAF and served as an 11B2P and later, after a break in service, returned to USAF. I was an ROTC grad who wasn't commissioned and served from PVT thru SGT E-5 before I ETSed and came back into service after a 4.5 year break. I also question your writing and use of capitalization where it is not required. I served under some very good ROTC trained officers and some very poor ones. I also served under some real assholes who were West Point and USAF Academy grads. Much of the quality of officers, as well as in NCOs and junior enlisted is the direct result of the character of the individual. You get good and bad in every organization but IMHO, I found Academy grads to be some of the most arrogant, condescending assholes God ever allowed to be put in charge of other people. In my 30 years in uniform, I could count on both hands the number of USMA, USAFA and USNA officers I truly liked and respected. The rest were pompous douchebags.
As a former CAF army BRAT kid living out in Landcaster Park (Now Edmonton Garrison), the visiting British Royal Airforce officers were fantastic people. They have a lot of class mixed with humility and down to earth personalities.
The Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst is world renown and big business for the UK where overseas countries send their potential officers , apart from the financial aspect , it forms part of the countries overseas defence commitments and of course lucrative defence sales , example the King of Jorden went to Sandhurst as a prince plus the country of Brunei has along relationship with Sandhurst
Churchill supposedly said "if I had American technology, Canadian soldiers, and British officers I could rule the world". The only problem is nobody can find the source of that quote lol.
I could believe that. US don't scrimp so do come out with some incredible hardware, Canadian soldiers generally had the hardest fighting in Western Europe for the most part and were harder than nails and British Officers have a less hardset and rather endearing method of leadership which far more often than not yields the right results.
The Japanese Ground Defense Force in the 1990's told me they believed Americans make the best generals, Germans the best staff officers, Japanese the best NCOs, and Koreans the best soldiers, That is based on their experience.
Our NCO's always said that the officers go to Sandhurst to talk more posh and to learn what knife and fork to use for each course during dinner....😆 The large class difference between the officers and the lads under their command is still alive and kicking in the Household Division, it'll never change but I don't think it needs to as it's a truly unique collection of Regiments within the British Army with hundreds and hundreds of years of history.🇬🇧🇬🇧✌✌
Agreed on many points. Obviously I can't comment on everywhere in the world but for the British taking the initiative is a massive part of the thought process; 'the worst decision is no decision'. They also have a great standard of fitness, Sandhurst really drills the being fit enough to lead from the front ethos. They balance the divide between officers and enlisted very well, they are relatable and approachable (certainly the younger ones, hit or miss older) but also know not to try and be to chummy with the ranks. Team first, self last is well practised. The humour thing is very strange, you hear cheerfulness in the face of adversity so often, and raising moral through humour is fundamental, I can't imagine organising groups of young men without it. Also, British officers don't duck.
I’ve worked with some British Army (Grenadier Guards and Fusiliers) officers and can’t speak highly enough of them. From my understanding, the British Army does have higher rank qualifications for command positions (e.g. Company Commander in US Army is a Captain with 5 years service as an officer whilst in the British Army it’s a role for a Major with 9-10 years experience). I’d be interested in understanding if this factor affects things.
They have a smaller army and have fewer high command positions so they can be more selective. The US needs to maintain a large Army that is deployed around the world.
Lots of the personality types/trained behaviors in junior officers you raise show up in NZ and Australia as well. I wonder if the difference in cultures is that post-WW2 and the introduction of the Quebecois reforms in Canada resulted in that divergence from the rest of the Commonwealth. The Sandhurst model is still the basis for Duntroon and Waiouru OCS, so you get the same high-fitness, decisive and 'on to the next thing' type of mindset. I guess I would call it less 'manager' style leadership, and more actual leadership - hence the fitness, since they're running around formations and positions, adjusting their moving parts constantly as the dynamics of the tactical situation become clearer. Because of that, they're often directly interacting with individuals over section commanders and 2IC's - like the gun groups for instance.
Good points, particularly the fast decision making. A bit of insight on that, at Sandhurst we were very much taught how to make A decision rather than how to make the right decision. We were marked on the ability to consider the right things, decide quickly and execute the decision. If the decision was wrong it wasn't seen as a massive issue, the idea being that we would be taught correct doctrine at phase 2.
A further point on this for any interested is that this mindset actually begins at the selection board in Westbury. They follow the mantra "fail fast", they want to see you make decisions under pressure not wait about. Teaching you the correct decision comes later
Pretty much go along with the thoughts displayed here. Met some who clearly were not up to the job but most of them were good borderline excellent. Those not suited for task were found out pretty quickly and most of them were man enough to recognize they had not made the wisest of career choices and opted to leave when the time came. This is itself displays great personal awareness and decision making. I remember well getting into a bit of a heavy undercurrent conversation with a young Lt with whom I had taken umbrage. He put this to me. "I am not only paid to make the telling decisions I am also paid to listen and assess any option/amendment to it from any quarter. Until that better option is forthcoming we will at all times go with my decisions. I asked if he would listen to alternatives. He replied something along the lines of (cannot remember the exact words) He said he'd do better than that he would ask our opinions and as he'd already listened to mine he had concluded instantly on this at least I was way wide of the mark because he had since received further info which guaranteed doing it my way was not an option and once we had the luxury of time he would explain it to me. In the meantime I was to just get on with what he had just decided. I was a pro and thus followed orders. About 3 days later we had the luxury of that time and over a beer he patiently explained what he knew about the situation that I was not privy too. I ended up nodding along with him and had to agree he was correct. I apologized and said I would not question him again. He stopped me and said he would rather I did question him but to choose my time better, the last thing he needed was a yes man. I served under that man for 3 good, trusting, productive years. As he made Captain he moved on and he kept in touch with me. He eventually commanded a regiment and for good reason. I had complete respect for that man he said it was reciprocal - I'll take that.
An interesting point of view. For those of you quoting Lindy's video, 'British Officers don't duck'. Romanians and Hungarians pulled the same trick in the same two world wars. Didn't work all too well for all of them. The ones you hear about are the few that survived pulling that stunt and didn't catch an 8mm Mauser wih their noggin.
Trick? hardly a trick.....and I'm not suggesting that it's an advised or safe method.......just that it shows the fearlessness and courage of British officers which is actually bordering on insanity.
You don't hear the bullet coming towards you so there is little danger from the bullet which you hear as it passes you (remember, ricochets can happen). However, in these days of automatic weapons, that bullet you hear pass you normally has a lot of colleagues about to join it.
Hi Mat, you have opened up a can of worms! Today’s army is very different to the type and character that it was during the world wars and the Korean conflict. I can only give you my opinion of the Army from the National Service, to the start of the very professional Army of the seventies. The British Army was made up of Officers (separate breed and class and education) and NCO’s and soldiers. The contract in those days was for 22 years. Choice? Either trades (144 different trades!) Guards and cavalry regiments, county regiments and then the specialists The Parachute Regiment. The Guards and Armoured I stayed away from, the trades were very good but varied in the officers. The county regiments were from families perviously linked to those units and were very much up themselves. The Para officers were mostly very good as the Regiment had the pick of the keenest Sandhurst Academy cadets. Again I was lucky in that I served under a survivor of the Korean War who understood what was necessary to train and lead a bunch of crazy volunteers, in fact he was the only CO that Ie er had who knew the name of every soldier in his battalion. Because we were always on Standby, he ensured that we trained hard in all terrains and made a point of volunteering us for every crap job going. I distinctly remember two instances that have stayed with me all my life. The first was overhearing the RSM giving a subaltern a bollocking for an inappropriate return salute and awarding the very young officer the Adjutants Saturday drill parade. The second was the OC of my Company welcoming a young Subaltern to our Company (at that time posted in the Persian Gulf) he told the 2nd Lieutenant, not a rank but an appointment, Officer addressed as Mister!) the Major told the Lieutenant that he was to be Platoon Commander but that any orders he was to give out to clear them first with his Platoon Sergeant who was a very experience NCO. Basically the British Army runs on tradition, loyalty to The Regiment and a very professional core on Non Commissioned Officers, in other words Professional. Train hard, fight easy! I can not stress enough the concept of the British Regiments Esprit de corps. I have served in three different armies and can truthfully say that the combination of Regiment, tradition, hard training with good leadership has got the UK out of lot of sh..t! Oh yea, I forgot, the ability to take the piss out of themselves and others, especially the Yanks! Cheers mate. H
As much grief as i give officers because i was an NCO in the NZ Infantry i will admit that they were always at the front and were well respected for their fighting ability and courageous leadership, i think only the best officers get to infantry battalions so i wouldn't know how other corp's officers are but ours were good, fair, hard men.
In terms of training and running a military the UK has the advantage of having been slowly working out the best way to do things for far longer than most military powers. The British Army was the first professional and permanent army in Europe. As such, it makes sense that they generally would be most likely to have the most consistantly good standard of officer training. I am sure, that with all the money they have put into their own forces, that the US military are reaching similar levels in many cases at this point although I suspect that a certain amount of quality could well be lost simply because they have to train so many recruits.
"The British Army was the first professional and permanent army in Europe." Were they though?? Seems to me that the Army was constantly re-created on an ad-hoc basis. The fact that the Navy was given the Royal designation while the Army was not, with regiments (as seen by their names) being tied to localities and noblemen again seems to show the lower priority and importance of the Army for England/Britain/the UK compared to say, Russia or Prussia.
@@IrishCarney The British army was the only professional army, that being a standing army during peacetime, in Europe until the aftermath of WW1. It was smaller than the conscript armies of Europe, but the soldiers were individually much better trained. In war, that professional army would be the core that the new recruits or conscripts would form around. The NCOs and junior officers in the newly raised regiments would be able to quickly train the new recruits to an acceptable standard and lead them as they were already experienced soldiers. Until WW1 this system worked well, with the British army being respected throughout Europe. In WW1 the majority of the experienced troops were lost in the first 12 to 18 months of the conflict, so the system didn't work as well as it could, but in general, the British army were still seen as a decent army in comparison to it's contemporaries. The reason for the army not having the Royal prefix is that it was first stood up as a professional centrally managed force during the time Cromwell was in charge. There not being a monarchy, it was not royal. The regiment names are taken from both tradition and location where they were formed.
@@IrishCarney The British army traces it's roots back to the English Civil War and Cromwell's New Model Army. Cromwell was of course a Parliamentarian, not a Royalist. Hence the British Army does not have the designation 'Royal'.
My experience with british officers lack of humility has only seemed to come between officers of similar ranks; not bragging about themselves but their lads, their boys, their toopers etc. like I have the best platoon/company at x, they did this awesome thing the other day and I had to keep a straight face in front of them.
think you're right about the exposure of junior officers in the CAF (ret senior capt here). The chances are that the platoon/troop commander is unlikely to go more than one major training exercise before getting to a staff posn (atleast for cbt eng) as the tempo (aka missing pers) is so high, you just don't get to stay at the field level long because the mid level is emptying. You get to planning, directive writing, email...freaking three thounsands emails....etc really really fast just trying to get stuff aligned for the troops to actually train. Was in a support troop when I first arrived at my cbt eng regt and within 6 months I was a sqn Ops O because deployments + career training + posting meant they needed me there and 6 months later I was also the sqn 2IC on top of Ops O. For humor, they have to be so so much more cautious about the humor / jokes that are being used within their units. It has had a chilling effect on cohesion really. Big difference between the branches for the interaction between officers and the troops in the CAF. Way more close ties within more technical trades; the engineers been some of the more cooperative between Officers and NCOs by the shear necessity of those task; the armored being the most traditional from my experience. Good video !
I worked in the Old Bill with quite a few ex squaddies and the odd ex officer. I remember one lad, experienced ex Guardsman, say that if a British Army Officer gave you an order it was for a very good reason, even if it was an order that was going to be horrible to carry out and even if the Officer was a King Cnut, he would only give that order because it needed to be carried out.. As for sense of humour, that came across leaps and bounds from the ex squaddies, especially the ex NCOs, a lot of it could be quite vicious but you only ended up laughing more. Sometimes it would be my turn to be the butt of the joke and my sides were hurting from so much laughing even if it was at my expense.. I have a theory that somewhere at British Army NCO School there is a black leather bound tome dating back from the 1640s when the New Model Army and The Coldstream Guards were formed where every NCO put down ever used has been scribed and the new NCOs have to study it every day and learn them off by heart.. In a PT training session we were doing burpees or star jumps, the PTI ex squaddie turns and says to me what am i doing? I said Star Jumps. He said yes but what are you doing on the ground? I said well I've jumped. He said I didn't tell you to land now get back up in the air and stay there until i tell you to come back down to earth..
Well said, I met and worked with lots of good officers in my time In the British Army. I'd never spoken to anybody with a plummy accent before I joined back in 1977, but even back then, officers were switched on, down to earth and always got my support.
@dennislions1 Everything you wrote is wrong, which is impressive considering you're trying to correct someone. The Union Jack originates as a naval Jack to represent the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britian after the first Act of Union. At this time there was an English and a Scottish version however, the Scottish version quickly fell out of use. It's entire existence is tied to the Royal Navy, there is no separating it. It is a Jack Flag and thus "Union Jack" not "Union Flag" - all Jacks are flags but not all flags are Jacks. The Union Jack in legislation only officially represents the UK at sea and is legally restricted to Royal Navy ships. This is why it is actually illegal to fly the Union Jack on civilian vessels and if you want to fly it you must use one which is defaced with a white boarder. The confusion with the name stems from a statement made by I believe a Peer in Parliament around the 1920s. This was purely a statement without the backing of a bill or any legislation and thus has little effect on reality. To this day the Union Jack does not legally represent the UK whilst flown on land. It has merely been adopted by the British people to represent us. Whist the UK Government has said when on land it should use a 3:5 ratio and not the 1:2 ratio of the Jack when on a Navy vessel that was purely so it better fits with other national flags during competitions or when flown next to other flags. Whilst yes, some flags flown upside-down does signal distress that is not the case with the Union Jack; there is only one way to fly it and that is the right way up. For mourning the Union Jack is flown at half mast. The troops in the picture are on parade not underfire. Misgivings are understandable as the Union Jack and it's history are barely taught if at all. Many people do not even know there is an "upside-down" way to fly it.
I trained us navy officers. The best would find a scenario, they master quick, and then i would fail systems or take away equipment. The older officers would roll with the bad news and never stop doing their job. Younger officers would also adapt, just slower.
Great video! As a US Army Officer, having worked with other Officers from other militaries, all militaries are not designed the same...and it shows on how they conduct their operations. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes it's not. Even within one's own country the Officers from one service may and will differ than from another branch.
REME Officers and their soldiers have a particularly good relationship because to be part of such a technical corps the majority of the soldiers are intelligent enough to have become Officers themselves if they had wanted to. The career choice is just that and creates some harmony across the full spectrum. Arte Et Marte.
Served under a Canadian Capt - One of those quietly efficient and effective men who never needed to raise his voice and only ever needed to ask one of us to do something and always ended with please. Cannot remember him having to order us to do anything. I was a corporal at the time (British Army) I was part of that unit for 6 months. He was as good as any and better than most I ever served under.
Hmm.... my experience is a very much a mixed bag. I am on the record as having had quite damning critique of officers and NCO's fumbling conscripts. I wrote in my complaint, that as a member of the Home Guard I had never seen more militarily incompetents than the ones I met as a conscript. Not because home guard officers are particularly good; but at some point they were entrusted to supervise the brewing of coffee. I've had good officers and NCO's: One was my old major - passed away many years ago - but he had been in a concentration camp during the war. That sort of adds some stamina. My old OPS officer asked me personally that if I wanted to, I would be wellcome - he was now a colonel. Otherwise I have been quite good at chopping heads and legs off officers. You know the old joke: German to Gurkha: "Ha! You missed." Gurkha responding: "Nod..." But I think the main difference is that service in the British Army is damned serious business - because you will be involved in a war. What really convinced me was Musa Qala where Danish regulars stood fast, where I hadn't expected it. But it means there is a lot of trash officers that live out their day doing actually nothing.
I think the important point is attitude towards the job. Officers in the British (& New Zealand and Indian) army see the job as a career. This is reflected in how long the serve on average: 18 years. Contrast that with the US military where being an officer is seen as an "access point" that leads on to other things. That's also reflected in the average length of service: 7 years. Now, obviously there are many other factors involved and the comparison breaks down when you get down to individuals, but I think it holds up across the groups as a whole: British officers see the job as a job and as their career. It's not a stepping stone. That changes your attitude to how you approach the job and how you do it.
Why is the Union Flag upside down in the photo at the beginning?. It never ceases to amaze me how many people claim to be patriotic and proud of this country but don't know which way the flag should be raised... It's basics FFS............... Back in history The only time the Union flag should be raised upside down was when there was a real chance a base could be overun. This would show any relief for the base had been taken and to be on guard..
As an ex British infantry soldier . I have no objection whatsoever to serving under a British officer .in my regiment there was no us and them . It was together .OK some second leautenants where a bit umm know it alls but they soon had thier bollocks wrapped lol. 16 years and would do it again . Without hesitation .
I served 13 years in the British Army, I have served with fantastic Offers, and I have served with some officers who still think we're in the 18th century!!! with a silver spoon attitude towards the men.
One item of note is that all British Army Officers are trained through a singular, uniform training institution- The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst while the US Army officer corps can originate via West Point, ROTC, OCS or Direct Commission sources, each of which will bestow a different training characteristic upon the officer.
My father who was a Captain in the Royal Artillery said there were two kinds of British officers. One who you had to follow just to see what trouble they could get themselves, and you into, or the other kind who you followed simply because they were the type of person who could get you out of anything. I also had the wonder of seeing my father being "Hero" worshiped by the soldiers he took through Suez, and Korea. I had just joined the Royal navy, and was towards the end of my basic training, I called home to say we were being given a day extra off for some reason and so I was coming home on a Friday, not a Saturday. He asked if i could get a day or so extra to come to a "reunion" of those people. The RN must have looked into what was happening, and let me go. It was amazing to see my Father and the respect those guys had for him. It really opened my eyes to the type of person he was, not just this disciplinarian who screamed and shouted at me and gave me the odd smack when deserved, but a guy others saw as the epitome of someone they wanted to honour.
One of the first thing you learn in officer training is to make a decision fast and fact base as good as you have, a decision may later show to be wrong or right but all is better than no decision. Especially if fategue and weather drag you down.
I would say they are on a par with American officers, who could also be said to be some of the best. They are competent, motivated, highly aggressive, intelligent, and the best of them are always at the front edge of the advance. In short, they are good leaders. I would also say the same of the officers in some other military organizations, such as the Canadians.
Agree on most of this. It's a well established system and one thing that amazed me was how similar my father's experience was in 1945 to my own in 1986. One thing you touched on briefly was the class element. In my experience of the regional differences, there was a Scottish army and an English army. (No experience of Irish or Welsh formations.) In the Scottish army the officers are just the management. In the English army the class element was far more prevalent and it really really grinds my gears. I hope it is changing but I fear that current UK socio-economic forces are not pressing in that direction. (Takes cover! 🙄)
I was a US Army Private, NCO, and Infantry Officer. I did a short tour with the Brits. I worked with them in Afghanistan. They are among the best, but the best? I had one British brigadier lie to me that he was a general so he could have a better conex room in Afghanistan. They are not! Ethics was not his thing! The British NCO is amazing as well are the Gurkhas. The Australian officers were even better in my experience. In the end, I am glad to have had great experiences with them all.
I served in british army guards after did my time enlisted in Legion Etrangere Huge difference between their officers and British officers andNCOs .British officers were way better
My first officer in basic training was a transfer into the RAMC. He was newly promoted and a complete idiot, he had no place being in the RAMC. He couldn't understand that the corp was essentially non-combatant. He was always complaining about our lack of aggression and wanted to see more, his exact words were "we can afford at one death during basic". Unfortunately, our section corporal was also a transfer in from the infantry, just back from Rhodesia who agreed with him. Fortunately, the Major in charge was RAMC from the start and kept correcting our training. I had a lot of respect for him and knew him in working post Army. All other officers were competent and professional.
i think it was the movie Von Ryan's Express, the American officer said to his men, it took hundreds of year for the British to make officers like these it took the American Congress 90 days for me and he meant it as a compliment to the British ....lol.
The Officer class , the traditional one is a good one. We don't need a socialised type we are all equal situation. The SNCO's are the glue between the Ranks and that tradition is a good one. Nothing wrong with a Middle Class 2ndLt or a Glaswegian Bombardier/Colour Sgt . The bonding comes with knowing your men and experiencing the Tour together. There is a good series on YT about the Finest Traditions of the British Army done in the 90's worth watching. Once they are gone they are seldom replaced with anything of substance.
Nice video, although I have to make one small correction. Having spent a year there, there is no massive frying pan that Officer Cadets are "literally" thrown into!🤣
I don't know much about officer class, but I do know soldiers do need a out let whether it be a kind of weekly diary to be handed to a higher officer class and not to the captain or sergeant. And not about degrading officers, but how training can be improved or tactics and soldiering. As there's always room for improvement. Officers are not expected to be perfect and are expected to make decisions on the spot, learning how to do things a different way could be of benefit.
Well, I been RCEME for 20 years and I went to Afghaniland too. I been told before and I believe it,.. A almost perfect army would be: Yanks equipment, Canucks soldiers and British officers. Keep up the good work Matt, I been fallowing your content for a long time and I enjoy it.
And they know to ask if they don't know. As a signaller I've been asked technical questions by captains amd majors, not just the lieutenant. And sargents. Knowing where to get the expertise from is part of comand skills. I've had captains doing the brew while i sort coms, then giving me a fag when alls good. Then they ask, what was wrong, what did you do? I've even had them joke about my old unit being a bit... Rough, and ask where i got bruises and black eyes off, cos they think it's funny and like guys who ain't soulless. They like characters, and the good ones have a personality
I think it depends on the officers experience and training and where is come from. If he's royal Marine commando officer he's going to be far better quality and a different calibre all together.
Had the pleasure of participating in a few NATO operations when I was in the army once upon a time...I've worked with British and Canadian army soldiers as an artilleryman on active duty and an engineer in the reserves and I can confirm British officers are way funnier. British soldiers I've met regularly made jokes that would have been completely unacceptable in the US Army. I think you might be on to something with this humor thing. Also I agree: British officers are way fitter than Canadian or American officers, but Northwestern European officers (UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands) in general seem to be the type of dudes that climb mountains and run marathons in their free time.
I have to say that this description of British officers ranks as the best I've ever heard. Coming from a family background of military service as well as being a long-time military historian, I've often entered into debates about incompetent officers. IMHO, EVERY army that ever found itself on a battlefield has had its share of incompetent officers, and I've always maintained that the most competent are those that are BORN with an inordinate inbuilt ability to size up a situation quickly, and usually efficiently, even before any military training. Having said that, the British have been fighting wars for more than a thousand years, and have learned the art and science of fighting and command very well. The same cannot be said (IMHO) for the US, who have never in their history won a war - at least without allies! By the same token we have had our share of senior British Commanders, who should never have gained high rank at any point - the Class system still operates despite denials! Along with the ANZACS and Canucks, the British Army has never really lost a war, even with the many battle failures endured. A good officer will not only lead his men, but will listen to good advice from those of his NCO's who have served in battle. Such officers depend on those who will follow him and respect his authority based on his merit. We've seen that in countless wars, and it works. A great video, and my appreciation for your efforts.
It is more often than not forgotten that Britain is the only country that went through WW2, and arguably also WW1, from start to finish without suffering a national level defeat.
@@alalder1533 It depends on what you mean by "defeat." Britain and France - to all intents and purposes won both world wars, along with their Allies; but in fact, Britain lost extremely heavily with regard to our economy and financial situation. At the outbreak of WW2 we were heavily into debt with the US for their "help" during WW1. The amount we had to pay them was staggering - and that didn't include the high interest rates. This arrangement had to continue for 100 years, to 2018, and was paid in full. We were literally fleeced by the US, which is ironic, considering that we produced their uniforms and equipment, licence to manufacture the Lee-Enfield Rifle, and we provided them with ropes, soaps and tenting, and so much more. Following WW2, the US/UK Lend-Lease programme, we were again compelled to pay the US for their aid - again, a phenomenal amount which, when added to the WW1 payments was literally crippling the country. It was President Obama who said "Enough was enough" and cancelled all further payments with immediate effect! That did not include the remaining 20-or-so British RAF airfields that the USA included, and still own to this day and for the next 25 years. Brits who are allowed entry into them become subject to US Laws! Since then, the UK has lost its manufacturing base mainly to the US, Germany and Asia, thus America and Germany gained mightily from both world wars. I count all that as a bitter, national defeat, as we are now the impoverished poor man of of the world.
@@alalder1533 Yes, I did understand the context, but by extension, a war is not won if you don't receive the benefit, and Britain got precious little of that in having to pay for it in the years that followed. Nazi Germany declared war on the UK and decimated many of our cities, but couldn't pay the reparation - that fell to the British people who had to pay the US THEIR demands, which was great for the US. Unable to pay their reparation, Germany very quickly managed to rebuild and rejuvenate while the UK was still on its knees! How did they do that? The answer is mosty money from the US paid by the UK. So one might well ask, "Who won the war/s." The UK certainly didn't!
@@reggriffiths5769 You seem to be evaluating military conflict largely against financial/collateral outcome. Across many causes of conflict, eg conquest, that can be appropriate but surely for WW2 Britain (not sure about WW1, where your argument seems more convincing) defeat, the consequences of which would have been immediately and eventually dire, was avoided and that was winning. We can play counterfactuals till the cows come home and inevitably post war change was accelerated, certainly in relation to the Empire.
I'm a planning joiner to the British army, I'm planning to join the reg infantry and I was wondering what it was like just generally being in the service of her majesty the Queen?
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
The best and most intelligent quote I've ever heard from an officer during my time in the British Army is "I'll never ask you to do something that I am not prepared to do myself."
As a young soldier, that meant more to me than anything else.
It's one thing saying that and another thing actually acting it! IF you actually believed it from your officers, then that's brilliant, and exactly how it should be! I have very little in the way of memories of officers from my time (Partly due to a degree of brain damage), and partly due to my lack of interaction with officers. From what I did see, it was the NCOs running the show.
Ruperts turn to get a Brew on, NATO Standard x 30 Please Sir ;-)
they all say that :)
@@michaelwilliams3861 My CO told me the same during basic training back in 1968.
I can definitely imagine that. That would be really reassuring.
My son served with the U.S. Marine Corps. in Afghanistan and after his return I was surprised by his admiiration of the soldiers of the British military. He went on quite a bit aboout them.
Thanks for sharing. Always happier when you and we team up.
Was this after a group of illiterate goat herders chased both of you out?
Please thank your son for his positive words. Tell him that we also hold the USMC in the highest esteem. I had the pleasure to meet some of them personally in 1991. True allies and Brothers in Arms. Our two nations are always stronger when working together.
HM.Gov politicians may have repeatedly (stupidly) slashed the budget for the British Armed Forces. But they cannot cut that which money cannot buy. Fighting spirit and the traditions that maintain it.
@@gusgone4527 well said sir.
Thanks from an ex Army guy across the pond in England 🏴😁
The key one with training British Army leaders is that they learn leadership and decision making in a field environment. Regardless of corps, all officers have dug a hole, done sentry, lost a piece of kit and got all their warm kit wet. They also get taught by the Army’s best SNCOs. This experience builds empathy, aggression, humour, humility, integrity and an understanding of reality. They don’t get given a commission for having a university degree. They earn their commission in the field.
You make it sound university is a fun place where you pay lots of money to study hard.😂
We've all met bad officers with all met very very good offices it depends on the unit and the training. For example a para officer. Normally fills he's got more to prove.
What field? A polo field?
Out of all the foreign troops I spent time with overseas, the Brits were the best.
Good sense of humor, professional, physically fit, smart, and capable.
Thank you.
Having served in the US Army as an NCO and in the British Army as a Padre, I have to agree. The standard of leadership in the British Army is miles higher than that of the US Army. The sense of humor helps but what really makes the British officer shine is the fact that they do not take them selves too seriously. The mission, yes. Absolutely. But themselves? No. This gives the best of them the ability to command with strength of character, not coercion. The ability to make on-the-spot decisions comes from a confidence in themselves borne out of real testing and character formation. The year they spend in Sandhurst is a year of grind, suffering, and reality check followed by reality check. When they Pass Out, they know: 1 - that they know nothing about the real army, but 2 - that they know themselves very well and that whatever the army throws at them, they can cope -- because if they couldn't, they would have washed out. The British Army does not suffer shit-sacks... at all.
My impression from the US Army, and USMC after some discussions with NCO is, that they value obedience to much
@@thodan467 that's just the nature of Americans always others to as they say don't you see how they treat small countries that doesn't obey they train and arm rebel groups or send in NGOs to fund riots or bribe the government if all fails they assassinate the leader the story of Africa🤷.
Most of the Army Padres were superb. I never did the god thing and never felt the requirement of an imaginary friend but that does not detract one iota from my opinion of these most excellent of men.
most dangerous thing in the army is a 2nd lieutenant with a compass
Any army as a matter of fact...
Second most dangerous is the JNCO who thinks he know everything and can't be taught. Esp when they carry that attitude into SNCO and Warrant rank. 😉 in my 50s, three decades of service and every day is still a school day.
Actually it is a Special Forces guy with a compass and a knife cos not only is he lost but also wounded 😂😂
Dang
Not this former American Infantry 2LT. There’s an exception for us Prior Staff NCOs that served in the Ranger Regiment, Airborne, and Leg Infantry units.
I am a former Infantry officer, US Army. I knew quite a few officers from the British Army. They exhibited the highest levels of professionalism.
Being able to not take yourself too seriously and to laugh at yourself is a quintessentially British trait.
which sadly is a direly dying thing. Hell even Australia is full of thin skinned narcissists these days, look at any of our politicians or officials? They are every bit as insecure and quick to snap as american politicians.
Bullshit lmao they’re the most arrogant people on this fuckin planet
And insecure
@@honoramd6176 That would be taking offense, insecure people are the most aggressive, usually.
@@honoramd6176 where'd you learn that?
The tradition that is baked in with the British Army is awesome! History, experience, and the basic fact that the British are natural warriors are reflected by their officers.
Gibberish.
German Prussian tradition is much cooler and you brits would have never in a million years beat us 1vs1
@@AK-hi7mg 2 World Wars spring to mind. Bell end.
@@dazza9326 was it 1vs 1 ?
@@AK-hi7mg Yes it was for two years doppy bollox and you didn't beat us so you're talking rubbish. Infact Germany had the whole Axis against us (some 8 Countries)? and you still didn't beat us. You talk shite.
Great video! Best manager I ever had in the corporate world so far turned out to be a former British Army officer. He was so far ahead of anyone before that, he was a joy to work for. It was a sad day when he moved on to another company.
In the recent evacuation from Afghanistan the reports back on the paras performance was a totally positive on their professionalism and skill. American Washington post reporter praised them in a piece she wrote about British troops going out to rescue people.
Having worked with Brit’s I truly believe they are held to a higher standard. Worked a lot with the cavalry units in the British army and they were damn good. I was impressed
Compared to what though and what standard
Yeah those in the cavalry are not to be messed with. They do both great ceremonial work in London as well as regular military roles in the field.
For one they aren’t like a lot of American officers I’ve served with or come across. They let the ncos completely have control of the lower enlisted soldiers, they were out on the OPs in the hides with the soldiers. Do American officers do that, sure, some. But for the most part it was the understand of the missions, op orders being briefed and the way they carry themselves compared to our officers. More professional in my opinion. They also spend way longer at a rank and position then America officers do being able to master that craft and position better.
@@1986coldsteel But this wasn't just American vs British officers it's British vs all officers. If you haven't see them all how can you make a proper judgement?
I’ve worked with German, Canadian, Philippines, New Zealand and Australia. I rate them from who I’ve been around 9/10.
The old way of officers leading their men from the front has been the strong point of the British army and for better or worse it has been transmitted to all their children in the commonwealth of nations related be Australia New Zealand India or Pakistan all these armies are officer centric
I always get the impression that many commonwealth armies are stuck in the old fashioned model of officership that was handed down to them during the days of Empire. British Army by necessity has had to move with the times. There is massive investment in soldiers and as officers we should be serving, facilitating, empowering and enabling our men and women to be the best they can be. Culture eats strategy for breakfast (but you still need a strategy).
Canada is a big one, don't forget Canada...
@@barryalexander2909 I disagree. Culture and strategy can go hand in hand
@@barryalexander2909 I get the impression that you've had fvck all to do with other militaries from around the Commonwealth.
@@iatsd Impression formed from reading books, RUclips videos and comments, things I have heard second hand from colleagues who have worked with Commonwealth militaries, direct experience of spending time on the ground alongside a Nigerian unit in Sierra Leone and seeing MalBat and PakBat at work in Bosnia, and having worked with many Commonwealth soldiers serving in the British Army. Worked with Canadian, Kiwi and Aussie officers and SNCOs on exchange, and remember the Kiwis at Santici Camp in Vitez in the 90s. So yes, limited exposure but enough to form an impression about many (perhaps 'some' would have been a better choice of words) Commonwealth militaries.
As a Brit, I did an attachment to a German Mountain Battalion in 1972. My Company commander there (German ex Wehrmacht WW2) was one of the best officers that I have ever met. I would have followed him anywhere!
Into a time machine back to Berlin in 1945 Germany? 🤭
I used to be a Lieutenant in the US Army and I very much consciously valued humor as a stress relief strategy. In a forward deployed combat unit, we did not have alcohol or women or the ability to hop in our car at the end of the day and take off or other basic stress relief strategies in the civilian world. Our basic vices to relieve stress in no real order were cigars, bitching and humor and possibly eating. Of those humor is the heathiest and actively improves the morale of the people around you. The basic phrase that summed it up was Embrace the Suck or if you want to go the philosophy route, Viktor Frankel said that the last thing we have control over is to decide how we will react to any given situation.
It was also made clear to us that we were expected to screw things up but that we needed to focus on learning from our mistakes and not making the same mistake multiple times and that generally it is better to take action and be partially wrong than hesitate and do nothing.
You should check out the video of a British royal marine officer talking about DVD’s with his men mid firefight. Cool as a cucumber
Back in 1981, one of my first encounters with an officer was while training to be an RAF fireman at Catterick. After tea, I left the mess and went to the NAAFI, as I rounded a corner, the sun was low on he horizon and blinded me. At that moment something hit me, so hard it knocked me over into a flower bed. After blinking for a few seconds, my sight returned and I was greeted to the sight of a young rock ape officer, stood on the foot path facing me. He was saluting me (still lying in the flower bed) and screaming "Well then, well then" I came to attention and saluted him, from my prone position in the flower bed... He grunted and ran off, leaving me with the sense of... WTF just happened!
The old adage taught to British officers was; First, you feed and water your horse. Second, you feed and water your men. Lastly, you feed and water yourself.
When attached to the Army, I found this culture was mostly, still true today. And that, I believe, is part of the strength of the British army, coupled with the SNCO system providing the links between officers and men.
Every officer in the US military, regardless of service is taught that the men eat first and if they don't, you don't. They get bedded down first and if they don't, you don't sleep, either.
I was told this by a Major when I asked him if he wanted to go ahead of me in the line for food (I was on my seconds), inspired me and made me realise the responsibility and duty an officer has to his men. I hope to commission sometime soon.
@@siraajmahmoood2678 Good luck.
Great video Matt. Joined as Pte, made it to SNCO and commissioned, retired as a Major. Returned to service on FTRS. Everything I did and the reason I sought progression was to lead and care for soldiers.
When lads and lasses said "this is shit" I would always challenge them to unpack why they felt that way and how they thought it could be done differently or better.
From Day 1, OCdts at Sandhurst are repeatedly exercised in command appointments as Sect Comds, 2ICs, Pl Sgt and Pl Comd. Infantry training is used as a vehicle for leadership development. Dreaded words at 0300 in a gopping forestry block in honking rain: Hollow Square - Appointment Change...
Same goes for the Brecon model of developing SNCOs and JNCOs. Best I saw was in Afghanistan after a very tough firefight on a company patrol; Pl Sgt pulled the lads in "Okay, good attack? Bad attack? What are your thoughts?"
If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined!
The best story I saw recently was the OCdt who won the sword of honour at Sandhurst, she had nice sleeve tattoos and had been homeless before getting her life on track and joining the Army.
I was working with a british MP officer for the past week and what i found is that he really makes his mbrs shine and really find them moments to shine. I was wonderfully surprised!
Monty Python, Little Britain, a Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy... In the Netherlands we call the British humor 'dry', being funny by acting serious. Love it. I can imagine it must be very motivating and fun at work, having a manager/boss/officer who can pull that kind of jokes.
We’re not bad are we ? ! A country that has always punched above it’s weight ! I am very proud of our military !
Above its weight? The biggest empire in history by enslaving and conquering people with sticks? Then fighting germany with all other available superpowers on your side?
on your point about humor in the army: the roman army had something like a requirement to have a good sense of humor to be accepted to become a legionaire
Well, there is an old saying, that historically the British army lost most of it's battles but won most of the wars it was in. On the other hand, the German army won most of it's battles but lost most of the wars it was in. In any case the British stubbornness is legendary and I think this makes them win in the end, regardless of what happens while getting there. As far as today's British officers you know them better than me.
Winning battles is meaningless. Also we won most of our battles actually. And we where decisive in our wars.
@@osmacar5331 It all depends. The part about the battles is an international expression, probably based in the history of the 20th century when in the two word wars Britain was going from one disaster to the other. Take the battle of the Somme and Gallipoli in WW1 and the disasters in France, Greece, Crete, Burma, North Africa was not going well either (until the second Battle of El Alamein) during the initial stages of WW2 as well as operation Market Garden in Arnhem. These are few battles that I can think off, giving a basis for the old saying, that definitely refers to the fighting against Germany, given the comparison.
@@FLORATOSOTHON British officers are knobs not sure about now. Mainly because digging into reports is difficult.
That Stubbornness can also be seen in the Roman victories in the Punic Wars where they lost countless battles at land and sea but still won.
As for winning ww2 (i prefer to put ww1+ww2 together and call it the second thirty years war): The allies won because they (yes that includes the US as well as the UK) broke international laws earlyer and more and acted more ruthlessly than the axis did. That`s atleast the case with Europe. I don`t know enough about asia to speak on it.
This in addition to their propaganda machine. Especially atrocity propaganda. Parts of the movies done Alfred Hitchcock and by Billy Wilder (while they worked for the US psychological warfare division) made it even into the nuremberg trials.
This hasnn`t even ended but is still going on (e.g. Steven Spielberg who has interesting critics, with interesting claims, including jewish critics like Dr. Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce, who wrote a quite interesting open letter to him), combined with lawfare.
When I was a Cavalry volunteer I found that the people I met of higher rank were generally straight up heroes and the sort of people that you'd trust with your life.....Some of the best men I'd ever met...... Sadly quite a few of the screws and half Jack's were usually proper wankers.
As a former Senior NCO in the British Army, I can honestly say. My mouth will remain closed throughout this entire video. But I will be watching you!
@Dan Didnot Close, but no. 🥷
I can only speak to the officers that I have served under. Let me bring 1 or 2 to light (Combat Deployments). Officer #1 on day 1, he was transferred in around month 2 of our deployment, stood up [paraphrased] and said "I am your Platoon Leader, I serve you but I also lead you and I will make mistakes but with guidance from the NCOs and Soldiers I will learn to be the best officer I can." Well, that is alright, but doesn't inspire a lot of confidence knowing this guy went through College ROTC, OCS, etc. and is basically saying "yeah, I went to school but I still know nothing". Well, he actually did turn out to be one hell of a fast decision making and awesome officer whom unfortunately got wounded (I blame myself for this; we all make bad decisions). Then you have Officer #2 who comes in and says "This is the schooling I have and I am confident I will be great in this role as your Platoon Leader with help from some Senior NCOs." Turns out this guy did not make good decisions; but at the end of the day he was MY Platoon Leader and I "dug into" him one day. In the end he said this [paraphrase] "Look Sergeant whether you like it or not I am not perfect; I make the best decision I can at the time without delay because good or bad we don't have time to wait under fire." It hit me like a tonne of bricks and I made it my duty to not yell and complain and bitch at him but rather Mentor him into and try and mold him into a better decision maker and Leader. But bottom line is ..the U.S. Army has some issues with the Method they train and not necessarily the Subject Matter in my personal opinion as small as it may be in the grand scheme of things. Cheers! Stay Healthy and Stay Sane!
I was a young IN LT in 1987-91. Both those examples are good. The division between officers and men is responsibility. I agree from my time that IOBC (now IBOLC) was not stringent enough physically or militarily. It was more a qual course and not a teaching and developing course. British tng is far longer for EMs and Os as they teach and develop the candidates.
It's gotta suck being an nco in a combat zone, you have all the responsibility of a 4-star general but none of the leverage.
I think you might be comparing war time military to peace time. I served in two US Armies. Yes two before 911 and after the culture changed.
If you are an American as you claim to be, why did you use the British spelling of "tonne" while we spell it 'ton.? I am a retired member of the US Army and USAF and served as an 11B2P and later, after a break in service, returned to USAF. I was an ROTC grad who wasn't commissioned and served from PVT thru SGT E-5 before I ETSed and came back into service after a 4.5 year break. I also question your writing and use of capitalization where it is not required.
I served under some very good ROTC trained officers and some very poor ones. I also served under some real assholes who were West Point and USAF Academy grads. Much of the quality of officers, as well as in NCOs and junior enlisted is the direct result of the character of the individual. You get good and bad in every organization but IMHO, I found Academy grads to be some of the most arrogant, condescending assholes God ever allowed to be put in charge of other people. In my 30 years in uniform, I could count on both hands the number of USMA, USAFA and USNA officers I truly liked and respected. The rest were pompous douchebags.
Thank-you for dedicating your time to the army 👍
As a former CAF army BRAT kid living out in Landcaster Park (Now Edmonton Garrison), the visiting British Royal Airforce officers were fantastic people. They have a lot of class mixed with humility and down to earth personalities.
The Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst is world renown and big business for the UK where overseas countries send their potential officers , apart from the financial aspect , it forms part of the countries overseas defence commitments and of course lucrative defence sales , example the King of Jorden went to Sandhurst as a prince plus the country of Brunei has along relationship with Sandhurst
Churchill supposedly said "if I had American technology, Canadian soldiers, and British officers I could rule the world". The only problem is nobody can find the source of that quote lol.
I could believe that. US don't scrimp so do come out with some incredible hardware, Canadian soldiers generally had the hardest fighting in Western Europe for the most part and were harder than nails and British Officers have a less hardset and rather endearing method of leadership which far more often than not yields the right results.
The Japanese Ground Defense Force in the 1990's told me they believed Americans make the best generals, Germans the best staff officers, Japanese the best NCOs, and Koreans the best soldiers, That is based on their experience.
Half of the Rupert's in my old cavalry unit would of been fragged if the shit hit the fan
Our NCO's always said that the officers go to Sandhurst to talk more posh and to learn what knife and fork to use for each course during dinner....😆
The large class difference between the officers and the lads under their command is still alive and kicking in the Household Division, it'll never change but I don't think it needs to as it's a truly unique collection of Regiments within the British Army with hundreds and hundreds of years of history.🇬🇧🇬🇧✌✌
This video belongs on the BBC, Mat this is off the charts high quality content.
No way. That broadcaster wants to diminish our history and culture. Now there having a go at our SAS. Leave that broadcaster alone.
Agreed on many points. Obviously I can't comment on everywhere in the world but for the British taking the initiative is a massive part of the thought process; 'the worst decision is no decision'. They also have a great standard of fitness, Sandhurst really drills the being fit enough to lead from the front ethos. They balance the divide between officers and enlisted very well, they are relatable and approachable (certainly the younger ones, hit or miss older) but also know not to try and be to chummy with the ranks. Team first, self last is well practised. The humour thing is very strange, you hear cheerfulness in the face of adversity so often, and raising moral through humour is fundamental, I can't imagine organising groups of young men without it.
Also, British officers don't duck.
I’ve worked with some British Army (Grenadier Guards and Fusiliers) officers and can’t speak highly enough of them. From my understanding, the British Army does have higher rank qualifications for command positions (e.g. Company Commander in US Army is a Captain with 5 years service as an officer whilst in the British Army it’s a role for a Major with 9-10 years experience). I’d be interested in understanding if this factor affects things.
They have a smaller army and have fewer high command positions so they can be more selective. The US needs to maintain a large Army that is deployed around the world.
Lots of the personality types/trained behaviors in junior officers you raise show up in NZ and Australia as well. I wonder if the difference in cultures is that post-WW2 and the introduction of the Quebecois reforms in Canada resulted in that divergence from the rest of the Commonwealth. The Sandhurst model is still the basis for Duntroon and Waiouru OCS, so you get the same high-fitness, decisive and 'on to the next thing' type of mindset. I guess I would call it less 'manager' style leadership, and more actual leadership - hence the fitness, since they're running around formations and positions, adjusting their moving parts constantly as the dynamics of the tactical situation become clearer. Because of that, they're often directly interacting with individuals over section commanders and 2IC's - like the gun groups for instance.
A good officer is someone who knows how to connect to their troops. It's also important that they learn off their troops aswell.
Good points, particularly the fast decision making. A bit of insight on that, at Sandhurst we were very much taught how to make A decision rather than how to make the right decision. We were marked on the ability to consider the right things, decide quickly and execute the decision. If the decision was wrong it wasn't seen as a massive issue, the idea being that we would be taught correct doctrine at phase 2.
A further point on this for any interested is that this mindset actually begins at the selection board in Westbury. They follow the mantra "fail fast", they want to see you make decisions under pressure not wait about. Teaching you the correct decision comes later
@@norabder8816 nice 🇬🇧👍
Pretty much go along with the thoughts displayed here. Met some who clearly were not up to the job but most of them were good borderline excellent. Those not suited for task were found out pretty quickly and most of them were man enough to recognize they had not made the wisest of career choices and opted to leave when the time came. This is itself displays great personal awareness and decision making.
I remember well getting into a bit of a heavy undercurrent conversation with a young Lt with whom I had taken umbrage. He put this to me. "I am not only paid to make the telling decisions I am also paid to listen and assess any option/amendment to it from any quarter. Until that better option is forthcoming we will at all times go with my decisions. I asked if he would listen to alternatives. He replied something along the lines of (cannot remember the exact words) He said he'd do better than that he would ask our opinions and as he'd already listened to mine he had concluded instantly on this at least I was way wide of the mark because he had since received further info which guaranteed doing it my way was not an option and once we had the luxury of time he would explain it to me. In the meantime I was to just get on with what he had just decided. I was a pro and thus followed orders. About 3 days later we had the luxury of that time and over a beer he patiently explained what he knew about the situation that I was not privy too. I ended up nodding along with him and had to agree he was correct. I apologized and said I would not question him again. He stopped me and said he would rather I did question him but to choose my time better, the last thing he needed was a yes man. I served under that man for 3 good, trusting, productive years. As he made Captain he moved on and he kept in touch with me. He eventually commanded a regiment and for good reason. I had complete respect for that man he said it was reciprocal - I'll take that.
they tried to serve, they realized they were not good enough for their place - and then they quit.
Both decision deserves respect.
Also an advantage of having a small professional army, rather than a huge sprawling one
Being able to mount flag on pole right way up helps, based on the cover picture.
An interesting point of view.
For those of you quoting Lindy's video, 'British Officers don't duck'. Romanians and Hungarians pulled the same trick in the same two world wars. Didn't work all too well for all of them. The ones you hear about are the few that survived pulling that stunt and didn't catch an 8mm Mauser wih their noggin.
Trick? hardly a trick.....and I'm not suggesting that it's an advised or safe method.......just that it shows the fearlessness and courage of British officers which is actually bordering on insanity.
You don't hear the bullet coming towards you so there is little danger from the bullet which you hear as it passes you (remember, ricochets can happen). However, in these days of automatic weapons, that bullet you hear pass you normally has a lot of colleagues about to join it.
@@geoffberry5260 Exactly. Same thing a hundred years ago. Spandau sez "Hi".
Gonna join the British Army soon. I am really happy after watching this video ❤
I'm from Venezuela and I had the opportunity to train as an officer cadet in the British Army. I miss it but Army life isn't for me personally.
Hi Mat, you have opened up a can of worms! Today’s army is very different to the type and character that it was during the world wars and the Korean conflict. I can only give you my opinion of the Army from the National Service, to the start of the very professional Army of the seventies. The British Army was made up of Officers (separate breed and class and education) and NCO’s and soldiers. The contract in those days was for 22 years. Choice? Either trades (144 different trades!) Guards and cavalry regiments, county regiments and then the specialists The Parachute Regiment. The Guards and Armoured I stayed away from, the trades were very good but varied in the officers. The county regiments were from families perviously linked to those units and were very much up themselves. The Para officers were mostly very good as the Regiment had the pick of the keenest Sandhurst Academy cadets. Again I was lucky in that I served under a survivor of the Korean War who understood what was necessary to train and lead a bunch of crazy volunteers, in fact he was the only CO that Ie er had who knew the name of every soldier in his battalion. Because we were always on Standby, he ensured that we trained hard in all terrains and made a point of volunteering us for every crap job going. I distinctly remember two instances that have stayed with me all my life. The first was overhearing the RSM giving a subaltern a bollocking for an inappropriate return salute and awarding the very young officer the Adjutants Saturday drill parade. The second was the OC of my Company welcoming a young Subaltern to our Company (at that time posted in the Persian Gulf) he told the 2nd Lieutenant, not a rank but an appointment, Officer addressed as Mister!) the Major told the Lieutenant that he was to be Platoon Commander but that any orders he was to give out to clear them first with his Platoon Sergeant who was a very experience NCO. Basically the British Army runs on tradition, loyalty to The Regiment and a very professional core on Non Commissioned Officers, in other words Professional. Train hard, fight easy! I can not stress enough the concept of the British Regiments Esprit de corps. I have served in three different armies and can truthfully say that the combination of Regiment, tradition, hard training with good leadership has got the UK out of lot of sh..t! Oh yea, I forgot, the ability to take the piss out of themselves and others, especially the Yanks! Cheers mate. H
Espirit de corp's, now there's a term I've not heard for a long time.
@@kippamip You must have one of the old series of Memory Chips!
@@kippamip Oh, I forgot, for me its English that’s a Foreign Language!
Which armies did you serve in?
Paragraphs man! Christ
As much grief as i give officers because i was an NCO in the NZ Infantry i will admit that they were always at the front and were well respected for their fighting ability and courageous leadership, i think only the best officers get to infantry battalions so i wouldn't know how other corp's officers are but ours were good, fair, hard men.
Hi, 1 RNZIR ? Harera.
In terms of training and running a military the UK has the advantage of having been slowly working out the best way to do things for far longer than most military powers. The British Army was the first professional and permanent army in Europe. As such, it makes sense that they generally would be most likely to have the most consistantly good standard of officer training. I am sure, that with all the money they have put into their own forces, that the US military are reaching similar levels in many cases at this point although I suspect that a certain amount of quality could well be lost simply because they have to train so many recruits.
"The British Army was the first professional and permanent army in Europe." Were they though?? Seems to me that the Army was constantly re-created on an ad-hoc basis. The fact that the Navy was given the Royal designation while the Army was not, with regiments (as seen by their names) being tied to localities and noblemen again seems to show the lower priority and importance of the Army for England/Britain/the UK compared to say, Russia or Prussia.
@@IrishCarney The British army was the only professional army, that being a standing army during peacetime, in Europe until the aftermath of WW1. It was smaller than the conscript armies of Europe, but the soldiers were individually much better trained. In war, that professional army would be the core that the new recruits or conscripts would form around. The NCOs and junior officers in the newly raised regiments would be able to quickly train the new recruits to an acceptable standard and lead them as they were already experienced soldiers.
Until WW1 this system worked well, with the British army being respected throughout Europe. In WW1 the majority of the experienced troops were lost in the first 12 to 18 months of the conflict, so the system didn't work as well as it could, but in general, the British army were still seen as a decent army in comparison to it's contemporaries.
The reason for the army not having the Royal prefix is that it was first stood up as a professional centrally managed force during the time Cromwell was in charge. There not being a monarchy, it was not royal. The regiment names are taken from both tradition and location where they were formed.
@@IrishCarney The British army traces it's roots back to the English Civil War and Cromwell's New Model Army. Cromwell was of course a Parliamentarian, not a Royalist. Hence the British Army does not have the designation 'Royal'.
The Swedish Army of Gustavus Adolphus, killed at the battle of Lutzen 1632, was arguably the earliest professional army in Europe.
Everything you just said there is hogwash historically speaking.
My instructor at Holsworthy, during my time in the reserves were either 3para or fuilislers
My experience with british officers lack of humility has only seemed to come between officers of similar ranks; not bragging about themselves but their lads, their boys, their toopers etc. like I have the best platoon/company at x, they did this awesome thing the other day and I had to keep a straight face in front of them.
think you're right about the exposure of junior officers in the CAF (ret senior capt here). The chances are that the platoon/troop commander is unlikely to go more than one major training exercise before getting to a staff posn (atleast for cbt eng) as the tempo (aka missing pers) is so high, you just don't get to stay at the field level long because the mid level is emptying. You get to planning, directive writing, email...freaking three thounsands emails....etc really really fast just trying to get stuff aligned for the troops to actually train. Was in a support troop when I first arrived at my cbt eng regt and within 6 months I was a sqn Ops O because deployments + career training + posting meant they needed me there and 6 months later I was also the sqn 2IC on top of Ops O. For humor, they have to be so so much more cautious about the humor / jokes that are being used within their units. It has had a chilling effect on cohesion really. Big difference between the branches for the interaction between officers and the troops in the CAF. Way more close ties within more technical trades; the engineers been some of the more cooperative between Officers and NCOs by the shear necessity of those task; the armored being the most traditional from my experience. Good video !
I worked in the Old Bill with quite a few ex squaddies and the odd ex officer. I remember one lad, experienced ex Guardsman, say that if a British Army Officer gave you an order it was for a very good reason, even if it was an order that was going to be horrible to carry out and even if the Officer was a King Cnut, he would only give that order because it needed to be carried out.. As for sense of humour, that came across leaps and bounds from the ex squaddies, especially the ex NCOs, a lot of it could be quite vicious but you only ended up laughing more. Sometimes it would be my turn to be the butt of the joke and my sides were hurting from so much laughing even if it was at my expense.. I have a theory that somewhere at British Army NCO School there is a black leather bound tome dating back from the 1640s when the New Model Army and The Coldstream Guards were formed where every NCO put down ever used has been scribed and the new NCOs have to study it every day and learn them off by heart.. In a PT training session we were doing burpees or star jumps, the PTI ex squaddie turns and says to me what am i doing? I said Star Jumps. He said yes but what are you doing on the ground? I said well I've jumped. He said I didn't tell you to land now get back up in the air and stay there until i tell you to come back down to earth..
"(The) Old Bill" means 'Police Officer(s), to anyone who's not familiar with British slang.
Don ‘t know if the best but they do add a touch of class
Yes they look nice with their pride flags.
Well said, I met and worked with lots of good officers in my time In the British Army. I'd never spoken to anybody with a plummy accent before I joined back in 1977, but even back then, officers were switched on, down to earth and always got my support.
They can't be that good because they're allowing the troops in the thumbnail to fly the Union Jack upside-down...
@dennislions1 Everything you wrote is wrong, which is impressive considering you're trying to correct someone.
The Union Jack originates as a naval Jack to represent the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britian after the first Act of Union. At this time there was an English and a Scottish version however, the Scottish version quickly fell out of use.
It's entire existence is tied to the Royal Navy, there is no separating it.
It is a Jack Flag and thus "Union Jack" not "Union Flag" - all Jacks are flags but not all flags are Jacks.
The Union Jack in legislation only officially represents the UK at sea and is legally restricted to Royal Navy ships. This is why it is actually illegal to fly the Union Jack on civilian vessels and if you want to fly it you must use one which is defaced with a white boarder.
The confusion with the name stems from a statement made by I believe a Peer in Parliament around the 1920s. This was purely a statement without the backing of a bill or any legislation and thus has little effect on reality.
To this day the Union Jack does not legally represent the UK whilst flown on land. It has merely been adopted by the British people to represent us. Whist the UK Government has said when on land it should use a 3:5 ratio and not the 1:2 ratio of the Jack when on a Navy vessel that was purely so it better fits with other national flags during competitions or when flown next to other flags.
Whilst yes, some flags flown upside-down does signal distress that is not the case with the Union Jack; there is only one way to fly it and that is the right way up. For mourning the Union Jack is flown at half mast.
The troops in the picture are on parade not underfire.
Misgivings are understandable as the Union Jack and it's history are barely taught if at all. Many people do not even know there is an "upside-down" way to fly it.
I trained us navy officers. The best would find a scenario, they master quick, and then i would fail systems or take away equipment.
The older officers would roll with the bad news and never stop doing their job. Younger officers would also adapt, just slower.
Great video! As a US Army Officer, having worked with other Officers from other militaries, all militaries are not designed the same...and it shows on how they conduct their operations. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes it's not. Even within one's own country the Officers from one service may and will differ than from another branch.
as they should, the services themselves differ
REME Officers and their soldiers have a particularly good relationship because to be part of such a technical corps the majority of the soldiers are intelligent enough to have become Officers themselves if they had wanted to. The career choice is just that and creates some harmony across the full spectrum. Arte Et Marte.
Love to hear what you thought about Aussie officers as tend to be a mix of USA and UK methods.
Especially the humour
Served under a Canadian Capt - One of those quietly efficient and effective men who never needed to raise his voice and only ever needed to ask one of us to do something and always ended with please. Cannot remember him having to order us to do anything. I was a corporal at the time (British Army) I was part of that unit for 6 months. He was as good as any and better than most I ever served under.
Hmm.... my experience is a very much a mixed bag.
I am on the record as having had quite damning critique of officers and NCO's fumbling conscripts. I wrote in my complaint, that as a member of the Home Guard I had never seen more militarily incompetents than the ones I met as a conscript. Not because home guard officers are particularly good; but at some point they were entrusted to supervise the brewing of coffee.
I've had good officers and NCO's: One was my old major - passed away many years ago - but he had been in a concentration camp during the war. That sort of adds some stamina. My old OPS officer asked me personally that if I wanted to, I would be wellcome - he was now a colonel.
Otherwise I have been quite good at chopping heads and legs off officers. You know the old joke:
German to Gurkha: "Ha! You missed."
Gurkha responding: "Nod..."
But I think the main difference is that service in the British Army is damned serious business - because you will be involved in a war.
What really convinced me was Musa Qala where Danish regulars stood fast, where I hadn't expected it.
But it means there is a lot of trash officers that live out their day doing actually nothing.
I think the important point is attitude towards the job. Officers in the British (& New Zealand and Indian) army see the job as a career. This is reflected in how long the serve on average: 18 years. Contrast that with the US military where being an officer is seen as an "access point" that leads on to other things. That's also reflected in the average length of service: 7 years. Now, obviously there are many other factors involved and the comparison breaks down when you get down to individuals, but I think it holds up across the groups as a whole: British officers see the job as a job and as their career. It's not a stepping stone. That changes your attitude to how you approach the job and how you do it.
Officers are in command but Sergeants are in control.
What makes our officers the best is our junior nco and senior nco all working as part of team
LMAOOOOO
Why is the Union Flag upside down in the photo at the beginning?. It never ceases to amaze me how many people claim to be patriotic and proud of this country but don't know which way the flag should be raised... It's basics FFS............... Back in history The only time the Union flag should be raised upside down was when there was a real chance a base could be overun. This would show any relief for the base had been taken and to be on guard..
I was in the British Army for 3 years. My father had been in the Canadian military.
As an ex British infantry soldier . I have no objection whatsoever to serving under a British officer .in my regiment there was no us and them . It was together .OK some second leautenants where a bit umm know it alls but they soon had thier bollocks wrapped lol. 16 years and would do it again . Without hesitation .
I served 13 years in the British Army, I have served with fantastic Offers, and I have served with some officers who still think we're in the 18th century!!! with a silver spoon attitude towards the men.
One item of note is that all British Army Officers are trained through a singular, uniform training institution- The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst while the US Army officer corps can originate via West Point, ROTC, OCS or Direct Commission sources, each of which will bestow a different training characteristic upon the officer.
im hoping to get into the canadian military next month, been watching your videos for a while, maybe ill meet ya some day
Check out Lindybeige's video 'British Officers don't duck' for a good insight into British Army Officer psyche and attitude.
@Jimmy Hopkins Yeah, I loved that one.
My father who was a Captain in the Royal Artillery said there were two kinds of British officers. One who you had to follow just to see what trouble they could get themselves, and you into, or the other kind who you followed simply because they were the type of person who could get you out of anything. I also had the wonder of seeing my father being "Hero" worshiped by the soldiers he took through Suez, and Korea. I had just joined the Royal navy, and was towards the end of my basic training, I called home to say we were being given a day extra off for some reason and so I was coming home on a Friday, not a Saturday. He asked if i could get a day or so extra to come to a "reunion" of those people. The RN must have looked into what was happening, and let me go. It was amazing to see my Father and the respect those guys had for him. It really opened my eyes to the type of person he was, not just this disciplinarian who screamed and shouted at me and gave me the odd smack when deserved, but a guy others saw as the epitome of someone they wanted to honour.
"His men would follow him anywhere, if only out of curiosity" .....
@@bonetiredtoo Exactly
Well spoken. I know both militaries. Lived in both countries. But my experience is from the 70's.
Which forces did you serve in?
One of the first thing you learn in officer training is to make a decision fast and fact base as good as you have, a decision may later show to be wrong or right but all is better than no decision. Especially if fategue and weather drag you down.
At RMAS we were told the most common order an officer should give is "Follow me"
that intro artwork is glorious. who ever made it should be damn proud.
I would say they are on a par with American officers, who could also be said to be some of the best. They are competent, motivated, highly aggressive, intelligent, and the best of them are always at the front edge of the advance.
In short, they are good leaders.
I would also say the same of the officers in some other military organizations, such as the Canadians.
Hi, where did you get the footage from 08:00 from?
Was it an officer who mounted the Union Flag upside down, on the video tittle picture?
Agree on most of this. It's a well established system and one thing that amazed me was how similar my father's experience was in 1945 to my own in 1986. One thing you touched on briefly was the class element. In my experience of the regional differences, there was a Scottish army and an English army. (No experience of Irish or Welsh formations.) In the Scottish army the officers are just the management. In the English army the class element was far more prevalent and it really really grinds my gears. I hope it is changing but I fear that current UK socio-economic forces are not pressing in that direction.
(Takes cover! 🙄)
Hmm Some are, some aren't! Ruperts!;-)
I was a US Army Private, NCO, and Infantry Officer. I did a short tour with the Brits. I worked with them in Afghanistan. They are among the best, but the best? I had one British brigadier lie to me that he was a general so he could have a better conex room in Afghanistan. They are not! Ethics was not his thing! The British NCO is amazing as well are the Gurkhas. The Australian officers were even better in my experience. In the end, I am glad to have had great experiences with them all.
What’s with the picture at the start, with the Union Flag upside down?
I served in british army guards after did my time enlisted in Legion Etrangere Huge difference between their officers and British officers andNCOs .British officers were way better
My first officer in basic training was a transfer into the RAMC. He was newly promoted and a complete idiot, he had no place being in the RAMC. He couldn't understand that the corp was essentially non-combatant. He was always complaining about our lack of aggression and wanted to see more, his exact words were "we can afford at one death during basic". Unfortunately, our section corporal was also a transfer in from the infantry, just back from Rhodesia who agreed with him. Fortunately, the Major in charge was RAMC from the start and kept correcting our training. I had a lot of respect for him and knew him in working post Army. All other officers were competent and professional.
Medical Corps?
Everyone is a solider first. No mainline Corps is excused it. It wasn't his mistake, it was yours I'm afraid to say.
i think it was the movie Von Ryan's Express, the American officer said to his men, it took hundreds of year for the British to make officers like these it took the American Congress 90 days for me and he meant it as a compliment to the British ....lol.
The Officer class , the traditional one is a good one. We don't need a socialised type we are all equal situation. The SNCO's are the glue between the Ranks and that tradition is a good one. Nothing wrong with a Middle Class 2ndLt or a Glaswegian Bombardier/Colour Sgt . The bonding comes with knowing your men and experiencing the Tour together. There is a good series on YT about the Finest Traditions of the British Army done in the 90's worth watching. Once they are gone they are seldom replaced with anything of substance.
Nice video, although I have to make one small correction. Having spent a year there, there is no massive frying pan that Officer Cadets are "literally" thrown into!🤣
I don't know much about officer class, but I do know soldiers do need a out let whether it be a kind of weekly diary to be handed to a higher officer class and not to the captain or sergeant. And not about degrading officers, but how training can be improved or tactics and soldiering. As there's always room for improvement. Officers are not expected to be perfect and are expected to make decisions on the spot, learning how to do things a different way could be of benefit.
Well, I been RCEME for 20 years and I went to Afghaniland too. I been told before and I believe it,.. A almost perfect army would be: Yanks equipment, Canucks soldiers and British officers. Keep up the good work Matt, I been fallowing your content for a long time and I enjoy it.
I’ve had mixed bag over 25 years some really poor ones and a couple of mega ones
After captain most become the enemy, it’s when they lose touch with the blokes. Captains in support weapons are usually sound
Great video mat
Landser: ‘Lions Led by Donkeys’…
The question should be do we have the best plt Sjt in the British army and yes we do.
It’s the NCOs that makes a good officer.
And they know to ask if they don't know. As a signaller I've been asked technical questions by captains amd majors, not just the lieutenant. And sargents. Knowing where to get the expertise from is part of comand skills. I've had captains doing the brew while i sort coms, then giving me a fag when alls good. Then they ask, what was wrong, what did you do? I've even had them joke about my old unit being a bit... Rough, and ask where i got bruises and black eyes off, cos they think it's funny and like guys who ain't soulless.
They like characters, and the good ones have a personality
I think it depends on the officers experience and training and where is come from. If he's royal Marine commando officer he's going to be far better quality and a different calibre all together.
Had the pleasure of participating in a few NATO operations when I was in the army once upon a time...I've worked with British and Canadian army soldiers as an artilleryman on active duty and an engineer in the reserves and I can confirm British officers are way funnier. British soldiers I've met regularly made jokes that would have been completely unacceptable in the US Army. I think you might be on to something with this humor thing.
Also I agree: British officers are way fitter than Canadian or American officers, but Northwestern European officers (UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands) in general seem to be the type of dudes that climb mountains and run marathons in their free time.
What country army were you in?the US
From what ive seen we're the same but different and both have different places in the battlefield
United States
@@moisesaguirre515 yea have a good time man long live Great Britain and long live tbe united states of america
I don't understand why that Union flag is upside down.
I have to say that this description of British officers ranks as the best I've ever heard.
Coming from a family background of military service as well as being a long-time military historian, I've often entered into debates about incompetent officers. IMHO, EVERY army that ever found itself on a battlefield has had its share of incompetent officers, and I've always maintained that the most competent are those that are BORN with an inordinate inbuilt ability to size up a situation quickly, and usually efficiently, even before any military training. Having said that, the British have been fighting wars for more than a thousand years, and have learned the art and science of fighting and command very well. The same cannot be said (IMHO) for the US, who have never in their history won a war - at least without allies! By the same token we have had our share of senior British Commanders, who should never have gained high rank at any point - the Class system still operates despite denials!
Along with the ANZACS and Canucks, the British Army has never really lost a war, even with the many battle failures endured.
A good officer will not only lead his men, but will listen to good advice from those of his NCO's who have served in battle. Such officers depend on those who will follow him and respect his authority based on his merit. We've seen that in countless wars, and it works.
A great video, and my appreciation for your efforts.
It is more often than not forgotten that Britain is the only country that went through WW2, and arguably also WW1, from start to finish without suffering a national level defeat.
@@alalder1533 It depends on what you mean by "defeat."
Britain and France - to all intents and purposes won both world wars, along with their Allies; but in fact, Britain lost extremely heavily with regard to our economy and financial situation. At the outbreak of WW2 we were heavily into debt with the US for their "help" during WW1. The amount we had to pay them was staggering - and that didn't include the high interest rates. This arrangement had to continue for 100 years, to 2018, and was paid in full. We were literally fleeced by the US, which is ironic, considering that we produced their uniforms and equipment, licence to manufacture the Lee-Enfield Rifle, and we provided them with ropes, soaps and tenting, and so much more.
Following WW2, the US/UK Lend-Lease programme, we were again compelled to pay the US for their aid - again, a phenomenal amount which, when added to the WW1 payments was literally crippling the country. It was President Obama who said "Enough was enough" and cancelled all further payments with immediate effect! That did not include the remaining 20-or-so British RAF airfields that the USA included, and still own to this day and for the next 25 years. Brits who are allowed entry into them become subject to US Laws!
Since then, the UK has lost its manufacturing base mainly to the US, Germany and Asia, thus America and Germany gained mightily from both world wars.
I count all that as a bitter, national defeat, as we are now the impoverished poor man of of the world.
@@reggriffiths5769 What you say is correct but in the context used defeat means not being overcome or beaten militarily at a national level.
@@alalder1533 Yes, I did understand the context, but by extension, a war is not won if you don't receive the benefit, and Britain got precious little of that in having to pay for it in the years that followed.
Nazi Germany declared war on the UK and decimated many of our cities, but couldn't pay the reparation - that fell to the British people who had to pay the US THEIR demands, which was great for the US.
Unable to pay their reparation, Germany very quickly managed to rebuild and rejuvenate while the UK was still on its knees! How did they do that? The answer is mosty money from the US paid by the UK.
So one might well ask, "Who won the war/s." The UK certainly didn't!
@@reggriffiths5769 You seem to be evaluating military conflict largely against financial/collateral outcome. Across many causes of conflict, eg conquest, that can be appropriate but surely for WW2 Britain (not sure about WW1, where your argument seems more convincing) defeat, the consequences of which would have been immediately and eventually dire, was avoided and that was winning. We can play counterfactuals till the cows come home and inevitably post war change was accelerated, certainly in relation to the Empire.
I'm a planning joiner to the British army, I'm planning to join the reg infantry and I was wondering what it was like just generally being in the service of her majesty the Queen?
Try to avoid meeting her as it is a feck around.
@@dulls8475 it would be an honour to me her but I agree it would probably be hell
@@dulls8475 this aged badly
@@thescotishclonetrooperecho7773 Try not to meet him as it is a feck around.
@@dulls8475 it would be an honour to meet him but I agree it would probably be hell
Ey just a question for ya, what do you think about the RADC (Royal Army Dental Corps)
The best officer's I found in 20 years of service were prior enlisted.