Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days! Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC or Mobile 💥 con.onelink.me/kZW6/BattleOrderDecember
sorry but you are in for a big shock because within 18 months the UK will be no more so there will be no "British Army" as Scotland will be leaving the vile and corrupt UK our place is in the EU and not the UK 😊 .. the Uk is finished!!
Small note at 7:50 - Denmark hasn't got a division any more. It has transformed into the Multinational Division North, encompassing the Baltic Brigades and one danish brigade.
I find it amazing that european nato countries have multinational divisions, like, germany has 2 divisions made up by 3 german brigades and 1 dutch brigade. They also have a mixed division half german, half french
@@leongremista95 It's largely due to the fact that continental European nations pay token lip service to spending on defence. Eg Germany spends a pathetic 1.3% of GDP on defence- well below the agreed NATO target. Europe needs to WAKE UP! The only way to deal with the Russian's, is from a position of strength. Britain is about the only country in Europe which retains a balanced defence capability. Eg When the French sent a single infantry brigade to the Central African Republic- they were reliant on logistic air transport support from the RAF, France was INCAPABLE of providing the requisite air transport support for *1* brigade, that's pathetic and a damning reflection on the lack of emphasis on defence spending. Europe is naive to believe that the US will continue to shoulder the burden of defending Europe, the US now has to contend with a bellicose, aggressive China. At some point, the US will want to concentrate it's efforts, and commit her military resources in the Pacific region.
@@liverpoolscottish6430 100% Agreed, Europe is playing a dangerous game believing everything is just "gonna be fine". That's the mentality that started the worst wars of the last century
@@liverpoolscottish6430 im not sure thats entirely fair on the french, theyre about the only other country with britain who contribute a fair amount to NATO. The northern germanic countries need to get their fucking act together though right enough. 'We dont like armies' isnt much of an excuse when you have Putin sniffing around your house.
The UK "Strike Brigade" happened because the British can't afford to equip Brigades with organic Artillery (like U.S Army BCT's). Also, every UK "Defense Review" since the end of WWII has been a cost cutting exercise! Every. Single. One.
Correct! I said as much myself in my initial post. I was contemplating a career in the BA when I was at Uni in the early 90's, then 'Options For Change,' the defence review culminated in widespread defence cuts. I realised then that the Armed Forces were only going to continue to wither away. I abandoned the idea of a regular career, and remained in the reserves for 18 years. I've been proven to have been correct in terms of the continual decline of British military resources. Every defence review in the UK is always accompanied by lots of inane flannel, 'Meaner and greener,' or, 'More precise and lethal,' it's smoke and mirrors bullshit. We are not spending a sufficient amount on defence- especially given the threat posed by a resurgent Russia led by the 'ex'-KGB thug Putin, and an increasingly bellicose China. If a country like Britain wishes to remain an influential nation on the world stage, we need a larger military capacity than we currently possess. A British Army of 75,000 soldiers is merely a token force- no resilience, no ability to maintain a sustained effort in the event of a major conflict. I spoke to a Staff Sgt from 22 SAS some years ago, he told me that UKSF have grave concerns about the ever shrinking pool of potential recruits for the Regt- due to the extensive reductions in infantry numbers. The Regt is concerned that there will come a point when the calibre material they require, simply will not be available in sufficient numbers, and it will compel them to reduce standards in order to remain viable in terms of personnel numbers. Some years ago, was actually *20* years ago! The number's situation has only got worse in that time, as has the calibre of recruits that our soft, ill-disciplined society throws up these days. The BA isn't the superb machine it was back in the 60's, 70's or 80's, and much of that is due the decline in calibre of personnel, and the watering down of discipline standards. I've heard some pretty depressing anecdotes re the decline in the quality of the personnel from a recently retired Sgt Major I am friendly with. He highlights soft recruits with little mental resilience, and a reduced standard of discipline as significant problems now in the BA. Basically, the BA is having to 'polish' far too much shit in terms the calibre of recruits. There are people serving today, who would never have made it through 1980's Basic Training- no doubt about it.
@Kwoney He’s questioning the ability of British troops, and then says that Afghanistan was proof of this…a deployment that the British did very well in. Afghan was a tough deployment, much tougher than anything the British Army faced since Korea, as it was a sustained, multi-decade deployment that tested infantry and soldiers in skills that the BAOR troops couldn’t even conceive. Northern Ireland was hectic but the Taliban would mop the floor with the IRA.
*Defence logic* UK MOD - Does it make us more effective? CONTRACTOR - Yes at least 30% more effective. UK MOD - Excellent, therefore we need 30% less soldiers!
I love the idea of relying on fire support in the form of artillery. My fear with relying so heavily on so few expensive units means that loss of equipment, either through combat or not, has an outsized effect on the divisions combat effectiveness. That's doubly the case when you rely so heavily on light recon troops.
Ultimately near peer conflict means Russia. Which also implies coordination with NATO forces. So I see this element of the British army basically being a small part of a much larger force. You are quite correct though that having a relatively small unit like this could make it very vulnerable if drones or aircraft can destroy or disable a large number of vehicles.
@@nutyyyy I understand your point. And I have no issues with planning accordingly as Britian will likely have NATO allies in such a war. But are the Americans going to lend lease most British equipment again? Can they?
Reminds me of a line from the James Bond Movie, Skyfall. This is when a much younger and more techno-savvy Q told Bond he can do more damage sitting at his home on his laptop in his pajamas before his first cup of Earl Grey tea. In other words, before his breakfast by using technology. Bond then asked Q, "Why do you need me then?" Q replied, "Sometimes you need someone on the ground to know when to pull the trigger." To which Bond replied, "Or not to pull the trigger. It's hard to tell when you're sitting at home in your pajamas." The point of the conversation is that technology might be great especially when it saves manpower, but it does not replace human decision-making. So, some human decision-making can't be replaced with technology. Ironically, the British military makes fun of the American military, especially their intelligence service, for relying on technology instead of human decision making. The British military is following the same trend due to manpower shortage. So are most military. Of course, those of you who have seen the Terminator movies will probably say, it sounds like SkyNet. Those people would not be wrong. Ironically, US military studies show relying on an AI to make military decisions is not feasible since it can't replace human decision-making.
Seems like the British army learned something on their NATO's enhanced forwards presence mission in Estonia, when looking at the new Deep Recon Strike BCT. As it really reminds me how the Estonian forces are built up. (Sisu Pasi's, CV90's, K9 Thunder's and M270's) (As the Estonians have always been in a spot, where they have very little of manpower against an enemy hundreds of times bigger, then they have often chosen to have advanced technology and accuracy over size. Like the new projects (example: type-x program, the THeMIS program and so on). Leaving more funding to individual soldiers to be better, instead of having more of them. Quality over quantity)
Which is kind of funny considering the British propensity to chose absolutely horrible names for things. The green meanie anyone? haha the other one that springs to mind is a car meant to set the land speed record back in the... 30s...? I think...? Anyway, they nicknamed it... the slug hahaha thankfully the good ol' flashy over the top Americans stepped in and renamed it Mystery, it was a Sunbeam btw
Honestly this name is rather un British. Usual British unit names are understated, and may have historical conventions, but usually aren’t overtly aggressive or bellicose.
sorry but you are in for a big shock because within 18 months the UK will be no more so there will be no "British Army" as Scotland will be leaving the vile and corrupt UK our place is in the EU and not the UK 😊 .. the Uk is finished!!
Great video man, it's super interesting and seems very well researched, keep up the good work! I'd also note the UK is significantly upgrading the M270 by developing a new extended range missile with a range of 150km and according the the British army website it will also be able to fire the US's precision strike weapon which has a range of 499km.
sorry but you are in for a big shock because within 18 months the UK will be no more so there will be no "British Army" as Scotland will be leaving the vile and corrupt UK our place is in the EU and not the UK 😊 .. the Uk is finished!!
@@SaorAlba1970 Scottish voted remain. Next vote won't happen till at least 15-20 years later. All of Sturgeons attempts to force a vote have a failed legally and illegally. So your estimate is way off.
@@SaorAlba1970 18 months? You think the Tories will even allow that? 2014 was a fluke. Considering how close the vote was, and how the anti torie sentiment has blew up recently. No way they will allow another referendum that quick
Ironically, the British Army is replacing the BAE made AS 90 self propelled tracked howitzer with the also BAE made Archer wheeled self propelled howitzer. AS for the Infantry Combat Vehicle to accompany their armored regiments, they are replacing their tracked Warrior IFV with a version of the Boxer wheeled armored personnel with more armor and firepower, similar to what the Lithuanian Army is getting. I guess they are coming in fast but heavy.
First of all, as a yank, I LOVE the regimental naming conventions in the British Army, so full of history. You say that acting as reserve is NOT a core function of cavalry, and it isn't in the American army of modern day. But, historically, going back to before Alexander conquered most of the known work even, tactical reserve was a function of cavalry. Sure they did the other roles you mentioned, recon, battlefield shaping, etc. But when the main fight began, the cavalry was usually held in reserve to either exploit an enemy vulnerability or plug up a hole in friendly lines.
sorry but you are in for a big shock because within 18 months the UK will be no more so there will be no "British Army" as Scotland will be leaving the vile and corrupt UK our place is in the EU and not the UK 😊 .. the Uk is finished!!
I had a similar thought at 8:00 -- "Depends on what one means by using the 'cavalry' unit marker. Now, for the USA, that includes Bradley IFVs, so it'd work ... anyone want to dust of the old "curaissiers" name?
@@johnd2058 considering the role the Curassiers had, it might fit more for a Tank regiment, as it is the tank that has taken over the role of Heavy Shock forces that the Curassiers had, and the mounted knights before them
Thank you for the British content 🇬🇧🇺🇲. We may be small, but I like how you put it. This deep strike group allows us to do more with less and strike what hurts the enemy most.
The downsizing continuously is worrying me, in small conflicts yes it will be no real issue. But if a real escalation starts then I fear the British Army will just be outnumbered and be unable to take any losses before becoming inoperable. the constant shrinkage sounds more like naïve penny pinching and to much faith that tech alone will make up for numbers.
But the UK would lose precious staying power in the field if it runs into anything that's a full sized Russian army or worse. There's virtue in putting trust in interoperability and cooperation with allied NATO forces but when push comes to shove a UK contingent for European continental defence will not stand up long to a full scale armored assault by Russia ala Cold War/Fulda Gap/GSF, in which case it's useless to do deep strike on the enemy's rear if your frontline is collapsing with the very first push.
@@Nelsonwmj Staying power is vital and the British Army lacks it. If you can't stay in the field then no amount of deep strike is helping you since you got no element to take advantage of the deep strike's effects or have no place to launch it from.
Love this video about the British Army’s ongoing plan to make their forces lean and mean. I would like to see more videos about the British Army units in World War 2. Keep up the good work!
Sounds more like penny pinching to me and way to many MPs putting way to much faith in tech to make up for numbers. Tech can help make up numbers but you still need to be capable of taking losses as well and the British Army does not seem able to anymore.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD You’re probably right. The British Army is making the force leaner rather than meaner. Technology helps but so is quantity. If the current force is way too small but is expected to commit in lots of operations, they will find themselves outnumbered and overstretched in any future conflicts
@@M3chUpN8y The thing is in the real world you could be the best tank on earth or the greatest soldier ever. But ten tanks or 20 men firing at you is going to overwhelm you fast and end you. This ain't a videogame where pure quality alone will squash horde numbers. Even the US with it's high tech level also has high numbers to back it up. One of the reasons why it wins it's battles. Numbers are a comfort you need in war, people will perish, equipment will be lost no matter how cutting edge it is.
This a breath of fresh air. An American who knows his stuff about British Army ORBAT. A majority of Americans make videos about the British Armed Forces and give false information. I appreciate this video. I actually learned a good few things. I'm going into the British Army phase 1 training in two months so having this knowledge will be beneficial.
"Strike Deep" was a battle plan at the time of the cold war against the USSR.......in few words, left the massive soviets tank corps to advance in Germany, and hit the more the vulnerable logistics lines with air attacks and long range artillery.
I could not imagine how difficult being a Soviet or Warsaw Pac commander trying to push my armor corps forward on limited roads and bridges. It would have been traffic jams for dozens of miles all the way back to Poland. Diesel fuel and artillery ammo have been very difficult to get to the front after the first few days going hot.
@@LazyPictures I could see destroyed bridges and rain soaked fields causing massive traffic jams for the Warsaw Pac logistics trains. NATO interdiction strikes would have ensured the attack became bogged down within a week.
Similar, though not identical. Each division is to be self sufficient logistically, and relies much more on Ajax and Boxer IFVs than it does CR3s. The Ajax and Jackals will scout ahead, then the brigades will move in accordance. These divisions and their brigades are to be incredibly fast and manoeuvrable, and will rely heavily on reconnaissance. If the Reconnaissance spies a strong enemy force that the main force can't reasonably defeat, they call in artillery and aircraft, then either run to deal with something else or wait till the enemy formation takes sufficient damage to strike. The reconnaissance also has the capability to act as a kind of main combatant force, armed with a 40mm cannon and heavy armour plus possibly Javelin ATGMs. The only flaw I see with implementation is the lack of AA defence amongst each brigade; though not given any truly modern AA vehicles, the Starstreak however is a man-portable AA system and relatively modern. I also am not too big a fan of the use of Jackals; it would be better to purchase the EBRC Jaguar, which would also be relatively easy to integrate. Compared to the Ajax, it provides similar firepower and protection for much cheaper -- at the expense of an inferior data collection, storage, and management system.
I like the change in doctrine for their 3rd divsion. Although I like what I know, 1st armored/ 1st cav of the US army will have their 3 brigades each and each brigade will be screenlined by the cavalry sqaudron composed of 39 Bradley's and 14 abrams. Each squadron will also have 4-8 recon apaches help them with recon. Thus the 1st cav/ armored will have 117 Bradley's/ 42 abrams in a recon role with 24 apaches to help spot/kill with 24 more apches in reserve to help the remaining maneuver units. Then each divsion will have 3 corps attachments such as mlrs, additional NG fires battalions, patriot battalion or two, battery or two of avenger systems, and other support units.
If an adversary can jam communications or spoof guidance systems. This formation can be turned on it's head to create a nasty trap for the forward deployed units and the QRF who would follow.
Key word: If. Every new form of warfare runs a form of risk. In 1940 in France, the Germans were at one point nearly completely cut off because the Blitzkrieg tactics meant their Panzers were way ahead of supporting infantry. But, ultimately, it worked and led to the surrender of France and the withdrawal of Britain. Sometimes you need to embrace new ideas in spite of the risks or risk stagnating in old ways.
Warfare is a sliding scale of measures and counter measures. For every new technology or procedure, the enemy will devise a method to defeat it, and in turn it will either be replaced with a something more advanced or effective, or way to counteract the counter measure will be drawn up. Also Electronic Counter Measures are nothing new, militaries plan around communications failures and have redundant back ups ranging from simple wired field phones and flash singling to satellite phones and high frequency band hoping radio.
@@David291 another interest aspect related to the battle of France. The french were debating issuing radios to every tank like the germans, but they decided against it, one of the reasons being they believed that signals could be spoofed and the enemy could broadcast fake orders in order to cause confusion. So instead of trusting and leveraging a new technology, they held themselves with absurd paranoia.
How they operate makes a lot of sense. They taught us about this when I was in England with MCJROTC as a cadet exchange with the British cadets and the JROTC class I was in.
Just like ww 1 and 11 forces cut too the bone and barely survived all out war. It’s too late once the crap has hit the fan. You can’t mass produce quality troops at short notice which you won’t get from Russia or China!
A small correction - you showed the supporting elements of 3 Div (7 AD Gp etc) with the brigade symbol X. The British Army uses the term Group for what the US would call a regiment, so should have the III symbol. The word regiment is used for battalion sized units, as you mentioned, so there needs to be a different term for the echelon between battalion and brigade.
I always stand by the idea that a policy of National service similar to that of Norway, is nothing but healthy for a country and it would serve many benefits for the UK, to be used as a reserve in support of the primary ‘regular’ forces.
@@Ukraineaissance2014 all good points and yes what we have now certainly works. But from national service in the past, the quality of British conscripts have proven equal and sometimes superior even to the regulars of some other countries. Its based on the leadership and training coming from the top down. The ANZACS proved this in the 50s and 60s in Malaya and Vietnam (one example).
Conscription would be difficult in our multi-racial, multi-cultural country in which many, (but not all) of our new British citizens dislike our country and do not share its values.
Very interesting idea of using modern fires to engage a (most likely) larger enemy force. Hopefully we'll never learn how effective this doctrine actually is.
It is, but keep in mind the conflicts the UK prepares around. In a land conflict with Russia it won't fight on its own. In other conflicts involving overseas territories this number is enough and more can be reinvested into the navy and air force for projects like the queen Elizabeth carriers.
@@jwadaow In the Baltics, I think it is likely, not guaranteed. However, a larger British army is not necessarily the proper response to this. The UK can contribute better in other areas.
@@Brecconable I was right mad at that decision. Yeah the carriers where getting and the Harrier was obsolete but it at least was still some air asset for our navy. By removing the carriers and air arm we weakened our projection ability. Military stupidity you never remove an asset until the replacement is ready to take up the burden.
This is a very unpopular reorganisation, seemingly thrown together with the remaining units left over after even more cuts to maintain some semblance of credibility buts it's too small now and with far too few teeth units.
Agree i feel for sure it needs more infantry. I feel these "hope" on other nato allies to assist and fight on its boundries. Obviously this is not a force that could act on its own just in my opinion. Mainly against a russian or chinese adversary i think it would struggle.
It’s great that the UK is modernizing it’s armed forces but it shouldn’t be “downsizing”. After years of budget cuts, the British army is merely a shadow of its former self back in the Cold War. Even in limited wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, British troops had to rely on the US for support.
Long running issues with retention and recruitment mean the army can’t even find enough men and women for the battalions it still has so there’s no will to think about expanding. Even the massive budget increase they just got is not going to lead to an increase in numbers
Small note: the symbol used for the reserve element with 105mm guns is wrong. The one you use is the symbol for rocket artillery (tracked) . Great work anyways. Thank you so much!
Technology can only make up for having a smaller force if your enemy does not have access to that same technology, which will not be the case in a major war against a peer opponent. However, considering that the British are likely to always fight as part of a larger coalition for the foreseeable future, they can probably get away with this attitude. And a major war would likely see additional funding freed up to expand their forces. Being hamstrung by a tight budget seems to be a consistent theme for the British military over the past 120 years, but they've always managed to come through when it matters despite it.
This is worrying for NATO force in Europe, since US is also downsizing in Europe and focusing on the Pacific. ATM there are 3 somewhat respectable armies in Europe: France, Poland and Finland, Finland being respectable only if it has time to mobilize which is very much in doubt when keeping in mind the speed of Russian professional formations. UK should be one of the powerhouses in NATO, this plan they have only works if there is someone else holding the line and paying the price so Brits can get the glory.
@@castor3020 Britain is a maritime power we traditionally have never hand a large army. Being an island nation the Royal navy and the Royal air force are the mainstay of our defence. "Steal the glory"🤔.. well when Germany,Poland & Finland build large blue water navies and deploys them in the north Atlantic as part of nato in defence of British sea lines of communication then Britain will deploy large mechanised ground unit to eastern europe in defence of their sovereign Territory
@@lightfootpathfinder8218 it funny that the "european nations like germany have to build this and that before the UK will build a proper army" argument always comes from the side with armed forces of only 2/3 of the size of germanys or less than 1/2 of the size of polands, both have more than double, close to triple the MBT´s in active service, navy size is, when not counting aircraft carriers and ssn/ssbn on a similar scale and in many cases more advanced (for example 212A class). The UK just invests a lot in ships but is incapable of conducting small scale warfare on its own, without relying on nato partners to stem the tide forthem.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 that's incorrect Poland's navy is nowhere near as large or technologically advanced as Britain's! Germany's is close but still smaller in size to Britain's and we have more vessels in every class of ship than Germany does. All European navies except France lack tier 1 blue water capabilities like the Royal navy has.and the astute class submarines are better than any European boat (in an exercise with the US navy the Americans were "taken aback" by the capabilities of the Royal navy's astute class) also Britain has global maritime reach .. the Royal navy can put a fleet in any part of the world independent of support from other nations... Germany & Poland cannot ... You can't compare Poland or Germany's navy with the Royal navy they are green water regional navies ...only Britain and France are true "naval powers" in Europe
@@lightfootpathfinder8218 but in the end, thats the only quality the UK can bring to the table military wise, and still is not capable in going toe to toe with a peer navy like china or russia without suffering inacceptable losses
Sounds like what I use to do on Wargame Red Dragon. My favorite play style was sneaking in Recon deep inside enemy terrority and use long-range artty to target game changing targets.
Deep Recon Strike BCT sounds like how I play in WargameRD 10v10 tactical battles. Recon inf/sniper teams everywhere and a 4x AMOS battery deleting anything that gets spotted. Good tactic provided someone else is holding ground XD
Video idea for modern battlefield medicine. From combat lifesaver level to Walter Reed. What an injured soldier experiences between point of injury to recovery back home. Maybe breakdown of medical units. History would be cool too from Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and GWOT.
Great video, all id say is regiments structure is a little more complex. Regiments are more like grouping together the same sort of specialty, as the regiments are made up of battalions. But the battalions may differ in type of specialty. So like the rifle regiment are made up of around 7 battalions, while all infantry, some are light inf and some are mechanized with warrior ifvs. So not always battalion sized unit. Just different battalions of the same regiments go to different brigades or divisions sometimes.
Would you be doing a comprehensive review of the South Korean armed forces? I find it interesting that they are the only developed country maintaining a cold-war style battle order.
If only they can sort out Ajax & they have to upgrade a large number of the Boxers to medigate the loss of Warrior, with a 30 or 40 mm cannon. Something similar to the Lithuanian version. Internal anti air/anti drone AAA is a must. Something like the Thales rapidFire which uses the same CTA 40mm cannon as Ajax. More Landceptor & starstreak too.
However good they are, this is much too small I know numbers arent everything but surely it must be at least twice the manpower and tank size of what our army is??
This structure indicates high army and airforce integration. The Brits must be extremely confident in their air superiority to bet on this glass cannon strategy.
Royal artillery also does anti air. We got lots of anti air as well, not to mention that in the future we will not be fighting a conventional conflict so not much hostile air power and if we do it will be with allies who can support the RAF
Kind of. Artillery, Reconnaissance, Anti-air, and the Army Air Corps will have a large say in this concepts effectiveness -- all of which the UK has not ignored. British local air defence is to be amongst the most advanced in the world in the next few years, with the introduction of Land Ceptor/Sky Sabre and land-based Martlets. Meanwhile, Apaches and Wildcats will be used to tackle enemy armour.
Almost WW2 Soviet concetration of artillery assets. Only back in the day it was prompted by a lack of trained personnel, and now... by what exactly? Not to mention that the recce in this scheme would only serve as target acquisition for artillery.
Just a quick note mate........... Some British Army Regiments are currently only one Battalion or one unit and some are not. As some examples... The Welsh Guards are a one (large) battalion Regiment but "The Rifles" Regiment has many Battalions. The Household Cavalry is made up of 2 Regiments...... The Life Guards and the Blues and Royals.
The Armenia/Azerbaijan conflict showed that drones and IA are the future of warfare. Those units when fully developed will be integrated into your forces.
In a Ukraine/ baltic/ belarus scenario, all the UK can muster is 2 armored brigades.! That's help but not too significant, France probably won't send anything more then a light/ airborne brigade for service in tactical reserve, Germany would most likely not commit their two armored divsions but maybe a brigade or so worth. All that leaves is US and Poland to take up the majority of the Nato armored corps. I got to see the 1st queen dragoon guards( welsh cavalry)while I was at NTC in August 2017, they were pretty cool, they rode around in their light vehicles and conducted rapid light recon. They were all tall and liked to sing while in the open showers there.
I get what you're saying but it's not exactly correct. While yes, the bulk of the armoured forces in the east would be comprised of Poles and Americans, the German 1st Panzer division is literally their major intervention force. Also all the smaller NATO states (Czech republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia) are building a heavy mechanized brigade comprised of 3 battalions with heavy IFV's, tank battalion, artillery battalion...
Actually 1st Panzer Division us supposed to arrive in Poland within 14 days of alert. And us keeping in Baltic states battalion sized battle group with IFVs and Tanks since 2014.
sorry but you are in for a big shock because within 18 months the UK will be no more so there will be no "British Army" as Scotland will be leaving the vile and corrupt UK our place is in the EU and not the UK 😊 .. the Uk is finished!!
5 reg RA on the 1st Deep Recon section deserves more details a very interesting and versatile regiment especially 4/73 Battery the Surveillance Reconnaissance Patrol selection course is a beast would make a great video those blokes are specialists in STA amongst other recce roles check them out 😎
This reminds me of this British schoolar who talked about how the Deep Strike concept was mostly a political idea (comparable to the pentomic army) to gain relevance. Stating that even though quite interesting, the deep strike concept revolves around equipment that the British havent implemented yet and a tactical or operational advantage that can never be guaranteed.
@@user_____M The British army doesn't even have the balls to use it against a weak economy, in Iraq the government wouldn't let UK forces go on specific missions/operations because its such a small army they can hardly take any losses. As someone from the UK I don't care about having an irrelevant army, I care that people keep pretending like its not irrelevant via trying to sound intelligent.
those machines are old and getting older each year (30 years in service)......they are braking down and stuff. At certain point a machine is past its sevice life and its just illogical to keep spending money on its repairs and overhouls and so on, at certain point you just need to replace them anyway. Might as well now when a option is there
What will drone warfare as seen in the Azerbaijan Armenia conflict change for how the UK builds its military doctrine (and how effective it is) ? Also, could you do a comparison on UK and French military doctrine ?
Not really. That conflict wasn't a fight between peer opponents. The course of the conflict was very similar to Turkish invasion of Kurdish in Afrin Syria.
Good idea against a lightly equipped enemy where light armor, mobility, and artillery/other indirect fire can dominate an enemy on foot or light vehicles by identifying them and staying just out of their reach as you reign down superior fire. They would be absolutely slaughtered by a peer adversary with modern sensors and heavy equipment however. They have zero ability to hold ground under assault and an enemy capable of a sustained mechanized push would roll them over. This effectively renders the British, in a peer conflict, a supporting force hiding behind or screening for more significant units capable of holding or seizing ground. Would have done great against ISIS though.
Apparently the Army isn't actually downsizing, more like just having their stated strength be closer to the actual strength (that is to say, they were previously about 10,000 men less than advertised). But I can't remember where I read that, so it might not be true
I sure hope somewhere in there you develop a theater based EMP. Sats with directed energy units and are ready to invest and fight in the unconventional domains. Lots of new directed energy weapons.
You cannot downsize without losing effectiveness I dont care how much technology spin they use, without soldiers you cant do anything and the British Army has been stripped to bare bones. With more technology operators and fewer soldiers they can of course make the military more 'diverse' which is what really matters
Going by what I've been told by fellow mockers both former and current most of them have said that at best the most that UK forces can do is to act as a blocking force
rearguard delaying action in the eastern baltic at best, when shit hits the fan. after less than 2 days of combat the UK land forces are not capable of combat operations due to inflicted losses on men and material. (until 2027 the UK´s tank fleet is basically 1996 MBT´s without technology upgrades, incapable of engaging russian T90m or even T72B3 frontally with relevant chances of destroying the targets or surviving return fire.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 saying the t72 sorry t90 is superior to any western made tank is level thinking I didn’t think achievable especially when you consider a vickers Armstrong a tank built in the 60s has proven to be superior to a t72
So, basically, the British doctrine start resembling the Russia/Soviet doctrine of Regimental battle groups, where a huge focus is given to recon and artillery. Same tactic with Battalion battle groups (motorifle battalion + tank battalion + recon battalion + 12-18 152mm SPAs + 6 MLRS) could had been successfully employed in the Eastern Ukraine if Russia forces were present there (but as we all know, they never were there) :) The recon is looking for targets, arty destroys them, motorifle and tanks protect arty and help recon if it is in troubles. Donbass and Lugansk militia occupies the area after the Ukrainian forces were destroyed by arty, media makes nice videos and photos of the militia "beating" the Ukrainian army.
It's quite incendiary and insensitive to put a picture of a Russian tank (with the tricolour on top) The Russians aren't the bloody Nazi's, christ what happened to Europe...
sorry but you are in for a big shock because within 18 months the UK will be no more so there will be no "British Army" as Scotland will be leaving the vile and corrupt UK our place is in the EU and not the UK 😊 .. the Uk is finished!!
@@garrywynne1218 you are in for a big shock London cannot force Scotland to remain in the UK, the UK is a union of consent with not 1 signatory but 2 signatories .... Brexit was the last straw ... did you seriously think you could have Brexit and keep a ununited UK ?? if you did then you are very gullible
On a slightly unrelated note: I don't understand why the MoD decided to switch over fully to MTP (multicam) camo uniforms and gear. Given the darker, more subdued hues inherent in the UK and Continental European environment, the tried and true DPM camo was much better suited.
Largely because the mod doesn’t believe there’s evert much of a risk of having to fight in British soil. Mtp gives the best balance to work in temperate and arid conditions. For a force that expects to deploy around the world it works best for them
![Strykers: U.S. Army Medium Infantry [Explained]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tuEJGyHrSlM/mqdefault.jpg)
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days! Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC or Mobile 💥 con.onelink.me/kZW6/BattleOrderDecember
sorry but you are in for a big shock because within 18 months the UK will be no more so there will be no "British Army" as Scotland will be leaving the vile and corrupt UK our place is in the EU and not the UK 😊 .. the Uk is finished!!
The British don’t really have an army. Let’s be real
@@calvincoolidge6627 lmao nahh it's just... *"small"*
Small note at 7:50 - Denmark hasn't got a division any more. It has transformed into the Multinational Division North, encompassing the Baltic Brigades and one danish brigade.
I find it amazing that european nato countries have multinational divisions, like, germany has 2 divisions made up by 3 german brigades and 1 dutch brigade. They also have a mixed division half german, half french
@@leongremista95 ikr it’s like actually wargame coalitions.
@@leongremista95 It's largely due to the fact that continental European nations pay token lip service to spending on defence. Eg Germany spends a pathetic 1.3% of GDP on defence- well below the agreed NATO target. Europe needs to WAKE UP! The only way to deal with the Russian's, is from a position of strength. Britain is about the only country in Europe which retains a balanced defence capability. Eg When the French sent a single infantry brigade to the Central African Republic- they were reliant on logistic air transport support from the RAF, France was INCAPABLE of providing the requisite air transport support for *1* brigade, that's pathetic and a damning reflection on the lack of emphasis on defence spending. Europe is naive to believe that the US will continue to shoulder the burden of defending Europe, the US now has to contend with a bellicose, aggressive China. At some point, the US will want to concentrate it's efforts, and commit her military resources in the Pacific region.
@@liverpoolscottish6430 100% Agreed, Europe is playing a dangerous game believing everything is just "gonna be fine". That's the mentality that started the worst wars of the last century
@@liverpoolscottish6430 im not sure thats entirely fair on the french, theyre about the only other country with britain who contribute a fair amount to NATO. The northern germanic countries need to get their fucking act together though right enough. 'We dont like armies' isnt much of an excuse when you have Putin sniffing around your house.
The UK "Strike Brigade" happened because the British can't afford to equip Brigades with organic Artillery (like U.S Army BCT's).
Also, every UK "Defense Review" since the end of WWII has been a cost cutting exercise!
Every. Single. One.
Correct! I said as much myself in my initial post. I was contemplating a career in the BA when I was at Uni in the early 90's, then 'Options For Change,' the defence review culminated in widespread defence cuts. I realised then that the Armed Forces were only going to continue to wither away. I abandoned the idea of a regular career, and remained in the reserves for 18 years. I've been proven to have been correct in terms of the continual decline of British military resources. Every defence review in the UK is always accompanied by lots of inane flannel, 'Meaner and greener,' or, 'More precise and lethal,' it's smoke and mirrors bullshit. We are not spending a sufficient amount on defence- especially given the threat posed by a resurgent Russia led by the 'ex'-KGB thug Putin, and an increasingly bellicose China. If a country like Britain wishes to remain an influential nation on the world stage, we need a larger military capacity than we currently possess. A British Army of 75,000 soldiers is merely a token force- no resilience, no ability to maintain a sustained effort in the event of a major conflict. I spoke to a Staff Sgt from 22 SAS some years ago, he told me that UKSF have grave concerns about the ever shrinking pool of potential recruits for the Regt- due to the extensive reductions in infantry numbers. The Regt is concerned that there will come a point when the calibre material they require, simply will not be available in sufficient numbers, and it will compel them to reduce standards in order to remain viable in terms of personnel numbers. Some years ago, was actually *20* years ago! The number's situation has only got worse in that time, as has the calibre of recruits that our soft, ill-disciplined society throws up these days. The BA isn't the superb machine it was back in the 60's, 70's or 80's, and much of that is due the decline in calibre of personnel, and the watering down of discipline standards. I've heard some pretty depressing anecdotes re the decline in the quality of the personnel from a recently retired Sgt Major I am friendly with. He highlights soft recruits with little mental resilience, and a reduced standard of discipline as significant problems now in the BA. Basically, the BA is having to 'polish' far too much shit in terms the calibre of recruits. There are people serving today, who would never have made it through 1980's Basic Training- no doubt about it.
@@Swift-mr5zi You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
@Kwoney No point wasting my time on idiots. Most recent defence review increased spending.
@Kwoney He’s questioning the ability of British troops, and then says that Afghanistan was proof of this…a deployment that the British did very well in. Afghan was a tough deployment, much tougher than anything the British Army faced since Korea, as it was a sustained, multi-decade deployment that tested infantry and soldiers in skills that the BAOR troops couldn’t even conceive. Northern Ireland was hectic but the Taliban would mop the floor with the IRA.
Thats fucking stupid lol britan can afford to equip brigades
*Defence logic*
UK MOD - Does it make us more effective?
CONTRACTOR - Yes at least 30% more effective.
UK MOD - Excellent, therefore we need 30% less soldiers!
I love the idea of relying on fire support in the form of artillery. My fear with relying so heavily on so few expensive units means that loss of equipment, either through combat or not, has an outsized effect on the divisions combat effectiveness. That's doubly the case when you rely so heavily on light recon troops.
Ayo, if a general retreat is called on a front and equipment is left behind, british military effectiveness would be severely decreased
And thus the need for easily located "cheap" indirect fire weapons - 120mm mortars, i would deploy these en masse
Ultimately near peer conflict means Russia. Which also implies coordination with NATO forces. So I see this element of the British army basically being a small part of a much larger force. You are quite correct though that having a relatively small unit like this could make it very vulnerable if drones or aircraft can destroy or disable a large number of vehicles.
@@nutyyyy I understand your point. And I have no issues with planning accordingly as Britian will likely have NATO allies in such a war. But are the Americans going to lend lease most British equipment again? Can they?
Reminds me of a line from the James Bond Movie, Skyfall. This is when a much younger and more techno-savvy Q told Bond he can do more damage sitting at his home on his laptop in his pajamas before his first cup of Earl Grey tea. In other words, before his breakfast by using technology. Bond then asked Q, "Why do you need me then?" Q replied, "Sometimes you need someone on the ground to know when to pull the trigger." To which Bond replied, "Or not to pull the trigger. It's hard to tell when you're sitting at home in your pajamas." The point of the conversation is that technology might be great especially when it saves manpower, but it does not replace human decision-making. So, some human decision-making can't be replaced with technology.
Ironically, the British military makes fun of the American military, especially their intelligence service, for relying on technology instead of human decision making. The British military is following the same trend due to manpower shortage. So are most military. Of course, those of you who have seen the Terminator movies will probably say, it sounds like SkyNet. Those people would not be wrong. Ironically, US military studies show relying on an AI to make military decisions is not feasible since it can't replace human decision-making.
Seems like the British army learned something on their NATO's enhanced forwards presence mission in Estonia, when looking at the new Deep Recon Strike BCT. As it really reminds me how the Estonian forces are built up. (Sisu Pasi's, CV90's, K9 Thunder's and M270's)
(As the Estonians have always been in a spot, where they have very little of manpower against an enemy hundreds of times bigger, then they have often chosen to have advanced technology and accuracy over size. Like the new projects (example: type-x program, the THeMIS program and so on). Leaving more funding to individual soldiers to be better, instead of having more of them. Quality over quantity)
Lithuania, who is in the same situation as Estonia, just ordered German Leopard 2 tanks to enhance its army's firepower.
British unit names are so cool. Other countries units seem bland by comparisson.
Which is kind of funny considering the British propensity to chose absolutely horrible names for things. The green meanie anyone? haha the other one that springs to mind is a car meant to set the land speed record back in the... 30s...? I think...? Anyway, they nicknamed it... the slug hahaha thankfully the good ol' flashy over the top Americans stepped in and renamed it Mystery, it was a Sunbeam btw
Honestly this name is rather un British. Usual British unit names are understated, and may have historical conventions, but usually aren’t overtly aggressive or bellicose.
Step out of the anglosphere buddy.
@@bebased1785 no
I wonder if other European nations kept it up too. Or they too turned bland.
"We have placed numerous beacons, allowing for multiple, simultaneous and devastating defensive deep strikes." - British Army, possibly.
Lmao
I was looking for something like this
Our perimeter has been prepared in the event that our enemies should be so bold and so foolish.
"OUR ENEMIES HIDE IN MEHTUL BAWKSES!"
- the enemy, upon encountering the Household cavalry Ajaxes
"I define possibly as more probable than probably." - Master Oogway
I personally feel that the video is very clear, very engaging and very informative and for this reason give it 10/10
bin chilling
daily reminder that taiwan is a country?
Social credit sky rockets, the queen is pleased
You support a member of NATO?
-999999999 Credit Points.
sorry but you are in for a big shock because within 18 months the UK will be no more so there will be no "British Army" as Scotland will be leaving the vile and corrupt UK our place is in the EU and not the UK 😊 .. the Uk is finished!!
Great video man, it's super interesting and seems very well researched, keep up the good work!
I'd also note the UK is significantly upgrading the M270 by developing a new extended range missile with a range of 150km and according the the British army website it will also be able to fire the US's precision strike weapon which has a range of 499km.
sorry but you are in for a big shock because within 18 months the UK will be no more so there will be no "British Army" as Scotland will be leaving the vile and corrupt UK our place is in the EU and not the UK 😊 .. the Uk is finished!!
@@SaorAlba1970 Good joke
@@SaorAlba1970 Scottish voted remain. Next vote won't happen till at least 15-20 years later. All of Sturgeons attempts to force a vote have a failed legally and illegally. So your estimate is way off.
@@SaorAlba1970 18 months? You think the Tories will even allow that? 2014 was a fluke. Considering how close the vote was, and how the anti torie sentiment has blew up recently. No way they will allow another referendum that quick
Ironically, the British Army is replacing the BAE made AS 90 self propelled tracked howitzer with the also BAE made Archer wheeled self propelled howitzer. AS for the Infantry Combat Vehicle to accompany their armored regiments, they are replacing their tracked Warrior IFV with a version of the Boxer wheeled armored personnel with more armor and firepower, similar to what the Lithuanian Army is getting. I guess they are coming in fast but heavy.
First of all, as a yank, I LOVE the regimental naming conventions in the British Army, so full of history.
You say that acting as reserve is NOT a core function of cavalry, and it isn't in the American army of modern day. But, historically, going back to before Alexander conquered most of the known work even, tactical reserve was a function of cavalry. Sure they did the other roles you mentioned, recon, battlefield shaping, etc. But when the main fight began, the cavalry was usually held in reserve to either exploit an enemy vulnerability or plug up a hole in friendly lines.
Which is funny because most of the actual names aren't that old. The Royal Lancers for example where not a thing when I joined.
sorry but you are in for a big shock because within 18 months the UK will be no more so there will be no "British Army" as Scotland will be leaving the vile and corrupt UK our place is in the EU and not the UK 😊 .. the Uk is finished!!
I had a similar thought at 8:00 -- "Depends on what one means by using the 'cavalry' unit marker. Now, for the USA, that includes Bradley IFVs, so it'd work ... anyone want to dust of the old "curaissiers" name?
@@SaorAlba1970 I'll have what he's on please. I could use a break from reality.
@@johnd2058 considering the role the Curassiers had, it might fit more for a Tank regiment, as it is the tank that has taken over the role of Heavy Shock forces that the Curassiers had, and the mounted knights before them
Thank you for the British content 🇬🇧🇺🇲. We may be small, but I like how you put it. This deep strike group allows us to do more with less and strike what hurts the enemy most.
The downsizing continuously is worrying me, in small conflicts yes it will be no real issue. But if a real escalation starts then I fear the British Army will just be outnumbered and be unable to take any losses before becoming inoperable. the constant shrinkage sounds more like naïve penny pinching and to much faith that tech alone will make up for numbers.
But the UK would lose precious staying power in the field if it runs into anything that's a full sized Russian army or worse. There's virtue in putting trust in interoperability and cooperation with allied NATO forces but when push comes to shove a UK contingent for European continental defence will not stand up long to a full scale armored assault by Russia ala Cold War/Fulda Gap/GSF, in which case it's useless to do deep strike on the enemy's rear if your frontline is collapsing with the very first push.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD it worries me too, but then we need to remember, if we go to a large scale conflict, NATO will be by our sides
@@Nelsonwmj Staying power is vital and the British Army lacks it. If you can't stay in the field then no amount of deep strike is helping you since you got no element to take advantage of the deep strike's effects or have no place to launch it from.
@@westerlywind1035 Yeah but it still not a good idea to have no real staying power or inability to absorb losses.
Love this video about the British Army’s ongoing plan to make their forces lean and mean. I would like to see more videos about the British Army units in World War 2. Keep up the good work!
Sounds more like penny pinching to me and way to many MPs putting way to much faith in tech to make up for numbers. Tech can help make up numbers but you still need to be capable of taking losses as well and the British Army does not seem able to anymore.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD I mean, the British Army was always small but professional
@@underpaidmook Small yes but still had numbers to absorb losses, now it can't even do that.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD
You’re probably right. The British Army is making the force leaner rather than meaner. Technology helps but so is quantity. If the current force is way too small but is expected to commit in lots of operations, they will find themselves outnumbered and overstretched in any future conflicts
@@M3chUpN8y The thing is in the real world you could be the best tank on earth or the greatest soldier ever. But ten tanks or 20 men firing at you is going to overwhelm you fast and end you.
This ain't a videogame where pure quality alone will squash horde numbers.
Even the US with it's high tech level also has high numbers to back it up. One of the reasons why it wins it's battles. Numbers are a comfort you need in war, people will perish, equipment will be lost no matter how cutting edge it is.
This a breath of fresh air. An American who knows his stuff about British Army ORBAT. A majority of Americans make videos about the British Armed Forces and give false information. I appreciate this video. I actually learned a good few things. I'm going into the British Army phase 1 training in two months so having this knowledge will be beneficial.
Hi, how is army life going?
@@grandadmiral1874 Hello mate it’s going well. Off to Romania in January on an exercise.
@@smudgerbug Nice to hear - I wish you a safe deployment in Romania
@@grandadmiral1874 Thank you buddy!
"Strike Deep" was a battle plan at the time of the cold war against the USSR.......in few words, left the massive soviets tank corps to advance in Germany, and hit the more the vulnerable logistics lines with air attacks and long range artillery.
I could not imagine how difficult being a Soviet or Warsaw Pac commander trying to push my armor corps forward on limited roads and bridges. It would have been traffic jams for dozens of miles all the way back to Poland. Diesel fuel and artillery ammo have been very difficult to get to the front after the first few days going hot.
@@mastodonxrp5314 Roads are not the issue in western\central Europe
@@LazyPictures I could see destroyed bridges and rain soaked fields causing massive traffic jams for the Warsaw Pac logistics trains. NATO interdiction strikes would have ensured the attack became bogged down within a week.
Similar, though not identical. Each division is to be self sufficient logistically, and relies much more on Ajax and Boxer IFVs than it does CR3s. The Ajax and Jackals will scout ahead, then the brigades will move in accordance. These divisions and their brigades are to be incredibly fast and manoeuvrable, and will rely heavily on reconnaissance. If the Reconnaissance spies a strong enemy force that the main force can't reasonably defeat, they call in artillery and aircraft, then either run to deal with something else or wait till the enemy formation takes sufficient damage to strike. The reconnaissance also has the capability to act as a kind of main combatant force, armed with a 40mm cannon and heavy armour plus possibly Javelin ATGMs.
The only flaw I see with implementation is the lack of AA defence amongst each brigade; though not given any truly modern AA vehicles, the Starstreak however is a man-portable AA system and relatively modern. I also am not too big a fan of the use of Jackals; it would be better to purchase the EBRC Jaguar, which would also be relatively easy to integrate. Compared to the Ajax, it provides similar firepower and protection for much cheaper -- at the expense of an inferior data collection, storage, and management system.
That was soviet deep battle and came from a place of mass civilian mobilisation and conscription in the russian civil war so not quite the same thing.
I like the change in doctrine for their 3rd divsion. Although I like what I know, 1st armored/ 1st cav of the US army will have their 3 brigades each and each brigade will be screenlined by the cavalry sqaudron composed of 39 Bradley's and 14 abrams. Each squadron will also have 4-8 recon apaches help them with recon. Thus the 1st cav/ armored will have 117 Bradley's/ 42 abrams in a recon role with 24 apaches to help spot/kill with 24 more apches in reserve to help the remaining maneuver units. Then each divsion will have 3 corps attachments such as mlrs, additional NG fires battalions, patriot battalion or two, battery or two of avenger systems, and other support units.
If an adversary can jam communications or spoof guidance systems. This formation can be turned on it's head to create a nasty trap for the forward deployed units and the QRF who would follow.
Key word: If. Every new form of warfare runs a form of risk. In 1940 in France, the Germans were at one point nearly completely cut off because the Blitzkrieg tactics meant their Panzers were way ahead of supporting infantry. But, ultimately, it worked and led to the surrender of France and the withdrawal of Britain. Sometimes you need to embrace new ideas in spite of the risks or risk stagnating in old ways.
Warfare is a sliding scale of measures and counter measures. For every new technology or procedure, the enemy will devise a method to defeat it, and in turn it will either be replaced with a something more advanced or effective, or way to counteract the counter measure will be drawn up.
Also Electronic Counter Measures are nothing new, militaries plan around communications failures and have redundant back ups ranging from simple wired field phones and flash singling to satellite phones and high frequency band hoping radio.
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography and the poor squaddie on the ground is singly signalling and hoping it all works
@@David291 another interest aspect related to the battle of France. The french were debating issuing radios to every tank like the germans, but they decided against it, one of the reasons being they believed that signals could be spoofed and the enemy could broadcast fake orders in order to cause confusion. So instead of trusting and leveraging a new technology, they held themselves with absurd paranoia.
That is a really freaking cool unit they have there! It has some really impressive forces at it's disposal. A flexible and powerful unit.
Very impressive video. A lot of great information made simple to understand through great narration and editing. Keep it up
How they operate makes a lot of sense.
They taught us about this when I was in England with MCJROTC as a cadet exchange with the British cadets and the JROTC class I was in.
Hoping to meet some JROTC as an officer cadet in Cambridge
The amount of discussion I have had with officers telling them downsizing is the last thing we want to do at a time like this
Just like ww 1 and 11 forces cut too the bone and barely survived all out war. It’s too late once the crap has hit the fan. You can’t mass produce quality troops at short notice which you won’t get from Russia or China!
@@adrianstuart921 they mass produce low quality troops even in peace lol, although Russia is starting to change that
How about completely de-funding? Britain would be safer.
@@spacecowboy9795 No Britain would just be an open target then.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD Look at where those refugees are coming from. They're usually countries destabilized by western aggression.
Someone forgot that quantity has a quality all its own.
A small correction - you showed the supporting elements of 3 Div (7 AD Gp etc) with the brigade symbol X. The British Army uses the term Group for what the US would call a regiment, so should have the III symbol. The word regiment is used for battalion sized units, as you mentioned, so there needs to be a different term for the echelon between battalion and brigade.
I always stand by the idea that a policy of National service similar to that of Norway, is nothing but healthy for a country and it would serve many benefits for the UK, to be used as a reserve in support of the primary ‘regular’ forces.
1. Its costs a fortune 2. We dont want conscripts in a modern professional army. A decent well paid reserve army is fine.
@@Ukraineaissance2014 all good points and yes what we have now certainly works. But from national service in the past, the quality of British conscripts have proven equal and sometimes superior even to the regulars of some other countries. Its based on the leadership and training coming from the top down.
The ANZACS proved this in the 50s and 60s in Malaya and Vietnam (one example).
Needs happen will teach some of these kids respect would help younger me but luckily I found boxing but that would help alot if things
Conscription would be difficult in our multi-racial, multi-cultural country in which many, (but not all) of our new British citizens dislike our country and do not share its values.
Very interesting idea of using modern fires to engage a (most likely) larger enemy force. Hopefully we'll never learn how effective this doctrine actually is.
absolutely brilliant, love this kind of stuff,
down sizing is still worrying since numbers do win wars and to few troops no matter how well equipped can be overrun and not cover enough ground.
Yeah numbers, if we ignore the attrition, supplies, objectives, strategies, etc
It is, but keep in mind the conflicts the UK prepares around. In a land conflict with Russia it won't fight on its own. In other conflicts involving overseas territories this number is enough and more can be reinvested into the navy and air force for projects like the queen Elizabeth carriers.
@@googleminus1442 Russia is guaranteed to win a land conflict in Eastern Europe, NATO are actually saying it now.
@@jwadaow there's a press statement by NATO that states that?
You got a link or the name of the article?
@@jwadaow In the Baltics, I think it is likely, not guaranteed. However, a larger British army is not necessarily the proper response to this. The UK can contribute better in other areas.
Good to see the brits employing terminator armor finally, teleportation chamber time!
As a former Queens Royal Lancer I'm impressed at how accurate this is
I'm proud of my Country, our Armed Forces and my time in the British Army. 🇬🇧🇬🇧✌✌
8:54 in all these years this is the first time i've seen arma being used for real world military training
Boxer mounted infantry is a pipe dream at the moment 😆 It's one of several projects that have suffered delay after delay, just like Ajax
Corruption
It's not just corruption, but that is a part of the problem.
At least we got the warriors (as long as no MOD clown scraps them before boxer delivery like with the carriers in 2010) to rely on till then.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD I remember the farce with the Harriers.
@@Brecconable I was right mad at that decision. Yeah the carriers where getting and the Harrier was obsolete but it at least was still some air asset for our navy. By removing the carriers and air arm we weakened our projection ability.
Military stupidity you never remove an asset until the replacement is ready to take up the burden.
This is a very unpopular reorganisation, seemingly thrown together with the remaining units left over after even more cuts to maintain some semblance of credibility buts it's too small now and with far too few teeth units.
Agree i feel for sure it needs more infantry. I feel these "hope" on other nato allies to assist and fight on its boundries. Obviously this is not a force that could act on its own just in my opinion. Mainly against a russian or chinese adversary i think it would struggle.
And poor tank component. How do these starvation formations PUNCH given the need to fight conventionally?? We've NIL Guns bar 16 x Archer!
I had no idea they use Spike in a trailer configuration than a fully self propelled one.
It’s great that the UK is modernizing it’s armed forces but it shouldn’t be “downsizing”. After years of budget cuts, the British army is merely a shadow of its former self back in the Cold War. Even in limited wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, British troops had to rely on the US for support.
Long running issues with retention and recruitment mean the army can’t even find enough men and women for the battalions it still has so there’s no will to think about expanding. Even the massive budget increase they just got is not going to lead to an increase in numbers
Small note: the symbol used for the reserve element with 105mm guns is wrong. The one you use is the symbol for rocket artillery (tracked) . Great work anyways. Thank you so much!
Technology can only make up for having a smaller force if your enemy does not have access to that same technology, which will not be the case in a major war against a peer opponent. However, considering that the British are likely to always fight as part of a larger coalition for the foreseeable future, they can probably get away with this attitude. And a major war would likely see additional funding freed up to expand their forces. Being hamstrung by a tight budget seems to be a consistent theme for the British military over the past 120 years, but they've always managed to come through when it matters despite it.
This is worrying for NATO force in Europe, since US is also downsizing in Europe and focusing on the Pacific. ATM there are 3 somewhat respectable armies in Europe: France, Poland and Finland, Finland being respectable only if it has time to mobilize which is very much in doubt when keeping in mind the speed of Russian professional formations.
UK should be one of the powerhouses in NATO, this plan they have only works if there is someone else holding the line and paying the price so Brits can get the glory.
@@castor3020 Britain is a maritime power we traditionally have never hand a large army. Being an island nation the Royal navy and the Royal air force are the mainstay of our defence. "Steal the glory"🤔.. well when Germany,Poland & Finland build large blue water navies and deploys them in the north Atlantic as part of nato in defence of British sea lines of communication then Britain will deploy large mechanised ground unit to eastern europe in defence of their sovereign Territory
@@lightfootpathfinder8218 it funny that the "european nations like germany have to build this and that before the UK will build a proper army" argument always comes from the side with armed forces of only 2/3 of the size of germanys or less than 1/2 of the size of polands, both have more than double, close to triple the MBT´s in active service, navy size is, when not counting aircraft carriers and ssn/ssbn on a similar scale and in many cases more advanced (for example 212A class).
The UK just invests a lot in ships but is incapable of conducting small scale warfare on its own, without relying on nato partners to stem the tide forthem.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 that's incorrect Poland's navy is nowhere near as large or technologically advanced as Britain's! Germany's is close but still smaller in size to Britain's and we have more vessels in every class of ship than Germany does. All European navies except France lack tier 1 blue water capabilities like the Royal navy has.and the astute class submarines are better than any European boat (in an exercise with the US navy the Americans were "taken aback" by the capabilities of the Royal navy's astute class) also Britain has global maritime reach .. the Royal navy can put a fleet in any part of the world independent of support from other nations... Germany & Poland cannot ... You can't compare Poland or Germany's navy with the Royal navy they are green water regional navies ...only Britain and France are true "naval powers" in Europe
@@lightfootpathfinder8218 but in the end, thats the only quality the UK can bring to the table military wise, and still is not capable in going toe to toe with a peer navy like china or russia without suffering inacceptable losses
Sounds like what I use to do on Wargame Red Dragon. My favorite play style was sneaking in Recon deep inside enemy terrority and use long-range artty to target game changing targets.
Deep Recon Strike BCT sounds like how I play in WargameRD 10v10 tactical battles. Recon inf/sniper teams everywhere and a 4x AMOS battery deleting anything that gets spotted. Good tactic provided someone else is holding ground XD
Yeoman. Haha I read about those in history books.
Brits really love their traditions.
Huzzah!
Good video. Small point. There are no Artillery Platoons in the British Army only Artillery Regiments, Gun Batteries or Gun Troops.
great video, thanks
Video idea for modern battlefield medicine. From combat lifesaver level to Walter Reed. What an injured soldier experiences between point of injury to recovery back home. Maybe breakdown of medical units. History would be cool too from Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and GWOT.
I love when I see a notification of a new video from BO
Great video, all id say is regiments structure is a little more complex. Regiments are more like grouping together the same sort of specialty, as the regiments are made up of battalions. But the battalions may differ in type of specialty. So like the rifle regiment are made up of around 7 battalions, while all infantry, some are light inf and some are mechanized with warrior ifvs. So not always battalion sized unit. Just different battalions of the same regiments go to different brigades or divisions sometimes.
Great video mate and very informative. Would love to get the same thing on future of the Australian Defence Force
Might be worth looking at the Future Commando Force concept that the Royal Marines are pursuing
British unit names are just epic!
what a lovely thumbnail you got
Deep Strike?
"The Codex Astartes calls this maneuver 'Steel Rain'."
Long time no see,Nice video!
Would you be doing a comprehensive review of the South Korean armed forces? I find it interesting that they are the only developed country maintaining a cold-war style battle order.
If only they can sort out Ajax & they have to upgrade a large number of the Boxers to medigate the loss of Warrior, with a 30 or 40 mm cannon. Something similar to the Lithuanian version.
Internal anti air/anti drone AAA is a must. Something like the Thales rapidFire which uses the same CTA 40mm cannon as Ajax. More Landceptor & starstreak too.
However good they are, this is much too small I know numbers arent everything but surely it must be at least twice the manpower and tank size of what our army is??
Light cavalry with robust artillery and ready reserves, now that's something else.
Always good when everything is in the singular...... yeah.
This structure indicates high army and airforce integration. The Brits must be extremely confident in their air superiority to bet on this glass cannon strategy.
no they just don't have a military anymore and most of the defense budget goes to PR
Royal artillery also does anti air. We got lots of anti air as well, not to mention that in the future we will not be fighting a conventional conflict so not much hostile air power and if we do it will be with allies who can support the RAF
@@troopieeeeee
Leave it the the Parliament to make money "disappear"
Kind of. Artillery, Reconnaissance, Anti-air, and the Army Air Corps will have a large say in this concepts effectiveness -- all of which the UK has not ignored.
British local air defence is to be amongst the most advanced in the world in the next few years, with the introduction of Land Ceptor/Sky Sabre and land-based Martlets. Meanwhile, Apaches and Wildcats will be used to tackle enemy armour.
Is there a dedicated tool you guys use to make your ORBAT diagrams? If so, I (and I'm sure many others) would love to try using it for ourselves!
Nah I just use Adobe Illustrator and have my own symbolset that I made
"The codex astartes calls this maneuver STHEEL RAIN"
That "brigade" should be seen as a division in on its own right.
Prepare to Deep Strike! The Codex Astartes names this maneuver Steel Rain...
Can you do more videos on the british armed forces please
Almost WW2 Soviet concetration of artillery assets. Only back in the day it was prompted by a lack of trained personnel, and now... by what exactly? Not to mention that the recce in this scheme would only serve as target acquisition for artillery.
Today it is due to Politicians and their budget cuts and their lack of understanding of war.
Just a quick note mate...........
Some British Army Regiments are currently only one Battalion or one unit and some are not. As some examples...
The Welsh Guards are a one (large) battalion Regiment but "The Rifles" Regiment has many Battalions. The Household Cavalry is made up of 2 Regiments...... The Life Guards and the Blues and Royals.
With love 🧡 from Russia 🇷🇺😁
The Armenia/Azerbaijan conflict showed that drones and IA are the future of warfare.
Those units when fully developed will be integrated into your forces.
In a Ukraine/ baltic/ belarus scenario, all the UK can muster is 2 armored brigades.! That's help but not too significant, France probably won't send anything more then a light/ airborne brigade for service in tactical reserve, Germany would most likely not commit their two armored divsions but maybe a brigade or so worth. All that leaves is US and Poland to take up the majority of the Nato armored corps. I got to see the 1st queen dragoon guards( welsh cavalry)while I was at NTC in August 2017, they were pretty cool, they rode around in their light vehicles and conducted rapid light recon. They were all tall and liked to sing while in the open showers there.
I get what you're saying but it's not exactly correct. While yes, the bulk of the armoured forces in the east would be comprised of Poles and Americans, the German 1st Panzer division is literally their major intervention force. Also all the smaller NATO states (Czech republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia) are building a heavy mechanized brigade comprised of 3 battalions with heavy IFV's, tank battalion, artillery battalion...
Actually 1st Panzer Division us supposed to arrive in Poland within 14 days of alert. And us keeping in Baltic states battalion sized battle group with IFVs and Tanks since 2014.
sorry but you are in for a big shock because within 18 months the UK will be no more so there will be no "British Army" as Scotland will be leaving the vile and corrupt UK our place is in the EU and not the UK 😊 .. the Uk is finished!!
5 reg RA on the 1st Deep Recon section deserves more details a very interesting and versatile regiment especially 4/73 Battery the Surveillance Reconnaissance Patrol selection course is a beast would make a great video those blokes are specialists in STA amongst other recce roles check them out 😎
This reminds me of this British schoolar who talked about how the Deep Strike concept was mostly a political idea (comparable to the pentomic army) to gain relevance. Stating that even though quite interesting, the deep strike concept revolves around equipment that the British havent implemented yet and a tactical or operational advantage that can never be guaranteed.
Basically a glorified police force against weak economies.
@@user_____M The British army doesn't even have the balls to use it against a weak economy, in Iraq the government wouldn't let UK forces go on specific missions/operations because its such a small army they can hardly take any losses. As someone from the UK I don't care about having an irrelevant army, I care that people keep pretending like its not irrelevant via trying to sound intelligent.
Deep strike also is short sighted and is creating an open for a force Britain would not have around toe exploit the opening.
They need to keep the CRT Scimitar even if they are National Guard type units
those machines are old and getting older each year (30 years in service)......they are braking down and stuff. At certain point a machine is past its sevice life and its just illogical to keep spending money on its repairs and overhouls and so on, at certain point you just need to replace them anyway. Might as well now when a option is there
What will drone warfare as seen in the Azerbaijan Armenia conflict change for how the UK builds its military doctrine (and how effective it is) ?
Also, could you do a comparison on UK and French military doctrine ?
Yeah, comparisons to other (western) militaries would be very interesting.
Not really. That conflict wasn't a fight between peer opponents. The course of the conflict was very similar to Turkish invasion of Kurdish in Afrin Syria.
Please do a video on the old US Army Regimental Combat Teams from WWII and Korea!
commander boreale, enemy forces in our perimeter
MY FACE IS MY SHIELD
Better get those numbers up UK
they'll probably assign the cavalry to assist allied infantry / assign allied infantry to british taskforces
Honestly my first thought is that “Deep Recon Strike BCT” sounds like something from bad fiction. Actual layout seems pretty useful though
Can you do a deeper analyzation of the brigade combat teams???
nice video thanks
Thanks for doing the British Army now thanks!!
The Codex Astartes names this maneuver steel rain.
Finally what I was looking for
Good idea against a lightly equipped enemy where light armor, mobility, and artillery/other indirect fire can dominate an enemy on foot or light vehicles by identifying them and staying just out of their reach as you reign down superior fire. They would be absolutely slaughtered by a peer adversary with modern sensors and heavy equipment however. They have zero ability to hold ground under assault and an enemy capable of a sustained mechanized push would roll them over. This effectively renders the British, in a peer conflict, a supporting force hiding behind or screening for more significant units capable of holding or seizing ground.
Would have done great against ISIS though.
Apparently the Army isn't actually downsizing, more like just having their stated strength be closer to the actual strength (that is to say, they were previously about 10,000 men less than advertised). But I can't remember where I read that, so it might not be true
The African soldiers they were training were in Kenya. I recognize the uniforms and their base her is called BATUK.
I sure hope somewhere in there you develop a theater based EMP. Sats with directed energy units and are ready to invest and fight in the unconventional domains. Lots of new directed energy weapons.
The UK just bought 14 - Archers. Guessing they will swap out the AS90's in the BCT.
Would say the brits doctrine sounds well thought out.
Also is it possible for a video on the French would be interesting to hear how they think.
You cannot downsize without losing effectiveness I dont care how much technology spin they use, without soldiers you cant do anything and the British Army has been stripped to bare bones. With more technology operators and fewer soldiers they can of course make the military more 'diverse' which is what really matters
So it's an artillery reconnaissance unit?
Going by what I've been told by fellow mockers both former and current most of them have said that at best the most that UK forces can do is to act as a blocking force
rearguard delaying action in the eastern baltic at best, when shit hits the fan. after less than 2 days of combat the UK land forces are not capable of combat operations due to inflicted losses on men and material. (until 2027 the UK´s tank fleet is basically 1996 MBT´s without technology upgrades, incapable of engaging russian T90m or even T72B3 frontally with relevant chances of destroying the targets or surviving return fire.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 saying the t72 sorry t90 is superior to any western made tank is level thinking I didn’t think achievable especially when you consider a vickers Armstrong a tank built in the 60s has proven to be superior to a t72
@@barrybeebenson8102 what tank are you talking about? Chieftain?
We need more troops not less. We are woefully undermanned !!!
That's one heavy ass Caterham sevem
Force multiliers and air/land doctrine are growing in complexity.
So, basically, the British doctrine start resembling the Russia/Soviet doctrine of Regimental battle groups, where a huge focus is given to recon and artillery. Same tactic with Battalion battle groups (motorifle battalion + tank battalion + recon battalion + 12-18 152mm SPAs + 6 MLRS) could had been successfully employed in the Eastern Ukraine if Russia forces were present there (but as we all know, they never were there) :) The recon is looking for targets, arty destroys them, motorifle and tanks protect arty and help recon if it is in troubles. Donbass and Lugansk militia occupies the area after the Ukrainian forces were destroyed by arty, media makes nice videos and photos of the militia "beating" the Ukrainian army.
Many technical nations are reducing actual blood and bone for technical robotic drone weapons.
I am thinking about the case of this concept faced denied or no GPS situation.
It's quite incendiary and insensitive to put a picture of a Russian tank (with the tricolour on top)
The Russians aren't the bloody Nazi's, christ what happened to Europe...
Technology is great but nothing can match a British infantryman and his bayonet
And a trench whistle.
@@Rugged-Mongol tea in the trenches
sorry but you are in for a big shock because within 18 months the UK will be no more so there will be no "British Army" as Scotland will be leaving the vile and corrupt UK our place is in the EU and not the UK 😊 .. the Uk is finished!!
@@SaorAlba1970 It really won't be leaving you know! other than in the deluded minds of Remainiacs
@@garrywynne1218 you are in for a big shock London cannot force Scotland to remain in the UK, the UK is a union of consent with not 1 signatory but 2 signatories .... Brexit was the last straw ... did you seriously think you could have Brexit and keep a ununited UK ?? if you did then you are very gullible
Do more british episodes
On a slightly unrelated note: I don't understand why the MoD decided to switch over fully to MTP (multicam) camo uniforms and gear. Given the darker, more subdued hues inherent in the UK and Continental European environment, the tried and true DPM camo was much better suited.
Largely because the mod doesn’t believe there’s evert much of a risk of having to fight in British soil. Mtp gives the best balance to work in temperate and arid conditions. For a force that expects to deploy around the world it works best for them
Send in the Dragooons!