I’m a veteran from the 80’s and 90’s, people tend to draw the wrong conclusion from the analysis of our military. While weakness and incompetence are immediate concerns, there is a much bigger problem The real threat is the ideological purge of British values from the government and its institutions, including our armed forces. It is purging all forms of patriotism, which is what we are witnessing
@@johnhudghton3535yes, in WW2 my grandad fought genocidal, master-race fascists. Now with the, "2030 roadmap for UK-Israeli bilateral relations" we are allied with them.
Totally agree. I think it's also worth mentioning that over the last 20-30 years many young men who have a sense of adventure and that particular mindset have left the UK to go to Australia, NZ and other countries. We seem to be left with a lot of the wrong "DNA".
As an ex British Soldier, I don't think we should have anything bigger than a 'home defence force'. Let's be honest. Our time as a super power has long gone and even with a huge injection of money, our young men don't want to fight and die for a country that is perceived to hate them. If I had my time again, would I fight for my country ? Absolutely not ! Send our uninvited guests first and then I'd consider it.
Completely disagree. This civvie idea that soldiers don't want to fight is false. I was an infantryman from 2006-2023 and my generation enjoyed our fighting tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, the only time most of us felt truly alive. As for the size of the Army, we should be able to field a Corps size Army group with our population and defence budget. We cant do everything in war anymore but we could specialise our Army far better then we do.
@@joelyboy7 I'd normally agree but would you trust this Government or the past few Governments not to use that Armed forces not to aggressively pursue more wealth and power at the expense of hundreds or thousands of young men's lives ? Look at Russia/Ukraine ? A power and money grab !
Has naval warfare not absolutely changed numerous times this century and can the UK afford to keep up? We've gone from ridiculously expensive air carriers being the way a nation projects power, to dealing with the dreadnaught effect of small unmanned naval drones which can overwhelm a naval force if used in large waves, at comparatively a cheap cost. More fundamentally id ask after Brexit and our shrinking world influences, are we going towards isolationism? If we are, in a world of fast terrifying missiles flying faster and higher than we can currently deal with, why would we invest in anything but the air force / national defenses? By the time a foreign army was to arrive on our shores it is already too late. I guess a contradiction to this would be our current stances over Israel and Ukraine where it seems we are still very much invested in global politics but it does feel like this is getting less important.
It’s several small problems ie; 1) recruiting problems 2) Lower standards 3) Less manpower 4) Low pay 5) Sub-standard tech and SLA/SFA accom 6) low equipment and ammo levels 7) inadequate equipment 8) Over tasked 9) Lack of good leadership 10) handicapped by woke and useless policies 11) Poor procurement process and corruption
Outsourcing has been a disaster for the military. So much of the RAF have been taken over that the RAF is essentially incapable of deploying in an meaningful sense. Too many jobs previously done by deployable servicemen are now 9-5 employees of outsourcing companies.
Why is it, do you think, that all types of government contracts ALWAYS end up costing infinitely more than the original estimate? It isn't incompetence. Follow the money and it always ends up filling the same pockets over and over again. BTW. The USA have just passed a bill allowing their armed forces to use lethal force against its own citizens. How long until the UK follows suit?
@@anthonydoyle7370 The intent of a system is what it does and our procurement system fucks the average soldier and makes such and such person rich so the intent is to do just that.
It is a joke. We were grounded for 2 full days because our Babcock "firefighters" couldnt be bothered to do the relevant online learning to keep them current for the airfield.
I honestly don't know why the government are still using capita, because 2 of my friends who where going to join the army got there applications auto rejected for no reason they tried appealing them but capita said there's nothing we can do. there was also some one who wanted to become a RN officer but capita rejected him because he didn't have A levels but he had 2 degrees. So I wonder how many recruits the armed forces could get if the government got rid of capita.
Because they aren't recruiting to fight a foreign threat, they are recruiting those who will fight a "domestic threat" aka they are turning inwards, like armies in countries such as Iran. Where the people pose a bigger threat to the powers then foreign governments.
The Canadian Armed Forces is also in a dire state. It's deeply concerning that across the Anglosphere, and our wider allies, that things are looking rather grim.
Yep. Australia has the same problem. Woke policies deterring young men, and politicians to focused on vote-buying to properly fund the basic costs of a decent military. There's money for tte headline-grabbing items, but not the everyday stuff.
@@redcoathistoryAustralia has recruitment problems but plenty of spending. The AUKUS submarine acquisition was/is an utter fiasco, seemingly instigated because Boris wanted to screw over Macron!
Why recreate Rangers, who were modeled on the British Army commando, green berets and all? The Light Infantry/Rifles could have been adapted into this, which is literally a classic light infantry role. It's right in line with their long history.
Because the rifles are not up to the task...one of the only Regiments to fail their pre-deployment assessment for Afghanistan and had to do a reshow...that was from a mate of mine who was a WO1 on Optag running it at the time. Ranger Regiments go through decent enough training and testing to get them task & combat ready.
@@MC14may half the blokes in the Rangers are from the Rifles. Even if that’s true about them failing, it will be a battalion, not a whole regiment. As I remember when I was in one of the Parachute battalions failing their pre deployment exercises aswell as a Duke of Lancs battalion. Rangers as a whole seems like a wasted effort on something a normal infantry battalion could do given time to prepare
Our rangers are more in line with the US green berets, training and influencing partner forces as a primary role, rather than an additional role that SAS/SBS used to take on. The closest equivalent we would have to the modern US Rangers would be SFSG.
I wanted to join the army, i went when i was 16, i was told my asthma was a bar to joining and needed to be signed off by a doctor and a number of years clear. So i did. But life goes on, by the time i was eligible again, i had a career in agriculture and a family. But, what i can do is support my friends and family who are in, and support those who come back.
The Ranger Regiment is a bluff. I got out last year and was one of the original Rangers. They copied the green berets because it sounded good, forgetting there an SF unit with an SF budget and are all airborne trained. We in comparison are little better than a light infantry battalion, but worse because the manning of each Bn is half of a light infantry battalion. It was a covert way to cut 2 infantry battalions worth of manpower. The Ranger regiment should have been trained as UKSFs little brother to take some of there tasks off there hands, the Army really didn’t know what it wanted the Rangers to do or where they would fit in.
'Drone warfare could be a way of attracting new recruits ' Yes, because nothing is going to make people join up like the risk of having a grenade dropped on you randomly by omnipresent drones its hard to hide from...
I've been out 12 years now and I'd be surprised if we are, in fact it's sad to say that i don't think we have been for a while. We made an admirable effort in Afghanistan, but even there we were only ever able to control a relatively small area of central Helmand, and that was after 5 years of campaigning and a with fair bit of support from the Yanks.
An excellent episode but we should be in no doubt as to the dire state of the British Army, which has lost its way. Lord Carver once warned that the Army could become a liability to the nation by appearing big enough to encourage politicians to commit it to operations, while being too small to actually achieve anything. We crossed this line at least a decade ago. I have completely lost confidence in the senior leadership, which is careerist and hides behind politicians for many of the disastrous procurement decisions. Added to this, to distract from the Iraq debacle and strategic defeat in Afghanistan, woke ideology was adopted with vigour by these same careerists. The evidence of falling standards is now obvious to everyone.
I had this exact argument on another channel where I clearly stated that Britain had never had an adequate army at the beginning of any major conflict. However the reserve forces had always bought us time to build a large land force, this is not really an option in modern warfare. If you served tours in Afghan alongside British military units Chris then you are a veteran, you just carried a camera instead of a rifle. Great video mate, keep them coming.
The youth arent fighting lad, they have been utterly shafted. They hate the country and tbh i dont blame them, Forever lions led by donkeys. If that first echelon is lost we wont even have any experienced people left to train civvys. The ruskies are losing 1000+ a day, even if we lost half those numbers we would only have 160 days to raise a force of hundreds of thousands. Its not happening imo.
Gen Richard Sheriff, ex DSACEUR, said recently that the Army could not deploy and sustain more than a brigade, Maj Gen James Martin, GOC of 3 Div, said his command was neither fully deployable nor capable of war fighting and Gen Nick Houghton, ex CDS, said the Army is now little more than a boutique force. A pitiful situation all around.
Current US Army soldier here and military history buff --I just want to say that I love your channel for what its worth, the history of so many Army regiments and following their disbandment and forming into other larger regiments across actual centuries of warfare is a rarity you do not often get in military history as a whole. I think the Regiment system is so interesting because it allows for traditions and unity to be communicated to a unit, and for those who care to read the history there is something there for them that will tie them to their purpose as well. I hope you guys sort yourselves out, but you certainly have a habit of doing so. All the best.
Well this is my 2 pence worth: On the Rangers it is a new regiment however its made up of old battalions. 1 Scots for example (the oldest battalion in the regular army) was merged into them (losing their Royal Scots borders title and Scottish identity in the process). But I agree there was no need to form a new regiment in fact I think its a role that the Parachute Regiment could have been better suited for. We need more reserves but we also need to be careful that increasing their numbers doesn't come at the expense of the regular formations. Reserves are an important to supplement regular units, they are not a way to expand the army on the cheap. The reserves suffer from much of the same issues regarding recruiting as the regular. But there is also a cultural issue if we want reservists to do the same sort of training as regulars. Consideration needs to be given to things like sports contests and courses. For a reservist balancing what is his/her second job with their civilian employment and family a lengthy promotion course held by a regular unit is not appealing neither is a short or segmented one run on weekdays. That said when reservists do deploy alongside regulars it should be noted they have volunteered to do so and thus it is not uncommon for reserves to be more motivated to get the job done than their regular counterpart, they can also be a recruitment avenue for the regulars. No doubt Challenger 3 is a great bit of kit but its just not enough of them. While Leopard isn't as advanced I wonder if we might have been able to have more tanks if we phased in Leopard or even just more Challenger 2s. that said we do have older tanks in storage that can be reactivated but this isn't a solution to current number shortages (I question why we gave Ukraine Challenger 2s when we have plenty Challenger 1s in storage) AJAX has been a disaster but hopefully now we are on the right path, though I do wonder if we might be better building new examples of older kit, like warriors or scimitars. On the other hand I like the look of some of the German and Swedish vehicles we are buying and it makes sense to use the same sort of things our allies use if we want to integrate with them on the battlefield or even from a logistics viewpoint have shared supply chains. I would say the RA definitely needs to expand to the point where it should be one of the largest corps in the army. Not only regarding artillery support to troops on the ground, but things like air defence and even small drones (spotting and target acquisition) fall within the remit of the RA. If I was to take any of the drones used in Ukraine and mass produce them it would be the Australian made PPDS. Its a cheap military grade drone (as opposed to a modified drone made for the civilian market, which also have their ureses) that despite being labelled the cardboard drone has proved simple, robust, capable, energy efficient and even easy to modify or repair. I don't think Labour has a good record on the Armed Forces but in fairness neither does the Conservatives. Having gave ourselves a stern talking to I think we are now on the right path (all be it at the start of the path) the important thing is that we stay on it. I think we would struggle to defend the entire Falklands, however we weren't in a good place in 1982 either and like then I think the fighting spirit and professionalism of the British warrior would eventually win the day should the need arise again.
The Para's are arguably the best "hammer" in the British Army so probably the worst unit to pick to train and work with local forces. Not that they couldn't do it, they just have a completely different mindset.
@@military_misfit More of a knife as a QRF than a hammer. The hammer is the armoured infantry. We've seen what happens when modern Airborne units fight mech infantry unsupported, didn't go well for the VDV in Hostomel airport.
He is one for you my 23 son was court marshaled for the offence of fighting where he and a number of male soldiers were fighting each other , a female Lcpl got involved and was struck once in the mouth injuries consisted of a fat lip, pea size blood blister inside her lip. He was kicked out the army and sent to civilian jail for 3 months all because he struck a female. Where the equality in that . Not one of the male soldiers made a complaint. This sones up the state of our armed forces. God help us if we ever have to go to war.
The fact it's only 60% of what constitutes an army (100K Soldiers) is answer enough. Is the army ready for war? It would help if we had an army to begin with.
The MoD is now viewed as an Orwellian tool of globalist propaganda and increasingly, internal repression. They indulge their own Russia obsession at huge risk to Britain and even the world (if nuclear war war were to result). But they do nothing to protect our borders
@@obvious-troll I made a polite comment about George Orwell's warnings coming true in Britain and this channel removed it. So I guess Tobias Ellwoods' dreams of WW3 and all this armybarmy stuff are not related to defending freedom of speech in any way
Using historic army sizes for comparisons is a bit of a tricky one. Up until the mid-19th century (ish), the overwhelming majority of the army was actual fighting strength, now most personnel are in support roles.
Really enjoyed the modern military video! Navy, RAF video would be great, plus special forces. You touched on the Rhodesian bush war in this video but that would make a great video too. Keep it up
The British Army has NEVER been "ready for war". Historically, it's only been large enough, and professional enough, for it to be able to expand rapidly as war approaches, with the Royal Navy (and latterly Royal Air Force) being large enough to cover the deficit until remedied. 100,000 fighting troops, was for decades, the size of the pre-war force. The problem is now that the 100,000 has become the overall size of the entire Forces rather than simply the Army Component. Rather more serious, in my view, that the reduction in numbers, was the effect of fighting in Iraq II and Afghanistan which moved the fighting away from the wielding of units at Divisional level, in favour of at battalion, if not smaller, level. We've done this before in '41 and '42 in North Africa where battalion-sized forces, usually named after their commander, came up against German units using the full assets of a Division. The results were sobering. Whilst it is true that troops used to operating as at Divisional level may struggle when employed as sub-units, the reverse is not true at all, ie, Officers only used to fighting at a Company or Battalion level will be completely unable to operate at the Divisional level.
I don't feel like it is, even with how warfare has changed, there are older states of even the Kingdom of England that are better prepared for war than the modern UK.
Had an application for the Army Reserves that took 9 MONTHS to process to the Assessment Centre stage. Eventually just gave up and moved on, it wasn't worth the wait. This is a common theme amongst a lot of would be joiners.
Education which now is totally eclipsed in the Far East. Indeed, I now educate my kids abroad. Cheaper and far better. Not necessarily just the academics, but they learn manners, discipline & behaviour. Moreover they are safe.
Solid all around, two points I'd like to add. If the Rangers are to take on a mission set similar to US Special Forces, they make sense if they are supporting proxy wars. There is a school of thought that says direct confrontation with peer or near peer competitors is too dangerous with the threat of nuclear exchange, so proxy wars are the way to go. In this case, having units capable of training proxy forces makes sense. The other point is I suspect your numbers are actually a bit bleaker than you presented. The numbers don't tell the whole story, as the tooth to tail ratio has changed dramatically over the past century. So the number of actual trigger pullers available to engage an enemy is significantly less now when compared to the same number of forces in prior eras.
Considering the country has already been invaded and its citizens the victims of violence from foreigners we are already at war and nobody has picked up a rifle in the defence of the country. In fact, the military were almost deployed recently against its own people.
As a UK vet. We were not ready for 2003, and it went south. And we were essentially fighting a high intensity police action in the sand box. If we’re now talking about taking on a base power rival…. It would be a fight but a complete rout!
We have always had a small flexible, professional army that we scale up when needed. The point is we really don’t know what will be required. We may never need a big army again, or it could kick off next week.
Great breakdown, always felt it was a pity we haven't been investing properly in our armed forces. One of our governments many oversights in the last decade
I'm Civilian street City and Guilds Motor Vehicle Engineer, and a Ex TA REME, I've taken 2 things from my time as a BOAR, 1st was a Russian Tank Engines didn't have paper oil filters, Second Pencils will write in Zero Gravity, Tech is over rated, A UZI is only a piece of metal if you don't have ammunition for it,
Regarding the Challenger 3 and Ajax, all these fancy target target acquisition bells and whistles don't mean a thing in modern war any more! The war in Ukraine has shown a cheap FPV piloted drone or loitering AI drones, such as the lancet, can take out any armoured tank or vehicle in the world and the Challenger 2s, Abrams and Leopards have all been taken out by drones in the war (I don't mean the whole lot of course just each variant has had casualties from drones). We are not even considering FPV drones and bomber drones - and their countermeasures - and we are going to get left well behind. China is taking notes from Russia. It seems we are not from Ukraine. We should be forming FPV schools now to train up drone pilots. The army probably arrogantly thinks it is beneath us and only for the uncouth savages in the East.
Some our armed forced bigger problems are: - taking far to long for applications of services - getting rid of slightly older but still very usable stuff so we have bugger all reserves -scrapping or selling ships which could be put “in storage” for a dark day - not relying on our selves enough - not making sure we have a arsenal ready at all times for a medium war, possibly against peers. There’s so many our government don’t care anymore
Surely there must be a 'Britishness' factor to integrate with manpower size on one side of the "effectiveness" equation? Look at the following Afghanistan war (2001-2021) KIA numbers: UK =457 France + Germany + Italy + Denmark + Spain + Netherlands + Sweden + Netherlands + Belgium = 314 The UK is the only European armed force to wholly immerse itself in front-line operations.
If Ajax does come through, there is a new automated 155mm howitzer mounted on a boxer chassis, crew of 2 and can fire in the move. That would be a good reuse for those vehicles.
Thank you very much for an honest and thoughtful video. Extremely briefly, Britain needs four divisions at a minimum, with the existing 3rd Division duplicated. This would allow Britain a chance to maintain one division in the field for a prolonged time, by rotating in and out the 3rd Div and another similarly equipped division. And, finally, you can't have joint fires unless there is something to fire. The Russian doctrine has not changed in 200 years and relies on massive fires from tube and rocket artillery, and unless Britain can match (or disable that) Britain's troops on the ground won't last long.
Looking at the Ukraine war, I dare say not even 5 divisions are good enough, we have seen both sides especially Russia move three divisions in as just regular reinforcements.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD yes I agree! Unfortunately, the capacity to stand up three divisions in a short space of time just isn't there. Even standing up one additional division will be a stretch in terms of barracks facilities, equipment, SNCOs and officers (assuming there are enough recruits), but it would be a start. Bring on five combat divisions once they have three.
@@wochee Exactly, we need more manpower and soon. Capita needs to go, they are a chain on the army dragging down it's recruitment numbers. The perks and after service care need to be better, the job has to pay as much or more than most jobs in the same age range. The Barracks need better living accommodations as well. Also we need more equipment to arm a bigger military.
Great video, and a lot of important topics raised. I'm old enough to remember BAOR and the Falklands, and no way could the UK do that today. It's not the men, they remain, as they have often been, real gutter fighters. When people see "70 thousand men", they fail to understand that most of those men and women are not front-line combat troops. Cooks, Bottle-washers, transport drivers, clerks, laundry personnel, office staff, warehouse staff, MPs, the bloke who grooms the regimental goat. They're all necessary, but really, I agree, the Uk would struggle to put a full-sized combined arms Division into the field and keep it there. Under-manned, under-paid, undersupported. Just like the police, the NHS,et., al. Bloody shameful really.
It's all a bit hush-hush but a confidential source has told me that the Women's Institute are now training the militant Brownies how to fight with Ninja crochet hooks and flower arranging scissors. Keep it under your hat, ssshhhhush.
It’s an interesting time, it’s a new world and it’s rapidly changing, I’m interested in seeing how they deal with the challenge of recruitment. We don’t live in a society where its us VS them anymore and what it means to be British and proud of it is brought into question everyday. I would be really interested in the reasons why younger people of today join the army, there are many reasons to do so, it may just not be as obvious as previous generations.
Maybe there is a need to stop pandering to those "many reaso s" and start advertising for young men who are willing to go "us vs. them". "Us vs. Them " is the reason why you have a military.... not to provide diverse career opportunities
we dont, we arent dying for these people who have ruined the country and forced us to leave if we ever want to buy a house and raise a family. Fuck the UK
i think most youngsters that join up today are avid call of duty players, and simply envision themselves kicking ass on the battlefield. however im sure many hasnt quite accepted there isnt a restart button. when killed.
@@RansomeDavis A high tolerance for risk has been a feature of testosterone-filled young men for far longer than computer games have been around. There’s nothing “toxic” about that.
I think the inspiration is rather obvious and I doubt many involved in the process knew much of the history involved. It's not like they've ever cared enough to preserve historic regiments.
I don't think we ever recovered from WW2. When it comes to major wars the future is worse as a result. It's not just the irreversable physical damage & unmitigated strain on the economy, but also the scars we don't see on poor families who lost loved one's in war. *NAFO Fellas* online who counter disinformation also do NOT understand how devastating a real war is, and if they felt a moment or the pain in a Soldiers shoes during combat, they wouldn't be so arrogant. The people that upset me the most who think war is a game. It will humble you so fast you won't know what hit you.
Absolutely riveting and very enlightening video totally out of the norm but totally fascinating , and also very depressing to be honest. One question I would raise on your Manpower Strengths section at 1.30 minutes in is that although you found Army strength for 1710 @ 68k , 1790 @ 53k , for 2024 @ 71.8k How does that relate to the U.K. population at those times , I’m willing to bet it’s now a very small percentage compared to those other dates . I was not military but had 2 brothers now in their 60s and 70s both in the Artillery mostly in Germany with BAOR they tell me we have few operational Challengers and the next generation cannot be made in the U.K. due to lack of specialised steel production , other ex Navy friends tell me the aircraft carriers are constantly out of service being repaired as are our submarines, Ex Airforce at local British Legion laugh at the stories they hear of zDEI incompetence and ineptitude and lack of serviceable equipment …….not as the Government’s spokesperson says at all … I also have friends who were Rhodesian Army , 80+ years old and they laugh out loud at modern European troops as totally lacking “ spirit” that made Rhodesian army absolutely formidable .
A note on the possibility of a falklands war, from what I remember, we weren't in a brilliant position to take back the Falkland's during the last war. We ended up having to convert civilian vessels for military use to transport equipment and men.
My friend group through high school had about 7 of us in it and 5 of us applied over the last year all rejected on medical before the assessment centre
As an outsider, I think you guys you'll be fine as long as you fix your recruitment and "culture" issues first. In contrast to the Armed forces of the Philippines(AFP), in 2020 was said to be around 150,000 personnel. Thats all branches and were potentially going against China. Our Army is like 100.000 out of that total. The last time we fought a superpower was Japan in WW2 and we were technically a US territory then. Now were still bros with the US but our lack of tech and power alone wont do anything offensive to China Im afraid, we get bullied in our territory after all.
The US Army actually took the name "Rangers" from us. My problem with the Rangers is that four infantry battalions have been converted to that role. We only had 31 to start with. Now, by the time you allow for the Rangers, Specialist Infantry Battalions, SFSg etc we only have 21 actual line infantry battalions - and most of them are badly understrength, some of them so much that they're combat ineffective.
Quite a negative report I would say, but I guess the situation is the same in most western european countries, at least also here in Sweden. Things are now slowly beginning to change.
Reduce the full time army, make the territorials more attractive, give bonuses to employers etc. The army should be protecting our shores not sent to costly and useless conflicts. The Swiss model is for us. When we had an Empire to look after, you can understand it, as we were protecting BRITISH land. Now, we're a 2nd rate European country. (5 yrs regular, 15 yrs territorial)
I'm not a brit, but here is my 2 coppers, Ukraine had a lot of people volunteering when the full scale invasion started, also probably quite a few who had experience from the war in Donbas(2014 - ), in case of a major war in Europe I imagine the UK might get a similiar influx of veterans, e.g people who were 20 years old at the start of 2000s(Iraq, Afghanistan) would be 40-ish now, unless they are as round as beer kegs now I think they could still serve in many roles, average age is quite high in Ukraine since they are trying to protect their future generations, you dont want to wreck the demographic pyramid if you can avoid it, losing 10s of thousends of people in their early/mid 20s would hurt any country a lot, in many ways. In my country we have selective conscription(I did my national service a couple of years ago), everyone gets screened, and they pick less than 10%(e.g less than 10% of those born 2004) of us, the best suited and preferably people who are motived/interested/willing gets called up, it's also a way to recruit soldiers and sailors to the professional, full-time service, or for the Home Guard. The rest of us gets placed in the wartime organisation, that is, we gonna get mobilized if the shit would ever hit the fan. I don't think you need to worry about the Falkland Islands. :)
I don't think we've ever been ready for any modern war we've been in it just seems to happen, and everything clicks into place Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan, we seemed to just get dragged in without any preparation
A very good synopsis of the situation the UK land army is curently in. I am with you on the ranger opinion, we British have a long history with no need to follow any other countrys models. Lets be honest about recrutment & retention, all you points are bang on the money. I will add the constant imposition of civilianized work related ethics is undermining the traditinal oporating methods of the British Army.
I left in 2018 - at that point, recruits could pass out of depot without having passed any of their fitness or marksmanship tests; told they would “learn at regimental duty”. Said units however received barely any time or funding for training. The numbers of deployable troops in each unit are also always fudged by over worked Ops Officers to make Brigades look better than they are. The whole system is broken.
My grandfather used to say that England always performs the best in times of war. In times of crisis everyone just forgets their internal squabbles, abolish the great inefficiencies present in the country in times of peace and works with everybody else to ensure society works smoothly. This would happen in the case of a foreign invasion threatening the British Isles even in the future I think. As regards the size of the army, I don't think that should be a cause for concern. Just as you pointed out, Britain's army has for the most of British history been relatively small. Its purpose has historically not been primarily to defend the homeland. That rôle has primarily been filled by the wooden walls of the Royal Navy and the seas and oceans that surround it - '... girt about by the seas and oceans, where the Navy reigns,' as Churchill put it. Even though he had been First Lord of the Admiralty, he did concede however concerning the German Luftwaffe that the RN was: '... no defence.' If you listen to former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officers and UN WMD inspector Maj. (Retd.) Scott Ritter, he will tell you that no European NATO power could field even a division for service in Ukraine against Russia. Furthermore, the Russians by now have ample combat experience which is invaluable. Just look at the value of the Wehrmacht combat experience from the Spanish Civil War against France in the early stages of the Second World War. The Russian Army is substantial. Finally, any conflict between the U.S./NATO and Russia and/or China is certain to evolve very quickly into an all out nuclear conflict, because the non-nuclear conflict would quickly prove an existential threat to the great powers involved. Russia has very powerful conventional ordinance (FOAB equivalents) that it could deploy and to which the West could deem it necessary to retaliate with nuclear weapons, according to its 'escalate to deescalate' policy. If the West were foolish enough to allow its Ukrainian proxy to strike Moscow, the Russians have said they would consider that an existential threat to the motherland and that as the Ukrainians could not carry out the strikes without Western arms and assistance, would consider the Western powers to have declared war on Russia. Under the new nuclear doctrine, declared earlier this autumn, this could result in Russian nuclear strikes on the Western countries it deems are part of the Western alliance having declared war on Russia. My own analysis is that in such a scenario, they would be more likely to strike cities like London or Stockholm, because countries like the UK and Sweden have been most vociferous in their support for the Ukrainians in the war in Ukraine, and perhaps not initially at the U.S., so as not to escalate to a global end times thermonuclear conflict if possible. In practice it would probably matter little however, as any nuclear conflict would with near certainty quickly go global. Author Annie Jacobsen deems that global thermonuclear war would probably last 72 hours before humanity and civilisation, at least in any shape resembling those of today, would have ended. But that is all moot. There isn't going to be any overt, non-proxy war between the UK and any other European power or great power on the global stage because the economic élites that control the political élites in the U.S., Russia, China and the other great powers, do not want an end to the world. They much prefer spending time of their yatchs and golf courses to in underground bunkers. So what will the British Army be used for? Probably the kind of power projection which has been its traditional rôle, rather than territorial defence. If there is an invasion of the mainland, the army could lead the resistance against the occupier and carry out guerilla style strikes on occupier infrastructure and military installations, the way all domestic insurgency groups operate. This was the plan for the Swedish military when conscription was abolished and it was scaled down in the détante of the 1990s. The likelihood of a foreign invasion (other than a foreign force invited in) of the UK is to my mind extremely low however, so the purpose of the British Army for the foreseeable future appears to be as previously mentioned power projection. As regards kit, it would seem that the new Challenger is an excellent piece of machinery. I am also positively impressed by the Swedish mobile artillery. The Boxer however, may not be what it's cracked up to be. In the footage you showed you did not once see it on anything but roads.
True (i have a video in the works about them) but it has since been an American unit since WW2 and isn''t a good look in my opinion. Only a tiny number of people will know the origin of the name. I actually wander if "The Guides" might have been better. . .
Sadly the quick answer is no. But this has been a long time in coming with getting the armed forces to where they are now. It will take a decade to repair the damage done. My question is where will funds be sought for this and with the horrible and wasteful procurement / reputation of our ministry of defence will our military get the very best that it requires. I think not sadly.
I agree, the British Army no longer knows what it is, what it stands for and is forgetting how to be a winner. This, is obvious to the trained eye. This IMO also applies to the new Ranger Reg, its neither 'fish nor fowl'. I'm a soldier from the 80's & 90's. I also spent 6 years as a recruit trainer and I firmly believe 'recruitment' has lost the plot. I blame years of destructive, crap politicians and self-serving senior military leadership. 'For the want of a nail a shoe has been lost' !
Is this normal in ‘peace’ time? Ebs and flows? We saw similar topics come to the forefront when the Herricks picked up in 06- dated kit, lack on manpower etc. roll on 2013/2014, the advancements were fantastic by that point. On another note, is it worth joining these days? Asking for a friend ahah 😂🤘🏻
So your not sure that the present Labour government are interested in the army. But all the gaps in the army and military in general you mention have come after 14 years of conservative government. Yet many in this country think the tories are the best for the safety and security of the nation. This really does baffle me? How do people come to this conclusion?
The new regiment Rangers is not really an American name the term ranger was heavily used during the French & Indian war by British and American units. Don’t forget the Irish Ranger’s and the Connaught Rangers. During WW2 we named our commandos Ranger as not be confused the British commandos. The job the British Rangers are to do as elite light infantry dates back to that time period so what was old is now the latest and greatest. Great video
As soon as the Iron Curtain came down, that was the excuse for ALL Politicians to drastically cut the Armed Forces. In 91, out in Saudi, the Military struggled to supply a complete Armoured Division. Only 3 years before, we had 3 in Germany. As for Ajax, its that typical Defense Procurement attitude, "its not our money so lets just keep spending it". The answer to that, and saving BILLIONS in the process would be to do what a lot of European Militaries did, buy the CV90.
I grew up 70/80s. Cubs, scouts, cadets we flew the flag had parades on every occasion. Conditioned to have respect to the country and Queen. We were proud. Grandparents fought in the war so we listened to stories. Now if I fly a flag I am racist lol. We don't have the numbers on the ground, as you point out we were unprepared for wars before even under nourished. Though the people were tougher. We don't have a great pool to find recruits and yes tech has come a long way but in war you will need resources to build the tech or even replace the chips or precious metals. I spent the weekend in Birmingham and went to a wedding in a mosque, it was an amazing weekend and I was looked after and not allowed to pay for anything. The shops were full the streets buzzing and there was an amazing community spirit. It reminded me of my youth. As soon as I stepped out of those areas the streets were dead, shops boarded. If we were to fight or be dragged into conflict, say the French send troups to Ukraine and we become entwined openly then we would be stretched and if there was an enemy within, I'm sorry to say we are going to get Beasted. We have no community spirit, religion or binds. Politicians don't seem to have our best interests at heart. We may have had our best days behind us. The 14st 5ft Bobby ain't going to save us 😂
So I live abroad but . . . I hear you re. community spirit. I live in a majority muslim area and I am shocked in a good way at the sense of community. I patrol with the neighbourhood watch and am included in all events. When I was living in a different suburb I didn't even see my neighbours. I don't know how Britain gets that sense of community back now that Christianity is not as strong as it was and there is no sense of patriotism or belonging. I am worried for the future of Britain.
I don't think it will. Unless Parliament is shaken up. History has a way of repeating itself and nothing lasts forever. Wars do bring people together and rebuild. I do enjoy your pieces on the peninsula war. I've been to Vitoria and Galicia. Would like to follow one of the marches on foot. Be funny to wear the uniform whilst doing it, getting the full experience 😂 keep up the good work!
It is much easier to use special forces trained troops as regular infantry than to use regular infantry for special missions. Training a large special forces group makes sense for a small army.
No enemy has ever inflicted damage on the British people and army half as effectively as our political class
Especially now, when they infuse leftist, woke ideology! It certainly diminished the US military!
By design too, can't even stop boat people in the cannal
Sounds just like the USA!
I’m a veteran from the 80’s and 90’s, people tend to draw the wrong conclusion from the analysis of our military. While weakness and incompetence are immediate concerns, there is a much bigger problem
The real threat is the ideological purge of British values from the government and its institutions, including our armed forces.
It is purging all forms of patriotism, which is what we are witnessing
YES THIS!!!! Veteran RAF chaplain agreeing.
@@johnhudghton3535yes, in WW2 my grandad fought genocidal, master-race fascists. Now with the, "2030 roadmap for UK-Israeli bilateral relations" we are allied with them.
@stephena1196 what a twisted outlook you share with the Islamo-nazis. I feel sorry for you.
Totally agree. I think it's also worth mentioning that over the last 20-30 years many young men who have a sense of adventure and that particular mindset have left the UK to go to Australia, NZ and other countries. We seem to be left with a lot of the wrong "DNA".
@@stephena1196 in the 1940s, your grandad was forced to fight the German army under threat of jail and endless propaganda.
As an ex British Soldier, I don't think we should have anything bigger than a 'home defence force'.
Let's be honest. Our time as a super power has long gone and even with a huge injection of money, our young men don't want to fight and die for a country that is perceived to hate them.
If I had my time again, would I fight for my country ? Absolutely not !
Send our uninvited guests first and then I'd consider it.
Completely disagree. This civvie idea that soldiers don't want to fight is false. I was an infantryman from 2006-2023 and my generation enjoyed our fighting tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, the only time most of us felt truly alive.
As for the size of the Army, we should be able to field a Corps size Army group with our population and defence budget. We cant do everything in war anymore but we could specialise our Army far better then we do.
@@MrSteve_Luddite. home defence force, another name for internal security force, secret (para military) police, or the Stasi.
@@francisalderson4469 all of which we already have.
@@joelyboy7 I'd normally agree but would you trust this Government or the past few Governments not to use that Armed forces not to aggressively pursue more wealth and power at the expense of hundreds or thousands of young men's lives ?
Look at Russia/Ukraine ?
A power and money grab !
The small size of the army was offset by the power of the Royal Navy, but the senior service is now in a terrible state too.
Very sad but true 👍
VERY THIS.
Has naval warfare not absolutely changed numerous times this century and can the UK afford to keep up? We've gone from ridiculously expensive air carriers being the way a nation projects power, to dealing with the dreadnaught effect of small unmanned naval drones which can overwhelm a naval force if used in large waves, at comparatively a cheap cost. More fundamentally id ask after Brexit and our shrinking world influences, are we going towards isolationism? If we are, in a world of fast terrifying missiles flying faster and higher than we can currently deal with, why would we invest in anything but the air force / national defenses? By the time a foreign army was to arrive on our shores it is already too late. I guess a contradiction to this would be our current stances over Israel and Ukraine where it seems we are still very much invested in global politics but it does feel like this is getting less important.
Only 4000 in the RAN.
Scary.
🦘🇦🇺👍
Because for some reason they needed two aircraft carriers,didn't they? What a waste.
It’s several small problems ie;
1) recruiting problems
2) Lower standards
3) Less manpower
4) Low pay
5) Sub-standard tech and SLA/SFA accom
6) low equipment and ammo levels
7) inadequate equipment
8) Over tasked
9) Lack of good leadership
10) handicapped by woke and useless policies
11) Poor procurement process and corruption
And looking after vets after service...what's the point?
Only one thing will save the day: recruit more women.
@SammySardine
Me too...I wouldn't advise anyone to join the army nowadays
@SammySardineYa'll dont start collecting your pension at the time you retire from the Army?
We have the same problems in the French ground forces (hence why i am leaving next year).
Can't fault your analysis - excellent video - well done
Thanks mate. Was really interesting for me to dive into.
@@redcoathistory Just found ur channel good vid
Outsourcing has been a disaster for the military.
So much of the RAF have been taken over that the RAF is essentially incapable of deploying in an meaningful sense. Too many jobs previously done by deployable servicemen are now 9-5 employees of outsourcing companies.
RAF veteran agreeing with you.
Why is it, do you think, that all types of government contracts ALWAYS end up costing infinitely more than the original estimate? It isn't incompetence. Follow the money and it always ends up filling the same pockets over and over again.
BTW. The USA have just passed a bill allowing their armed forces to use lethal force against its own citizens. How long until the UK follows suit?
@@anthonydoyle7370 The intent of a system is what it does and our procurement system fucks the average soldier and makes such and such person rich so the intent is to do just that.
@@anthonydoyle7370 Grift and corruption, defensive contracts are meant to syphon funds, not to provide usable service.
It is a joke. We were grounded for 2 full days because our Babcock "firefighters" couldnt be bothered to do the relevant online learning to keep them current for the airfield.
I honestly don't know why the government are still using capita, because 2 of my friends who where going to join the army got there applications auto rejected for no reason they tried appealing them but capita said there's nothing we can do. there was also some one who wanted to become a RN officer but capita rejected him because he didn't have A levels but he had 2 degrees. So I wonder how many recruits the armed forces could get if the government got rid of capita.
Recruitment is supposed to be dangerously easy. Not a shore
Capitia was just contracts for friends ..
Because they aren't recruiting to fight a foreign threat, they are recruiting those who will fight a "domestic threat" aka they are turning inwards, like armies in countries such as Iran. Where the people pose a bigger threat to the powers then foreign governments.
because someone in the government will be making money out of it. If your ever unsure why the government does something illogical follow the money
Exactly.
The Canadian Armed Forces is also in a dire state.
It's deeply concerning that across the Anglosphere, and our wider allies, that things are looking rather grim.
Thanks - yes, Ill be honest Im tempted to do a similar video about the Canadians, Aussies etc. . .
Canadas proximity and relationship with the US is a much bigger deterrent that anything we could possibly muster ourselves
Yep. Australia has the same problem. Woke policies deterring young men, and politicians to focused on vote-buying to properly fund the basic costs of a decent military.
There's money for tte headline-grabbing items, but not the everyday stuff.
@@redcoathistoryAustralia has recruitment problems but plenty of spending.
The AUKUS submarine acquisition was/is an utter fiasco, seemingly instigated because Boris wanted to screw over Macron!
Well , it could be worse l suppose , we could be like Russia.
We’re not ready for a major conflict and never will be with our politicians
Why recreate Rangers, who were modeled on the British Army commando, green berets and all? The Light Infantry/Rifles could have been adapted into this, which is literally a classic light infantry role. It's right in line with their long history.
Because the rifles are not up to the task...one of the only Regiments to fail their pre-deployment assessment for Afghanistan and had to do a reshow...that was from a mate of mine who was a WO1 on Optag running it at the time.
Ranger Regiments go through decent enough training and testing to get them task & combat ready.
@@MC14may half the blokes in the Rangers are from the Rifles. Even if that’s true about them failing, it will be a battalion, not a whole regiment. As I remember when I was in one of the Parachute battalions failing their pre deployment exercises aswell as a Duke of Lancs battalion. Rangers as a whole seems like a wasted effort on something a normal infantry battalion could do given time to prepare
Our rangers are more in line with the US green berets, training and influencing partner forces as a primary role, rather than an additional role that SAS/SBS used to take on. The closest equivalent we would have to the modern US Rangers would be SFSG.
@@thoubosen2779 iirc, the Lancs are total gash
I wanted to join the army, i went when i was 16, i was told my asthma was a bar to joining and needed to be signed off by a doctor and a number of years clear.
So i did. But life goes on, by the time i was eligible again, i had a career in agriculture and a family.
But, what i can do is support my friends and family who are in, and support those who come back.
Should give the reserves a try mate
The Ranger Regiment is a bluff. I got out last year and was one of the original Rangers. They copied the green berets because it sounded good, forgetting there an SF unit with an SF budget and are all airborne trained. We in comparison are little better than a light infantry battalion, but worse because the manning of each Bn is half of a light infantry battalion. It was a covert way to cut 2 infantry battalions worth of manpower. The Ranger regiment should have been trained as UKSFs little brother to take some of there tasks off there hands, the Army really didn’t know what it wanted the Rangers to do or where they would fit in.
Its just a glorifed 1 para
Donkeys still in charge
Was the original 4 rifles just a light infantry regiment then?
@@ZarrarOneNinerit was a specialised infantry battalion beforehand. Essentially for training foreign troops abroad and so on
@@thoubosen2779 so it basically just had a name change and training barrier to entry then?
'Drone warfare could be a way of attracting new recruits '
Yes, because nothing is going to make people join up like the risk of having a grenade dropped on you randomly by omnipresent drones its hard to hide from...
I think he’s suggesting young people would feel comfortable piloting a remote in order to kill people .
I've been out 12 years now and I'd be surprised if we are, in fact it's sad to say that i don't think we have been for a while. We made an admirable effort in Afghanistan, but even there we were only ever able to control a relatively small area of central Helmand, and that was after 5 years of campaigning and a with fair bit of support from the Yanks.
Long as enemy doesn't arrive in rubber dinghys
An excellent episode but we should be in no doubt as to the dire state of the British Army, which has lost its way. Lord Carver once warned that the Army could become a liability to the nation by appearing big enough to encourage politicians to commit it to operations, while being too small to actually achieve anything. We crossed this line at least a decade ago. I have completely lost confidence in the senior leadership, which is careerist and hides behind politicians for many of the disastrous procurement decisions. Added to this, to distract from the Iraq debacle and strategic defeat in Afghanistan, woke ideology was adopted with vigour by these same careerists. The evidence of falling standards is now obvious to everyone.
I had this exact argument on another channel where I clearly stated that Britain had never had an adequate army at the beginning of any major conflict. However the reserve forces had always bought us time to build a large land force, this is not really an option in modern warfare. If you served tours in Afghan alongside British military units Chris then you are a veteran, you just carried a camera instead of a rifle. Great video mate, keep them coming.
The Reserves now... that's a topic for discussion...
Problem is modern warfare is all about speed. You don't have time to train everyone
The youth arent fighting lad, they have been utterly shafted. They hate the country and tbh i dont blame them, Forever lions led by donkeys.
If that first echelon is lost we wont even have any experienced people left to train civvys.
The ruskies are losing 1000+ a day, even if we lost half those numbers we would only have 160 days to raise a force of hundreds of thousands.
Its not happening imo.
Gen Richard Sheriff, ex DSACEUR, said recently that the Army could not deploy and sustain more than a brigade, Maj Gen James Martin, GOC of 3 Div, said his command was neither fully deployable nor capable of war fighting and Gen Nick Houghton, ex CDS, said the Army is now little more than a boutique force. A pitiful situation all around.
We sent 127 ships to the Falklands. We only have 66 commissioned ships now, including a historic wooden ship. Add to that 13 RFA's.
simply pathetic isnt it, .
Current US Army soldier here and military history buff --I just want to say that I love your channel for what its worth, the history of so many Army regiments and following their disbandment and forming into other larger regiments across actual centuries of warfare is a rarity you do not often get in military history as a whole. I think the Regiment system is so interesting because it allows for traditions and unity to be communicated to a unit, and for those who care to read the history there is something there for them that will tie them to their purpose as well.
I hope you guys sort yourselves out, but you certainly have a habit of doing so. All the best.
Well this is my 2 pence worth:
On the Rangers it is a new regiment however its made up of old battalions. 1 Scots for example (the oldest battalion in the regular army) was merged into them (losing their Royal Scots borders title and Scottish identity in the process). But I agree there was no need to form a new regiment in fact I think its a role that the Parachute Regiment could have been better suited for.
We need more reserves but we also need to be careful that increasing their numbers doesn't come at the expense of the regular formations. Reserves are an important to supplement regular units, they are not a way to expand the army on the cheap. The reserves suffer from much of the same issues regarding recruiting as the regular. But there is also a cultural issue if we want reservists to do the same sort of training as regulars. Consideration needs to be given to things like sports contests and courses. For a reservist balancing what is his/her second job with their civilian employment and family a lengthy promotion course held by a regular unit is not appealing neither is a short or segmented one run on weekdays. That said when reservists do deploy alongside regulars it should be noted they have volunteered to do so and thus it is not uncommon for reserves to be more motivated to get the job done than their regular counterpart, they can also be a recruitment avenue for the regulars.
No doubt Challenger 3 is a great bit of kit but its just not enough of them. While Leopard isn't as advanced I wonder if we might have been able to have more tanks if we phased in Leopard or even just more Challenger 2s. that said we do have older tanks in storage that can be reactivated but this isn't a solution to current number shortages (I question why we gave Ukraine Challenger 2s when we have plenty Challenger 1s in storage)
AJAX has been a disaster but hopefully now we are on the right path, though I do wonder if we might be better building new examples of older kit, like warriors or scimitars. On the other hand I like the look of some of the German and Swedish vehicles we are buying and it makes sense to use the same sort of things our allies use if we want to integrate with them on the battlefield or even from a logistics viewpoint have shared supply chains.
I would say the RA definitely needs to expand to the point where it should be one of the largest corps in the army. Not only regarding artillery support to troops on the ground, but things like air defence and even small drones (spotting and target acquisition) fall within the remit of the RA. If I was to take any of the drones used in Ukraine and mass produce them it would be the Australian made PPDS. Its a cheap military grade drone (as opposed to a modified drone made for the civilian market, which also have their ureses) that despite being labelled the cardboard drone has proved simple, robust, capable, energy efficient and even easy to modify or repair.
I don't think Labour has a good record on the Armed Forces but in fairness neither does the Conservatives. Having gave ourselves a stern talking to I think we are now on the right path (all be it at the start of the path) the important thing is that we stay on it.
I think we would struggle to defend the entire Falklands, however we weren't in a good place in 1982 either and like then I think the fighting spirit and professionalism of the British warrior would eventually win the day should the need arise again.
The Para's are arguably the best "hammer" in the British Army so probably the worst unit to pick to train and work with local forces. Not that they couldn't do it, they just have a completely different mindset.
@militarymisfit43 they are our rapid reaction force. Can't have them tied up training locals in some far flung backwater
@@robbiepemberton Totally agree, mate.
@@military_misfit More of a knife as a QRF than a hammer. The hammer is the armoured infantry. We've seen what happens when modern Airborne units fight mech infantry unsupported, didn't go well for the VDV in Hostomel airport.
He is one for you my 23 son was court marshaled for the offence of fighting where he and a number of male soldiers were fighting each other , a female Lcpl got involved and was struck once in the mouth injuries consisted of a fat lip, pea size blood blister inside her lip. He was kicked out the army and sent to civilian jail for 3 months all because he struck a female. Where the equality in that . Not one of the male soldiers made a complaint. This sones up the state of our armed forces. God help us if we ever have to go to war.
Big tough guy hits a girl 😂
You have been on the 2 way firing range but lay only with a camera. Now that takes balls of steel. Respect from an ex 🇬🇧 infantry soldier
Thanks mate - that means a lot.
The fact it's only 60% of what constitutes an army (100K Soldiers) is answer enough. Is the army ready for war? It would help if we had an army to begin with.
Who would want to die for there country when they the government don't care about the public
The MoD is now viewed as an Orwellian tool of globalist propaganda and increasingly, internal repression. They indulge their own Russia obsession at huge risk to Britain and even the world (if nuclear war war were to result). But they do nothing to protect our borders
Fight for the migrants. Fight for their freedom to get free stuff
Don’t worry, someone will do it for you. Some people will always find an excuse to hide their fear.
@@chrislye8912 those people are fighting for migrants
@@obvious-troll I made a polite comment about George Orwell's warnings coming true in Britain and this channel removed it. So I guess Tobias Ellwoods' dreams of WW3 and all this armybarmy stuff are not related to defending freedom of speech in any way
Using historic army sizes for comparisons is a bit of a tricky one. Up until the mid-19th century (ish), the overwhelming majority of the army was actual fighting strength, now most personnel are in support roles.
I've been listening for over a minute and haven't heard anything about DEI.... keep it up 😉🇬🇧
Really enjoyed the modern military video! Navy, RAF video would be great, plus special forces. You touched on the Rhodesian bush war in this video but that would make a great video too. Keep it up
Excellent episode
The British Army has NEVER been "ready for war". Historically, it's only been large enough, and professional enough, for it to be able to expand rapidly as war approaches, with the Royal Navy (and latterly Royal Air Force) being large enough to cover the deficit until remedied. 100,000 fighting troops, was for decades, the size of the pre-war force. The problem is now that the 100,000 has become the overall size of the entire Forces rather than simply the Army Component. Rather more serious, in my view, that the reduction in numbers, was the effect of fighting in Iraq II and Afghanistan which moved the fighting away from the wielding of units at Divisional level, in favour of at battalion, if not smaller, level. We've done this before in '41 and '42 in North Africa where battalion-sized forces, usually named after their commander, came up against German units using the full assets of a Division. The results were sobering. Whilst it is true that troops used to operating as at Divisional level may struggle when employed as sub-units, the reverse is not true at all, ie, Officers only used to fighting at a Company or Battalion level will be completely unable to operate at the Divisional level.
Capita, for the love of all that's good an holy the biggest out sourcing Scammers in the business
The enemy is already within your walls.
Very interesting Chris, although alarming
The Rangers is a 250 men 'battalion' so its a HQ and a reinforced company.
Really upgraded the graphics, love it, keep up the good work.
Drachinifel said a big army is a luxury for Britain and big navy is luxury for continental countries or something like that
I don't feel like it is, even with how warfare has changed, there are older states of even the Kingdom of England that are better prepared for war than the modern UK.
The name Ranger was originally used by the British Army during the French and IndianWars in North America
As per the 1940 Hollywood movie North West Passage.
This guy is the best
Solid video.
Had an application for the Army Reserves that took 9 MONTHS to process to the Assessment Centre stage. Eventually just gave up and moved on, it wasn't worth the wait. This is a common theme amongst a lot of would be joiners.
There are many reasons for our current military state, starting with our educational and further education systems.
Education which now is totally eclipsed in the Far East. Indeed, I now educate my kids abroad. Cheaper and far better. Not necessarily just the academics, but they learn manners, discipline & behaviour. Moreover they are safe.
Same here.
🦘🇦🇺👍
Swap out the Union Flag for the Maple Leaf and this story could well be about the current condition of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Same here.
🦘🇦🇺👍
Interesting stuff, thanks
Solid all around, two points I'd like to add. If the Rangers are to take on a mission set similar to US Special Forces, they make sense if they are supporting proxy wars. There is a school of thought that says direct confrontation with peer or near peer competitors is too dangerous with the threat of nuclear exchange, so proxy wars are the way to go. In this case, having units capable of training proxy forces makes sense.
The other point is I suspect your numbers are actually a bit bleaker than you presented. The numbers don't tell the whole story, as the tooth to tail ratio has changed dramatically over the past century. So the number of actual trigger pullers available to engage an enemy is significantly less now when compared to the same number of forces in prior eras.
Considering the country has already been invaded and its citizens the victims of violence from foreigners we are already at war and nobody has picked up a rifle in the defence of the country. In fact, the military were almost deployed recently against its own people.
As a UK vet. We were not ready for 2003, and it went south. And we were essentially fighting a high intensity police action in the sand box. If we’re now talking about taking on a base power rival…. It would be a fight but a complete rout!
Very interesting. Nice balance. Interesting hint about cavalry and future videos…
Ha ha yes, I think you'll like one in particular that is out in a few weeks ;-) An excellent guest. . .
We have always had a small flexible, professional army that we scale up when needed. The point is we really don’t know what will be required. We may never need a big army again, or it could kick off next week.
An excellent video and very interesting 👍 let's hope the Military needs and strength gets better.
the new background style is really cool would be awesome to see in episodes going forward 🙂
Thanks - its a bit of an experiment. Some episodes will look like this - others more "traditional". . . Thanks for the feedback.
Great breakdown, always felt it was a pity we haven't been investing properly in our armed forces. One of our governments many oversights in the last decade
I'm Civilian street City and Guilds Motor Vehicle Engineer, and a Ex TA REME, I've taken 2 things from my time as a BOAR, 1st was a Russian Tank Engines didn't have paper oil filters, Second Pencils will write in Zero Gravity, Tech is over rated, A UZI is only a piece of metal if you don't have ammunition for it,
Great video Chris, well done, Sir.
Thanks, Glad you enjoyed it.
Regarding the Challenger 3 and Ajax, all these fancy target target acquisition bells and whistles don't mean a thing in modern war any more! The war in Ukraine has shown a cheap FPV piloted drone or loitering AI drones, such as the lancet, can take out any armoured tank or vehicle in the world and the Challenger 2s, Abrams and Leopards have all been taken out by drones in the war (I don't mean the whole lot of course just each variant has had casualties from drones). We are not even considering FPV drones and bomber drones - and their countermeasures - and we are going to get left well behind. China is taking notes from Russia. It seems we are not from Ukraine. We should be forming FPV schools now to train up drone pilots. The army probably arrogantly thinks it is beneath us and only for the uncouth savages in the East.
Well, if you get a minute bring in one of your drone thingies from home and show the chaps one weekend. Can't help with the bus fare unfortunately....
Some our armed forced bigger problems are:
- taking far to long for applications of services
- getting rid of slightly older but still very usable stuff so we have bugger all reserves
-scrapping or selling ships which could be put “in storage” for a dark day
- not relying on our selves enough
- not making sure we have a arsenal ready at all times for a medium war, possibly against peers.
There’s so many our government don’t care anymore
Surely there must be a 'Britishness' factor to integrate with manpower size on one side of the "effectiveness" equation?
Look at the following Afghanistan war (2001-2021) KIA numbers: UK =457
France + Germany + Italy + Denmark + Spain + Netherlands + Sweden + Netherlands + Belgium = 314
The UK is the only European armed force to wholly immerse itself in front-line operations.
Ukraine is loosing more than than this every day😮put that in perspective
@@steve-xx6or Nothing to do with the video subject. 😲Get some perspective.
If Ajax does come through, there is a new automated 155mm howitzer mounted on a boxer chassis, crew of 2 and can fire in the move. That would be a good reuse for those vehicles.
Thank you very much for an honest and thoughtful video. Extremely briefly, Britain needs four divisions at a minimum, with the existing 3rd Division duplicated. This would allow Britain a chance to maintain one division in the field for a prolonged time, by rotating in and out the 3rd Div and another similarly equipped division. And, finally, you can't have joint fires unless there is something to fire. The Russian doctrine has not changed in 200 years and relies on massive fires from tube and rocket artillery, and unless Britain can match (or disable that) Britain's troops on the ground won't last long.
Looking at the Ukraine war, I dare say not even 5 divisions are good enough, we have seen both sides especially Russia move three divisions in as just regular reinforcements.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD yes I agree! Unfortunately, the capacity to stand up three divisions in a short space of time just isn't there. Even standing up one additional division will be a stretch in terms of barracks facilities, equipment, SNCOs and officers (assuming there are enough recruits), but it would be a start. Bring on five combat divisions once they have three.
@@wochee Exactly, we need more manpower and soon.
Capita needs to go, they are a chain on the army dragging down it's recruitment numbers. The perks and after service care need to be better, the job has to pay as much or more than most jobs in the same age range. The Barracks need better living accommodations as well.
Also we need more equipment to arm a bigger military.
Great video, and a lot of important topics raised. I'm old enough to remember BAOR and the Falklands, and no way could the UK do that today. It's not the men, they remain, as they have often been, real gutter fighters.
When people see "70 thousand men", they fail to understand that most of those men and women are not front-line combat troops. Cooks, Bottle-washers, transport drivers, clerks, laundry personnel, office staff, warehouse staff, MPs, the bloke who grooms the regimental goat. They're all necessary, but really, I agree, the Uk would struggle to put a full-sized combined arms Division into the field and keep it there.
Under-manned, under-paid, undersupported. Just like the police, the NHS,et., al.
Bloody shameful really.
It's all a bit hush-hush but a confidential source has told me that the Women's Institute are now training the militant Brownies how to fight with Ninja crochet hooks and flower arranging scissors. Keep it under your hat, ssshhhhush.
It’s an interesting time, it’s a new world and it’s rapidly changing, I’m interested in seeing how they deal with the challenge of recruitment. We don’t live in a society where its us VS them anymore and what it means to be British and proud of it is brought into question everyday. I would be really interested in the reasons why younger people of today join the army, there are many reasons to do so, it may just not be as obvious as previous generations.
Maybe there is a need to stop pandering to those "many reaso s" and start advertising for young men who are willing to go "us vs. them".
"Us vs. Them " is the reason why you have a military.... not to provide diverse career opportunities
we dont, we arent dying for these people who have ruined the country and forced us to leave if we ever want to buy a house and raise a family.
Fuck the UK
i think most youngsters that join up today are avid call of duty players, and simply envision themselves kicking ass on the battlefield. however im sure many hasnt quite accepted there isnt a restart button. when killed.
@@RansomeDavis A high tolerance for risk has been a feature of testosterone-filled young men for far longer than computer games have been around.
There’s nothing “toxic” about that.
@@peterwebb8732 we all got told to feck off by capita mate
The crown had loyalist Queen’s Rangers and King’s Rangers prior to and during the American revolution, so perhaps not named after the US Army Rangers?
Technically you are correct of course, but I think my point still stands.
@@redcoathistory I would argue the British Army has simply reclaimed the Ranger title. Any way great video, as usual ;)
I think the inspiration is rather obvious and I doubt many involved in the process knew much of the history involved. It's not like they've ever cared enough to preserve historic regiments.
I don't think we ever recovered from WW2. When it comes to major wars the future is worse as a result. It's not just the irreversable physical damage & unmitigated strain on the economy, but also the scars we don't see on poor families who lost loved one's in war. *NAFO Fellas* online who counter disinformation also do NOT understand how devastating a real war is, and if they felt a moment or the pain in a Soldiers shoes during combat, they wouldn't be so arrogant.
The people that upset me the most who think war is a game.
It will humble you so fast you won't know what hit you.
Absolutely riveting and very enlightening video totally out of the norm but totally fascinating , and also very depressing to be honest. One question I would raise on your Manpower Strengths section at 1.30 minutes in is that although you found Army strength for 1710 @ 68k , 1790 @ 53k , for 2024 @ 71.8k How does that relate to the U.K. population at those times , I’m willing to bet it’s now a very small percentage compared to those other dates . I was not military but had 2 brothers now in their 60s and 70s both in the Artillery mostly in Germany with BAOR they tell me we have few operational Challengers and the next generation cannot be made in the U.K. due to lack of specialised steel production , other ex Navy friends tell me the aircraft carriers are constantly out of service being repaired as are our submarines, Ex Airforce at local British Legion laugh at the stories they hear of zDEI incompetence and ineptitude and lack of serviceable equipment …….not as the Government’s spokesperson says at all …
I also have friends who were Rhodesian Army , 80+ years old and they laugh out loud at modern European troops as totally lacking “ spirit” that made Rhodesian army absolutely formidable .
The common phrase that sums up the British military, "We're still lagging behind.........."
A note on the possibility of a falklands war, from what I remember, we weren't in a brilliant position to take back the Falkland's during the last war. We ended up having to convert civilian vessels for military use to transport equipment and men.
My friend group through high school had about 7 of us in it and 5 of us applied over the last year all rejected on medical before the assessment centre
As an outsider, I think you guys you'll be fine as long as you fix your recruitment and "culture" issues first. In contrast to the Armed forces of the Philippines(AFP), in 2020 was said to be around 150,000 personnel. Thats all branches and were potentially going against China. Our Army is like 100.000 out of that total. The last time we fought a superpower was Japan in WW2 and we were technically a US territory then. Now were still bros with the US but our lack of tech and power alone wont do anything offensive to China Im afraid, we get bullied in our territory after all.
On the topic of Reseves, look up a video by Perun , on the topic of Defence Stategies for Small Nations.
The Boxer project is going to make Ajax look like a success
The US Army actually took the name "Rangers" from us. My problem with the Rangers is that four infantry battalions have been converted to that role. We only had 31 to start with. Now, by the time you allow for the Rangers, Specialist Infantry Battalions, SFSg etc we only have 21 actual line infantry battalions - and most of them are badly understrength, some of them so much that they're combat ineffective.
Quite a negative report I would say, but I guess the situation is the same in most western european countries, at least also here in Sweden. Things are now slowly beginning to change.
interesting . . . and a sad situation, in a dangerous world.
Reduce the full time army, make the territorials more attractive, give bonuses to employers etc. The army should be protecting our shores not sent to costly and useless conflicts. The Swiss model is for us. When we had an Empire to look after, you can understand it, as we were protecting BRITISH land. Now, we're a 2nd rate European country. (5 yrs regular, 15 yrs territorial)
I'm not a brit, but here is my 2 coppers, Ukraine had a lot of people volunteering when the full scale invasion started, also probably quite a few who had experience from the war in Donbas(2014 - ), in case of a major war in Europe I imagine the UK might get a similiar influx of veterans, e.g people who were 20 years old at the start of 2000s(Iraq, Afghanistan) would be 40-ish now, unless they are as round as beer kegs now I think they could still serve in many roles, average age is quite high in Ukraine since they are trying to protect their future generations, you dont want to wreck the demographic pyramid if you can avoid it, losing 10s of thousends of people in their early/mid 20s would hurt any country a lot, in many ways.
In my country we have selective conscription(I did my national service a couple of years ago), everyone gets screened, and they pick less than 10%(e.g less than 10% of those born 2004) of us, the best suited and preferably people who are motived/interested/willing gets called up, it's also a way to recruit soldiers and sailors to the professional, full-time service, or for the Home Guard. The rest of us gets placed in the wartime organisation, that is, we gonna get mobilized if the shit would ever hit the fan.
I don't think you need to worry about the Falkland Islands. :)
6 Div doesn’t exist anymore was closed down months ago, the units have been moved about
I don't think we've ever been ready for any modern war we've been in it just seems to happen, and everything clicks into place Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan, we seemed to just get dragged in without any preparation
Chris - I wish you worked for MoD!
That may shake 'em up.
First of all, just who is the enemy?
A very good synopsis of the situation the UK land army is curently in. I am with you on the ranger opinion, we British have a long history with no need to follow any other countrys models.
Lets be honest about recrutment & retention, all you points are bang on the money. I will add the constant imposition of civilianized work related ethics is undermining the traditinal oporating methods of the British Army.
I left in 2018 - at that point, recruits could pass out of depot without having passed any of their fitness or marksmanship tests; told they would “learn at regimental duty”. Said units however received barely any time or funding for training. The numbers of deployable troops in each unit are also always fudged by over worked Ops Officers to make Brigades look better than they are. The whole system is broken.
77th Brigade is the only element that is fighting fit and they use that against us!
Chris, I’m surprised, I thought for sure you were a veteran!
The British caliphate. Lmao. There’s no Britain anymore. It’s gone.
Enemy is not only within the gates it's running everything!
My grandfather used to say that England always performs the best in times of war. In times of crisis everyone just forgets their internal squabbles, abolish the great inefficiencies present in the country in times of peace and works with everybody else to ensure society works smoothly. This would happen in the case of a foreign invasion threatening the British Isles even in the future I think.
As regards the size of the army, I don't think that should be a cause for concern. Just as you pointed out, Britain's army has for the most of British history been relatively small. Its purpose has historically not been primarily to defend the homeland. That rôle has primarily been filled by the wooden walls of the Royal Navy and the seas and oceans that surround it - '... girt about by the seas and oceans, where the Navy reigns,' as Churchill put it. Even though he had been First Lord of the Admiralty, he did concede however concerning the German Luftwaffe that the RN was: '... no defence.'
If you listen to former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officers and UN WMD inspector Maj. (Retd.) Scott Ritter, he will tell you that no European NATO power could field even a division for service in Ukraine against Russia. Furthermore, the Russians by now have ample combat experience which is invaluable. Just look at the value of the Wehrmacht combat experience from the Spanish Civil War against France in the early stages of the Second World War. The Russian Army is substantial. Finally, any conflict between the U.S./NATO and Russia and/or China is certain to evolve very quickly into an all out nuclear conflict, because the non-nuclear conflict would quickly prove an existential threat to the great powers involved. Russia has very powerful conventional ordinance (FOAB equivalents) that it could deploy and to which the West could deem it necessary to retaliate with nuclear weapons, according to its 'escalate to deescalate' policy. If the West were foolish enough to allow its Ukrainian proxy to strike Moscow, the Russians have said they would consider that an existential threat to the motherland and that as the Ukrainians could not carry out the strikes without Western arms and assistance, would consider the Western powers to have declared war on Russia. Under the new nuclear doctrine, declared earlier this autumn, this could result in Russian nuclear strikes on the Western countries it deems are part of the Western alliance having declared war on Russia. My own analysis is that in such a scenario, they would be more likely to strike cities like London or Stockholm, because countries like the UK and Sweden have been most vociferous in their support for the Ukrainians in the war in Ukraine, and perhaps not initially at the U.S., so as not to escalate to a global end times thermonuclear conflict if possible. In practice it would probably matter little however, as any nuclear conflict would with near certainty quickly go global. Author Annie Jacobsen deems that global thermonuclear war would probably last 72 hours before humanity and civilisation, at least in any shape resembling those of today, would have ended.
But that is all moot. There isn't going to be any overt, non-proxy war between the UK and any other European power or great power on the global stage because the economic élites that control the political élites in the U.S., Russia, China and the other great powers, do not want an end to the world. They much prefer spending time of their yatchs and golf courses to in underground bunkers.
So what will the British Army be used for? Probably the kind of power projection which has been its traditional rôle, rather than territorial defence. If there is an invasion of the mainland, the army could lead the resistance against the occupier and carry out guerilla style strikes on occupier infrastructure and military installations, the way all domestic insurgency groups operate. This was the plan for the Swedish military when conscription was abolished and it was scaled down in the détante of the 1990s. The likelihood of a foreign invasion (other than a foreign force invited in) of the UK is to my mind extremely low however, so the purpose of the British Army for the foreseeable future appears to be as previously mentioned power projection.
As regards kit, it would seem that the new Challenger is an excellent piece of machinery. I am also positively impressed by the Swedish mobile artillery. The Boxer however, may not be what it's cracked up to be. In the footage you showed you did not once see it on anything but roads.
i think an important point of the size of the army throughout history should be measured next to the population of the country
Never underestimate the British armed forces
Lol
The term Ranger and Ranger units were originally British from the French/Indian wars.
True (i have a video in the works about them) but it has since been an American unit since WW2 and isn''t a good look in my opinion. Only a tiny number of people will know the origin of the name. I actually wander if "The Guides" might have been better. . .
Sadly the quick answer is no. But this has been a long time in coming with getting the armed forces to where they are now. It will take a decade to repair the damage done. My question is where will funds be sought for this and with the horrible and wasteful procurement / reputation of our ministry of defence will our military get the very best that it requires. I think not sadly.
I agree, the British Army no longer knows what it is, what it stands for and is forgetting how to be a winner. This, is obvious to the trained eye. This IMO also applies to the new Ranger Reg, its neither 'fish nor fowl'. I'm a soldier from the 80's & 90's. I also spent 6 years as a recruit trainer and I firmly believe 'recruitment' has lost the plot.
I blame years of destructive, crap politicians and self-serving senior military leadership.
'For the want of a nail a shoe has been lost' !
Cheers mate. The Aussie army is always upgrading too
Forgot to mention.... brilliant analysis...Ta!✌️
Is this normal in ‘peace’ time? Ebs and flows? We saw similar topics come to the forefront when the Herricks picked up in 06- dated kit, lack on manpower etc. roll on 2013/2014, the advancements were fantastic by that point.
On another note, is it worth joining these days? Asking for a friend ahah 😂🤘🏻
The size of army to the size of population has definitely gone down
So your not sure that the present Labour government are interested in the army.
But all the gaps in the army and military in general you mention have come after 14 years of conservative government.
Yet many in this country think the tories are the best for the safety and security of the nation.
This really does baffle me?
How do people come to this conclusion?
Well said
It's a false dichotomy, which is what the two party system relies on.
I mean when has Labour ever cared for the military? Has Starmer shown any interest in it either?
Your Tories in the U.K like our Liberals in Australia are not conservative.
The new regiment Rangers is not really an American name the term ranger was heavily used during the French & Indian war by British and American units. Don’t forget the Irish Ranger’s and the Connaught Rangers. During WW2 we named our commandos Ranger as not be confused the British commandos. The job the British Rangers are to do as elite light infantry dates back to that time period so what was old is now the latest and greatest. Great video
As soon as the Iron Curtain came down, that was the excuse for ALL Politicians to drastically cut the Armed Forces. In 91, out in Saudi, the Military struggled to supply a complete Armoured Division. Only 3 years before, we had 3 in Germany. As for Ajax, its that typical Defense Procurement attitude, "its not our money so lets just keep spending it". The answer to that, and saving BILLIONS in the process would be to do what a lot of European Militaries did, buy the CV90.
I grew up 70/80s. Cubs, scouts, cadets we flew the flag had parades on every occasion. Conditioned to have respect to the country and Queen. We were proud. Grandparents fought in the war so we listened to stories. Now if I fly a flag I am racist lol. We don't have the numbers on the ground, as you point out we were unprepared for wars before even under nourished. Though the people were tougher. We don't have a great pool to find recruits and yes tech has come a long way but in war you will need resources to build the tech or even replace the chips or precious metals. I spent the weekend in Birmingham and went to a wedding in a mosque, it was an amazing weekend and I was looked after and not allowed to pay for anything. The shops were full the streets buzzing and there was an amazing community spirit. It reminded me of my youth. As soon as I stepped out of those areas the streets were dead, shops boarded. If we were to fight or be dragged into conflict, say the French send troups to Ukraine and we become entwined openly then we would be stretched and if there was an enemy within, I'm sorry to say we are going to get Beasted. We have no community spirit, religion or binds. Politicians don't seem to have our best interests at heart. We may have had our best days behind us. The 14st 5ft Bobby ain't going to save us 😂
So I live abroad but . . . I hear you re. community spirit. I live in a majority muslim area and I am shocked in a good way at the sense of community. I patrol with the neighbourhood watch and am included in all events. When I was living in a different suburb I didn't even see my neighbours. I don't know how Britain gets that sense of community back now that Christianity is not as strong as it was and there is no sense of patriotism or belonging. I am worried for the future of Britain.
I don't think it will. Unless Parliament is shaken up. History has a way of repeating itself and nothing lasts forever. Wars do bring people together and rebuild. I do enjoy your pieces on the peninsula war. I've been to Vitoria and Galicia. Would like to follow one of the marches on foot. Be funny to wear the uniform whilst doing it, getting the full experience 😂 keep up the good work!
It is much easier to use special forces trained troops as regular infantry than to use regular infantry for special missions. Training a large special forces group makes sense for a small army.