Відео

@bueno_oneub_04th and 7th brigades currently have 11 infantry battalions. They need only eight. So this gives you three battalions. Add the experimental battalion and you have the four battalions that 19th and 11th mechanised brigades need.

@@Tailpipe26 ❤

That’s not the size of the army, that’s the entire military. The British infantry army is actually just below 20,000

How Ukraine fight is not how NATO or US fight wars, we are designed to get air superiority and not fight along a massive 1500 km front line like some WW2 eastern front shootout, massive artillery duel, where neither side have close air support. US and Europe ain't even able to produce enough shells for this, so we busy ramping up production as Russia have depleted our stockpiles of artillery shells. The west wins by controlling the air and sea, as a former Norwegian ranger trained to operate in the Arctic wilderness near Russian border, the mission was clear, do as much sabotage as we could and die. No point kidding yourself when operating 500 km away from your own division HQ and being long range recon of the first NATO ground force tasked to stop an attack. Hold out until NATO reinforcements arrive against huge odds. Only army corps in Murmansk peace time, but would be a field army there if things was hot. Air defence and power is the key, do not need to go to Ukraine to know this, was so in 1940 and been so ever since. Then we need to secure supply lines at sea, nothing new under the Sun, lessons learned from land-locked country ain't that relevant to UK.

Answer: NONE

Like you, I served mid eighties to mid 90's, taking third phase redundancy as part of the Options for Change reductions in regular service numbers. When you look back you can see that we had already seen a significant decline in capacity and ability to conduct to battle operations- look specifically at Op Granby and how we had to beg, borrow and steal ( aka cannibalise) from across BAOR and U.K. to get enough battle worthy equipment together to make a battle group deployment to The Gulf. How they coped in Afghanistan is beyond me. The questions I ask myself are... do young people of today have the same inclination to join the armed services as we did 40 years ago and would I offer my services if the Government asked the public to mobilise due to conflict that directly threatened the U.K? Interested to read your thoughts....

@@stevei0220 if there was a genuine existential threat to the UK I do think young and old people would flock to the colours and step up. The problem with this would be how do you process and train/equip such large numbers of people quickly enough? The professional army would quickly degrade in high intensity conflict and we’d have a small window of opportunity to mobilise reserves and train up replacement volunteers. I can’t see how the system would cope in its current form. That’s why we need a short term contract of say two years where there is an incentive to become trained and part of a ready reserve, not based on conscription but with similar training and skill levels.

Don’t have the equipment to arm this hypothetical army of conscripts

The focus should be beyond just Europe however. Russia and China now are firmly set into the vast resources of Africa and undoubtedly shattered Western influence. Now Russia already has control of the most resourceful areas of Ukraine. China is set on taking Taiwan. Iran's nuclear ambitions are uncertain and threaten to plunge the Middle East into a nuclear arms race if they go ahead.

@@dailygurrilavideos Thank you for that clarification.

What was mentioned in the video was not a large standing army, it's a small one designed to be easily deployable. If the UK wants to be able to protect its international assets and dissuade others from taking advantage then it needs the ability to deploy a fighting force on short notice. Not having infantry or tanks would massively limit the operation capability of the UK meaning even a rogue african nation could take advantage of it. Remember NATO only covers the north Atlantic thats why article 5 was not triggered from the Falklands. Just having the capability will deter most from risking it, one of the reason the Falklands war happened was because the UK govt decided to reduce their military and withdraw the one ship they had in the area. Making it a juicy target for a desperate country.

Right. So that's 2% more income tax for the numbers, another 3% for the industrial capacity, and 2 % on interest rates for the debt. How will you be paying sir? Smaller house, sell a car or cancelled operation?

...it literally is replacing warriors in service as we speak.

​@@lewisallan9963​@lewisallan9963 Hi mate, I did not aim that statement at you. Please allow me to explain. The equipment drives its specification. Warrior was never designed to carry out role of an a RECCE vehicle. The exchange rate is SCIMITAR out, WR in? So, where are the Crew? CVR crewman are going to need double training - CVR trained crew, retrained to WR for a while. And ultimately RETAINED to AJAX some when. 30mm gunner retrained to WR, theb to 40mm. We have been told the answer for RECCE is AJAX, because it MUST be, but we can use WR to do that?? What is the gap analysis?? Because there is one! Perhaps we can prove that a 30 odd tonne WR can fill the role? For how long and at what% of AJAX capability reduction? The COC have accepted reduction of Capability, for how long? This has long been accepted as coming - and we have told 'them' that the King has no blaster clothes on, to no avail. This is, I am afraid, BOLLOCKS! You took risk on CVR, on WR, instead of converting CVR to uncrewed and now find yourself unable to convert because you took risk and ended up without tge ability to remotely operate! I would have been LAUGHED out of the room!

Except usually our old stuff are costing more to maintain than buying new stuff. Some of the type 23 frigates were costing hundreds of millions to maintain

@Cav-z1y I won't believe this until I find it out the hard-way. The real problem here is that testing & maintenance on individual parts just isn't done frequently enough. And also, there's a huge cost to having shit parts compatibility, which is something Bri'ish people love trashing across every type and generation of vehicles.

@@mashpotaeto the difference between the uk and many other countries except USA I suppose is the uk is constantly using the equipment in training and exercises. This means we have some of the best trained crews around but also means the equipment takes a beating and need retirement much sooner. See how Germany still operates tornados that we retire a decade ago, because the raf is flying those daily while they just sit on German air fields

@@mashpotaeto The cost of a type 31 frigate is £250 million built from scratch and modern, HMS iron duke (type 23) cost £100 million+ just to fix up into useable condition with older equipment So you can keep this going till 2035 have either 1 type 31 (root uk usually takes) or 2 fixed up old type 23 (what other countries like Russia does) and then on paper Russia out numbers Uk by 2:1

Strangers? Oh dear....

Fact is that a diverse country isn't going to do well in a full scale war. The thinking seems to be that war will always be on someone else's land and that the troops can come home for a cuppa, but not in their uniforms as that might upset folks back home with a different opinion of the people being fought against. Diverse nations in full scale conflict have been seen already with Iraq and Afghanistan, you can probably include Syria now too. Internal divisions manifest, different groups have ties to different outside groups, it becomes Balkanised very quickly. Trying to sabre rattle while promoting diversity is a fools errand. Even the Soviets pushed ethnic consciousness for propaganda purposes during WWII.

​@@damionkeeling3103take your prejudices somewhere else, it bores. I hear Russia would be ideal for your views.

@@damionkeeling3103 What about America? That is a "diverse" military, if we are talking ethnicity.

Amd the US is famous for not being able to sustain large losses or drawn out conflicts in part because of that.​@@theotryhard8651

@@Wobbler619 but why? What is the need?? NATO is much larger now, let those countries look after continental Europe. Britain should bring Naval power and Air power to the party. The Army should be supplemental to those needs and our NATO commitments (ARRC HQ plus 1 Heavy Division)

No, the army is not the focus of the UK. We're an island..... What has been outlined here is perfect for protecting our interests in Europe as the army always has. The navy and RAF have the responsibility of being our main soft and hard power forces.

Fully agree.

Yk initially i was against this, but leaving coloured people and women out of the frontline and just sending english boys to die for their country doesnt sound too bad.

Welfare and Nigerian underwater basket weavers…..

I have for years contemplated this and yes, you're right we being beaten here without even fielding a team - unforgiveable lack of foresight and inability to smell any coffee. There is the potential for a civilian grouping here (probably under the guidance or even as an integral part of GCHQ - Matters not at this point who runs it just that we have a capability and somebody runs it. It can be evolved as lessons are learned. Let's just call it Hybrid force for the sake of this post. The army is losing a great many youngsters for a variety of reason (beyond the scope of this post to rectify any of them) but does the country need to lose these, once so motivated and now trained individuals, simply because they are pissed off beyond salvation by the Ivory tower dwellers and bean counters? Whether they come from the ranks of the infantry. SF element or tech elements (R/Signals) etc if they have the IQ, the desire and the option they can still be put to enormous use in the defence and safety of the nation. How many good people on reaching their 22 year point are just lost to further employment/deployment for the defence of the nation, its interests and it's long swept under the carpet requirements? Some will happily go into the reserve, some may wish to continue their own dream - some may wish to be considered of further use to their country (yes that desire really does extend beyond the 22 years pension in some!) Utilize these options with those of the civilian world who may wish to just have a slice more akin to the gig economy and give a couple of years of their lives toward something greater than the next spliff or piss up or sexual encounter! How many ex police/fire/prison/customs/Border force etc etc etc may be happy to extend their useful years in return for a decent wage and a whole new interesting and oh so useful/required force for good rather than slipping away to grow Dahlia's/breed budgies/get bored shitless in the furthest reaches of the UK? I would call in the last head of the SIS - the most recently retired one and ask him/her to ruminate/pioneer this idea and then crack on with giving it birth. The leader of this would be answerable to ??????? Anyone but a solely political animal. I have ideas on how to make it attractive to those it should be attracting and how to loosely organize it initially but it would take a far greater brain than mine to implement it to the point it is meaningful and effective. There is also an idea of greater complexity which I have nurtured to increase the numbers militarily at minimal cost and the greatest benefit of the nation (and beyond) Nobody to bounce these ideas off of who has any sort of credibility/connections/voice in the matter though - shame because it is an idea whose time has come and should be evolved into something productive by again an expert in the matter.

The biggest non nuclear budget was cyber warfare budget pre labour. Something like £4 billion a year was going to be spent over the next decade in the consecutives plans

@@Scaleyback317I have often thought that we ought to have a national, multi- faceted Civil Contingency Force that is able to be deployed in response to major incidents - anything from an crashed aeroplane and flooding to infrastructure failure or logistic support to our full time emergency services and armed forces. Like you, the idea is there but bringing it to fruition and to the right ears is a different matter.

@@stevei0220 I had considered similar mate but with teams of volunteers from military backgrounds and under the instruction of the UN (though of course could be amended easily enough. I had considered a military force to be based somewhere a little more centrally and Cyprus sprang to mind as an ideal location. This force to be made up of a squadron of Royal Engineers, a logistics troop, signals troop, a medical troop, and an infantry company. To be split into for teams each with a medium lift helicopter and a transport aircraft dedicated to each team (retiring C130's could fit the bill). This would remain as an integral part of the British Forces but under the direct control of the foreign office rather than the MOD. The bill for this to be met from the foreign aid budget and not the MOD. Civilians - ie fire/police/interpreters/legal advisors/ to be included in the make up of the teams and maybe even commanded by an official from the Foreign Office in order to accentuate the civil use to which these military personnel would be deployed in time of emergency. If other nations would consider similar then we could have a quick thinking, quick acting professional plane load of people (with more to follow if required) to be deployed to wherever in the world they may be required and even doing it under the auspices of the UN if necessary. We're not a million miles apart in this thought which tells me it's probably not as idealistically foolish or accomplishable or even less required than we have each envisage - merely a different slant in the make up of the force. Armed infantry to be deployed either as such if the security sit calls for or an additional manpower/back up for the specialists. Now how do we make the bean counters listen???? An idea I've had to address the hybrid threat as outlined in the video is a lot more convoluted/far reaching/expensive - which right there means it's not something any British Government would wish to give birth to - no matter how much money it would save in the long run - it's only up to the next voting opportunity which attracts the attention of those in the decision making processes unfortunately.