Or British military history has shown that they have fought more with European Coalitions to confront major continental Powers than they have been outnumbered or outgunned.
UK has always been an 11th hour nation. Not necessarily a good trait but we do have a history of scrambling last minute and still delivering results lol
“They are in front of us, behind us, and we are flanked on both sides by an enemy that outnumbers us 29:1. They can’t get away from us now!” - Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller, USMC I think the British echo that sentiment.
Are you suggesting British soldiers should just, not train for all situations in all theatres and environments, this is exactly how they got to be so competent.
yup ITS why our soldiers man for man are not just vastly superior but win wars. Oh yes i cant remember when the last time the friendly fire yanks won a war on their own.
He seems to think it would be nato going into russia, if it ever came to that the nukes would fly making 99% of training obsolete, these guys are training because any war would be what's called a proxy war taking place in a country probably bordering russia like latvia, poland etc in that case nato would fight the invading force using the kind of tactics these soldiers are training for, but it would only be too liberate the country not to try to invade russia, and after Ukraine this type of training has become all the more important
I've said it before, I'll say it again. We Brits are masters of the military jumpscare, you know we're here when shit starts blowing up, but rarely ever before.
The easiest way to explain how and why the British forces are so good is to say the following. We will teach you all YOU know. BUT we won't teach you all WE know. For example the SAS, the SBS and exercises like When Britain nuked America twice.
I saw a clip of a former SAS soldier saying that the hardest place for soldiers to train in the world is Wales 😂 it's cold, wet, muddy and miserable 24/7 according to him.
One of the best allegories I've ever heard was during a training exercise involving one of the most elite Green beret Teams and and an SAS unit, the Berets put up a sign outside their camp saying "no one better", the SAS put up a sign saying "no one". Fun fact: British special forces built and trained US Special forces from scratch and still to this day train US special forces. Case closed. US special forces are below the SAS, SBS and Ghurkhas. Those are the most elite forces on Earth.
@@darthwiizius Gurkhas aren't Special Forces mate, they're just light infantry (and I'd argue there a a number of better light infantry formations in the British Army than the RGR.)
Conner, it's quality over quantity that counts, the UK has fought in 93 different countries around the world over the centuries and it's a bit embarrassing really because we did miss a few out. 😉
@@Truthbomb918 I have! You clearly have not. The first afghan war could be considered a draw the British Invaded and occupied the country beating every force it came up against apart from the loss of Elphinstone's army they withdrew some years later, the occupation not being worth the trouble. The 2nd afghan war was a complete British victory with the treaty of Gandamak and the British installing a new leader in Abdur Rahman Khan, it wasn't even close. The 3rd Afghan war had the Afghan actually invading this time and although heavily outnumbering the British (mainly Indian sepoys) won the major engagement of that war when the Afghan camp was seized by two platoons from the 1st/25th London and two troops from the 37th Lancers. Although on the battlefield the British had won they ended up giving the Afghans what they wanted in a peace treaty a year later. So please do not tell me to educate myself when clearly you just heard the usual trope of Afghanistan never being conquered and parroted it out like you actually have a fkn clue what you are talking about, how about instead of regurgitating your clear hate for the British you actually go learn some history for yourself and form your own opinions and not let other peoples misinformed opinions shape yours.
@@Truthbomb918 By lost do you mean didn't take over the country? because I think you'll find that wasn't their objective and all of their main objectives were accomplished before they left. Maybe go educate yourself.
People forget that for the first eighteen months of the Second World War the USSR was more or less an ally of Hitler's Germany. While most of Europe was struggling with Hitler's blitzkrieg in 1940, the Soviet Union just walked into Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and tried to walk into Finland. The Soviet Union had to be allowed to keep the three Baltic States after the Second World War - albeit as Soviet Socialist Republics - and they only became properly independent when the Soviet Union collapsed about 1990.
Even the Russian government like to gloss over that little detail especiall with Putin going on about Nazis in Ukraine at the moment doesn't like to tell himself they supported them and sided with them at the start.
Hi Connor, Practically, the Soviet Union kept Latvia (and Estonia and Lithuania) by simple force of arms. Politically they stayed there 'cos we couldn't be bothered at the end of the Second World War. The Queen's Own Yeomanry are a light-armoured reconnaissance regiment of the UK reserve army. They are based in York ('old' York that is 🙂, in Yorkshire).
I don't think being bothered had anything to do with it, Churchill warned before the end of WW2 that an iron curtain was about to decend across Europe, no-one listened and frankly after six years of total war Europe was exhausted with no more stomach for anymore fighting.
"Yeomanry" is a name that's found attached to several British Army regiments. In pre-industrial times a "Yeoman" was someone of the more prosperous farming class, i.e. small independent farmer, agricultural worker made good. In the beginning they formed volunteer groups which became the British Army alongside the more official cavalry regiments and the like. So there's something slightly independent, proudly dirty-fingernailed about belonging to a Yeomanry regiment.
Mine was formed because of a bread riot in Paignton, someone had to show those peasants what for 😂 The funny thing was by the time they were formed and got there the riots had ended, but the unit was not only kept, but expanded to include a detachment in Paignton and other places in Devon.
Historically, Yeomanry were volunteer cavalry regiments. As the make-up of the British army changed over the years Yeomanries were rolled into the Reserves. So you'll see Reserve centres around cities in the UK for Signals, Engineering, Artillery Yeomanries. So if you see someone who is part of a Yeomanry they'll be a Reservist. Historically the Royal Yeomanry were a light cavalry regiment. So looks like the L/Cpl is acting in the traditional military role of mobile recon with the Lancers. 😁
The yellow thing on the end of the soldiers personal weapon barrel is a BFA (blank firing attachment). This prevents debris from leaving the muzzle and produces a higher internal pressure to cycle the weapon properly.
Thanks! I'd presumed it was an indicator that it was setup for blanks rather than functional. Although I guess it does also act as an indicator too even if that's not its primary function.
@@fastdruid Yes that's the reason it's painted bright yellow, so it's obvious that it is fitted and blank rounds are being used. I can't remember how many, but it is also designed to withstand a certain number of live rounds being fired, if somehow you mistakenly tried firing live rounds instead of blank. You will also see the same yellow on the magazines when blank firing, the magazines are different so that live rounds cannot be loaded into a blank magazine, just in case somehow you ended up with live rounds and somehow didn't notice the difference.
Not just national pride speaking but using a British reconnaissance regiment as the enemy force is going to be some high quality training those guys have decades of experience and are specialized in operating as small highly mobile raiders using stealth to locate where their enemies are most vulnerable before striking.
Wargames is a vital part of NATO training and operation. During a (fairly) recent naval event a Swedish stealth submarine managed to penetrate an entire battle group, park itself undetected under an American aircraft carrier before announcing it's presence with a kind of "Bang bang, you're dead" type of message! Joking aside about the string of blue language that was said to have come from the American captain's mouth. Important lessons were learnt and weaknesses were addressed to ensure a real enemy wouldn't be able to repeat this. That is why NATO is at the cutting edge of military strength and "preparedness" ...Simples
Also, since then an SAS led Anglo-Dutch exercise overwhelmed US special forces in an exercise where the US were proving defensive strength tactics. The defenders were defeated in short order without facing a numerical attacking advantage.
this is essentially giving nato a better 'enemy' before it fights the russians , the british army despite its downsize is still a forerunner in military operations , still the innovater , still the most experienced army , it goes back to waterloo , the british have been on operations all over the world since then , constant combat pretty much for 200 years
I remember playing enemy on various NATO exercises, it was always great fun, we were let loose to try out new tactics etc. that weren't always conventional or standard, good fun for us, and also insightful for commanders in their assessments. That's why NATO joint exercises are so important.
The point is to practise defending a bordering NATO country that Russia might invade. Russia aren't likely to start launching nukes over Latvia or Estonia so training for more traditional warfare is still very important.
Its been almost 80 years since a Nuke was used, and there's been a shitload of conventional warfare since then. This is a training exercise, there's procedures to run off and get your NBC kit on but if it comes to a Nuke exchange the ground troops will mostly be doing humanitarian aid.
Yeomanry is a designation used by a number of units and sub-units in the British army reserves which are descended from volunteer cavalry regiments that now serve in a variety of different roles.
@@dernwine we're not just Challenger 2 crew replacement anymore, the Royal Wessex Yeomanry are expected to deploy in strength if a major conflict kicks off. Depending on the need and build up time it could be filling in crew slots of Regular units, deploying fully Reservist crewed tanks from a few to a squadron or even the entire regiment. We regularly deploy 1 or more fully reservist crewed Challengers alongside the regulars on their exercises in places like Poland and Estonia.
I loved NATO exercises, as a Brit soldier I learnt so much from our allies, learning to strip and reassemble each others front line rifles, machine guns and pistols, as well as their rank insignia. Then when 'end ex, came over the radios, away went the weapons and out came the beer and bbq's. Being only 18 at the time this was the best life, and i was getting paid to do it. Even when we had to do tours which were long stretches of boredom with bursts of shit your kecks scary, these were also great experiences of mil life, it taught you about your weaknesses and your strong points and importantly, reliance on your buddy and him knowing you had his back in return. It could be cold, wet and muddy with you being in a trench on your own, wondering WTF am i doing here, to. Laying by the side of a lake in Italy, sucking down a cold beer. The contrasts of army life had to be lived to be believed. I went to places and done things that my mates back home only ever got to see on the TV. The army was my mother, my father, my teacher, and I was one of its sons. Come each evening (duty permitting) I slept well with a clear conscience. Those heady days are long gone now, as are a fair few of my army buddies, my own injuries have left me almost crippled in my old age, and I can't say I like how this beautiful island of ours is turning out. But if I had the choice of doing it over again?. Hell yeah in a heartbeat.😊
Originally Yoemenary were formed during the Napoleonic wars to protect the British Isles as a reserve force and were not meant to serve overseas, in effect a Home guard. They were later taken fully into the British Army.
Death or Glory is so apt for a cavalry unit since when cavalry used horses way back in the day if they were committed in a battle they would usually win the day or die trying.
all sides now know , since the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster, that Nuclear bombs could work against you as much against then the foe . So that theart is just a paper tiger
All militaries should always be prepared for everything they can be prepared for. If they're not, they'll get far worse results from any engagement they enter into. This is not new. Vegetius in the late 4th Century stated; “In every battle, it is not numbers and untaught bravery so much as skill and training that generally produce the victory. ... No one is afraid to do what he is confident of having learned well. A small force which is highly trained in the conflicts of war is more apt to victory; a raw and untrained horde is always exposed to slaughter.” Or you could have an older, more pithy quote about the Legions from Josephus (1st Century AD); "Their battles were bloody drills, and their drills were bloodless battles". The first engagement of US troops in Europe/N Africa in WW2, the Battle of Kasserine Pass in Feb 1943 was a disaster for the allied forces. Over 3,000 dead and another 3,000 POWs - mostly US personnel - predominantly because the US Army was at that time poorly lead, poorly trained and had absolutely no experience. To make matters worse, they were up against Rommel and Von Arnim and the Afrika Korps, who had been fighting in N Africa for two years. To their credit, the US army quickly replaced incompetent commanders and adjusted both training and equipment levels, threatening a huge counter-attack and causing Rommel to decide to withdraw.
Artillery that is part of a tracked or wheeled chassis is known as a Self-Propelled Gun, or SPG. These are much more maneuverable then a regular towed howitzer and quicker to set up. At the 10:30 mark, the machine gun you see shooting out of that IFV's turret is a coaxial machine gun (or simply coax). These are machine guns placed next to the main gun on tanks, IFV's and any other turreted platform. These are generally used to engage targets where the main gun (either a tanks 120mm or IFV's 25, 30, or 40mm autocannon) would be overkill or waste of ammo, such as dismounted infantry. Back in WW2, not all tanks had coax's but most if not all had hull mounted machine guns, which were machine guns imbedded in the front hull. Unlike a coax however, these could obviously only shoot wherever the front of the tank was pointed at. We also can't forget about the turret mounted machine guns either, the ones attached to the vehicle commanders hatch. In training we use blanks with BFA's attached to the muzzle of our weapons, BFA's being the yellow attachment at the end of the barrel where the flash suppressor (muzzle) is. Basically, since our firearms are gas-operated, when a round is fired, the gas that propels the round is filtered through a pipe connected to the barrel leading back to the bolt. This gas is what allows the bolt to cycle the empty casing out and load a new round into the chamber. When we fire blanks however, because no round is in the barrel when fired, all of the gas would simply escape through the muzzle without enough filtering though to cause the cycling effect, thus we have to "plug" the barrel to keep the gas inside the barrel and compete the cycling process. Not sure if this made sense but it was the easiest way for me to describe it.
The Royal Lancers is an amalgamation for a number of former tank regiments that include the 16/5th Lancers and 17/21st Lancers. My father was tank gunner in the 16/5th in North Africa and Italy, which included the 3rd and 4th battles at Monte Cassino.
NATO uses a system called MILES which is the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System and it's used to assess hits on equipment so for instance when the Self Propelled Artillery fire blanks the equipment can work out from both ends whether hit and how much damage was caused, the same on tanks and personal rifles etc - Theres a video by Foxtrot Alpha on Miles gear, it's 7 years old so just imagine how much it has improved in that time
After seeing a lot of the Ukraine v Russia war the tactics here look very similar. It would be interesting to see what their anti drone (the small ones) tactics are as it seems that would be a huge problem.
The thing with nuclear weapons is that people mostly think of the ICBM's but they have nukes that will fit inside a suitcase that's low yield and will destroy a large area and with multiple deployed in strategic places or launched via an artillery system in a shell form they make up the vast majority of nukes.
If it has a bright yellow apparatus fitted to the barrel then this is a Blank Firing Attachment ( BFA) Not sure what the modern equivalent is but we had vests with receivers on them in the 90’s which corresponded with the direction of that Attachment when the round is fired.
My old regiment, 9th/12th Royal Lancers are now The Royal Lancers. The premier Recce Regiment of the British Army. We always get behind enemy lines and always finish the mission.
That territory is Kaliningrad, formerly Koenigsberg. It was a part of the former Prussia and the former state of Danzig. It’s very tough to train in the forces. I’ve done tours of Iraq and Afghanistan but others have been on a tougher journey than myself. Support and life after the forces tend to be lacking sadly.
When it comes to nuclear, the authority to fire will come from the central power. To stop that happening you need to do one of two things.... 1. Take the central power base, or cut communications from there to the missile launchers, 2. Take out the bases, ships or subs from which the missiles will be launched... Either way surreptitious action will be the way to handle it, and before sending in the SAS and/or SBS intelligence and information will be necessary.
That’s a different organisation, here the Royal Yeomanry are an Army Reserve unit with a history going back at least to the late 18th Century when Volunteer (part time) Cavalry units were formed from local people to defend against possible French invasion and called the Yeomanry units, the infantry equivalent were the Militia. The Royal Yeomanry are an amalgamation of all those Yeomanry units (such as the Cheshire Yeomanry) that still had an armoured role. Other Yeomanry units were converted either in WWI or WWII to Artillery, Engineer or other roles, for example the Monmouthshire Yeomanry were (are?) a Royal Engineer unit.
@@keithorbell8946 Almost but not quite right so a few minor corrections: The British Army Yeomanry Regiments are the Reserve component of the Royal Armoured Corps, it consists of 4 Regiments: The Royal Yeomanry (Light Recce on Jackals), Royal Wessex Yeomanry (Armoured Reserve, trained on MBTs) Queen's Own Yeomanry (Light Recce on Jackals) and the Scottish and Northern Irish Yeomanry (Light Recce on Jackals). All of them are amalgamations of previous Yeomanry volunteer cavalry units (the Cheshires you mentioned are part of the Queens Own Yeomanry, not the Royal Yeomanry btw) There are no Yeomanry units outside the Royal Armoured Corps Reserves, the unit you are thinking of is the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers (Militia), which, as their name suggests, is the last remaining militia unit in the British Army.
@@dernwine during both World Wars a number of Yeomanry units were converted to engineers and artillery units, just as some infantry battalions were converted to tank regiments in the RAC during WWII
We have military training units near where we live. Individuals can remain hidden in the undergrowth/surrounding areas near houses for up to 6 weeks at a time with no one knowing they are there, ‘apart from maybe the smell ‘ is what we were told.
wheeled artillery has become very popular in the last 20 years as drones flying over battlefields can spot enplacments so they now have to adopt shoot and scoot where they only have time to fire to fire a few rounds, so the faster they canrelocate out of range, the better. on top of a army heavy truck frame very little is needed, mostly the quick deploy stabiliser legs and turret... most can still do highway speeds so no need to transport on flatbeds Notable example is the Archer SPG a artilery gun on the back of a volvo a30d articulated dump truck.
Not just drones, counter-battery acoustic instruments and radar has meant fixed artillery positions have been extremely vulnerable for a long time now. Drones have enhanced the ability to locate ‘quiet’ guns, but as soon as they fire the sensors will locate the source much faster than any drone could.
They're referring to both. England existed way before Britain and the UK. The Nation of England was constantly at war. We beat the French and Spanish on multiple occasions. England evolved into Britain which evolved into the UK.
Pretty sure that accolade goes to France, who throughout history, have defeated us more than the other way around, and have won more wars in total. That said 18th Century onwards, the UK was op.
@@sebazufitness487 On pure numbers maybe. England fought much harder wars in general than France who just fought Haitians and Africans who were no challenge after Europe calmed down a bit. They only properly won a war against us a few times. Usually there was a truce or England just ran out of money and left. France never successfully invaded England for any length of time either. Plus you don't gain the rep as the worlds biggest white flag waivers if you're so good at war 🤣
Hi Mr.Mcjibbin big fan of your channel if you have not seen any wheeled artillery 6:32 you should look up the swedish artillery "archer". btw ty for the awesome video :D
We've all seen the amazing effort of the Ukrainian soldiers many are poorly trained conscripts and volunteers. They lack air superiority and many modern battlefield resources like a fully equipped NATO army. However, their determination and resilience has caused Russia a huge problem. I don't know why NATO has been so fearful of the Russian army as evidence seems to point to the fact they are not super soldiers but quite average and their losses especially elite units is to be admired. Back in the 70's and 80's when the US and the UK had hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in West Germany, military exercises were a regular occurrence as the Russian army back then was massive. From a UK perspective protecting an area from a Russian invasion was always doomed to fail in a conventional engagement, but the purpose was merely a holding action to provide UK politicians and it's allies at least 72hrs to decide whether to use the nuclear option. Back in those days there were battlefield nuclear weapons with a small yield. But that would inevitably start a chain of events leading to a full nuclear exchange no doubt. The largest UK military exercise I was ever involved in was Operation Lionheart in 1984 and it was on such a scale NATO these days couldn't put together the same amount of resources unless it was an actual conflict like operation desert storm.
The average british soldier trains for the same amount of time most countries (including americas) elite train for; englands elite troopers train twice that of the other nations...this training shows in nearly all of these training fights...in one of these the (english against the americans) the english won a 2 week battle in just a couple of days and after the americans asked for a rerun they said why bother and went on rnr :-)
Yeomanry: Historically yeoman were freemen/small farmers who owned their own land rather than being tenant farmers. In Saxon times any freeman could be called to the fyrd (militia). The yeomanry gre out of this tradition. As time went on they became a mounted militia/reserve force. They weren't front-line troops. They were often used by the authorities to quell riots and rebellion in Britain. Over time the yeomanry became better trained and more professional and were used as light cavalry. These days they they're a fully professional force. I'm not sure of their exact duties but I'm guessiing they're used as light troops, scouting, reconnaisance, etc without much in the way of heavy armour, etc.
The answer to your question at 4:20 is called "salami slicing". You don't launch a full offensive to get the other nation's capital. You just advance a bit and take some land then dig in. If you keep doing that over time eventually you've taken almost the whole country anyway.
Russia are at war with Ukraine at present but a nuclier weapon as not been used. It shows how good the British are when in no time at all they have well infaltrated enemy lines.
Solely relying on nuclear weapons for deterrence wouldn't be credible since the threshold and consequences for their use are so high... Russia can reasonably assume that NATO wouldn't go nuclear in response to a small-scale incursion, or even a somewhat larger invasion of its territory and so might not be effectively deterred from trying something like that if going nuclear is the only response NATO can give. So, for deterrence to be credible it needs to be multi-layered, meaning there's a proportional and realistic response to all potential acts of aggression Russia might consider. Ranging from relatively small actions like harassing and endangering NATO reconnaissance aircraft, to a conventional ground invasion, all the way up to all out nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are only really effective at deterring truly existential threats, such as a nuclear first strike or a full-scale invasion and conquest of your territory. A good example is how Russia's nuclear sabre-rattling has failed to deter Western material support for Ukraine. Threatening to nuke the West if they send certain conventional weapons to Ukraine just isn't credible since such an action would guarantee the total destruction of Russia too, when the weapons supplied clearly don't represent an existential threat to Russia.
I agree with you that Russia would not use nuclear weapons nor would NATO in conflicts away from their capital city or their territory. But do you believe that if Moscow or DC was under threat that neither Russia nor USA would use Nuclear weapons?
@McJibbin I think that would depend on the scale of the attack and whether the threat could be countered conventionally. But even if it could, that's the kind of scenario that can very quickly escalate to nuclear use.
Connor, you forget NATO is a defensive organisation, these exercises are defensive exercises, we train as realistically as possible so if there is a Russian invasion of Europe we are prepared and coordinated in defence, as for you not understanding why we need to do this 5 years ago did you think Russia was going to invade Ukraine?? no, but they did.....these exercises are needed more than ever.
Defensive. 🤣 Thanks for the comedy. And yes, dozens of Russian scholars predicted in 2014, after the US/NATO backed coup of Ukraine's president, that Russia would eventually respond the the west's provocations.
'Train hard, fight easy'. That doesn't mean being cruel to farmboys until they stop thinking, like for most of history. Realistic training, and learning from it, is the way to success.
If you are saying any conflict is going to become nuclear if it isn't settled quite quickly you don't have any grasp of the real world. The Russia/Ukraine conflict should have taught you differently - it you got, or maybe listened to, news from the Ukraine war..
Proud to say my brother was in the parachute regiment. 😊connor you should react to our remembrance day service at the cenotaph especially the march past it's very moving .
The point of NATO exercises is to ensure that NATO forces are at a high state of readiness to meet any threat from Russia, this in itself acts as a deterrent to Russia, making Nuclear war even less likely. After all countries only invade countries that they perceive to be weak and unready. A yeoman is a small farmer who owns his land, in the Napoleonic wars the British Army raised volunteer regiments of cavalry from yeoman; this force was called the Yeomanry Cavalry. About seven of those cavalry regiments still exist and continue to use their original name, although many have been amalgamated together as the Army shrinks in size.
So the problem with using nuclear weapons, is odds are, you can't launch a ground invasion and occupy that land afterwards. If russia wants to take some of the baltic states, they might use small tactical nukes, but that's it, and a conventional ground invasion would follow. That's why we still have these war games. Longer range nukes still have their purposes though. Mainly for attacking countries that they might decide they can't take due to distance (UK, France, Spain etc) or due to other factors such as size (Australia and the USA)
As a veteran of the British army I’m not being bias saying we are the best in the world fought along side others there good but not as good as we are 👍
They kept old Prussia (Kaliningrad) because by then it was fully Russified, the German population was expelled after the war and Germany and Poland didn't want it back.
This is very much the same attitude as that World War II information film from the USA about “John Q. Public” and “John Briton” when the United Kingdom is praised for being on “our” (the US) side. We were in the same team two years BEFORE the USA was prodded into participation by Japan!
The truth is that NATO is shaky and the components are not very well integrated. There are very good forces amongst them and the UK are top level, the best.
Remember these units aren’t even our elite units lol all the ps and full aggressive attitude, great stuff proud of our army and proud to have served . Train hard fight easy.
We the UK train your uxb squads in Seattle... We advise you.... All real wars we have been in we have ruled supreme including Falkands war, where every force Air force Naval and ground troops were involved...
There have been little bump between a NATO member nation as I’ve said they were small then there was what happened at Deir al-Zour northern Syria, also known as Conoco Gas plant. Granted they were not the “Russian military” it is speculated they were working under orders from the Kremlin.
You say you don't really see the point in these exercises but while an all out conquest of Russia is very unlikely a war isn't that unlikely. Not all wars are fought for complete conquest. These kinds of exercises also prepare troops for scenarios where NATO may be defending another country from Russia (or against an army similar to Russia), for example if we were to get involved with the war in Ukraine. The information gathered could also be used to help other armies like Ukraine defend against Russian attacks even without direct NATO involvement since they're using our equipment. They also help NATO know which areas we need to improve upon as we don't have the experience from actual wars. So actually there's heaps of benefits from these exercises. It's the difference between knowing how strong your army is on paper compared to actual field tested.
Kaliningrad was Königsberg which was part of Germany during the war and was separated from Germany by the polish corridor and when the soviets pushed through and took control of eastern Europe, Kaliningrad was then part of the Russian part of the USSR as it wasn't given to Poland or Lithuania so when the Soviets collapsed Kaliningrad was still a part of Russia and as such they still have it.
You are correct, nuclear weapons would be used when states survival are at stake but not before. It’s unlikely NATO would use nuclear weapons if thinking that conventional weapons is enough to repel the enemy.
The problem with a larger war is both are not ready Uk is highly down in ammunition’s for tanks due to its defensive posture it relies on commandos and a navy to a defend a island there is no need for tanks until now. Even the ex nato European commander said if nato have to fight Russia the first pushes by nato will be done with no mobile anti air it’s just going to be a slaughter our mobile anti air are stationed around embassies or given to Ukraine
Correct, Kaliningrad was kept by Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. IT WAS GERMAN, know as East Prussia and the architecture is very Germanic. Did Germany attempt to take it back . . . I don't know, but due to the Russian Nukes, no one pushed the issue.
You might think that this situation happening is a real war is unlikely, but military forces have to train for all situations. Better to be prepared than left with ya pants around your ankles.
As to your question, no, it absolutely is not about "small skirmishes". Neither is it about a mass invasion of Russia to take Moscow - NATO is a defensive force. There is, sadly, 100% a very real threat of Russia invading NATO countries and NATO has to be ready to defend these countries (like Latvia, Estonia, or even Poland) and push Russia back to it's own borders - and your observation of Kaliningrad is a pertinent one as Russia would DEARLY love a land bridge to Kaliningrad. Just look at Ukraine, that is hardly "small skirmishes". If Russia decides we are not willing to use nukes (and in all honesty they would be the absolute last, last, last resort of a NATO country to choose to use them) then it could very easily decide to push for a full scale invasion of a NATO country, or countries, just as they have done in Ukraine. It is thanks largely to the huge sacrifice of Ukrainians that Russia has had to maybe re-evaluate just how capable and willing they are to just land-grab by force because if they cannot walk roughshod over "little" Ukraine, they won't last 5 minutes against a full NATO force. Trust me though, in Europe (even in Britain where I live) we could feel Russia's posturing for a long time and so it is only right that NATO forces train to defend against such a potentially large invading force.
Re your comment on mutual nuclear destruction and nations therefore preparing for scenarios that don't make sense, in the end it's wholly dependent on what would indeed leave one side or the other convinced they now face defeat so total as to have almost certain existential consequences. A threat level most scenarios do not even approach and it's probable that even Tsar Vlad would balk at risking a general nuclear exchange in any other situation.
That's why we TRAIN. TO get the best out of the army's, air force and navy of NATO so when they work together, it's drill into them, and they are all on the same page when that day comes. Plus it a show of force. To show Russia what would happen, if they ever thought about trying to invade any part of NATO or our allys. When you know what certain bits equipment do like mobile artillery pieces, which you didn't know about, which have been around for year, like from WW2. You'll understand why they are there, and what they do, and the best way to use them. I could go on about how much the training is so important between the NATO forces, but I feel it would just go over your head! I didn't even go into how PROUD of the BRITISH FORCE WE ARE! Cos we never give up, and they don't believe in that word. We tough the rest of the world's SF how it's done. That's why we are so proud of them and everything else they do.
Kaliningrad used to be Konigsburg which was the capital of Prussia and the centre of Germany's military aristocracy for a century. No way the Russians would ever give it up. Most of the Native Germans fled or were expelled later.
You stopped to mention that warfare would be limited to avoid the situation that was known as Mutually Assured Destruction through nuclear weapons. You just described the entire Cold War between NATO and the USSR Warsaw Pact nations between the end of WW2-1991.
Your rationale about the possibility of an all-out NATO vs Russia war is essentially the same as the years before WW1. It was believed at that time that the huge build up of armed forces and the strategic alliance building on each side would create two vast opposing armies, each acting as a deterrent to the other. This example of 'mutually assured destruction,' conceived to prevent war, resulted in the deaths of around 20 million people. History is a cycle, not a line.
14:11 Of course it'll involve that. It'll involve Russia trying to conqure NATO countries like the Baltic countries. And they have nukes, so capturing Russian nuclear assets could be very important, even if they're just used tactically. Furthermore, you need to attack enemy supply lines. For instance the Russian northern fleet and many of their nukes are located at the end of a single road going north not that far away from Finland, if that road is taken then those are cut off from supplies. 5:11 Washington perhaps, but not Tallin or Helsinki... NATO is reluctant to use nukes, meaning that Russia *can* fight a war of multiple types without necessarily worrying about retaliation. 12:10 Yeoman where originally freemen. Not slaves, nor serfs, and originally they owned their own farms that they farmed, so they'd be landed. Not working a lords land etc. A serf would essentially just be conscripted to fight on short notice buy local lords but would work hard both on land they where allowed to produce food for themselves owned by their lord and on his land to produce food he would own and could sell. Serfs where no well trained or equiped in a war. Yeoman had more resources and time, and where required to train with a longbow by the laws from what I understand... If they fought for a noble they'd generally be in paid service as opposed to just common conscripts. And they could agt as bodyguards etc. So perhaps not the most elite troops of out there, like a knight, but definitely skilled professionals recognized for their service. Think specialists you might keep in reserve in case the fighting is dire or to defend the nobility and officers etc, especially considering the "guard" part of his title. And his title also mentioned that he was as a lancer, so that means that his unit once was a cavalry unit, probably a light cavalery unit, as opposed to just foot soldiers etc. With a tradition of mobile recognizance and light hit and run attacks as opposed to line infantry. Hit and run attacks, behind enemy lines etc. His unit is *supposed* to be able to fight superior numbers and in advertise conditions. All this is by the way just conjecture based on his units name, not actual information about his unit based on experience. Does that make sense?
Connor, no one believes that a country wouldn’t use nukes as a last line of defence. However, if a country used them offensively, for example Russia dropped a nuke on Kyiv, then other nuclear powers would have to react. The reason? Ukraine currently has no nuclear capability, so to use nukes on them can only be classed as offensive. So every other country with nukes would have to target the aggressor, because what would stop them using it over and over on other countries? So the USA, UK, France, India, China and Pakistan would respond to that attack by taking out the aggressor with nukes too. Because of this threat it means that no nuclear armed country can use them offensively, as to do so would be suicide. So, if the UK decided to nuke another country, even the USA and France would launch against them. Nukes are a weapon that guards itself, because no nation would willingly commit suicide. The biggest nuclear threat there is is the risk of terrorists getting hold of a nuke, because they don’t represent any particular country, so who can be retaliated against?
NATO is not set up to be an aggressive force but to defend a member nation from an aggressive nation who invade. Forcing them back to sovereign borders ie Russia invading Ukraine. NATO will not attack Russia but will fight them if they attack a member country. This is the point of these war games in the Baltic states because of Russian aggression.
You say that if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltics it would go straight to nuclear weapons, so no need for this sort of exercise? I don't think so. When Russia invaded Ukraine, sure we could send ballistic missiles to Moscow, but we won't, because it would be a huge escalation with huge costs. Yes, if London or Washington DC were in danger of falling, we would likely use them, but the Baltic states and Poland are not nuclear states, and Russia has already indicated that if Ukraine went well (which of course it hasn't) they would not stop there. And: 155mm SpGH Zuzana guns, which are self-propelled howitzers (not tanks).
"Vastly outnumbered, vastly outgunned" ....That describes the whole history of the British Military, Outnumbered means nothing to us.
Or British military history has shown that they have fought more with European Coalitions to confront major continental Powers than they have been outnumbered or outgunned.
UK has always been an 11th hour nation. Not necessarily a good trait but we do have a history of scrambling last minute and still delivering results lol
“They are in front of us, behind us, and we are flanked on both sides by an enemy that outnumbers us 29:1. They can’t get away from us now!”
- Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller, USMC
I think the British echo that sentiment.
@@jamesmanuel2883 Exactly!
Back in someone's day we outnumbered everyone, at least by sea
Are you suggesting British soldiers should just, not train for all situations in all theatres and environments, this is exactly how they got to be so competent.
yup ITS why our soldiers man for man are not just vastly superior but win wars. Oh yes i cant remember when the last time the friendly fire yanks won a war on their own.
If we’re going into Eastern Europe better know what it looks like innit 😂
Thank you for understanding mate 😂😂😂😂
He seems to think it would be nato going into russia, if it ever came to that the nukes would fly making 99% of training obsolete, these guys are training because any war would be what's called a proxy war taking place in a country probably bordering russia like latvia, poland etc in that case nato would fight the invading force using the kind of tactics these soldiers are training for, but it would only be too liberate the country not to try to invade russia, and after Ukraine this type of training has become all the more important
@@pauldootson7889 not even russia is stupid enough to fire nukes because they're losing a war.
Its not the size of the dog in the fight , more of the size of the fight in the dog 🇬🇧
Vastly out numbered vastly outgunned, but all our British forces train hard continuously and are one of the best in the world, im very proud
I've said it before, I'll say it again. We Brits are masters of the military jumpscare, you know we're here when shit starts blowing up, but rarely ever before.
If only we properly funded them and stopped the woke quota filling
So why did they train the Ukrainians so crap?@@rexex345
God bless you guys. Glad we're allies. @@rexex345
Get a grip, you should be ashamed of what the government and top brass has slowed to happen to our military
The easiest way to explain how and why the British forces are so good is to say the following. We will teach you all YOU know. BUT we won't teach you all WE know. For example the SAS, the SBS and exercises like When Britain nuked America twice.
I saw a clip of a former SAS soldier saying that the hardest place for soldiers to train in the world is Wales 😂 it's cold, wet, muddy and miserable 24/7 according to him.
@@scl9671 Brecon is shit, but it's far from the hardest place in the world to soldier.
@@dernwineit that shxt that just makes us so sick of it that it's normal. 😂😂😂😂
One of the best allegories I've ever heard was during a training exercise involving one of the most elite Green beret Teams and and an SAS unit, the Berets put up a sign outside their camp saying "no one better", the SAS put up a sign saying "no one". Fun fact: British special forces built and trained US Special forces from scratch and still to this day train US special forces. Case closed. US special forces are below the SAS, SBS and Ghurkhas. Those are the most elite forces on Earth.
@@darthwiizius Gurkhas aren't Special Forces mate, they're just light infantry (and I'd argue there a a number of better light infantry formations in the British Army than the RGR.)
Conner, it's quality over quantity that counts, the UK has fought in 93 different countries around the world over the centuries and it's a bit embarrassing really because we did miss a few out. 😉
British went into Afghanistan 3 times and lost every one
@@Truthbomb918 Not true lol.
@@furiousscotsman2916 really, maybe go educate yourself
@@Truthbomb918 I have! You clearly have not.
The first afghan war could be considered a draw the British Invaded and occupied the country beating every force it came up against apart from the loss of Elphinstone's army they withdrew some years later, the occupation not being worth the trouble.
The 2nd afghan war was a complete British victory with the treaty of Gandamak and the British installing a new leader in Abdur Rahman Khan, it wasn't even close.
The 3rd Afghan war had the Afghan actually invading this time and although heavily outnumbering the British (mainly Indian sepoys) won the major engagement of that war when the Afghan camp was seized by two platoons from the 1st/25th London and two troops from the 37th Lancers.
Although on the battlefield the British had won they ended up giving the Afghans what they wanted in a peace treaty a year later.
So please do not tell me to educate myself when clearly you just heard the usual trope of Afghanistan never being conquered and parroted it out like you actually have a fkn clue what you are talking about, how about instead of regurgitating your clear hate for the British you actually go learn some history for yourself and form your own opinions and not let other peoples misinformed opinions shape yours.
@@Truthbomb918 By lost do you mean didn't take over the country? because I think you'll find that wasn't their objective and all of their main objectives were accomplished before they left. Maybe go educate yourself.
People forget that for the first eighteen months of the Second World War the USSR was more or less an ally of Hitler's Germany. While most of Europe was struggling with Hitler's blitzkrieg in 1940, the Soviet Union just walked into Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and tried to walk into Finland. The Soviet Union had to be allowed to keep the three Baltic States after the Second World War - albeit as Soviet Socialist Republics - and they only became properly independent when the Soviet Union collapsed about 1990.
And the UK faught for two years before the US reluctantly got involved. When they did get involved they fraught bravely, so credit for that.
People also forget that Russia lost more people in WW2 than the rest combined fighting the Nazi.
That includes Germany.
@@brownwarrior6867poor tactics and Stalin gutting the army contributed heavily to that. It's not a boast to say that lost more than anyone else.
Even the Russian government like to gloss over that little detail especiall with Putin going on about Nazis in Ukraine at the moment doesn't like to tell himself they supported them and sided with them at the start.
@@brownwarrior6867 the Chinese lost more I'm pretty sure
Hi Connor,
Practically, the Soviet Union kept Latvia (and Estonia and Lithuania) by simple force of arms. Politically they stayed there 'cos we couldn't be bothered at the end of the Second World War.
The Queen's Own Yeomanry are a light-armoured reconnaissance regiment of the UK reserve army. They are based in York ('old' York that is 🙂, in Yorkshire).
I don't think being bothered had anything to do with it, Churchill warned before the end of WW2 that an iron curtain was about to decend across Europe, no-one listened and frankly after six years of total war Europe was exhausted with no more stomach for anymore fighting.
"Yeomanry" is a name that's found attached to several British Army regiments. In pre-industrial times a "Yeoman" was someone of the more prosperous farming class, i.e. small independent farmer, agricultural worker made good. In the beginning they formed volunteer groups which became the British Army alongside the more official cavalry regiments and the like. So there's something slightly independent, proudly dirty-fingernailed about belonging to a Yeomanry regiment.
Bob on!
Mine was formed because of a bread riot in Paignton, someone had to show those peasants what for 😂 The funny thing was by the time they were formed and got there the riots had ended, but the unit was not only kept, but expanded to include a detachment in Paignton and other places in Devon.
Historically, Yeomanry were volunteer cavalry regiments. As the make-up of the British army changed over the years Yeomanries were rolled into the Reserves. So you'll see Reserve centres around cities in the UK for Signals, Engineering, Artillery Yeomanries.
So if you see someone who is part of a Yeomanry they'll be a Reservist.
Historically the Royal Yeomanry were a light cavalry regiment. So looks like the L/Cpl is acting in the traditional military role of mobile recon with the Lancers. 😁
The yellow thing on the end of the soldiers personal weapon barrel is a BFA (blank firing attachment). This prevents debris from leaving the muzzle and produces a higher internal pressure to cycle the weapon properly.
I always wondered what that was! 👊🏻
Thanks! I'd presumed it was an indicator that it was setup for blanks rather than functional. Although I guess it does also act as an indicator too even if that's not its primary function.
@@fastdruid Yes that's the reason it's painted bright yellow, so it's obvious that it is fitted and blank rounds are being used. I can't remember how many, but it is also designed to withstand a certain number of live rounds being fired, if somehow you mistakenly tried firing live rounds instead of blank. You will also see the same yellow on the magazines when blank firing, the magazines are different so that live rounds cannot be loaded into a blank magazine, just in case somehow you ended up with live rounds and somehow didn't notice the difference.
Always a good policy to shut up and listen when you don't know ;)
Not just national pride speaking but using a British reconnaissance regiment as the enemy force is going to be some high quality training those guys have decades of experience and are specialized in operating as small highly mobile raiders using stealth to locate where their enemies are most vulnerable before striking.
Wargames is a vital part of NATO training and operation.
During a (fairly) recent naval event a Swedish stealth submarine managed to penetrate an entire battle group, park itself undetected under an American aircraft carrier before announcing it's presence with a kind of "Bang bang, you're dead" type of message!
Joking aside about the string of blue language that was said to have come from the American captain's mouth. Important lessons were learnt and weaknesses were addressed to ensure a real enemy wouldn't be able to repeat this.
That is why NATO is at the cutting edge of military strength and "preparedness" ...Simples
Also, since then an SAS led Anglo-Dutch exercise overwhelmed US special forces in an exercise where the US were proving defensive strength tactics. The defenders were defeated in short order without facing a numerical attacking advantage.
Thought all Subs were stealth sort of the point.
@@fasteddie406 Umm...I could write a 30 page essay on this, but suffice to say some subs are more stealthy (much more stealthy) than others!
this is essentially giving nato a better 'enemy' before it fights the russians , the british army despite its downsize is still a forerunner in military operations , still the innovater , still the most experienced army , it goes back to waterloo , the british have been on operations all over the world since then , constant combat pretty much for 200 years
We need to get out of NATO and the UN.
2000*+
NATO IS fighting the Russians.
And losing.
I remember playing enemy on various NATO exercises, it was always great fun, we were let loose to try out new tactics etc. that weren't always conventional or standard, good fun for us, and also insightful for commanders in their assessments. That's why NATO joint exercises are so important.
The point is to practise defending a bordering NATO country that Russia might invade. Russia aren't likely to start launching nukes over Latvia or Estonia so training for more traditional warfare is still very important.
We just need to get out of NATO and the UN.
Its been almost 80 years since a Nuke was used, and there's been a shitload of conventional warfare since then. This is a training exercise, there's procedures to run off and get your NBC kit on but if it comes to a Nuke exchange the ground troops will mostly be doing humanitarian aid.
Yeomanry is a designation used by a number of units and sub-units in the British army reserves which are descended from volunteer cavalry regiments that now serve in a variety of different roles.
Actually only two roles: Light Reconnaissance Cavalry and Tank Crew Replacements.
@@dernwine we're not just Challenger 2 crew replacement anymore, the Royal Wessex Yeomanry are expected to deploy in strength if a major conflict kicks off. Depending on the need and build up time it could be filling in crew slots of Regular units, deploying fully Reservist crewed tanks from a few to a squadron or even the entire regiment. We regularly deploy 1 or more fully reservist crewed Challengers alongside the regulars on their exercises in places like Poland and Estonia.
"no country would use a nuke" well no country with a sane leader would
Wheeled artillery like that is known as Self propelled guns or more often SPG's. Archer, Caesar, AS90 are a few examples of types of SPG.
As90 is tracked not wheeled
The whole idea is not to conquer land , its to bring the enemy to the negotiating table and make a mutual settlement .🇬🇧
The Afghans never negotiated, they defeated the British in 3 separate wars
@@Truthbomb918That bit of history is the only thing most Afghanis know, sadly.
It's the cause of all their and our problems.
It's a tragedy.
I loved NATO exercises, as a Brit soldier I learnt so much from our allies, learning to strip and reassemble each others front line rifles, machine guns and pistols, as well as their rank insignia. Then when 'end ex, came over the radios, away went the weapons and out came the beer and bbq's. Being only 18 at the time this was the best life, and i was getting paid to do it. Even when we had to do tours which were long stretches of boredom with bursts of shit your kecks scary, these were also great experiences of mil life, it taught you about your weaknesses and your strong points and importantly, reliance on your buddy and him knowing you had his back in return. It could be cold, wet and muddy with you being in a trench on your own, wondering WTF am i doing here, to. Laying by the side of a lake in Italy, sucking down a cold beer. The contrasts of army life had to be lived to be believed. I went to places and done things that my mates back home only ever got to see on the TV. The army was my mother, my father, my teacher, and I was one of its sons. Come each evening (duty permitting) I slept well with a clear conscience. Those heady days are long gone now, as are a fair few of my army buddies, my own injuries have left me almost crippled in my old age, and I can't say I like how this beautiful island of ours is turning out. But if I had the choice of doing it over again?. Hell yeah in a heartbeat.😊
Thank god you are not in charge if it doesn’t make sense to you
Yes because Russia would never try to take another country by force /s
The Forces must train and be ready for any eventuality. It is dangerous to assume certain skills will not be needed.
Originally Yoemenary were formed during the Napoleonic wars to protect the British Isles as a reserve force and were not meant to serve overseas, in effect a Home guard. They were later taken fully into the British Army.
The Royal Lancers is a cavalry regiment. Their moto is Death or Glory and have one of the best cap badges namely a skull and crossbones.
Death or Glory is so apt for a cavalry unit since when cavalry used horses way back in the day if they were committed in a battle they would usually win the day or die trying.
The bone heads. My old regiment. 17/21 lancers
@@RichCow-i7p . The bone heads🤣 that's a cracker.
all sides now know , since the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster, that Nuclear bombs could work against you as much against then the foe . So that theart is just a paper tiger
All militaries should always be prepared for everything they can be prepared for. If they're not, they'll get far worse results from any engagement they enter into.
This is not new. Vegetius in the late 4th Century stated; “In every battle, it is not numbers and untaught bravery so much as skill and training that generally produce the victory. ... No one is afraid to do what he is confident of having learned well. A small force which is highly trained in the conflicts of war is more apt to victory; a raw and untrained horde is always exposed to slaughter.”
Or you could have an older, more pithy quote about the Legions from Josephus (1st Century AD); "Their battles were bloody drills, and their drills were bloodless battles".
The first engagement of US troops in Europe/N Africa in WW2, the Battle of Kasserine Pass in Feb 1943 was a disaster for the allied forces. Over 3,000 dead and another 3,000 POWs - mostly US personnel - predominantly because the US Army was at that time poorly lead, poorly trained and had absolutely no experience.
To make matters worse, they were up against Rommel and Von Arnim and the Afrika Korps, who had been fighting in N Africa for two years. To their credit, the US army quickly replaced incompetent commanders and adjusted both training and equipment levels, threatening a huge counter-attack and causing Rommel to decide to withdraw.
Great video
Artillery that is part of a tracked or wheeled chassis is known as a Self-Propelled Gun, or SPG. These are much more maneuverable then a regular towed howitzer and quicker to set up.
At the 10:30 mark, the machine gun you see shooting out of that IFV's turret is a coaxial machine gun (or simply coax). These are machine guns placed next to the main gun on tanks, IFV's and any other turreted platform. These are generally used to engage targets where the main gun (either a tanks 120mm or IFV's 25, 30, or 40mm autocannon) would be overkill or waste of ammo, such as dismounted infantry. Back in WW2, not all tanks had coax's but most if not all had hull mounted machine guns, which were machine guns imbedded in the front hull. Unlike a coax however, these could obviously only shoot wherever the front of the tank was pointed at. We also can't forget about the turret mounted machine guns either, the ones attached to the vehicle commanders hatch.
In training we use blanks with BFA's attached to the muzzle of our weapons, BFA's being the yellow attachment at the end of the barrel where the flash suppressor (muzzle) is. Basically, since our firearms are gas-operated, when a round is fired, the gas that propels the round is filtered through a pipe connected to the barrel leading back to the bolt. This gas is what allows the bolt to cycle the empty casing out and load a new round into the chamber. When we fire blanks however, because no round is in the barrel when fired, all of the gas would simply escape through the muzzle without enough filtering though to cause the cycling effect, thus we have to "plug" the barrel to keep the gas inside the barrel and compete the cycling process. Not sure if this made sense but it was the easiest way for me to describe it.
The Royal Lancers is an amalgamation for a number of former tank regiments that include the 16/5th Lancers and 17/21st Lancers. My father was tank gunner in the 16/5th in North Africa and Italy, which included the 3rd and 4th battles at Monte Cassino.
NATO uses a system called MILES which is the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System and it's used to assess hits on equipment so for instance when the Self Propelled Artillery fire blanks the equipment can work out from both ends whether hit and how much damage was caused, the same on tanks and personal rifles etc - Theres a video by Foxtrot Alpha on Miles gear, it's 7 years old so just imagine how much it has improved in that time
After seeing a lot of the Ukraine v Russia war the tactics here look very similar. It would be interesting to see what their anti drone (the small ones) tactics are as it seems that would be a huge problem.
The thing with nuclear weapons is that people mostly think of the ICBM's but they have nukes that will fit inside a suitcase that's low yield and will destroy a large area and with multiple deployed in strategic places or launched via an artillery system in a shell form they make up the vast majority of nukes.
50 missile regiment RA. We were a battlefield HE or Nuke missile deployment system. And to our detriment, Spetsnatz No1 target if war broke out.
It's important to note that the UK military has always been at its strongest during periods of war.
If it has a bright yellow apparatus fitted to the barrel then this is a Blank Firing Attachment ( BFA)
Not sure what the modern equivalent is but we had vests with receivers on them in the 90’s which corresponded with the direction of that Attachment when the round is fired.
My old regiment, 9th/12th Royal Lancers are now The Royal Lancers. The premier Recce Regiment of the British Army. We always get behind enemy lines and always finish the mission.
That's so cool... i have also seen US troops in these exercises with Abrams tanks and Bradleys.
Proud to have served in the British Army (RAMC) veteran…..
That territory is Kaliningrad, formerly Koenigsberg. It was a part of the former Prussia and the former state of Danzig.
It’s very tough to train in the forces. I’ve done tours of Iraq and Afghanistan but others have been on a tougher journey than myself. Support and life after the forces tend to be lacking sadly.
Yeomanry is a designation used by units and sub units in the British army reserve descended from the volunteer cavalry regiments
When it comes to nuclear, the authority to fire will come from the central power.
To stop that happening you need to do one of two things....
1. Take the central power base, or cut communications from there to the missile launchers,
2. Take out the bases, ships or subs from which the missiles will be launched...
Either way surreptitious action will be the way to handle it, and before sending in the SAS and/or SBS intelligence and information will be necessary.
Outnumbered,outgunned and in a strategically sticky position............
Yes, but we have tea.......
Yeoman of the guard is part of the Kings personal guard. Formed in 1485 by Henry vii they are the oldest guardsmen in the British Army.
That’s a different organisation, here the Royal Yeomanry are an Army Reserve unit with a history going back at least to the late 18th Century when Volunteer (part time) Cavalry units were formed from local people to defend against possible French invasion and called the Yeomanry units, the infantry equivalent were the Militia. The Royal Yeomanry are an amalgamation of all those Yeomanry units (such as the Cheshire Yeomanry) that still had an armoured role. Other Yeomanry units were converted either in WWI or WWII to Artillery, Engineer or other roles, for example the Monmouthshire Yeomanry were (are?) a Royal Engineer unit.
@@keithorbell8946 Almost but not quite right so a few minor corrections:
The British Army Yeomanry Regiments are the Reserve component of the Royal Armoured Corps, it consists of 4 Regiments: The Royal Yeomanry (Light Recce on Jackals), Royal Wessex Yeomanry (Armoured Reserve, trained on MBTs) Queen's Own Yeomanry (Light Recce on Jackals) and the Scottish and Northern Irish Yeomanry (Light Recce on Jackals). All of them are amalgamations of previous Yeomanry volunteer cavalry units (the Cheshires you mentioned are part of the Queens Own Yeomanry, not the Royal Yeomanry btw)
There are no Yeomanry units outside the Royal Armoured Corps Reserves, the unit you are thinking of is the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers (Militia), which, as their name suggests, is the last remaining militia unit in the British Army.
@@dernwine during both World Wars a number of Yeomanry units were converted to engineers and artillery units, just as some infantry battalions were converted to tank regiments in the RAC during WWII
@@keithorbell8946 Never said that wasn't true.
@@dernwine true, you didn’t
We have military training units near where we live. Individuals can remain hidden in the undergrowth/surrounding areas near houses for up to 6 weeks at a time with no one knowing they are there, ‘apart from maybe the smell ‘ is what we were told.
Mobile artillery and howitzers are quite common and a useful tool in war, most nations hae them.
wheeled artillery has become very popular in the last 20 years as drones flying over battlefields can spot enplacments so they now have to adopt shoot and scoot where they only have time to fire to fire a few rounds, so the faster they canrelocate out of range, the better.
on top of a army heavy truck frame very little is needed, mostly the quick deploy stabiliser legs and turret... most can still do highway speeds so no need to transport on flatbeds
Notable example is the Archer SPG a artilery gun on the back of a volvo a30d articulated dump truck.
Not just drones, counter-battery acoustic instruments and radar has meant fixed artillery positions have been extremely vulnerable for a long time now. Drones have enhanced the ability to locate ‘quiet’ guns, but as soon as they fire the sensors will locate the source much faster than any drone could.
As a disabled ex British soldier, I really appreciate the respect you give to our forces. Peace🇬🇧🇺🇸
England/Britain are the best and most successful war fighters in history
What the heck does england/Britain mean? It's just Britain mate
They're referring to both. England existed way before Britain and the UK. The Nation of England was constantly at war. We beat the French and Spanish on multiple occasions. England evolved into Britain which evolved into the UK.
Plus they had been engaged in urban warfare for 30 years in North Ireland.
Pretty sure that accolade goes to France, who throughout history, have defeated us more than the other way around, and have won more wars in total. That said 18th Century onwards, the UK was op.
@@sebazufitness487 On pure numbers maybe. England fought much harder wars in general than France who just fought Haitians and Africans who were no challenge after Europe calmed down a bit. They only properly won a war against us a few times. Usually there was a truce or England just ran out of money and left. France never successfully invaded England for any length of time either. Plus you don't gain the rep as the worlds biggest white flag waivers if you're so good at war 🤣
Hi Mr.Mcjibbin big fan of your channel if you have not seen any wheeled artillery 6:32 you should look up the swedish artillery "archer". btw ty for the awesome video :D
Haven`t the British army recently purchased the `Archer` artillery system?
Or Caesar by the french
We treat our armed forces way better than than some people imagine.
We've all seen the amazing effort of the Ukrainian soldiers many are poorly trained conscripts and volunteers. They lack air superiority and many modern battlefield resources like a fully equipped NATO army. However, their determination and resilience has caused Russia a huge problem.
I don't know why NATO has been so fearful of the Russian army as evidence seems to point to the fact they are not super soldiers but quite average and their losses especially elite units is to be admired.
Back in the 70's and 80's when the US and the UK had hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in West Germany, military exercises were a regular occurrence as the Russian army back then was massive. From a UK perspective protecting an area from a Russian invasion was always doomed to fail in a conventional engagement, but the purpose was merely a holding action to provide UK politicians and it's allies at least 72hrs to decide whether to use the nuclear option. Back in those days there were battlefield nuclear weapons with a small yield. But that would inevitably start a chain of events leading to a full nuclear exchange no doubt.
The largest UK military exercise I was ever involved in was Operation Lionheart in 1984 and it was on such a scale NATO these days couldn't put together the same amount of resources unless it was an actual conflict like operation desert storm.
The average british soldier trains for the same amount of time most countries (including americas) elite train for; englands elite troopers train twice that of the other nations...this training shows in nearly all of these training fights...in one of these the (english against the americans) the english won a 2 week battle in just a couple of days and after the americans asked for a rerun they said why bother and went on rnr :-)
Yeomanry: Historically yeoman were freemen/small farmers who owned their own land rather than being tenant farmers.
In Saxon times any freeman could be called to the fyrd (militia). The yeomanry gre out of this tradition. As time went on they became a mounted militia/reserve force. They weren't front-line troops. They were often used by the authorities to quell riots and rebellion in Britain.
Over time the yeomanry became better trained and more professional and were used as light cavalry.
These days they they're a fully professional force. I'm not sure of their exact duties but I'm guessiing they're used as light troops, scouting, reconnaisance, etc without much in the way of heavy armour, etc.
The answer to your question at 4:20 is called "salami slicing". You don't launch a full offensive to get the other nation's capital. You just advance a bit and take some land then dig in. If you keep doing that over time eventually you've taken almost the whole country anyway.
Russia are at war with Ukraine at present but a nuclier weapon as not been used. It shows how good the British are when in no time at all they have well infaltrated enemy lines.
Solely relying on nuclear weapons for deterrence wouldn't be credible since the threshold and consequences for their use are so high... Russia can reasonably assume that NATO wouldn't go nuclear in response to a small-scale incursion, or even a somewhat larger invasion of its territory and so might not be effectively deterred from trying something like that if going nuclear is the only response NATO can give.
So, for deterrence to be credible it needs to be multi-layered, meaning there's a proportional and realistic response to all potential acts of aggression Russia might consider. Ranging from relatively small actions like harassing and endangering NATO reconnaissance aircraft, to a conventional ground invasion, all the way up to all out nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are only really effective at deterring truly existential threats, such as a nuclear first strike or a full-scale invasion and conquest of your territory.
A good example is how Russia's nuclear sabre-rattling has failed to deter Western material support for Ukraine. Threatening to nuke the West if they send certain conventional weapons to Ukraine just isn't credible since such an action would guarantee the total destruction of Russia too, when the weapons supplied clearly don't represent an existential threat to Russia.
I agree with you that Russia would not use nuclear weapons nor would NATO in conflicts away from their capital city or their territory. But do you believe that if Moscow or DC was under threat that neither Russia nor USA would use Nuclear weapons?
@McJibbin I think that would depend on the scale of the attack and whether the threat could be countered conventionally. But even if it could, that's the kind of scenario that can very quickly escalate to nuclear use.
Explains why we haven't been invaded by a foreign country since 1066. 🇬🇧✌️🇬🇧
1797
@bordersw1239 Very true, being English I was referring to England. They can have that bit of Wales! 🏴 🤣 🏴
@@ned_1963William of Orange 1688.
@@keithorbell8946Wasn't he invited?
@@keithorbell8946 A mere skirmish 🙈🤣🏴
Connor, you forget NATO is a defensive organisation, these exercises are defensive exercises, we train as realistically as possible so if there is a Russian invasion of Europe we are prepared and coordinated in defence, as for you not understanding why we need to do this 5 years ago did you think Russia was going to invade Ukraine?? no, but they did.....these exercises are needed more than ever.
Defensive. 🤣 Thanks for the comedy.
And yes, dozens of Russian scholars predicted in 2014, after the US/NATO backed coup of Ukraine's president, that Russia would eventually respond the the west's provocations.
@@cygnusx-3217BUT OUT BOTT
Train for every scenario then nothing is a surprise. Imagine not practicing penalties before a football game.
'Train hard, fight easy'. That doesn't mean being cruel to farmboys until they stop thinking, like for most of history.
Realistic training, and learning from it, is the way to success.
If you are saying any conflict is going to become nuclear if it isn't settled quite quickly you don't have any grasp of the real world. The Russia/Ukraine conflict should have taught you differently - it you got, or maybe listened to, news from the Ukraine war..
Proud to say my brother was in the parachute regiment. 😊connor you should react to our remembrance day service at the cenotaph especially the march past it's very moving .
Was he in it when they murdered innocent catholics in Northern Ireland on bloody sunday
@@Truthbomb918 no , but he was there briefly not sure how long ,bosnia and gulf war
The brits laid a trap for us sir, there was two of them.
We're only two mins in, never heard this story before, but I can guess what happens the Brits will win as they always do.😊
The point of NATO exercises is to ensure that NATO forces are at a high state of readiness to meet any threat from Russia, this in itself acts as a deterrent to Russia, making Nuclear war even less likely. After all countries only invade countries that they perceive to be weak and unready.
A yeoman is a small farmer who owns his land, in the Napoleonic wars the British Army raised volunteer regiments of cavalry from yeoman; this force was called the Yeomanry Cavalry. About seven of those cavalry regiments still exist and continue to use their original name, although many have been amalgamated together as the Army shrinks in size.
So the problem with using nuclear weapons, is odds are, you can't launch a ground invasion and occupy that land afterwards. If russia wants to take some of the baltic states, they might use small tactical nukes, but that's it, and a conventional ground invasion would follow. That's why we still have these war games. Longer range nukes still have their purposes though. Mainly for attacking countries that they might decide they can't take due to distance (UK, France, Spain etc) or due to other factors such as size (Australia and the USA)
As a veteran of the British army I’m not being bias saying we are the best in the world fought along side others there good but not as good as we are 👍
So many Captain Price beards.👌
Ironically the British Army is one of the few NATO forces (and the only Branch of the UK military) that doesn't regularly allow beards.
I live about 80 km from that location and still can feel earth shaking
If you see yellow on weapons or letters DP they are drill purpose or operation practise weapons as a rule of thumb
They kept old Prussia (Kaliningrad) because by then it was fully Russified, the German population was expelled after the war and Germany and Poland didn't want it back.
The bullets from the "tank". Thats the coxial MG firing.
No Connor, it's not the case that we Brits are "On our (the USA) side". We are on "The same side". 😜
This is very much the same attitude as that World War II information film from the USA about “John Q. Public” and “John Briton” when the United Kingdom is praised for being on “our” (the US) side. We were in the same team two years BEFORE the USA was prodded into participation by Japan!
The truth is that NATO is shaky and the components are not very well integrated. There are very good forces amongst them and the UK are top level, the best.
Remember these units aren’t even our elite units lol all the ps and full aggressive attitude, great stuff proud of our army and proud to have served . Train hard fight easy.
That wasn't actually a dumb question that they was using blanks,,as iv done many live fire exercises in 2 para
We the UK train your uxb squads in Seattle... We advise you.... All real wars we have been in we have ruled supreme including Falkands war, where every force Air force Naval and ground troops were involved...
There have been little bump between a NATO member nation as I’ve said they were small then there was what happened at Deir al-Zour northern Syria, also known as Conoco Gas plant. Granted they were not the “Russian military” it is speculated they were working under orders from the Kremlin.
You say you don't really see the point in these exercises but while an all out conquest of Russia is very unlikely a war isn't that unlikely. Not all wars are fought for complete conquest.
These kinds of exercises also prepare troops for scenarios where NATO may be defending another country from Russia (or against an army similar to Russia), for example if we were to get involved with the war in Ukraine.
The information gathered could also be used to help other armies like Ukraine defend against Russian attacks even without direct NATO involvement since they're using our equipment. They also help NATO know which areas we need to improve upon as we don't have the experience from actual wars.
So actually there's heaps of benefits from these exercises. It's the difference between knowing how strong your army is on paper compared to actual field tested.
Kaliningrad was Königsberg which was part of Germany during the war and was separated from Germany by the polish corridor and when the soviets pushed through and took control of eastern Europe, Kaliningrad was then part of the Russian part of the USSR as it wasn't given to Poland or Lithuania so when the Soviets collapsed Kaliningrad was still a part of Russia and as such they still have it.
You are correct, nuclear weapons would be used when states survival are at stake but not before. It’s unlikely NATO would use nuclear weapons if thinking that conventional weapons is enough to repel the enemy.
Even the humble British squaddie has more tactical _nous_ than your typical Russian 'commander'!
Interesting how usefull radar is. Your welcome World🇬🇧
The problem with a larger war is both are not ready
Uk is highly down in ammunition’s for tanks due to its defensive posture it relies on commandos and a navy to a defend a island there is no need for tanks until now.
Even the ex nato European commander said if nato have to fight Russia the first pushes by nato will be done with no mobile anti air it’s just going to be a slaughter our mobile anti air are stationed around embassies or given to Ukraine
Correct, Kaliningrad was kept by Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. IT WAS GERMAN, know as East Prussia and the architecture is very Germanic. Did Germany attempt to take it back . . . I don't know, but due to the Russian Nukes, no one pushed the issue.
You might think that this situation happening is a real war is unlikely, but military forces have to train for all situations. Better to be prepared than left with ya pants around your ankles.
As to your question, no, it absolutely is not about "small skirmishes". Neither is it about a mass invasion of Russia to take Moscow - NATO is a defensive force. There is, sadly, 100% a very real threat of Russia invading NATO countries and NATO has to be ready to defend these countries (like Latvia, Estonia, or even Poland) and push Russia back to it's own borders - and your observation of Kaliningrad is a pertinent one as Russia would DEARLY love a land bridge to Kaliningrad. Just look at Ukraine, that is hardly "small skirmishes". If Russia decides we are not willing to use nukes (and in all honesty they would be the absolute last, last, last resort of a NATO country to choose to use them) then it could very easily decide to push for a full scale invasion of a NATO country, or countries, just as they have done in Ukraine. It is thanks largely to the huge sacrifice of Ukrainians that Russia has had to maybe re-evaluate just how capable and willing they are to just land-grab by force because if they cannot walk roughshod over "little" Ukraine, they won't last 5 minutes against a full NATO force. Trust me though, in Europe (even in Britain where I live) we could feel Russia's posturing for a long time and so it is only right that NATO forces train to defend against such a potentially large invading force.
Its a fight to the death if war ever did happen
Escalation happens very quickly.
Brilliant! Now they know what we are going to do.OR DO THEY???????? Cant see the army giving anyone any clues of the strategy.
Re your comment on mutual nuclear destruction and nations therefore preparing for scenarios that don't make sense, in the end it's wholly dependent on what would indeed leave one side or the other convinced they now face defeat so total as to have almost certain existential consequences. A threat level most scenarios do not even approach and it's probable that even Tsar Vlad would balk at risking a general nuclear exchange in any other situation.
That's why we TRAIN.
TO get the best out of the army's, air force and navy of NATO so when they work together, it's drill into them, and they are all on the same page when that day comes. Plus it a show of force.
To show Russia what would happen, if they ever thought about trying to invade any part of NATO or our allys.
When you know what certain bits equipment do like mobile artillery pieces, which you didn't know about, which have been around for year, like from WW2.
You'll understand why they are there, and what they do, and the best way to use them.
I could go on about how much the training is so important between the NATO forces, but I feel it would just go over your head!
I didn't even go into how PROUD of the BRITISH FORCE WE ARE!
Cos we never give up, and they don't believe in that word. We tough the rest of the world's SF how it's done.
That's why we are so proud of them and everything else they do.
Kaliningrad used to be Konigsburg which was the capital of Prussia and the centre of Germany's military aristocracy for a century. No way the Russians would ever give it up. Most of the Native Germans fled or were expelled later.
You stopped to mention that warfare would be limited to avoid the situation that was known as Mutually Assured Destruction through nuclear weapons. You just described the entire Cold War between NATO and the USSR Warsaw Pact nations between the end of WW2-1991.
Your rationale about the possibility of an all-out NATO vs Russia war is essentially the same as the years before WW1.
It was believed at that time that the huge build up of armed forces and the strategic alliance building on each side would create two vast opposing armies, each acting as a deterrent to the other.
This example of 'mutually assured destruction,' conceived to prevent war, resulted in the deaths of around 20 million people.
History is a cycle, not a line.
14:11
Of course it'll involve that.
It'll involve Russia trying to conqure NATO countries like the Baltic countries.
And they have nukes, so capturing Russian nuclear assets could be very important, even if they're just used tactically.
Furthermore, you need to attack enemy supply lines.
For instance the Russian northern fleet and many of their nukes are located at the end of a single road going north not that far away from Finland, if that road is taken then those are cut off from supplies.
5:11
Washington perhaps, but not Tallin or Helsinki...
NATO is reluctant to use nukes, meaning that Russia *can* fight a war of multiple types without necessarily worrying about retaliation.
12:10
Yeoman where originally freemen.
Not slaves, nor serfs, and originally they owned their own farms that they farmed, so they'd be landed.
Not working a lords land etc.
A serf would essentially just be conscripted to fight on short notice buy local lords but would work hard both on land they where allowed to produce food for themselves owned by their lord and on his land to produce food he would own and could sell.
Serfs where no well trained or equiped in a war.
Yeoman had more resources and time, and where required to train with a longbow by the laws from what I understand...
If they fought for a noble they'd generally be in paid service as opposed to just common conscripts.
And they could agt as bodyguards etc.
So perhaps not the most elite troops of out there, like a knight, but definitely skilled professionals recognized for their service.
Think specialists you might keep in reserve in case the fighting is dire or to defend the nobility and officers etc, especially considering the "guard" part of his title.
And his title also mentioned that he was as a lancer, so that means that his unit once was a cavalry unit, probably a light cavalery unit, as opposed to just foot soldiers etc.
With a tradition of mobile recognizance and light hit and run attacks as opposed to line infantry.
Hit and run attacks, behind enemy lines etc.
His unit is *supposed* to be able to fight superior numbers and in advertise conditions.
All this is by the way just conjecture based on his units name, not actual information about his unit based on experience.
Does that make sense?
Connor, no one believes that a country wouldn’t use nukes as a last line of defence. However, if a country used them offensively, for example Russia dropped a nuke on Kyiv, then other nuclear powers would have to react. The reason? Ukraine currently has no nuclear capability, so to use nukes on them can only be classed as offensive. So every other country with nukes would have to target the aggressor, because what would stop them using it over and over on other countries? So the USA, UK, France, India, China and Pakistan would respond to that attack by taking out the aggressor with nukes too. Because of this threat it means that no nuclear armed country can use them offensively, as to do so would be suicide. So, if the UK decided to nuke another country, even the USA and France would launch against them. Nukes are a weapon that guards itself, because no nation would willingly commit suicide. The biggest nuclear threat there is is the risk of terrorists getting hold of a nuke, because they don’t represent any particular country, so who can be retaliated against?
NATO is not set up to be an aggressive force but to defend a member nation from an aggressive nation who invade. Forcing them back to sovereign borders ie Russia invading Ukraine. NATO will not attack Russia but will fight them if they attack a member country. This is the point of these war games in the Baltic states because of Russian aggression.
You say that if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltics it would go straight to nuclear weapons, so no need for this sort of exercise? I don't think so. When Russia invaded Ukraine, sure we could send ballistic missiles to Moscow, but we won't, because it would be a huge escalation with huge costs. Yes, if London or Washington DC were in danger of falling, we would likely use them, but the Baltic states and Poland are not nuclear states, and Russia has already indicated that if Ukraine went well (which of course it hasn't) they would not stop there. And: 155mm SpGH Zuzana guns, which are self-propelled howitzers (not tanks).