วีดีโอ

RAF Regiment

Where?

on the far right someone has a different hat

@@HaloSprite looks like a turban

@@POPE_FRANC1Swhy is he wearing that hat though instead of a bearskin

If you believe that celebrating our army is cringe, then why have you clicked on this video?

like the hippy music you listen to

complete nonsense, literally perfect sync. Give me 1 royal marine or Gurkha over 50 robot indoctrinated chinese soliders anyday

@@cjjk9142 bullshit , Chinese military show displine aswell as force , royal marines show precision and wealth over might not to mention royal guards of the actual military themselves especially in this video , your patriotism is flawed my friend

@@user-wd1uq9bt7j He is right though, you're being a bit daft. The British military would have force multipliers regarding their skill and training. The qualitative gap _is_ closing and it's not 1950 anymore so people can't be expecting ratios like at the Imjin River. But the Chinese PLA still generally relies on a level of quantity having a quality all of it's own. British forces should still ratio them heavily. And the Chinese can be hyper-obsessive about robotic parade drill where everyone is the same height, because they have 1.4 billion people in their population versus about 70 million in the UK. There is a smaller pool of recruits in the UK and the Chinese can afford to be more particular when it comes to who goes on parade. The reality is that the Chinese military has been modernising since the 1980's and that including a massive reduction in personnel to 'only' low millions rather than several million in the 1960's and 1970's. The reforms in the Chinese military have been most notable in their naval forces, arguably. All the same, when it comes down to it, the Chinese PLA is interwoven with political commissars and they are forced to behave in a stricter set of ways. For instance, Chinese officers - like Soviet Russian officers in the Second World War - are more afraid of taking initiative and deviating from common doctrinal commands, because they are rightly worried some superior officer will come down like a tonne of bricks on them to punish them (likely with execution or some severe punishment short of execution, including being stripped of rank or humiliated in front of their own troops) for any mistakes they can be blamed for. This means that inevitably, there will be a level of inefficiency in the Chinese PLA - which also has little in the way of actual combat experience in terms of a modern army, as it last fought the Vietnamese in the 1970's. No Chinese soldiers now have any relevant modern warfare combat experience, and their officers are relying on copied and theoretical ideas about how they should fight. There are a few Chinese military units whom have had experience shooting at modern pirates in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, but that is hardly comparable to fighting a full-scale war. Those opponents are just desperate criminals armed with AK-47s. And the Western operatives have to deal with the same all the time and Western armies have fought actual modern wars. This isn't about patriotism, it's just objective reality. Nice try though in saying that the previous replier was just being patriotism fuelled. It's not about that at all. It's simply acknowledging operational realities. And don't mistake me for someone pretending the Chinese are still just using human wave tactics in the 1950's and 1960's style. That's not fair on the Chinese at all and of course they have spent a lot of time and money (decades, and hundreds of billions of dollars worth) on modernising their forces. _Yet this is the problem_ because even with that in mind, fundamentally _corruption_ and _incompetence_ shall still plague such a massive force as the Chinese PLA. Only a fool would underestimate them, but there is a real danger of _overestimating_ the Chinese military as well. It's got a lot of funding (2nd only in the world to the US military) but that is stretched over a much larger military overall. The saving grace for China is that in terms of what value for money they get per dollar spent, is quite high. For instance, because labour costs and wages are so modest/low in China, they can make say, $250 Billion go much further than the same amount would go in the US military. It's a matter of the relative cost effectiveness of the Chinese economy versus a typical Western economy. And the reality is, that a dollar in China goes way further than a dollar in the West. China's best units are getting seriously good and yet, I'd still say in terms of elite light infantry and amphibious/air assault specialists, and the Special Forces in general, the West can field units which are just, better, than their Chinese counterparts. Again, this qualitative lead can be misleading and the sheer size and scope of the Chinese military today is probably closing the gap faster than most would like to admit, but the fact remains that Western SF are still a long way ahead of their Chinese equivalents. China has a curious mix of quantity and improving yet still flawed quality. The West has a real problem with quantity though has the edge on quality and always has. That's our own saving grace; that we can have a quarter million pounds spent on a single infantryman and that he will have the best training imaginable. However, we simply cannot have as many of him as the Chinese can deploy of their own. Therefore, any theoretical scenario demands that the numerically outnumbered force (aka a Western army) would need to fight for key objectives in what is known as *Limited Warfare* in which decisive victories prevent an escalating conflict they would struggle to win. For instance, if China PR suddenly declared war on Britain tomorrow, in an outright vacuum of logic where nobody will fight on either Britain or China's side (which will not be the case, especially regarding Britain and her many allies), then Britain would look to be in big trouble with big old China. How could we possibly defeat China being so outnumbered? Well, clearly, China could not exert itself over Britain without either conquering us or blockading us, and to do that, it would assume they'd defeated both the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, as well as the RAF, SAS, SBS, Paras and Royal Marines. It is true that the Chinese have much larger amphibious assault forces ready to attack, than Britain, though with Britain being so far away, defensively, the British could really go to work with attack submarines and aircraft carriers to cause havoc. China PR can have all the millions of troops it likes, but that means almost nothing if they can't deploy even a small fraction of that to or generally, against, Britain. In the end, Limited Warfare objectives would dominate British strategy with Britain knocking out key ships like the troop transports, carriers and assault ships for amphibious landings. You telling me that they could make it to England from China unscathed? Nah, not happening. Britain would have random, prowling _Astute_-class making precision strikes and working in tandem with the UK Carrier Strike Group(s) to essentially make any attempt at invading Britain completely fail.

@@ThePalaeontologist how long did it take you to write that? I think you are giving British too much credit in terms of the modern era , china would decimate us , if we went into a stage 2 conflict with china where the UK is called upon for conscription, there would be resistance and almost a civil war like scenario in Britain since more people in millennial generation and gen Z would rather leave the UK and let it get destroyed by a foreign invader than fight for it since the motive for the public to join the army isn't existing as it used to in the 1940s , without motive you can't win a war that's the general rule to Britain's success in other battles and wars and you can't force people into conscription because you'd be no different to china and it would undermine British democratic values , that being said there's no army in the UK that could fend off Chinese attack , then there's the economic power china has over the UK since we are too reliant on china to provide products to use there would be a severe economic collapse if they decided to cease shipping to the uk meaning thered be less sallaries , more unemployed , less businesses , and therefore lwss tax being paid and therefore less funding , and since china buys up our T bills you can probably sell them to america but they wont have enough to completely fund us for long since they are too involved in ukraine and israel , then no doubt as a chinas going to ask russia for a gas turn off to the uk prompting even bugger recession , and then the un or nato get involved , then briccs will ,and then escalation , with the leadership in the uk right now china will no doubt exterminate the uk , nothings inpenetratable , dont forget the uk have lost wars before many times with the spanish , sure you can rely on historical data but times have changed and so has leadership , and its nit just upto the military jnfact its not upto the millitary how they conduct a war , the people in politics call the shots , the millitsry is just a sector of pawns to fight for what? Country that discards of veterans , nurses , doctors , and working class people? Or perhaps the outdated monarchy is the motive , yes the monarchy that's divided amongst itself with 1 of them being a pedophile 2 of them left the country and 1 of them on the verge of death while the other 2 don't want to be next in line I mean if they don't care about eachother what makes you think they care about some trained serial killers in a uniform? , oh but maybe the motive is to keep them out of ourbritish soil? So when you say "our" what do you mean? It's not yours nor mine z technically it's the kings since he can claim all national soil for himself since he is "chosen one by god" so in essence really the millitary has nothing to fight for virtually unless it's "to protect your family" if you want to do that then just leave to a distant country that's safer , war dkesnt come down to skill of the army , it comes downnto strategy of the power players , samenin chess its not skill of the pawns , its strategy of the plsyer , I served in the army with the motivation to "fight for the country" until i learned it was a false motive ,point is , while the uk has no motive to fight for the country which is key , chinas forced into fighting thats the level of discipline they have

@@user-wd1uq9bt7j First of all, you nearly wrote as much though with no paragraphing (reeeeeee) Secondly, I type fast, so no biggy. Probably about 20-25 minutes or so. I'll make this as quick as possible: "if we went into a stage 2 conflict with china where the UK is called upon for conscription, there would be resistance and almost a civil war like scenario in Britain since more people in millennial generation and gen Z would rather leave the UK and let it get destroyed by a foreign invader than fight for it since the motive for the public to join the army isn't existing as it used to in the 1940s" While I totally understand what you're getting at, I disagree that the UK would be quite as feckless as you're making out here in the modern era. Yes, there'd be massive societal rifts caused by the political divisions and social ghettoisation of entire communities hellbent on defying British law. Many middle class English people themselves think they are revolutionaries from their 4 bedroom houses and went dropped off at protests in their mummy and daddy's Range Rover. Honestly, I do appreciate what you're saying there and can see the nightmare the same way you can like scores and scores of people just spitting their dummies out and not listening to common sense. I can see that happening no doubt. Our individualistic society is much more vulnerable to this problem than a tyrannical and collectivist society like China PR. That's the way the cookie crumbles unfortunately. Our liberty may yet doom us all. But that's rather more pessimistic than I like to see things so for now I'll look on the bright side of things and hold onto the idea of Limited Warfare objectives still being possible. "you can't force people into conscription because you'd be no different to china and it would undermine British democratic values" Fully-agreed. And we know this is a burden to us in wartime, but then again, martial law could become a thing (do not underestimate the overreach of power the UK government would try, wanting to go back to WWII conditions in any such scenario) Do remember in WWI Britain - as in the government - itself wanted to avoid conscription but was forced into it by 1916. It relied on the OG pro army then volunteers in 1914 and 1915 but by 1916 they needed more men. Too many had fallen in battle. Volunteering fell off a cliff understandably when people realised what they were getting into (a meat grinder of industrialised trench warfare in which tens and hundreds of thousands perished per month) and so Britain was forced to accept conscription. But of course, Britain today is not Britain in 1916. We know that. But don't imagine that there are no British loyalists left. "that being said there's no army in the UK that could fend off Chinese attack" Quite simply, yes there is. "then there's the economic power china has over the UK since we are too reliant on china to provide products to use there would be a severe economic collapse if they decided to cease shipping to the uk meaning thered be less sallaries , more unemployed , less businesses , and therefore lwss tax being paid and therefore less funding" etc etc Yes, I agree, the British political class have roundly and routinely betrayed Britain again and again, selling out to China PR. But the same can be said of half the world over at this point. The helmsman in the West since the end of WWII is the USA and it's under the USA's hegemonic watch that China had been allowed to do this to European countries like Britain. It's a disaster. However, it is not the end. Over-reliance on China is a terrible mistake I agree wholeheartedly on that. Even so, in a war scenario, Britain could play to it's strengths. Modern Britain has never been conquered by anyone. It's not easy even for China PR. Very few countries could even try, even in Britain's relatively weakened condition these days. Force multipliers are key. Anyway, the rest of your comment devolved into a pure rant so I'm gonna skip those bits.

Did he say that before or after he was transported via the Royal Navy to St Helena?

I am sure he said it before after and during, lol.@@ThePalaeontologist

The British commander at Saint Helena called him 'the General', deliberately to annoy him.@@robertlight5227

A nasty little island perhaps, but long may we continue to be

You mean that time the US tried to annex Canada then Britain waltzed down to burn down their capital then left of their own volition because it wasn't worth their time staying?