Britain's Shrinking Military - From Cold War Colossus to Cash-Strapped Shadow
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- War with Russia is often spoken of in 2023, but the drastic reduction in the size of Britain's armed forces is often overlooked. Here, I compare the sizes of Britain's military in 1991, when it was specifically trained and deployed to resist a Soviet assault into Western Europe, and 2023. The figures are fairly shocking, something the US government recently noted as well.
Dr. Mark Felton FRHistS, FRSA, is a well-known British historian, the author of 22 non-fiction books, including bestsellers 'Zero Night' and 'Castle of the Eagles', both currently being developed into movies in Hollywood. In addition to writing, Mark also appears regularly in television documentaries around the world, including on The History Channel, Netflix, National Geographic, Quest, American Heroes Channel and RMC Decouverte. His books have formed the background to several TV and radio documentaries. More information about Mark can be found at: en.wikipedia.o...
Visit my audio book channel 'War Stories with Mark Felton': • One Thousand Miles to ...
Help support my channel:
www.paypal.me/...
/ markfeltonproductions
Disclaimer: All opinions and comments expressed in the 'Comments' section do not reflect the opinions of Mark Felton Productions. All opinions and comments should contribute to the dialogue. Mark Felton Productions does not condone written attacks, insults, racism, sexism, extremism, violence or otherwise questionable comments or material in the 'Comments' section, and reserves the right to delete any comment violating this rule or to block any poster from the channel.
Credits: US National Archives; Library of Congress; United States Air Force; UK Parliament; Ministry of Defence; Royal Navy; British Army; Royal Air Force; Bundeswehr; US Navy; Shaun Farmer; John Fielding; Android Nikolaienko; Simon Q; R Soner; fabric; Simon; Wonkabar007; Ronnie Macdonald.
The state of our armed forces is a national disgrace. What you have said certainly needed saying, Mark. Thanks.
It really is.
You can say the same about Russia. Do you think that the Soviets army of 1985 would struggle with a conflict similar to what's going on in Ukraine?
Marks video wasn't asking that was it?
Add to that the state of our:
Schools
Hospitals
Roads
Rail network
Power grid
Rivers
And on and on and on.
It's all being run down to the benefit of foreign and domestic billionaires and mega corps.
@@ajgogo1233 Mark is complaining that we can't take on Russia, but we couldn't take on the Soviets in the 80s either because they also had a much stronger military bk then.
While in the Marine Corps in the early 70's, I trained with British Marines. Their kit was top notch, the best that money could buy and their field rations made ours look like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Imagine reaching into your rucksack and pulling out a can with an entire deboned, "Fricasee" chicken. They had cream camo makeup in kits with mirrors, while we had hard camo sticks in "push-up cans" you had to heat up just to apply it and when it cooled it was just caked on like dried mud. They had individual med kits that rivaled our platoon size med kits and the list goes on and on. To see these proud soldiers reduced to a fraction of their potential readiness is just a sad thing.
Ironically in the 70's they were already a shadow of their former selves. The 50's and 60's were they heydays of the Royal Navy and Marines. The late 60's and 70's saw a heavy drawdown of the Royal Navy.
HORRIBLE!!!
I find this a bit hard to believe Jim, many stories tell the opposite. Are you sure or is this sarcasm?
Jim thank you for your service our forces now reduced to pre WW2 ,sleeping while the enemy sharpens their swords against us. God help us in what is to come
RMCs to this day are still top notch monsters
Watching this as an American, it really seems like that has been the trend for western Europeans to become utterly reliant on outside powers to save costs. Whether it be relying on American defense, Russia for energy, or China for manufacturing, western Europe is making the same mistakes now as the empires proceeding them in having the core pillars of stabilization outsourced beyond their borders.
The problem at the core of all thjs was 2008 financial crisis. Europe never really recovered from it. Look at key measures of gdp trends pre 2008 and after. Europe just flat lined.
De-industrialisation is part of it. Another is a decline in birth rates. The other is a belief in the peace dividend of a post cold war europe. This was a term coined by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who both suggested that an end to the cold war would mean less defense spending. The UK defense spending review of 1990 makes this perfectly clear. Policy review was called "Options for change".
Defense review of 2004 also makes it clear that UK interests are with the US and will always fight as part of an international coalition.
The 2010 defense review is a mess. Less a defense a review and more about terrorism, foreign relations, diplomacy and soft power. This defense review announced withdrawal of all British forces from Germany. Canceled nimrod. Further reduction in the fleet to 19. Cut harrier jet program before a direct replacement was operational.
2015 defense review says that British forces should be "world leading". Total garage. By 2019 the government had conceded that its funding was indeed "fake news". All puff.
2017 defense review wasn't a defense review. The government ignored concerns about Russian aggression. Matters of defense were not examined, in a defense review!
The 2021 defense review created a new foreign, development, and commonwealth relations department. The review says the world is becoming multi polar and fragmented. Sounds very similar to what Putin says. And China is the biggest threat, mostly due to its economic importance. Very strange since the 2015 review said that China would be an important future economic ally. Yet more cockups.
It is yet more evidence that "long term" planning turns out not to be best when the "long term" finally comes around.
I don't think it's a desire to rely on others, I think it is a general political complacency about defence issues, and probably wishful/hopeful thinking the next wars won't need people with actual guns...
Please remember we don't have to rely on American help you are free to go... 🇬🇧👍
i really feel france just wants to chill drink wine and eat fine foods lol and has no beef with russia ooo and maintain there secrect north african and pacific empire
It seems like Britain's economy has gotten worse since the 1990s too.
The money saved by more than halving the military budget did not go toward helping the poor and the middle class.
Rebuilding the military will likely be done on the backs of the poor and middle class. In 2023 with the burden of a cost of living crisis.
Thank you Dr. Felton for the timely and informative video.
Outsourcing and privatization reduced tax take with profits often going abroad and taxable income reduced by being offset against large debt repayments . This made the 5 -15 percent saving a pointless exercise !
Britain has been in decline since the second world war, but patriots are blind to this. Also the Soviet union no longer exists.
Yet they spend billions in aid to other countries and magically found billions to keep people at home during the so called COVID epidemic.
You name it, same here in Germany: Just the battle tanks went from close to 3000 down to 266. They cannot even replace the 14 given to Ukraine.
Said only 80 to100 work.
@@jimshoe402 part's problem? Or engineering
Production needs to increase, or your export must cease
@@Snp2024 More parts than engineering - but really it's a policy problem. Successive cuts have meant that consultants to the government were able to implement extremely smart strategies such as scheduled maintenance and order. Meaning there are little to no spare parts held in storage until right before maintenance is planned... this leads to extremely long wait times when something breaks earlier than anticipated as no parts are on stock and lead times can be horrendous.
Imagine all the Turks without work if the US Government closed their bases in Germany😂
When I joined the Royal Navy in 1984 we had more than 18 of just the Leander class frigates let alone the Type 22. type 21 and the type 42's. The deliberate rundown of our navy is absolutely scandalous.
your people voted for it, thats where leftist policies lead , impotence and bankruptcy
Look on the bright side, Britain is far more inclusive now. Why spend money on building up Britain, when you can instead waste it on parasites that will tear it down.
If the rich pay now taxes , how could we finance a big navy , army or air force ???
Well face it the British military just like Canada's isn't much use the US has had to bail you guys out of two world wars that you managed to get involved with the US pur in more men equipment and supplies and money than Britain and Canada combined
Good point. What do you estimate the shipping tonnage lost is per month, now that Britain has foolishly given up its convoy escorts? Of course, they cover it all up. But we know.
Great video Mark!!
As a Canadian, I today discovered that Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany offered to purchase Anticosti island, off of the canadian coast, from the canadian government in 1937. Mainly to operate U-Boat in the St. Lawrence region.
It would be a great and interesting video topic to hear from you!
Fascinating
Instead of Hitler, you got Castro Jr.
@@wadehampton1737 You know that the current PM can't possibly be Castro's son, right? Maggie Trudeau didn't meet Castro for the first time until Justin was 6 years old unless there was a secret meeting that no one has ever discovered.
@@wadehampton1737 Thousands of Castro's special tadpole division soldiers invaded someone's wife...no doubt.
movie/film called "49 parallel" with lesile howard and laurance oliver...
It really sucks. I’m currently in the British army and there’s talks of tons of cuts being made to reduce personnel EVEN further.
That’s really sad 😞 actually.
I heard some stuff from government reports about a potential shrinking of the army to 76,000 men. Though that was a report from last year which I think had been commissioned before the war in Ukraine came along as a wake up call that large scale wars can indeed still happen and are likely if a dictator decides they want their neighbour's land.
Could that change because of the invasion of Ukraine and Putin's demonstration that Russia is a threat to Europe? Hope so.
That’s hilarious. All bark but no bite.
Serving in the late 80s, British Army as a driver in Germany, even then it was a pretence. We were always under strength with manpower and a lot of our vehicles broke down a lot. Very old equipment.
Even when i finished basic training, i had to give back half my uniform, because they did not have enough for the next lot of recruits. I was supposed to get some new clothing at my new units, got some but never a full issued set, but lucky being ex TA, so had a lot of my own clothing etc. Morale at the time was very low, no money for any type of adventurous training or doing anything, some of our troops like B troop stalwarts, since they mostly would not even run, their lads never even really drove anything, you can imagine 3 years of doing nothing. Turn over rate was around 89% of lads getting out after their first 3 years. It was around 86% of the whole army leaving after their first 3 years.
So on paper we were a massive army, but reality NAH. I would presume though it was the same for the Russians.
Was Lucas, the Prince of darkness mostly responsible for the breakdowns?
@@juliogonzo2718Hahaha! Grounding (Earth) issues! I was also in the American forces in the 70’s in Europe, and we looked good on paper. Still, a lot of time training was chipping paint and rust off of Vietnam era vehicles. The saving grace was that Ivan (Russia) was truly exponentially worse in every sense. By the Soviet collapse it was indeed worse, Ivan wasn’t 10 feet tall, more like knee high. The UK can integrate newer technologies cheaper then building masses of tanks and surface naval vessels. Drones, manpads, and superior communications can quickly reduce battlefield masses-notable exception remains artillery.
However, in 3 years they were well trained and we had hundreds of thousands of trained people in civvie Street who could be called up and put into the line.
All armies kit gets old fast and all arenon tight budgets. But numbers matter. Britains armed forces can barely defend the islands of rhe UK. Overseas operations are a major risk that we cannot support. Shameful. Defence should be 4% of GNo. That level enables the sustainment of a domestic arms industry, which is another scandal.
I knew an ex military man who tld us that our helicopters had to be repaired using other broken down helicopters.
@@landoremick7422 It should be 10% of the nat budget min.
Mark, as an ex soldier its been heartbreaking watching this happen over the last 30 years. All governments have let us down. This is going to haunt us. It leaves complete reliance on other forces without the experience and culture to fight conflicts. Please keep your content coming and thanks again for all the great content.
The low birth rate and high immigration rate might have something to do with the disposition of forces.
@@highpath4776 sure bud
@@CARBONHAWK1 Their statement is absolutely correct. All of Europe is suffering from low birth rates and unlimited immigration. Both of these problems that were created by the very same governments that were meant to protect its own citizens.
It would have been a successful strategy if NATO hadn't been so hell-bent on making enemies out of Russia. Rather than incorporating them into a defense establishment as partners, we backed up into a corner by breaking our promises not to grow NATO. THAT is what will haunt us more than anything else, because without them it will be very, very hard to win a conflict with China.
@@highpath4776 Correct....if you have only ONE child your just gunna
not tolerate any high casualty rates, There is also the very real
cultural development where folks who might join see the woke
culture and stay away....they don't talk about this reality at the
Pentagon but its reality anyway....
Friend of mine served in the RAF, they went to the US for whatever reason on a C-17 globemaster. The US air force base they landed on had more C-17's than the entire of the RAF, he spoke to one of the american mechanics and the mechanic said that if it was the USAF then the americans would gave retired the plane as it was in such bad condition.
He also had to get a commercial flight to the US once as they were no RAF planes available. Our armed forces has shrunk so much its embarrassing.
Would like to see how big the US military would be if America had a full universal health and welfare system to pay for!
@@B-A-L It's a question of balance. Service or services? Independence or dependence? Vanquisher or vassal?
I was in the US Navy in 1982 during the Falkland Islands War and remember the Royal Marines had to use the QE2 ocean liner to get to the South Atlantic. Sad.
@@B-A-L Our Democrat Party is trying their best to move us in that very direction!
@@B-A-L We actually pay more than any of the countries with universal healthcare...Part of the reason we rank along Cuba in healthcare access.
As an American, this helps to put the current situation in perspective. I have heard that the German military is facing a similar problem as well
As a brit it's sad to see what our government has done.
Basically the money is being used to keep immigrants.
It doesn’t help. Very few are keen to point out that we got poorer by keeping an unaffordable armed forces alive all the while, Germany who have a larger economy than us had a much smaller defence force while they got richer.
Don’t blame us for being selfish for once.
@@Hollows1997 But until around 2014 Germany committing to further disarmament was taken up as good news even among our own Allies.
@aegian48 All the cuts were a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Germany didn't get suddenly richer. It had to invest a fortune in East Germany. Perhaps it was not all well invested, but the average German didn't get richer. Did the UK make all the right investment decisions with the money from the forces cuts and savings? Invested in private housing?
Italian military too. Although at this point I think it might be the one who between the major European military powers, better "preserved" it's cold war era numbers
30 years of savings on military hasn’t paid off…
Well that depends on what you want the government to spend money on! Of course it doesn't take a genius to work out if you reduce defence spending, defence capability will reduce. The question is are you are happy to pay more taxes for more defence? Myself personally I am not, we should not be throwing money at wars which are being fought one thousand miles away
@@corin492It was Stalin who said "You may not be interested in war, but is war interested in you?"
The army was the same state 40 years ago!
Why would any any Englishman even want to join to fight for a government which hates it's own native people?
@@corin492 The money has not been well spent anywhere else though. We're weaker with nothing to show for it; barely any native industry, a terrible education system, an NHS that is crumbling under the weight of its overly large bureaucracy and then there's the debt.
I`m currently serving in the UK Military, its appalling how cuts upon cuts have for years entirely rendered our military obsolete. Retention is horrendous, nobody wants to stay, the wages stay low and the manpower is stretched thin in the efforts to save cash leading to overworked personnel working on kit that's also being stretched thin.
This is why they recruit more from overseas than the UK nowadays
@@josephbowman1092 since 2018 recruits do not have to of ever lived in the Uk. This is due to the not being able to fulfil its recruitment needs and problems with retention. I served in the mid 1990s, the British military is a pale shadow of what it was then.
@@josephbowman1092
There're Gurkhas from Nepal or India and Pacific islanders serving in the British army, as far as I know. One of them even earned a Victoria Cross medal.
@@josephbowman1092
You're right. I should have clarified that I was referring to recent years.
@@josephbowman1092 from the commonwealth countries. Caribbean being one yes. It is shocking what’s happening to the British military. We sent all our self propelled artillery to Ukraine. We literally have nothing left. We could probably just about scrape together a combat ready brigade. The US aside, the rest of NATO is the same. When you think that the Russians destroy a brigade or two of a better armed Ukrainian army every month it brings home just weak we are militarily.
As an American, this was shocking to hear. Informative as always.
it's better to invest in society btw USA got us covered - they don't have reasonable social security and have more poor people that any developed country and yet spend almost 1 thrillion on the defense. If there ever is a war between nuclear powers then the whole spending on the army is questionable. Beat russia in combat and then be nuked anyway?
Shocking... it was obvious... where have you been lol
@Jim Enigma most Americans could care less about the uk; much less researching their pathetic military capabilities
The British aren't even the worst culprits of military downsizing. Is it any wonder many American politicians were calling on Europe to step up their military spending?
@@trolltrama9780 I disagree. The UK is our closest ally. Many of us came from the UK.
As an Italian I can't stop to feel related to this problem: our military is facing a similar problems.
Although I have to say that compared to Germany and the UK, it seems that we are the one who better "preserved" out former numbers of the cold war eras (although our army back then was smaller than the British or the German one)
Your military spending is half the UK's...
Bro, abbiamo tipo 200 ariete e tipo 200 pezzi di artiglieria. Cosa parli di "numeri"?
I am 70 this year. I did ten years as ground crew in the RAF de mobbing in 1980. My last 4 years were at RAF Lyneham. We had 96 C130J aircraft stationed there. Its an absolute joke what we are left with now. Just a cardboard replica. I thank You for chipping in with your very well respected knowledge Sir. Though, I doubt very much however, that it will change the fat cats minds. 1936 all over again -- Peace in our time. -- Won't happen now, will it. -- Much respect to you Dr Felton.
@Bobs_1 It's simple. There's just no war. We dont need to fight for our lives and throw away luxuries. Every god damn military through history has went through the ebbs and flow of peacetime size and wartime size.
@Richard Williams of course otherwise he wouldn't say that, As he is a vet, He would've told you if they were from other countries but he did not
@Bobs_1 I always still see the military as a possible job option since I like the feel of comradship, But yeah, Death, Too low pay when you're risking your life and defending your country doing the job, Only benefit is that your pension is way earlier, It's a much harder choice than back then where you were given benefits such as a brand new paid for house, Welfare options, permanent paid for healthcare insurance, it was nice
@@valyshknee4203 very unlikely since we only ordered 14 C130Js.
Same here in Denmark. Our military has been systematically cut down to a token force of its cold war size. Granted, we are a small nation. But we used to be able to field 2 divisions, now we can't even put together a single brigade. Same goes for the navy with 5 frigates but only personel to staff 2,5 of them. The air force is in the same bleak situation.
Why the hell wouldnt Denmark significantly cut it s Cold War size forces ? This is 2023....
@@amblincork One thing is trimming down our forces because we assumed no neer-peer adversery would exist in the post Cold War era, another thing is to butcher our forces to the point of almost breaking point.
@@meow1990_2 Who exactly are you expecting to invade you ?
Phillp, we are far less prepared than in the Cold War . everyone seems to see what is developing in Europe and Asia, yet we sleep. May God help us in what is coming
good grief. Incredible that nothing much is even mentioned in public. I should take a closer look at the situation of my homeland Australia, calibrating the tremendous leaps and bounds of our neighbour and major trading partner China who counts by the higher x10 rail, flotillas of ships commissioning in about 2 years, the envy of our navies.
It is not only britian that has a shrunken military. All the NATO members wound back their militaryies after the fall of the Cold War and iron curtain. I had a debate with a character about the manufacture of Leopard 2 tanks by Rhienmetal. I stated there was no rolling assembly line. They were being made on a static workshop basis, which is slow to turn out tanks. I have been vindicated as the Poles have now purchased 250 Abram's M1 A2 tanks from the US with 115 delivered and the rest to come in the next year or so. The scrounge around for Leopard 2 tanks for Ukraine is a total embarrassment to the NATO nations.
After Ukraine NATO is next to fall
Don't forget that Poles are also buying tanks from South Korea.
@@ifyoudontfailyouarenoteven6210 Don't forget the Big Guy always gets 10%💰🇺🇦💰
I say this as a committed pacifist, the countries who are members of NATO need to increase the size of the their militaries and military spending significantly.
The American don't have an assembly line for Abrams tanks either though. That production line was closed decades ago. Whatever Abrams tanks Poland buys come straight out of US Army reserve stocks.
The Navy part is really the most troubling thing when looking at UK's military as a whole. Long ago top officials already recognized the need for a powerful Navy to protect overseas interests and secure safe shipping to the homeland. Us Americans also eventually realized this and built a massive armada ourselves. Thus it is concerning that both the British and Americans have been neglecting their navies (though the US not quite as much) at a time when the biggest threat to our security as nations that mostly trade lies on the other side of the world separated by an ocean.
Well, you dont have the right for overseas interests, so it is nice that your fleet and international military strenght is history.
The rest of the World's navies combined couldn't beat the USN. And you think that's neglect?
Think a bit harder, FFS!
@sammybeutlin2763 on short.....bye bye.
People forget how crazy the seas were pre-ww2. You had to have your navy patrolling your shipping lanes. Problem is, the colonies provided the loot the build the nations and navies in the first place... without that revenue, nations have to tighten the belt, or like the US, build a 30+ trillion dollar debt.
@@sammybeutlin2763 might makes right
I joined RAF in 1991 and left in the 2000's and can relate to this video. we went from exercises designed to hold of the Russians in Germany, that changed in the late nineties to becoming an expeditionary force, expected to deploy to the Gulf
thank you fro your service. a yank
I was airforce in Canada till ‘86. It was shameful to see how they cut spending, training exercises to the point that we are highly inefficient.
Here we are today that we have an impending war On the horizon in the South China Sea and another one in Ukraine.
Even back then our instructors had warned us of the looming wars that were on the horizon and sure enough they are happening today.
The politicians should’ve listened to the old soldiers that had experience back then and we would be better prepared today.
@@SoloRenegade Or spineless politicans manuvering for votes and popularity. At the end of the day, bombs and bullets have no particular preferences when it comes to saving someones hide.
@@nzs316 be careful what you say online. Castro's bastard son might shut off your money and arrest you.
Seriously, it's starting to look like we (usa) need to invade Canada to liberate you from that tyrranical gov't.
To deploy to the golf so you can try to colonize and rob the countries from their wealth
Thanks Mark! So true. And if you then look at Germany, as I do as a German artillery officer in the years 1989-1994, you can only shake your head and burst into tears. So many years of decline. Especially here in Germany, after the end of the cold war, it was not possible to win a single vote by demanding a higher defense budget. And that is the real tragedy. A defense budget (up to a certain margin) should never be negotiable. At no times. Nowhere. As democracies, we must be able to defend ourselves.
An in the end nobody wanted to listen to the few voices that repeatedly warned: "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" ... "If You Want Peace, Prepare For War."
Germany was a puppet of the allies and the Soviets East Germany Russian west Germany democratic
The brits have keept their ships afloat better, but the british army might well be in a worse state than the german army. Seen a report that the UK would take 3 times as long as Germany to put together an armored brigade or so. German one would run out of ammo faster tho.,
its funny how NATO seems to be doing all it can to provoke Putin with little to back it up.
The thing was
And after Reunification we got East Germany's stuff to, because of treaties groud army and many system typs, ships hat to be cut
copied older comment not up to date
Germany had practically no threat, has friendly relations with its neighbors, Poland etc. as a buffer to Russia.
Reunification with East Germany was expensive, which is why savings were made in the military.
Who should also attack Germany?
China Economic relations make it still too impossible, many Chinese like Germany (e.g. also because of John Rabe, the good Nazi, who saved 200k Chinese civilians), China is far away.
Iran, North Korea etc. have no direct problem with Germany, are too far away or their military would not be strong enough.
Let's say Iran would be hostile now, they would have to build a fleet first, bring their army through the Mediterranean Sea/around Africa, past Spain, France and later the English Channel past NATO members to attack then on Germany's North Sea coast next to, the Netherlands, Denmark.
@@markcallaghan8389 Well, not really, provocation either way, and since the military is not designed to stem the national defense alone anyway, but in the alliance defense, Russia would still have no chance.
And one has Poland etc. as larger military numbers at equipment.
If one could lead the war long enough, NATO or the European countries would win even without the USA, because the economy is simply much bigger and industry exists which can be converted for military production = the military potential is much bigger than what Russia could convert.
In addition, there are nuclear weapons.
(Britain) "Our Armed Forces have shrunk significantly and pale compared to our past." (Canada) "Hold my beer!"
Canada is at least ordering 15 Type 26 frigates, whilst Britain orders. . . 8.
@@alexanderfoster3628 you are forgetting that the british are ordering 5 type 31 frigates and have type 32 frigates in the works too
@@XxRemixerzxX Currently there is no funding for T32. As for T31 it is a glorified off shore patrol vessel with 24 Sea Ceptor missiles. With so few hull all the new frigates should be T26.
took the words out of my mouth, lmao
@@alexanderfoster3628 Ordering doesnt mean getting. The oligarch drydocks build god awful boats full of problems and then demand more money from the government to fix THEIR mistakes.
Canada's procurement system is a joke.
I'm a New Zealander. If you think this is bad, consider the New Zealand military. Our Army consists of 5 guys with a single air rifle which they all share, and a single pedal powered tank with cardboard armour. In the event of foreign invasion, current military doctrine states, that once the ammo runs out, we are to start throwing large, heavy objects at the enemy, like chairs, tables and pregnant women.
yes, but the whole point of New Zealand is that it isn't worth invading :)
Great Kiwi humour. Your parody could apply equally to Canada's military but when our ammo runs out, we just retreat so far the invaders would run out of supplies crossing the vast wildernes trying to find us. To DCamore's point, no one wants to invade Canada either.
New Zealand should have never decommissioned the Bob Semple Tank.
Thanks Mark. These numbers are rather shocking especially given the current tensions in Europe. You can see why our American allies have become fed up with how most NATO members do not pay their way.
@@KRGruner Troll.
@@KRGruner dope
@@KRGruner you bet he was! That’s not related to what we were talking about though!
The US has effectively bankrolled 70% of the cost of defending Europe post WW2. Western politician's need to wake up from their complacency coma's and realise that with China becoming increasingly bellicose, it's only a matter of time before the US turns around to Europe and notifies NATO that they have prioritise defending their own back yard and interests in the Pacific region. If you look at Germany, in 1990, the Bundeswehr possessed 4000 main battle tanks. Today, they can barely field 100-150. Europe has spent 30 years disarming, collectively, European countries need to wake up and start spending 4% GDP on defence, even then, it would take at least a decade to reverse *some* of the damage that has occurred.
👑🇪🇺🇬🇷👑✝️🇪🇺🇬🇷👑
Britania has CIVILISATION
And global language and tea..............
They dont need army
British are civilised
They are not blood thirsty as mongols and other empires of past and now
And communists
And rioters barbarians
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Thanks for bringing this to light, Mark. As a former US Army officer, I’m shocked and appalled at this information. I really had no idea the UK military was so depleted. We often see Britain as a viable military ally. I hope the recent developments with Russia and China cause a shift in UK military readiness going forward.
We are some of the best trained in the world. We are though small. I've taken part in exercises with a number of foreign countries and can tell you apart from I think the elite Danish soldiers we tend to smash most countries in a number of areas.
We do need more funding and equipment though
It seems some shifts may be coming as there’s been lots of talk about the military the past few months, hopefully there will be some action taken because the state of the British military is unacceptable.
Man for man the British are the best trained in the world. There's just not enough of us
China is nowhere near the UK so no need for us to worry about them. Russia has shown its incompetence so again no need to break the bank on useless military spending.
@@Hill_Walker if you think we don't need a strong military you've not learnt the lessons of history
I left the Army in 2015 and a good reason for my leaving was the absolute ineptitude of my chain of command. The system had become one of box ticking and internal bureaucracy. The job at hand became unbelievably difficult to perform and this depleted the moral of the juniors. I loved my time but my last unit was a totally unfit for purpose. It was 40% undermanned too.
I’m currently signed off and some of the reasons you mentioned there as the reasons I’ve signed off also what unit/ rank where because I’m a junior and there is little to no morale in the ranks
I knew a man that wanted a full lifelong career in the army, fully intended to do 22 years or more and he did a good job of it, he enjoyed the first half (when he wasn't at war of course), but something changed for him. He said it was like the entire culture had shifted in the army and nobody had their heart in it anymore, the old spirit was gone and he couldn't bare it. Left after nearly a decade or more of being a soldier I think. It seems like this story is becoming all too common, and its sad to hear because I'm trying to join myself.
@Billy Halliday RAF even worse 🙄
Kinda funny since I had many of the same issues when leaving the US Army. My Cav Troop was running at around 70 people total, with an authorized strength of 120ish.
@@billyhalliday9811 I was a Sergeant in the Signals. I couldn't keep my guys protected from the B.S. and the only advice I got was basically, give up caring. Unfortunately that wasn't and option and I decided to leave after 14 years. Most of my peers also wanted to leave but were either happy to go with the flow or pension trapped. We had more people on the biff than able bodied and that funnelled down with duties and deployments. The professional ones got spammed to death and made miserable while the biffs were sitting pretty.
Like I said. I had many many reasons for leaving. Those are just the condensed versions. It's a lifestyle and career and a TH-cam comments section can't really do the experience justice.
I wish you all the luck in the future.
Thanks for the comments everyone btw.
I'm coming up on my 20th year in the U.S. armed forces. London needs to give her armed forces more support. We need our British cousins with us ALWAYS! God bless Great Britain.
I suspect that the many Western-European countries' militaries have followed similar patterns since the end of the Cold War. Many governments have been too complacent, playing down the risk, not taking warning signs seriously
They became accustomed to the US paying the lion's share of NATO and UN funds, along with personnel and equipment in their countries, as a sort of proxy military. That said, even the US has BRAC, or Base Realignment and Closure, which also cuts the amount of active and reserve forces.
@@persnikitty3570 No they didnt. Its simply the case of the USSR and the Warsaw pact collapsing and with a weaked Russia. There was not a cause to justify spending 4% on defence. Europe helped the Americans with their idiotic wars in the Middle East which many seems to have forgotten
yes... we were all caught being idealistic and not realistic... we were so busy being "woke" that we were caught sleeping...
@@stc3145 But European help was not in the form of providing large forces but token detachments so that US presidents could claim they were leading international coalitions, and not a massive US invasion by itself. For that Europe did not need to maintain large forces. A battalion per country at the most would suffice.
Also having to pay for massive social programs for the illegals and all the crime, rape, murder etc.
Using an internet search and Dr. Felton's numbers, the entire active duty British armed forces are smaller than the US Marine Corp and have far less jet fighters. The RN only having 30 line combat vessels is shocking. Got a tour of HMS Churchill back in the 80s when she made port in Norfolk, VA. Three of us from USS Bainbridge took one of the Churchill crewman with us to see the sights in Washington, DC. Fun times.
I think the entire British Army should be marines. They should have navy, air force and marines.
Then they should have territorial defense forces, made up of trained volunteers. Or have every 18 year old able bodied male go throw a mandatory 3 months basic training, optional for women.
The military doesn't just need frontline soldiers, they also need mechanics, truck drivers, drone operators, etc. Those things can be easily assigned to territorial defense forces or volunteers, in case of a large scale conflict.
I hope the West now realizes we need two tier equipment.
The high tech, expensive equipment is too expensive to buy and maintain in large numbers, we also need cheaper equipment that can be easily manufactured and purchased in large numbers.
It's nice to have Javelins and NLAWs, but it's nicer to also have a whole bunch of things like the Ukrainian Stugna-P .
It's nice to have Reaper drones, but it's nicer to also have 1 million Shahed drones.
@@scratchy996 Marines are naval commando infantry specialists, it would be impossible to have just marines, with no land forces dedicated to that role. Three months training would be inadequate, and the training base would be impossible to maintain, the costs would be enormous and a waste of resources, and frankly with the demographic diverse makeup of the UK as it stands it might be a dangerous path to chaos to train people with no loyalty to the UK in the use of firearms.
I cannot see the majority of the ethnic groups even be willing or capable of going through such disciplined training without riots and major dangerous disruption.
@@scratchy996 That's how we do it in SK with our tank fleet. 500 modernized M48s for the reserves, 1000 105mm K1 tanks as a cheap option, 500 120mm K1A2 tanks as a middling option, and 300 K2 Black panthers as the high end option.
good thing. much better to have free and universal education and healthcare than killing machines to invade other countries for oil.
@@robshirewood5060 I can see a two tier army where the arms bearers are mainly anglo saxon and some but not all commonwealth. At best the others might get to blow a bugle or wash the floors. (bit like the irish come the end of WW1)
I'm American, and the state of the Royal Navy makes me the most sad. A service with such a proud and great history and tradition, to have such a decline in strength is so depressing.
Thanx you HATEFUL leftwingers!
Dont be too sad, I doubt they would feel bad if the US Navy was in that condition, in fact, they would probably love that.
Lord Nelson wept.
I'm pretty sure that it was that strength that was used to blockade US ports during and after your Revolution. And they kept it at strength because of all the other economies (India, China, Burma, Malaysia) that they crushed with it, which was great for business, I gotta tell ya. What are your feelings on that glorious history?
I think it’s funny, it’s even funnier that most of those RAF bases contain USAF jets.
Realistically, everyone has shrunk their military spending after the Cold war. The key difference is, while the NATO powers have small forces, but with more modern equipment, Russia still maintains a fairly large army, albeit usually equipped with older or only partially modernized equipment. Of course, no European country could 1v1 Russia without outside support, but as we can see even Ukraine who is not a NATO member is getting massive support from NATO countries. And again, even in the 1980s for example, when all European armies were bigger, neither was still large enough to take on the Soviet Union alone, because the Soviet army was also much bigger than the Russian army is today. Russia today is also a shadow of the former Soviet Union, as far as the armed forces are concerned. Just to give an example, before the war in Ukraine Russia had about 3 000 or so tanks in active service, and according to numbers that a quick Google search provided, the USSR had between 30 and 40 thousand tanks in active service just before its collapse. This means that while the number of British tanks in active service got reduced by a factor of 5, the number of Russian tanks in active service got reduced by a factor of 10 or more. Furthermore, Russia no longer has its Warsaw Pact allies, which all also had quite sizeable armies during the Cold war.
I wouldn't say massive support. We're sending in good equipment but no actual combat troops. I have to wonder why NATO powers don't send in a coalition force to overwhelm Russia and end the war more quickly since it seems costly for everyone, not just Russia and Ukraine.
@@TheSm1thers But it is quite massive support in equipment. Just the US aid to Ukraine is probably not far off 100 billion dollars so far (edit: I looked it up, apparently the total value of US military aid is around 33 billion dollars, not quite as much as I thought, but still huge). Just a reminder, for the past couple decades the Russian yearly military budget was 50-70 billion dollars or so. Without all the equipment they are getting, the Ukrainians couldn't fight so well and for so long. Most people talk about the numbers of tanks Russia lost, so just to use that as an example - I bet a pretty decent portion of those were destroyed by the western anti tank weapons sent in as military aid. So, even though I understand your point about the aid not being so massive because no NATO troops were sent, I disagree with it wholeheartedly. Ukraine clearly has a pretty decent number of people willing to fight, but without all the western equipment they certainly could not have done as good a job.
As far as sending a coalition force into Ukraine, that would be a huge escalation form NATO's side, and could entice a big Russian reaction. Russia is one of the 2 main nuclear powers in the world, so nobody really wants to commit directly to a war against Russia. It is literally Russian doctrine that nuclear weapons can and will be used if the existence of Russia is threatened. Basically, their doctrine allows the so called "first strike" with nuclear weapons. That does not mean they would instantly bomb the whole world, but it might not be impossible that they would use a couple tactical nukes here and there in order to destroy the hypothetical NATO battlegroups in Ukraine. And if that happened, it could all quickly escalate into a full blown nuclear conflict. Now, all of this is hypothetical, but I think nobody really wants to risk it right now.
That opinion is the reason European military power is so poor.
227 Tanks and not all of them are fully functional.
@@joshfeehan6929 it is poor in comparison with what it was, but so is Russian military power in comparison to Soviet. Russia is struggling in Ukraine, do you think they could realistically take on the whole Europe?
Almost every Barracks, from Catterick to Aldershot and even a injury rehab Centre i had to attend, in Surry during my 6 years Army service in the 70's is now a housing estate. Those figures are shocking, especially considering the £ Billions that have been wasted in the last couple of years.
Pakistani families are living there now. They are calling it there little Jalalabad.
@@richardv9648 oh wow, so sad. I would be livid too.
@@richardv9648 Where?
@@richardv9648 but isnt jalalabad is afghanistan city?
@@luchko3936 No Its in Pakistan, It used to be a British army cantonment during the first and second anglo-Afghan war. Its now a Pakistani Army's cant. after Pakistans independence. Osama bin laden was found hiding there.
Dr. Felton- I’m sure that the men and women of the British Armed Forces are appreciative of you raising the alarm bells.
Politicians Talk. Soldiers Walk.
Men are soldiers, women are just there for show and "bonus points"
In general, only about 1/3 of ships will be available on station at any given time. 1/3 will be in maintenance/refit and unable to deploy, while 1/3 are undergoing replenishment in order to be deployed or are doing their end of deployment tasking. In 1944, losing a destroyer wasn't great, but it didn't really hurt the available forces, but losing one today represents a huge loss of capability.
Indeed, that's also why only having two (especially non-nuclear!) carriers will never do! They can't stay on station as long as a nuclear carrier can, they can't steam as fast constantly and if you also have only got two? Well, you'll not risk them, thus giving your enemies a lot of freedom to move! Hell, look at Argentina! They had one carrier during the Falklands War and they did everything they could to keep it safe, which gave Britain (despite being thousands of miles from re-supply!) the freedom to move (especially since the had a few tireless hunters - nuclear subs! - hunting for that carrier!)
Red Dawn 🌿🇨🇳🌿
Indeed, and Britain's manufacturing base is too weak to sustain a long-term, conventional war. As US Armed Forces Veteran, I feel similar about the US right now. I got out in 2021 after 14 years. My Navy Veteran Wife got out after 16. We both got out as Senior NCOs.
Yep, always heard the old "one in three" mantra and it seems to hold up.
At least the navy has a good supply of Superglue🤣🤣🤣👍🇷🇺🇷🇺🇮🇪
This is a common issue throughout Europe. For the most part, many countries in Europe have deferred their defense to the United States and the threat of the NATO alliance as a whole. But it’s kind of worrisome to see European powerhouses like France and the UK drop the ball in maintaining military readiness. The US is the most advanced and capable military in the world, but even we can’t do it alone, especially now with China breathing down Taiwan’s neck. We NEED the UK, France, and Germany to be stronger and more ready.
I agree that things are starting to look rough but if you look at the military spending of NATO compared to any realistic threats to NATO they still massively out spend them. That was the whole point of NATO, so that any 1 country would not have to fight alone reducing the huge burden on their individual economies and militaries. True the US pulls a lot of the weight but they are also the largest economy in the world as well as one of the most resource rich.
I'm willing to bet that the economies of the smaller partners have improved since cutting their military budget and its not been needed for 30 years. If that money had continued to be spent on a large military they would have less of an economy to back it up in the event of an actual war. So if they are able to recognise the threat early enough then they are more likely to be in a better position to expand and improve their militaries. Not only is there the cost of maintaining a large military but also upgrading and refitting it too, if these smaller countries had to maintain their forces then they would have likely not been able to modernise their equipment to the standard they have and would be harder to modernise doctrines.
In conclusion i do not think it was necessarily a bad thing that military spending was reduced when there was no threat and instead spent elsewhere, assuming they have enough foresight to rearm when necessary. not every country has the ability to do what the US can.
And the US is worse that it was. We have the numbers but they are DEI specialists
France at least has a pretty robust defense indsutry.
My first experience with the British military was during an exchange with 1 Para of the Parachute Regiment. As an American paratrooper, I was impressed with them. I was saddened to learn that the Connaught Barracks were closed.
Almagation was the saddest thing. There's a great documentary, called In the Highest Tradition.
Almagation was the saddest thing. There's a great documentary, called In the Highest Tradition.
Almagation was the saddest thing. There's a great documentary, called In the Highest Tradition.
@@johnw1954 What have you been drinking old chap............AMALGAMATION and I agree, we lost the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry aka 1st Royal Green Jackets, one of the finest Regiments ever.
Did you find the Paras to be 'mental' - I did.
As a German, i can sit here and say, that it is fascinating what you say about the British Army specific. It sounds exactly like the News here at the Moment. No Personal, no Tanks, no Aircraft, no Ammo etc. Also heared the same from some french Friends.
I'm Polish and the same can be said about all EU armies.
Every year since 2009, Russia has always been putting AT LEAST 3.5% of their year GDP into military. They reached as high as 5.4% in the fiscal year 2016.
For comparison: the EU (as a whole) has only been spending around 1.4% for the same time period. Significantly below NATO's minimum 2% requirement.
The thing about democracies is that politicians are incentivized to neglect the military, because spending money on social programs/benefits will get you more votes than spending the same amount of money on military equipment.
@thematic2177 Greece put 3.8% last year, more -as a percentage - than even the US.
@@kavas1970 The US defense budget was 742 billion in 2021, more than the rest of NATO combined.
@@Thematic2177 Ah but hold even with just a min defence spendin Nato can still defeat the russian army that is why its not tried.
@@rayjames6096 He is talking in national defence share, stop being silly. The US even with that kind of money on defence has alllowed the US navy to be over taken by China, that is why the latter is more aggressive, so is russia.
The Royal Navy being so diminished is infuriating. The last time we appeared this weak, Argentina tried to conquer the Falklands and we had to put old Hermes back into service (luckily she hadn't been decommissioned, just put in reserve) and bring a load of civilian ships into service. At least we have two new carriers, but that's no good if we can't make up a proper carrier group to defend said carrier. We need an actual fleet or else our flagships are useless and will have to rely on allies for protection.
For the Royal Air Force, it's again painful. I recently watched the Evacuation documentary about the evacuation of Kabul in 2021, and we struggled with the amount of planes we had available to us to get people out. We just don't have the heavy lift capacity any more, this has been made worse recently by the retirement of the last two C-130 Hercules from RAF service last month (June). The RAF is the branch I'd thought about joining if I ever did join the military, but it just no longer has the scale to take recruits really any more.
I joined the RAN in 1987. I was confident in our leadership, hardware, civilian support and fighting spirit. Having left last year, I have confidence that our current personnel will die bravely in defeat. Hardware is bug ridden, over reliant on contractors, and ludicrous maintenance costs. Shrinking assets, front line numbers and morale. Top that off with the military more worried about checking boxes than training, and I look at our adversaries with gloom, especially a certain country that has expended their military in leaps and bounds and looks at the west with disdain. And they have every right to do so. There will always be combat losses in a shooting war, on land, sea and air, not matter how technically advanced you are. in the past, crash construction and industry ramping up could make up the shortfalls. Today? A single loss of a frigate or sub would be devastating as they could not be replaced quickly. Reserve fleets are a thing of the past, years to build a frigging patrol boat and most young folks want to be tik tok influencers and not wear the uniform. Sorry for the rant, Mark, but a shrinking military reflects a shrinking desire of a nation to defend it's values. We are just about there.
Same thing here in America with the youth that are more interested in being some sort of internet influencer than putting their country and others first. I served in the us army in the early 80’s and we had Reforger back then. The 5th Infantry Division I served with doesn’t even exist anymore. It really makes me sick.
Your words hurt. Because they are true.
When there's no more uniformity in the martial tribe the tribe fragments and is dissolved.
These days it is all about "diversity" as if that will save them from being killed.
I agree with your statement on a pitiful military reflects the lack of desire to defend western values. I will also add is the slow decay of western society. Rather than correct it we pander to idiots with pronouns and positive descrimination tick boxing quotas.
@@Veldtian1 Is that a quote?
The manpower of the RAF when I joined it in the early 1980's, was more than the total present manpower of all 2023 UK armed services. Frighteningly small it is now.
I’m actually personally annoyed at this.
A few months ago I was rejected from the British Army because one of my eyes was only just outside the minimum eyesight range. (+- 6.00).
Even though I was fit, able and willing to join I was rejected for this. It’s even more annoying that I could’ve fixed it with laser eye surgery but they don’t let you join if you’ve had laser eye surgery until a few years after.
This is especially annoying since even though one of my eyes is within the minimum requirement, frankly both my “good” and “bad” eye are equally fine with glasses/contacts, and equally crap without; there’s no practical difference.
My point being, is that the military has a lot of arbitrary and outdated entry requirements, especially with modern medicine/treatments etc.
It’s hypocritical that they complain about a manpower shortage while simultaneously having stupidly strict entry requirements.
US army is eager for recruits right now if you are interested. I would say it's not a great time to join, but compared to the British army it sounds like it is better.
Why on earth would you want to fight for a country that hates you? (I assume you're an ethnic Englishman?). There is nothing worth fighting for anymore.
@@SoloRenegade how good does your eyesight need to be to man a drone? the robots do all the fighting these days.
Furthermore, (if accepted) you wouldn't have complained about the Army food on account of your love for Spam...
@Twitter Is Cancer Probably be a general if Trans lol
And the EU laughed at a certain US president who said you need to take defending yourself seriously because the US could not afford to continue to fund NATO and come to the rescue. They laughed at a certain US president when he said reliance on Russian natural resources was going to be a major problem for Europe.
Same “ma also said he didn’t understand how wind works, and it was also convinced you need ID to buy groceries. It lied 93% of the times it opened its cum guzzler. Nobody listens to it for a good reason.
Every president since JFK has said that
@@sleepnaught But orange man bad.😂
They also laughed at Russia's poor military performance but their forces are getting smaller and unable to protect themselves if Russia ever attacks them.
@@subjectc7505 Russia is a paper tiger.
Mark, as a US Army Veteran those are shocking numbers to my ears. The UK is one of our greatest allies in times of conflict. With those numbers we will not be able to depend on them for any great help if a conflict does occur. I’m not sure who we can truly depend on if we can’t depend on y’all.
(By the way I did work along side some British soldiers in Afghanistan while deployed in 2004 and they were excellent soldiers.)
Well if you ever need help taking on glorified drug dealers in a third world middle eastern country, we can still round up a few lads to help out with that. If a real war breaks out... yeah we can't do much. :/
England is a dead power. I'm confident that Germany, France, and the US are not in the same boat.
European countries l( uk Germany France) are just thinking why spend billions on our defence when Uncle Sam will pay it for us 😂
None of these comments make sense. Why would you need a large army when nukes exist? All the UK needs to do is keep a small force to maintain the trident
There probably depending on NATO just like a lot of other countries in countries that belong to nato aren't paying their fair share
So sad that the UK has become a shadow of itself. Still love the history and the heart of the UK armed forces.
SMOKING THE QUEEN PACK 🚬🚬🚬🚬🚬🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
With no need to maintain The Empire, politicians will reduce UK military forces to "a well-armed coast guard."
@@claude9560 Everyone invaded other kingdoms when they were able to, Britain was just more able to than most.
As far as conquerors go they were certainly better than most. British ex-colonies are near universally better off than those of other nations.
The army was the same state 40 years ago!
@@Arkantos117 .....agreed. British Commonwealth nations are better than French, Spanish, Portuguese or Belgian former colonies.
I was an infantry soldier, and it was a standard joke the RAF will soon be RAF plc owing to the vast number of jobs now done by civillians. Great content, best wishes all.
As an ex crab, that joke has sadly become reality!
The German Military complex shrunk even more dramatic, from active peace time personnel of ~480.000 troops in 1990 to roughly 180.000 today.
If you aren't talking about the entire army and just the infantry then you are quite lucky. The ENTIRE Dutch Army has 41,000
The Finns were the only ones in Europe (apart from the Swiss) to maintain a conscript-based force after the Cold War ended. As a result, the Finns are in much better shape, militarily-speaking, than their neighbors during this time of increased tensions with Russia. Even Sweden jettisoned much of its military capabilities after the Cold War ended and is now scrambling to try to restore them.
"Better to have them and not need them, then to need them and not have them."
I had the opportunity to sail with the Finnish Navy aboard the FNS POHJANMAA in mid-2003. Despite some pretty outdated equipment, I was incredibly impressed with their professionalism and Esprit-de-Corps, from the newest conscript to the CO. Particularly so given this was during a time of general peace in northern Europe. I'd imagine its the same, or perhaps even stronger, today.
@@notpopeye interesting. Thanks for those personal insights!!
Estonia also kept their conscription based army after regaining their independence in ‘91
Just like Germany who is currently facing problems with their military possibly due to those leftist in the government
Finland and Sweden are only wanted in NATO so they can monitor and possibly disrupt Russia's legitimate interests in the Arctic (which incidentally means "with Bear") and its legitimate clearance of sea routes north of Russia which open commercial routes Atlantic to Pacific and vice versa.
Very true. The American military has had its own issues with shrinking conventional capabilities after 20 years of fighting terrorists, but the state of the UK (our number one partner) and our other NATO allies’ militaries is very concerning.
When you finally realize that we are the actual terrorists.
The only bright light among the European military's right now is the Polish army, which is undertaking a huge modernisation effort at breakneck speed that will see it effectively become the shield of Europe. If successful it will become by far the most powerful European NATO army by 2027 capable of holding Russia at the border in the event of an invasion, provided it's given sufficient air support by other NATO members.
Basically the Poles have seen the western European military's shrinking and have said 'fine, I'll do it myself'.
@@NoName-qs6ei Terrorists are, by definition, non state actors. As such any actions taken by the western nations, or any other nation for that matter, literally can't be called terrorism. When acts of terror are committed by a state they are referred to as either war crimes or crimes against humanity, depending on the severity and circumstances.
@@ddandymann Call it what you want. Pot meet kettle.
@@NoName-qs6ei Definitions are important dude, that's the only point I was making. If you want to call the wests actions in the middle east, and more specifically Iraq, war crimes then I won't disagree with you. However calling it terrorism is just flat out wrong.
As someone who works with the British Army frequently, your small military is a very professional and competent force. I'm always impressed that they can punch well above their weight.
Yes but they can’t keep on doing it forever without the government funding them properly
That's nice but our weight is currently bantamweight when it should really be, based on our population and the size of our economy, middleweight.
@@Akm72 amen
Every one can punch until they got punched back or something or other. 😅
That is what they said in 1914, my good man, and that fine small army of very professional and competent men effectively disappeared after six months of fighting German conscripts. The British Expeditionary Force did fight better, man for man, but they were still far outnumbered by an enemy that was only so much less capable than them.
Do The Netherlands next! Actually had a decent army before the end of the cold war. It's scary how little is left now. I guess we'll pretend to wage war for 4 days again in case of an invasion...
Well said, Mark! I was shocked to learn that at the time of the Falklands conflict if the Argies had launched their invasion two months later, by then, HMS Hermes would have been at the breaker's yard! Thus one could only imagine the out come!!! As always, keep up the excellent work!
and if they invaded today, they’d win!
HMS Hermes was sold to India. The Falklands delayed the sale.
@@hunty1970 They definitely wouldn’t, as their military has declined even more than ours! Their airforce consists of about 8 A-4ARs which can’t even break the sound barrier. The eurofighter Typhoons stationed on the islands could deal with these easily - the Argentinian airforce wouldn’t stand a chance in 2023. This is also without considering the modern anti-air and anti-ship missiles also stationed there.
@@hunty1970 Man. You're giving the argentines way too much credit. They can barely have a navy now. Let alone a small invasion force
yes, the hardware we use has improved, but that does not mean we can cut numbers, because our potential enemies have also improved their capabilities. Our politicians do not personally benefit from the military, so they do not care, and many seem to HATE this country.
Sad to see y’all dealing with that as an American. I got respect for our buds across the pond and it’s disgraceful what’s happened to your armed forces. Some of the same issues happen here too
A sobering review. Thank you. As a retired member of the US Air Force, I always very much enjoyed working with the RAF and British Army. Top notch personnel.
Wait until Pedo Joe and his woke pals get done with our military. Won' t be pretty
They are nice to our faces but behind our backs they dont talk so nicely about us.
I do not believe that the millions of Bengali, Pakistani and Indian English new "citizens" will be willing to fight to defend the country; according to my personal knowledge of them. Even if forced, they are not worth a penny, more or less like the Afghani military "trained" for 20 years by the U.S. to oppose the Taliban, and disappeared in one day when it was time to fight.
I am willing to bet that quite a chunk of the white natives won't be willing to fight in any war, given the political distrust that exists in the west, let alone the new immigrants.
I remember when I went through armor officer school, we had a British Army SGT Major as an instructor and he said there were more tanks at Ft Benning, GA than in the whole British Army. I didn't believe him at the time.
what's even worse is that the government before the Ukraine thing happened was looking at going down to 100 and scrapping the others for parts. it's painful being British.
Again if numbers were the key the chinese would walk over the US now. As we have seen in ukraine numbers are not important it how you use what you have. The UK armed forces is too small though way too small.
@@Ben-ek1fz That's the thing about being a declining economic power, you have to peddle harder to just stay still. Economic power = military power. Now ask yourself WHY the UK has had a virtually stagnant economy for the last 10 years.
@@mlc4495 If only we could identify certain policies, etc over the last 30 years that have sapped the economic power and crushed the will of the average Englishman........
@@thetreelander7378 At least you aren't speaking German!!!
It's not only the UK. It's most of western Europe. In my country Portugal we have 16 F-16 and about 60 leopard 2. I read somewhere that to make a German tank battalion ready they had to get parts from all the other battalions.
That's ok though, as long as you have diversity and use the proper pronouns, you should be good to go. LOL!!
@@The_OneManCrowd yea swallow that propaganda from the Alt-right in order to justify billionaire military contractors get their pay check.
Tell me, Who is this who says that diversity and using proper pronouns would mean that you are good for military service or whatever ficitional argument you are trying to interpret?
is it the "Cultural Marxist" or "Woke illuminati government"??
@@zeyadsaeed9580 it's not his fault. Years of reactionary propaganda takes a toll
We all know what this means, utter defeat and conquest in this upcoming world war.
@Vasco That's makes a lot of sense. They all became reliant in American blood and treasure.
It's pretty much the same with the Australian Defense Force (ADF). An article appeared recently in the Oz media in which a retired Australian general said that if we went to war, we would last about 2 days. Frightening and visions of 1939.
They also said Ukraine wouldn’t make it a month. But here we are. I think any solid enemy of Australia would get there and realize the mess they got themselves in by how tough and ingenuitive you bastards are. And even then, the US and the rest of the free world would be right behind them to help you out. That’s why nato and the UN exist
... hopefully the forces of the big, hungry, yellow draggon will not be on Pervitin then .....
@@_Alfa.Bravo_ No, just plenty of MSG in their food!
Alonso, they got rid of a lot of the 7.62mm SLRs, permanently! Crushed and scrapped!
Na us yanks would bail you out till you got up to snuff not to mention y'all kick japanese ass in new guinea
Its not only your country Mark i'm Spaniard and years of decadence and financial shortages had ruined our Army and Navy,now a mere shadow of our past force..and all Europe the same,the sad and dark
reality being Europe is NOT ready for a conventional war against Russia,much less a nuclear one of course.
Gone are the days of us having a good capability and of being able to defend ourselves. You bring good points to the table. We had a very respected Army, Air Force, and Navy. We have really gone downhill fast.
That would just mean more that more people who can see the writing on the wall and oppose the message would be able to do something to express their discontent and we cannot be having that new world order and all. Better to neuter and confuse the next generation and have them stuggling not just with each other but with their own identity from the time they are learning how to count and that way more of the authoritative liberal projects can gain more legitimacy.
No the UK can defend itself, its just it canot defend itself in europe or any in the world. The navy is too small, so is the airforce and army
@@sashanksingh6714 NO
The armed forces can defend the island we live on. We should keep our noses out of other peoples business
The army isn't that useful for defending an island, what are soldiers going to do, swim out and fight ships? As for the RAF and Royal Navy, they both have access to the most advanced planes in the world and our two new carriers are equal to three Illustrious class carriers each. So we've doubled our carrier capability. We have not gone downhill, quite the opposite. The Americans didn't want us to fight in the Falklands because our military was in such bad shape they thought we'd lose. It would be a walk in the park for us today.
so sad, our government has forgotten defence is its number 1 purpose for too long
Voters want free stuff, defense naturally suffers.
The army was the same state 40 years ago!
Less costly overseas conflicts is a plus
@@robjmck So you have already told us a number of times previously.
Do you have a memory problem? I would suggest you seek medical help for this ailment.
@@castercamber Britain was at its strongest when it had a huge welfare state post WW2, after Th*tcher dismatled it and made it the UK's purpose to serve the posh cousinhood it was all downhill.
Great video, Mark! I served in the Brit Army in 1985. I was shocked to read in the news a little while back that they plan to reduce the army to 72,500, less than half than when I was in. In 1987 I served in the USMC, the smallest US military branch. Then it was 186,000, and currently about 177,000. the Royal Marines has remained the same at about 7,000. If the UK goes through with the planned cuts it will put their total combined land combat forces to less than 80,000, less than half the size of the relatively small USMC. That isn't even enough to defend the home turf, let alone if you're also deploying units overseas to protect national interests. It was especially disheartening to see how small the RN and RAF have gotten when it comes to the number of ships and planes. As we've all seen in Ukraine, with Russia's mass mobilization of military aged men, it takes a lot of time to properly train these men, lest they end up ground meat as we see happening. It's sad to see Britain becoming less and less a dominant player on the world stage. I would only hope that the politicians back there in would see your video and finally pull their heads out of the sand, or whatever orifice they've got it stuck in.
The entire UK military (Army, Navy and Air Force) is smaller and less equipped than the US Marines.
Am I wrong in thinking we don't need a substantial ground based force as an island nation? Priority should be towards Royal Navy and RAF.
@@rayjames6096 That does not mean anything, the smaller british army could whipe the floor with the US marines, but not the US military. The US navy is reducing in the fact of a chinese naval build up with is madness. Stil the army is too small, the navy is way too small and in the light of russia is madness they are too small, we are relying on the US too much as well as other nato allies.
@@Mulberry2000 The British couldn't put an army in the field (only 8 C-17s and 36 C-130s and A-400s to the US 230 C-17, 55 C-5s and over 500 C-130s) and wouldn't stand a chance against the much better trained and equipped US Marines.
@@harryALAW Last year Dr Felton comment on our abysmal air defence system, that would be hard put to withstand Russia's aim to win, without nuclear escalation. Scary stuff will try to find it.
4 months later, the Royal Navy is now willing to send its own Carrier Strike Groups to the South China Sea for joint maritime patrols with our sailors and vessels in the Philippine Navy and perhaps other allied nations (not even going into how ridiculous this sounds now considering the state of His Majesty's Armed Forces). I believe that by 2025, we expect the 2nd Royal Navy CSG to arrive or at least start to make their way to us. People have also been critical of British efforts to modernize and replace equipment, such as the up and coming Challenger 3 MBT among other things, as well as the British Armed Forces giving some of their own equipment to Ukraine, a move that some say is "depleting their own stocks".
Memes of "broke Britain" and "RIP empire" aside, this can definitely be seen as a problem even by some young international observer/young Army reservist that literally lives on an island in hotly contested waters with perhaps the most powerful Asian nation to date.
Time and time again this happens. We get complacent, wind the armed forces down and are caught completely off guard when war breaks out. It happened against Louis XIV. It happened against Napoleon. It happened in WW1 and WW2 only 20 years later.
How many times do we need to learn the lesson that merely having a strong armed forces is a deterrent and makes war less likely?
As the saying goes, good times create weak people, hard times create strong people... Unfortunately, humans become victims of their own success. Those in power (e.g PM) who have never lived through a war and wakes up in silk sheets, will find it very hard to understand the importance of defense. Arguably, the political system reinforces this, as term limits don't produce long term thinking prime ministers, with it being easier to cut the defense budget to invest in the NHS for political reasons. Long term problems requires long term thinking, which the UK lacks. Resulting in a "reactive" government policy, instead of one that subscribes to, "prevention is better than cure". Putting the UK on the back foot, as what is now being exposed with the Ukraine Vs Russia war. UK not having enough ammunition to last in a war for more than a few days.
@@joscmc personally I’ve always disagreed with that assessment; that is that good times > weak leaders > hard times > good leaders etc. The same men who disarmed Britain in the 1920s and early 1930s for example, were in many cases the exact same men who fought in the trenches of the western front.
For me, it has more to do with this “end of history” narrative we tell ourselves and are only just snapping out of. That all human history basically lead to the major confrontation that was WW2, and then everyone was so terrified of starting another conflict that the Cold War fizzled out on its own. Then everyone who mattered became a pluralistic western style democracy and here we are. It’s a silly view and is what, in my opinion, has led to our lack of preparedness, that an a lack of forward planning in Whitehall and the successive failures of governments to plan for a war for 30 years.
I don't really see a problem with neglecting the Army, but Britain neglecting their Navy is what is deeply disturbing. That is your key to defending your island.
Are you wiling to see your rate of tax go up 20, 30, 40% to the levels it was in the 40s, 50s and 60s? No? I thought not. The reality is that the UK needs to pull its head in and concentrate on rebuilding its society and economy so it can afford the things it wants. Right now to have a military as large and well equipped as it used to be would mean that the middle classes would be wiped out financially by the high taxes required to pay for it.
@@person.X. if the alternative is another European war, which would mean taxes going up even more btw, then that’s fine by me. Anyway, we have other streams of revenue than just PAYE these days. We could bin all those “consultants” the government uses for a start. How many tens of billions we spent on consultancy fees just over Brexit again? Paying people who objectively had no better idea than anyone else what was going to happen and they still mucked it up.
The government has plenty of revenue to spend on a first rate defence force and a more than adequate NHS. There’s just too many snouts in the trough.
US officer here. While the sun has set on the Empire, British soldiers have always been squared away. I have always enjoyed working with them.
100% agree.
Agreed -- the best of the best of all our allies, bar none.
They're shockingly relaxed in a lot of ways. They can even have alcohol aboard their ships. But it doesn't seem to change anything. When you meet them you see why they conquered the world.
Thank you for making this video. I know people want to help Ukraine, but a lot of them don't seem to understand what position we're actually in and are demanding irresponsible or even impossible things. If we want to be in the position to help people in the future, we need to start changing our priorities now.
Most of all, the Blitz was not a one-time affair. If there is another war that will include attacking major powers like the UK, it will be even more concentrated than 1940, with much more capable equipment on both sides.
I'm an American, and I credit Britain for the victory in Europe. Churchill rallied the Dominion powers and even held out while America decided Britain was worth saving. I would like to think we are more responsive now.
Maybe the King could chip in a few billion pounds for the cause. He's been taking and taking all these years. And besides, he'd hardly miss it. Just the Royal Crown jewels would fetch a smart sum, I suppose!
How about funding the NHS, schools that would be a positive change in priorities
@@ridethecurve55 They don't belong to him. Any more than the palaces and castles etc do.
Counterpoint: England’s military already can’t deploy. Better to give all of it to UKr and Poland now so that you don’t have to depend on it later. If UKr can break Russia, it won’t matter that English military is a ghost force.
Thank you Mark for saying what needed to be said.
I love when Dr Felton makes us in some non-World War II content.... Excellent stuff.
Too small an army but great, great soldiers. Firsthand knowledge of this. Great respect for the Brits. 💪🏼
100% agree. I got to train with our British cousins many times in Germany and here in the states. Lots of good natured joking. I often thought that the Brits looked upon most Americans as "half-savage" but also loyal friends as well. Lots of enduring respect from this aging American sapper.
I say this all the time. What they lack in quantity they more than make up for in quality
Even with relatively small forces, Britain still punches above its weight.
@@RBAILEY57 I disagree I'm not saying that they're not good soldiers I just wouldn't say they punch above they're weight the US put more men and materials into the two world wars that the British got involved in and also Canada
Quality alone won't cut it. You need quantity as well.
Having served from 1979 to 2006, mostly in Germany, there have been improvements in many areas. However the, almost yearly, cuts on the armed forces have turned us into a home defence force and a pretty poor one at that. It's not just the numbers of soldiers, MBT's, aircraft and ships that have been slashed but also the munitions that would supply them. I have read one report that estimated the armed forces would have two weeks of munitions in an all out operation before they ran out.
The munitions would last more like 6 to 8 days or half the time you estimated. This was proven in a war game held around 2018 I think.
Home defence force is all you need unless you want to get into foreign wars and that’s always a mistake.
then why dont you defend your home from grooming gangs?
USA sent has a small manufacturing base so any war of Attrition will find them out
Two weeks ammo, like we've been told about Russia every other week..? 🤣
You didn't mention ammunition stocks and rate of production Mark. In most NATO countries ammunition availability is a huge bottleneck.
I believe in the titanic struggle that NATO airforces fought above Libya (/irony) already France, and I believe the UK as well, had to petition the USA for resupply of munitions during combat operations
You called Libya fight...😊😅😮😢 It's invasion
Scott Ritter said "British army can fill a football stadium with 30,000 seats left empty!"🤣🤣🤣
We in Iceland are counting on the Royal navy to protect us if anything happens. The state of your military is not only worrying for British taxpayers and leading nato countries, but also for some of your smaller neighbours like us up north, who have little means to defend ourselves and have therefore counted on your protection for centuries.
Great video like always Mark, maybe u could do a video in the future about Iceland in ww2? Take care!
Can we have your cod first ?
You take our fish but still want our protection?
Hi Magnus, my father served in Iceland for the RAF during WW2. They were up there building a runway facility, which I believe is still there today.
Just. Thought but maybe it is time Iceland form a military of its’ own or failing that make arrangements with other NATO nations to fund increases in their militaries and allow your citizens to serve with that country.
Ireland also
Excellent post Dr. Felton. I'm Canadian and our forces have had similar shrinkage. It is a fraction of its former self and almost a national embarrassment. We could barely scrape together 8 tanks to give to Ukraine. There is the idea of "peace dividend" after the 1991 collapse of the USSR. The money we didn't have to spend from the cold war was spent on reducing taxes, or admittedly given our populations improved services. On the other hand, if we think about it, Russia has spent their corresponding peace dividend on oligarch yachts and other corruption because they didn't truly feel threatened by NATO any longer. I can't imagine the maintenance degradation in their nuclear arsenal. I don't know the answer, but your post certainly exposes the questions to be asked.
Mr. Keith Peden,
& this by NO WAY happens by chance.
It's globalist-designed to weaken the Free World with local quisling politicians,
in order to coerce the West into accepting a world government.
I wouldn’t even say civilian services were improved. Most of the peace dividend ended up in the pockets of the ruling classes.
Yeah no their money was pend on improving their nation as well and also keeping their large stockpiles alive which is now being proven as they pull out tanks from their stockpile and they run perfectly.
This is just a dumb rumor how they dont maintain their stuff also whats the logic behind letting their moat powerful weapon go to waste was the point of signing the ,,we are robing you treaty" ops i mean the very fair and honest budapest memorandum
They clearly didn’t cut spending as much as you did considering they’re beating you.
@@ghostfacegrillah7891 Last time i checked Russia is not at war with Canada, but a much smaller neighbouring country (that they are having a lot of trouble getting anywhere with).
Excellent Video.........one of Marks best
The best part of this conflict is how other world military powers have been forced to reconsider their own strengths and weaknesses. We in the US are ramping up ammo production and every branch of our armed forces are training intensely. I am a Retired US Army Soldier and I have friends still in who told me that conventional training has been hugely ramped up. Due to the War on Terror, we had very little practical experience with having to engage another professional Army and instead focused on both Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism. We've got a LOT of catching up to do!
this might be my new favourite Mark Felton video, I remember when the UK armed forces had 250,000 personnel and even then i thought that was too small.
Iraq had a million men, and they melted under a modern army.
Still: Henry V. I tell thee truly, herald,
I know not if the day be ours or no;
For yet a many of your horsemen peer
And gallop o'er the field.
Montjoy. The day is yours.
with luck...................
@@SamTheManWhoCanTwice no they melted under their own government. You forget we were at war with Iraq for 8 years. 9 if you include the Gulf War. That’s longer then Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. When they were still at strength they did a lot of damage but the leadership went to pot leaving them to fight in a poor state.
Churchill should have never given up Empire
@@SamTheManWhoCanTwice So did many other Armies throughout history
Well said Mark (as always), I have seen the UK military shrink over 40 years and it saddens me that politicians don't seem to realise what they don't have! Boris Johnson said send the Ukraine 100+ Typhoons, he should have watched you video first, do they really know what assets they have?
Boris is an incompetent clown. 🙄
Boris Johnson is a f'ing idiot. And yet he became PM. Same here in the US. It boils down to money and manpower. Neither of which either country has a lot of.
Politicians have no clue, the military chiefs have to tell them, your budgets left us with this and no more.
It's crazy Poland is the most capable military in Europe and in 5 years it will have over 1500 main battle tanks and thousands of upgraded F-16s. No Russian aircraft is a match for the most advanced F-16.
Thanx America for the F16s. We need Poland on the eastern front now, put missles there for pOOtin
Thousands of F-16s? Isn't that a bit too much for Poland's needs and capabilities?
@@shiveshsingh3169 More like thousands of fighter aircraft. They deemed it too expensive to modernize the F-16 A/Bs they want so they are buying FA-50s, F-35C and other modern fighter aircraft. They are also wanting several thousand MBTs. They don't want to have to rely on NATO for security.
@@Mokimanify I mean I understand the need from Poland's perspective, and the tanks in thousands do make sense, but fighters in the thousands sounds outlandish when even the biggest militaries on the planet struggle to keep up such numbers. Poland is not a huge economy as far as I know to sustain such ambitious numbers as far as I know.
@@shiveshsingh3169 They are increasing their defense spending, more than doubling it, and talking in terms of a 10+ year plan. They are looking at LCAs and other light combat aircraft in the amount of around 2000. They are looking at the M-346 as well. They are the only NATO member meeting the GDP % and they are doubling it by 2025 and not stopping there. The UK has 663 fighter aircraft and Poland wants to at least double that.
Please do one of these videos on each of the NATO countries. It is both fascinating and alarming to see how quickly things moved away when peace looked more likely.
Well it depends. Outside of the US and excluding Canada and the UK the situation isn't really much better. Germany has seriously downsized it's military to the point that, considering what's going on in the east, it's not even combat worthy. It is understaffed, undermanned, it's air force barely has enough planes and it only has a hand full of tanks, which crashed in the most recent drills that they had.
France is in a better off position because it has an entirely homegrown industry of it's own. But, while being militarily self sufficient with a strong navy and and air force, it faces a lot of the same problems that it's counterpart across the channel does. Also, like the UK, Germany and most of the EU, they spend less than 2% of their budget on defense, which primarily contributes to their current predicament. Honestly, most of European post-Warsaw block countries just joined NATO for the added trade and money perks, while retaining all the old Soviet gear. However there are some bright diamonds in the rough.
From the better off ones, in Eastern Europe I would say that Poland fields one of the better armies. It's more equipped and battle ready in most of the sectors for now obvious reasons. I suppose that the big think tanks in the USA see Poland as the country that would spearhead any fight against Russia, something that the Polish elite seem more than willing to do (can't say what the Polish people think tbh). Norway also has a strong standing army, due to all the money they made from drilling the North Sea and subsequently being able to buy all the modern gear. Turkey is also pretty strong with a homegrown arms industry that's actually outdoing many traditional German companies, though they have more regional ambitions for it rather than the well-being of the west in mind. Across them you also have Greece, with one of the best fighter pilots and sharpshooters in all of NATO, though corruption in their bureaucracy offsets their effectiveness with some questionable procurement choices. I'm probably missing out some items which I'm sure I'll never hear the end of it in the thread below.
Germany here. It's literally the same here. Or even worse. We are still flying the Tornado, that you have already replaced. It was planned the continue with those old Tornados indefinitely, until the Ukraine invasion got the government to in a hurry order two squadrons of F35 and the Tornados will be retired in 2028. It's embarrassing. We have ammunition for two weeks of combat. And the industry has currently no means to drastically increase the production should more be needed. We even no longer have the storage facility for more ammunition, after the fall of the iron curtain a ton of military bases were sold off to build housing projects. Those are all gone. So we have to start building those facilities too.
@@CG-yq2xy Thanks for taking time to write. Are you US American? German here. After the fall of the iron curtain most people here truly believed (or desperately wanted to believe) that Russia would develop into a friendly, democratic country and trade partner. The fall of the iron curtain, Gorbatschov, the German reunion etc was such a joyful and hope inducing event for us. Totally naive and wishful thinking, but that was what people, including politicians wanted to believe, so this narrative that Russia is now our friend sold really well to the voters. After all, we had the cold war border straight through our country, people WANTED the threat from the East times to be over. It was not "oh, let's exploit the dumb, triggerhappy Americans to defend us from a future invasion". It was wishful thinking that there was no longer a threat. (the fact that the long term ruler of Russia is ex KGB should have made us more weary)
And after our engagenment in colonialism in the middle east, European countries are also highly reluctant to meddle there with military. (And hey, we were totally right there, nothing much good has come from any US engagements there).
You also have to take into account that since WW2 in Germany the military never regained a good standing in the general population. There was certainly no pride in it and government never encouraged pride in the military because after causing 2 world wars the military seemed suspicious. So after the end of mandatory military service about 12 years ago, we have a serious recruiting problem with the bad reputation of the profession AND the perceived lack of a threat. And while we do have tanks and fighter jets we lack the ammunition and we even lack the facilities to store ammo. Those bases were mostly sold off for housing development. We do have local defense industry, but since they are not funded by regular larger orders, they can not run facilities for large scale production. They want to see long term contracts for larger amounts of these things before they start to invest in the facilities. The industry is capable and willing to produce military goods, but they need to get paid.
For a long time the sentiment was that we need a few frigates to deter piracy on the main shipping lanes, and to field some units for UN missions but otherwise we use them for local disaster aid, and occasionally show off a few Eurofighters at airshows, and finally we can leave that whole distasteful military thing behind because peace broke out in our corner of the world. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a rude and rather very unwelcome awakening and the adjustment to this new world is a bit slow for my taste. But it is there!
Poland on the other hand has through history been traumatized by the Russians, plus they are much closer to them. They have a greater reason to fear and loathe them and after the fall of the iron curtain have never lost their weariness of them.
@@CG-yq2xy It is hilarious when Europeans demand the expulsion of one of their biggest militaries on the southern borders of Russia that has a homegrown defense industry at this time. Poland should be ready along with Finland since it is their where Russia will strike first in a land war. Baltics might be a weak spot but I always think of them as a buffer zone for Poland. Poland would be that buffer zone if the Baltics weren’t in NATO.
We castrated Germany after two huge wars in the last century so I can understand why they are so pathetic today. I do understand why Europeans aren’t spending like crazy on wars like we do but it should be common sense for the UK to have a good RN and RAF. We do airbases in the UK so I am assuming that there is an informal understanding perhaps more on the British side that the US will defend them against an attack?
@@CG-yq2xy In Poland we think that we would fight not when we like it but when Russians would like it. War is like storm. If it comes you can't say no to it. Now we are lucky because Ukraine is doing much better than expected. Otherwise we would be probably fighting already.
Excellent summary of a dire situation. For 30 years, politicians have plundered the defence budget to throw cash at vote garnering giveaways. Since Cameron, the rot has accelerated. Of the current budget, I wonder if that includes pensions for retired personnel? If it does, the the situation is even worse!
So without the recent situation of russia invading ukraine, what would be the reasoning for keeping a large standing british army? And then still, doing anything against russia would only evoke all out war. Even if you would be fully mobilized you wouldn't be able to give a 'final blow'. As a dutchie with no army to speak of (keeping up with traditions of the last 200 or so years aren't we) it's surely nice to think about a world where there is no bloodshed needed. Keeping a standing army in peace time is obviously an easy target for any oposition within ones own borders. Especially considering the relative easy times we/my and even the generation before me has enjoyed.
@@cambuurleeuwarden It was said long ago 'if you want peace, prepare for war'. Strong forces act as a deterrent in times of threat. Also, the weak are always the first target and you should be able to defend yourself rather than rely upon sometimes unwilling allies.
@@geoffm3158 "...deterrent ..."
Yes, it may seem a waste for those socialist types that want every new machine or drug added to the NHS, etc. However, it is a basic requirement of leading a nation like the UK, just in case.
Trillions will be spent on climate change, mostly 'just in case', but defense will be constantly looked at as an expendable area that can be cheated.
@@geoffm3158 That actually is the perpetual debate as to WHY you need a bigger army, especially to Briatin that hasn't had an invasion since William the Conqueror. There is a reason why the Army is smaller than the Navy...
Little known fact that .5% of the current budget is ring fenced for existing MOD pensions.
I've always wondered how the Western Roman Empire's military declined in a relatively short time. England shows how geopolitical changes can do this! Well done Mr. Felton!
Weird how the threat always seems to come from the East. Is the EU about to collapse like the Roman Empire in the face of the barbarian hordes again? History repeats in strange ways.
Britains armed forces have shrunk in proportion to everyone else's 🙄
Western Rome had a shrinking economy and population, the result of centuries of civil wars and mismanagement. As a result it could no longer field the large armies of the past and became reliant on Barbarian allies which in return sought land in the empire to settle in. The UK let its military decline because tanks don't vote. More beds for the NHS is a policy that wins votes. More tanks and ships does not. The two countries are not comparable in the decline of their armies. Western Rome fought a constant stream of invaders with diminishing resources, the UK had no existential threat large enough to warrant a larger army. But it could if it wanted too, unlike Western Rome.
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 expertly explain congrats
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 except the NHS has been allowed to decline as well. The problem is wealthy people hiding their money offshore to avoid taxes. This is happening in every country and it will be the downfall of many nations.
As much as European militaries have shrunk, so to has Russia. They have a shadow of a military. Only 3 countries have continually built up their military, US, China, and N. Korea. Comes down to money. Every country has sacrificed for having a big military, and after the cold war, they focused on the things they neglected to have a big military for the Cold War, possibly going hot. Only takes 1 or 2 tyrants to bring peace and stability crashing down. What would have been the right answer? Keep in mind before spouting off an idea, the Cold War was over and the world thought diplomacy would prevail. Easy to be Monday quarterback.
Now that Ukraine has burnt through most of their officers, generals, ammo, equipment, and vehicles. They must be a shadow of a shadow.
I recently watched a documentary series charting the sailing of a RN warship in the waters north east of the UK. It was filmed maybe a couple of years ago and featured a number of 'encounters' with Russian naval vessels and Russian fighters above. What struck me most was how often the British ship experienced equipment breakdowns which in the end resulted in it having to pull out of the exercise and return to Britain. I would love to see a strong Royal Navy again, we need it, but this was really just embarrassing.
Surface navies are fast becoming obsolete anyways.
@@openphotoright, this comment and the video itself do not nearly enough consider the changing times. Also, the idea of a traditional war between nuclear nations doesn’t make much sense. The U.K. is smart not to spend the ridiculous amounts that the United States do on the military industrial complex.
@@TauCetiAurora So are you saying there have been no war's since 1946 ( the last time a nuke was used in anger )? Nukes are not an answer for everything!
Lmao what’s next you’re going to say tanks are obsolete
@@austindavies6371 1945
Mark did an excellent job with this video, telling the truth here! It's all so regrettable, the state of things.
I think its also worth mentioning Post 9/11 most NATO armies were recalibrated to fight insurgents rather than a large conventional war.
Great point. And what is even more fascinating is that NATO and the US never achieved to suppress the afghan insurgency even after adapting their armies into counter-insurgency warfare.
Red Dawn 🌿🇨🇳🌿 take heed
@@Sergeant_Camacho and the Warsaw Pact folded long ago, thus NATO is actually outdated, overated, illegitimate, and, troublemaking, besides pushing it's luck as well.
Then they let those people take over thair countries by Immigration!!!!
@@Sergeant_Camacho well the problem is the majority of them were in Pakistan after the USA occupied the country, they only were waiting while the coalition tried to form an army but was weakened by corrupt indigenous officials.
Perhaps the British military will shrink its way out of Ireland completely.
Hopefully
A very sad, very distressing, very dismal, and VERY dangerous state of affairs. As an American, I knew that British forces had shrunk considerably, but would never have imagined that things had gotten so bad.
Very interesting indeed (as always)! For the sake of comparison, it would be great to see a similar video analysing the USSR's Cold-War-era capabilities versus Russia's position today.
😶 Those numbers aren't even enough to thwart an invasion let alone partake in ANY NATO operation. Just because you can't see a threat doesn't mean there isn't one. Those defense spending cuts seem reckless to me. I was unaware of Britain's current armed forces' status. Thank you Dr. Felton for this very informative video.
And remember also, that the pitiful rump navy would be widely dispersed.
I remember seeing a news story about royal navy sailors guarding the queen. My friend thought it was awesome. I corrected him and said no. This is what happens when you don't have enough ships for the sailors. And no wars to fight for the guards.
That story is bullcrap.
Public duties are carried out by all three services. Mostly it's the guards, but every now and again you see the RAF and the Navy take their turn.
It has nothing to do with the amount of ships we have. Fewer ships mean fewer sailors. Which is correct, our Navy is the Smallest it's ever been.
@KirstenandTom2011 Quite logical indeed.
Why would there be even an overflow of royal sailors if there aren't ships for them. Makes no sense.
I'm in the army reserves, our regular colleagues, and we have a retention problem. My unit gets a fairly adequate number of recruits, but it takes a lot of work to keep them long-term. It's only putting more pressure on us who do attend drill nights and weekends. I made the mistake of joining as a chef, too few of us meaning long hours and little time off on deployment. On many occasions I've had to fill in for others, in completely different trades to my own. I've handled, but have not fired our standard issue sidearm the Glock 17 in 6 years as we've a shortage of 9mm. A problem worsened with the war in Ukraine. I was told at best we've got two weeks of 5.56 if we go to war with Russia. I'm thinking of doing the next Op Tosca and then calling it quits.
Army Reservists often get the poor equivalent training.
Which country are you from?
Mark from Melbourne Australia
War with Russia? We're more likely to go to war with China.
@@markfryer9880 He's British. Operation TOSCA is the UK contribution to UN Peacekeeping in Cyprus.
I served in the Royal Armoured Corps back in the 80s. Back then we had 19 armoured regiments. ! We now have very few. However, I clearly recall that everything seemed broken & morale was very low by the time I left in '89. The sad decline started way back then & the enthusiasm for joining the military has practically vanished over time.
I'm pleased to see you accept responsibility for breaking the equipment and destroying morale. Well done, that man!
@@monicsperryn8497 shush man.... I thought i'd got away with it 😉
Prob more functioning stuff in museums. Lack of investment in bases by Labour and sell off "peace dividend" but Conservatives has not helped.
What was your reasoning for joining the army in the 80's when there was no real war going on? And let me ask you the rhetorical question as to why you think the enthousiasm for joining the army has vanished between the early 90's and now?
The British army was always a small force, mostly for garrisoning the empire except for the world wars. Britain was dependent on the navy and air force for national defense and should spend rather heavily in those areas frankly.
It used to be that the Royal Navy and RAF had their own minister serving under the secretary of defense. But that was amalgamated into a single representation for all the services in the 60's. Which meant that whichever service that managed to get its foot in the door at the expense of the others would get its way. And the RAF has a LOOOOOOOONG history of screwing the Royal Navy over. The Royal Navy invented the aircraft carrier, but if you wonder why its carriers played such a little role in WW2 or were retired in the 60's and 70's, that was the RAF screwing the RN over. Because unlike the US MOD the UK MOD has no license to print money, which meant that the UK Treasury was and still is the biggest enemy that the UK armed forces have to fight.
Yeah, but then Britain made it's stuff, and now we queue clenching a credit card.
Part 2:
And another thing most important is that the total strength of today's military forces is much smaller that 30 years ago. The UK could not fight itself out of a wet paper bag, if it wanted too.
Same applies to the German Bundeswehr. I used to serve in the tank forces of the german army in the late 90's and remember when there used to be a contingent of more than a thousand Leopard 2 mainly A4 tanks (active and reserve). Now we barely scratch the 300 Leopard 2 tank mark of which a good number aren't even combat ready. The german government managed to destroy combat/defense capabilities in less than two decades. Now it probably will take a decade to rebuild the german army, but only if the political will won't fade again and many of the existing bureaucratic hurdles that cost billions of tax payer money can be removed.
One way to keep the economy looking rosy I suppose. Hack away for easy savings until you realise what you’ve given up. Very much like the UK.
Bundeswehr....ein Kasperletheater mit bürokratischen Geschiss. Bis eine echte Armee kommt: Oder wie Putin sagte: Um Berlin zu erobern brauchen wir keine Armee, es reicht die Feuerwehr von Moskau. ;-)
I hope that goes for all of NATO. Otherwise, China will run us over.
@Aya If you want to call a murderous dictatorship "glorious"....
The Problem about the Army after the Cold War is today the Cold Cantine!
There's no doubt nearly all of the kit the UK fields is top notch, but I had no idea there were so few of each produced. You're right that no matter how good the product is, it won't matter if there are only a handful ever made
"no doubt nearly all of the kit the UK fields is top notch" - Don't know about the Army. The average army vehicle is about 40 years old. Also the Navy has a lot of fitted for but not with. It isn't until 2026 that the T45s will get their MK41 VLS, allowing them to be equipped with enough missiles for a range of taskings. The new T31s are very under armed, no MK 41 VLS, only up to 24 Sea Ceptor missiles. RAF has no anti-ship capability from fast jets. Despite having the largest defence budget in Europe we have very little to show for it.
I don’t think it’s top notch, the Type 45s are constantly having issues, in 2018 four of the six Type 45s spent over 250 days alongside in port, that’s horrendous a warship shouldn’t be that broken and undermanned
It’s no fault of the British sailor as well they’ve clearly been ripped off and sold a lemon
I appreciate the education - from across the pond much of us see it as you guys having great equipment but without enough funding for each person donning/manning them (or to produce enough of them). Hasn't the Prince of Wales had a bunch of problems of late too?
😂 no it's not. Especially the army. CVR built in early 70s. Warrior built 1980s. FV430 built 1970s. Even with upgrades are you seriously telling me equipment that is 40/50+ years old is top notch? Even Challenger 2 is getting old now and we are going to use the body of them for 3.
If the war in UKR has taught us anything it’s that you need quantity… cheaper equipment, easy to maintain, and lots of ammo. We spend to much on state-of-art stuff that would be irreplaceable in a real conflict.
We should invest in work-horse equipment that is complimented by high
End stuff.
The UK's military has always been exemplary for it's professionalism and ability to punch above it's weight class. As an American, I hope Parliament fixes this issue. It it all goes to hell in a handbasket in the next decade we're all going need to stand together to hold the line.
what line?
@@joek600 Go back in your mom's basement and finish that joint you left in the ashtray. The adults are talking.
Correct
@@joek600 The line that holds back a million Chinese soldiers marching in lockstep with the Russians and many other nations against Western Europe.
Why should we spend more? We are further away from Russia than Germany who have a larger economy than we do. Germany has been given a free ride for too long because some excuse about not wanting to be militaristic all the while we’ve gotten the raw end of the deal for decades.
That's alright, we've still got billions to give to endless asylum seekers.
A brilliant summing up of a situation created by successive British governments mismanagement of just about everything they have meddled with. A very sad state of affairs indeed