A Conversation with UK Land Warfare Expert Nicholas Drummond
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2025
- A conversation with UK Land Warfare Expert Nicholas Drummond about trends in land warfare. See chapter markers below.
For French readers, check out : Hubin, amzn.to/4iII9Ky and Merchet: amzn.to/4gohmBL
Nicholas Drummond's blog: uklandpower.com/
Nicholas's TH-cam Channel: / @tailpipe26
Check out my substack:
shurkin.substa...
/ michaelshurkin
bsky.app/profi...
/ michael-shurkin-ph-d-1...
For more on GEN Guy Hubin, see:
warontherocks....
About Hubin: • General Hubin and the ...
A full interview with Hubin: • Ukraine and Why Armies...
My video on trends in naval warfare:
• A Conversation with Em...
01:48 What was so interesting about General Hubin's theories about the modern battlefield?
03:37 The four technologies that together are revolutionizing the battlefield
09:48 The significance for the battlefield
10:38 First battle, second battle, deep battle
12:27 Long range cruise missiles and drones
13:06 Combined arms maneuver and the second battle
15:09 Mass remains essential for the counter-attack
17:06 Concentration vs dispersion
18:49 Heavy armor remains the best way for getting troops to the battle
19:45 There is still a place for deception and surprise
22:46 Linearity on the battlefield
25:57 What Hubin got wrong about linearity and logistics
31:34 Mass and Russia; what NATO can do about it, and the need for low-cost equipment
38:23 Jean-Dominique Merchet's arguments about the implausibility of a big war
40:03 A plausible scenario for a major war
42:09 Is resilience the answer?
44:20 Ukraine's lesson: We need more conventional deterrence to avoid having to use nukes
45:07 The threat now is greater than during the Cold War
46:15 Air power
49:10 Attack helicopters no longer have a place
50:30 The importance of the British Army relative to the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force
52:52 Ajax
53:26 It's better to buy off-the-shelf foreign than try to make things on one's own
55:13 Final thoughts on nuclear deterrence
Another fascinating conversation, thanks Michael and Nicholas!
You're welcome!
About 37:00. Thank you Pax for calling him out on that there is nothing new about his "vision". This guy is simply a consultant that needs to have his name out but will not say anything that is so controversial that it will threaten his livelyhood.
Nothing new under the sun
Keep posting stuff like this. It’s fascinating.
Ok :)
Outstanding content as always. I doubt there’s a military anywhere on earth that isn’t going into convulsions worrying about how to respond to these new developments in the warspace.
Thank you!
On a linear war, the big factor I think is a formations susceptibility against indirect fires and its ability to lay down indirect fires, that taking precedence over direct confrontation. Heavier armour like the Boxer or Ajax is harder to attrit through indirect fire, meanwhile lighter armoured formations are easier to. Of course as those lighter formations take losses that slows down the formations momentum, and ultimately her manoeuvre. Armoured formations equipped with the Boxer and Ajax I think will just be much more agile than medium, lighter weight formations equipped with platforms like the Stryker or Warrior or BMP as seen in Ukraine. Other big factors in that equation to consider is a formations electronic warfare capability, C-UAS and counter-reconnaissance capability, its indirect fires and counterbattery capability, and of course its C4I and reconnaissance capability. Specifically I stress the importance of electronic warfare, C-UAS and counter-reconnaissance for maintaining maneuvre and momentum.
My understanding on the way the British are planning to fight in the near future is that... theyll have a vanguard consisting of the Ajax and Challenger 3, plus unmanned reconnaissance vehicles supported by aircraft. Theyre provided incredible sensors and support, and also emphasises a close relationship with indirect fires. Higher value armoured targets would be engaged with battlegroup guided missiles in the form of the Brimstone or GMLRS whilst the artillery focuses moreso on attriting the enemies lighter units such as their logistics or infantry. A Brimstone is cheaper than an APC. Behind the vanguard are the Boxers battlegroup/divisional HQ, forming together with other units, the main force. The Boxers arent so much equipped for direct confrontation with enemy armour, theyll only really be engaging sanitized light infantry that has evaded the battlegroups reconnaissance efforts or that are holding or operating within a restrictive environment.
On 3 divisions, I think 2 or 4 divisions may be better - one or two Heavy (30-40t) and one or two Light (1-10t). Better suits the tooth to tail. I think right now medium armour (15-25t) is not in a great spot, they're too susceptible to attrition and they're also not much more deployable than heavy armour. They're cheaper than heavy armour, instead of the A400M you're buying the C130J... still they require all the expensive sensors to be effective, expensive sensors that would be lighter and less protected with medium armour. I see its niche as being only suitable for amphibious assault or the COIN of yesteryear, you can't really float a 40t vehicle but you can float a Patria AMV or LAV. Otherwise I hear the US is interested in procuring perhaps a quad tiltrotor aircraft to replace the C-130J - that would make medium armour properly more deployable than heavy armour. Perhaps useful in South America or the Pacific, less so I imagine in the European context.
On branch priorities, I think chiefest amongst them should be the Royal Navy. They protect the sea lanes, they project power, they're the furthest reaching, and they are also defensive assets. They're the most multidomain, multirole branch of the three services, I believe. Second to the Royal Navy should be the British Army; I think it can afford to be a smaller, expeditionary force as it has been historically over an army of mass. Britain will likely not fight alone, if it had to it would be fighting an expeditionary war where ground forces fight the battle only after the naval fight. Last should be the Royal Air Force, I believe. They need only really have large support or reconnaissance fleet to airlift or augment the Army and Navy. A token fighter and strike force should be maintained for certain niche operations and to uphold NATO responsibilities, otherwise without the budget she must be the least funded of the three branches.
I was so looking forward to it...yei if my favourite analyst collaborating.
Excellent conversation. I wish there similar content with regards to Asia. I feel we are not focusing on the challenges of the Indo Pacific
Talking about buying low cost stuff, i've been hearing about France potentially purchasing Pinaka systems from India...Would be quite an interesting thing if that ever came to materialize... Great video as usual Mr Shurkin.
Interesting. There seems to be a similar idea behind the modernized modular version of RM-70, which allows for use of the cheap old small caliber rockets for area saturation or alternatively higher caliber NATO stantard MLRS munitions for effect at longer ranges.
A note. Your guest spoke as if Putin is insane for continuing this war. I wonder if he has considered if the Russians, akin to the Ukrainians, consider this war as existential.
The Chieftain has a very good video offering a rebuttal to what this gentleman said about the attack helo being dead. I'd love to hear your opinion on it, maybe do a reaction video to watching it?
I plan to do exactly that. I am inclined to agree with Nicholas, but I haven't formed a strong opinion either way.
@michaelshurkin613 awesome !
The problem with networked command-and-control systems is that they can be hacked, or the military communication satellites can be destroyed, or the internet cable on the seabed can be cut.... UAS, networked vehicles are all prone to the single point of failure of a hack. For every strength there is a corresponding weakness.
Sorry to say; I was not impressed by Mr. Drummond here.
My impression is he talked about very many ideas, but each one not below the surface level and also not coherent with each other.
At the end of the day all Mr drummond is a KNDS lobbyist, hardy a defence analyst. All his points on defence pretty much just so he can then go "oh the british army should buy this KNDS product to counter it"
Good discussion. I would also like to know your guest’s opinion on the role of agile adaptation and sustainment to include additive manufacturing (esp for drone components) near the front line and use of AI. I’m thinking of Palantir, which advocates forward deployed software engineers (maybe in the TOC) to iterate faster.
I entirely agree with the refrain about productive capacity. Nations, not armies, fight wars. I would add that industrial capacity deters great powers, not exquisitely bespoke capabilities in limited quantities.
The Anduril model of augmenting top tier systems with large volumes of attritable mass will indeed be key, I think.
100% accurate and great take. I have been advocating the same. The Russians are building towards this and it is a great model to attempt to achieve ourselves as Americans. Personally, I think we have placed ourselves into a "high tech hole." A trap. We think we have out engineered everyone and our super cool, high tech systems will win the war for us and that we are fine. Hopefully, the DoD is looking at Ukraine and realizing such a notion isn't true. That we absolutely need volume, not just high tech.
SW engineers near combat line ? Under pressure you can think correctly. Near the combat line you can be killed or take prisoner. SW engineers should stay behind lines and deploy remotely their work
The effects of inertia and momentum will forever shape UK and other 2nd tier powers forces. This is I don't doubt a sincere and intelligent discussion of what could and should be done with whatever budgets are set aside for the military. However - I would ask how we overcome the 'but we always did it like this' or 'we've never done that before' mindset. Many recent 'decisions' illustrate this difficulty - the 2 massive supercarriers and Challenger 3 being two. I expect there are more. The UK needs to complete a thorough rethink of what it's armed forces are for and then commit to acquiring the weapons systems and force structure needed for that goal.
I would add - if Trump takes the US out of NATO it may be a positive as what is left will be obliged to and able to focus on their own defence.
I don't agree with all that you said in this video but it is good people are talking about these topics.
Thanks. There's value in talking about these things.
Have to remember that the heavy forces (with supplies) will take 3+ months to build up
During the Cold War, both NATO & the Warsaw Pact was more or less on par with the idea of quality vs quantity or vis visa. That said, even NATO had huge armies ready in the field in case WW3 was on. The only thing deterring an all out fight was the possible use of nuclear weapons & the fear of M.A.D.
But what if the nuclear option was taken out from both sides? Who might win in a conventional warfare during the Cold War? Its hard to say.
But if we put this question to Now in 2024/5, the answer might be... Russia. I know i know, NATO is still pretty technologically more advance by many measure but, like this video mentioned, their army strengths are woefully low. So low that a war of attrition might see Europe suffering the same fate as Ukraine in the long run. Only the numbers provided by U.S. as a NATO member ensures that doesnt happen. But if U.S. leaves NATO & abandons Europe to their own fate, Russia might be tempted to finish what the Cold War failed to start.
Only Poland seems to be rearming at a war footing in terms of numbers. The rest of Europe may not have a choice but to catch up or else face a fate of Russian domination. 😢
I disagree with Drummonds assessment with regards to attack Helis. Helis have the range to manuever along a front that drones and tanks lack. Also Attack helicopter can be great at holding choke points. Attack Helicopters usefulness as CAS might have diminished but their role in manuevere warfare is still intact.
No disrespect, but let the guest do most of the talking.
Excellent conversation but have to say that Nicholas is one of those very much pushing the high end expensive capabilities
How can Ukraine incorporate 'radical non-linearity' into their campaign?
Very good but not even close to neutral politically. Maybe that's why banning any Russian media was the first thing done. Can't let people find out just how poorly the collective West (USA and those who want their favour) has behaved in the region for over a decade now.
If the attack helicopter is dead then so is air power and drones, Nicholas is very knowledgeable on ground warfare but he is learning the long lessons.
If Western air power would take out an enemies C3I then so could Ukraine. He is ignoring political realities and A2AD
I have to say, I am not amazed bu this guest.
He uses a lot of concepts, but never defines them.
Especially the 'deep battle' - I cannot help but remember the Soviet doctrine from 1920s... that is called 'deep battle concept. As someone mentioned here: "nothing new under the sun".
A very rare situation, when the host outclasses the guest by orders of magnitude.
What the hell is he talking about at 47:43? Russian Air Force hasn't bombarded Ukraine? Has he heard of glide bombs? RuAF is exactly why Russia is continuing to advance in the east. They drop dozens of large glide bombs on Ukrainian positions which when combined with artillery forces the AFU to retreat or face annihilation. Good grief. Anybody can be an analyst, I suppose.
yep
It was all going so well until 27:40 and then bang! the old flappy hand syndrome was all over the screen. Just no. Flappy hands add nothing.