EXCLUSIVE | Army’s Ranger Regiment ‘OPEN TO ANYBODY In The Armed Forces’
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ต.ค. 2024
- In an exclusive interview with Forces News and the BFBS Sitrep podcast, General Sir Nick Carter, Chief of the Defence Staff, spoke about how the regiment will be formed and why it is needed.
The Ranger Regiment could be deployable as early as 2022 and it will feature four battalions.
The unit will become a major part of the new Special Operations Brigade, taking on roles usually carried out by Special Forces personnel.
The CDS spoke to Forces News presenter Kate Gerbeau.
Read the full story 👉 www.forces.net...
Subscribe to Forces News: bit.ly/1OraazC
Check out our website: forces.net
Facebook: / forcestv
Instagram: www.instagram....
Twitter: / forcesnews
We trained hard-but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we were reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while actually producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronius Arbiter
Politicians - They do the same to lots of organisations - Health, MoD - They want make their mark and get re-elected
There was another Roman who wrote back to his senator father (if memory serves me well). He said that the Roman army had suffered a defeat to the Germanic tribes - which resulted in the Roman generals re-organising. They then had another defeat and then followed another re-organisation. It then occurred to the troops that the issue was not the organisation of the troops but the caliber of their leadership. The lesson from that remains relevant for virtually every army that has been in combat since.
I can’t help but think that internal armed forces politics has way too much to do with the formation of the UK Rangers. We have superb servicemen in the Paras and the Marines - already trained to a level which is very near the SAS and SBS. Why not save money and train those troops a bit further. Hold on, the Marines are Navy.......
Agree and with the replies following also but for the first time the reason for re-orging has been as much about what we might face in the near and far future as opposed to just being an exercise in saving pennies in order to spend pounds having to put it right when the brown and smelly hits the air oscillation unit and we are caught, yet again, unprepared. Time will tell and I suspect the bean counters will do whatever they can to pare whatever the Gen and his tower dwellers have concocted down to the point of meaningless tick box blx n bs once more. Wait out!
@@theofarmmanager267 because role and task, each unit has their own. There's no unit is specialized enough for FID role. Then if they do train existing unit for FID, there will be lack of focus to the actual task and role of such unit. Since FID is waaayy..... different than conventional warfare or direct action or special reconnaissance or CT.
Perpetual transformation in defence is the natural enemy of coherence and continuity. It’s like trying to relearn how to drive a car each day because the steering wheel keeps disappearing and being replaced by joysticks one day, then the pedals move to buttons on the dash, then the gear lever moves to the steering column. You can’t keep restructuring without disrupting. And of course, because transformation saves money, it must happen quickly, and as we all know, you can only have things that happen quick and cheap, because we have no money - you will never have good and fast or good and cheap. Cheap, fast or good - pick two only and one is already picked for you. Cheap. “Transformation” is the fast part. The unholy partnership that ruins the “good”.
He's wearing an MTP doss bag tied with bailing string round his neck and just his pants. Go Go Power Rangers.
I recently left the infantry and most of the battalions are in a very poor state with low manpower, rock bottom morale and poor training. I think creating flashy Ranger units is polishing a turd at this point.
Better a polished turd than a turd.
@@bellumpraeparet Well considering that polishing a turd is a fools errand..
Which regiment were you in?
@@Leec_1972 You'd know, I suppose.
Out of genuine interest ---- what has led to the deterioration you describe? Decreasing interest in army careers?
Be interesting to see how many 'Star' Officers in the three Services will go. We'll soon have a Bn of Rear Admirals, Brigadiers and Air Vice Marshals!
Ah yes well um, theres a reason for that. (not sure what it is, but I'm sure there's a reason - at least for PR purposes).
Great point
All left to do the ground work themselves?
So, like Canada. We have 293 generals for an Army of just under 65k
Wasn’t ‘Army 2020’ his idea as well. How did that go?......
Yes I believe he had the “strike brigade” concept that was just cancelled on the IR before it even became a thing
If you want to improve the reserve’s simply give them the tools to deploy independently ie give them their own combat vehicles ( reuse / redeploy Warriors/Bulldogs etc...) rather than scrapping
Warriors makes sense.
Pay the reserves better and give them better protection to train, without threat to their jobs and include some benefits.
Only the unemployed and students regularly volunteer for exercise because they need the cash
You are never improving a bunch of civvies
You cannot make the reserves a stand alone unit as they don't have the intensity of training. Why should employers be punished by having staff absent for prolonged periods. If you want more involvement in the military, go full time.
What about their training, is their one-might a week, one weekend a month training enough to be effective ?
Well done Nick Carter - you will always be remembered as the CGS that destroyed the Army
How is he destroying the army?
@@Arborist5851 under his tenure the army has been reduced to a defence force without a whimper of dissent..
He lauds basically a cost cutting exercise to get rid of 4 infantry battalions and to create a ‘Ranger’ Regiment and then says anyone can join it.. We didn’t have enough troops back in the 2000’s to sustain a two fronted assault in Iraq and Afghanistan, hence our ignominious defeat in both conflicts. We now don’t have enough to sustain a full division of infantry in a war footing...
@@scottiramage317 Not enough quality material responding to recruitment drives?
@@scottiramage317 maybe so but like anyone in that post before and after him they do what their told... he'll be all critical once he's out like the former holders of that post have been
He does what the MOD tells him.
Bolger also claimed that Carter refused to visit the front line and only visited safe positions by helicopter, while frequently refusing requests for aircraft and artillery support from troops under his command. Bolger further stated, "He's not the type of general I would put in charge of anything."
There we go. Don’t have to say anymore
You have highly trained Para's and Marines, so just make them bigger and train them more - would make much more sense.
so true, the armies focus should be on the paras as they are already elite soldiers, just like the navy have funded the marines development
Yeah but the point of the ranger regiment is to be a land-based fighting force who will go and fight in wars that we are not a part of, e.g. Ukraine-Russia conflict.
Paras and 16 air assault brigade as a whole are specialised in air assault. This means they use helicopters and potentially parachutes to deploy on the battle field.
Marines on the other hand are specialised in raiding or coastal operations/invasions and also act as maritime security for Navy vessels.
They occupy a completely different role to that envisioned for the ranger regiment.
@@nosamsemaj9150 when was the last time any significant UK unit was deployed by parachute?
@@esr243 6 months ago paras and pathfinders dropped into Ukraine on a training exercise. What’s your point?
@@nosamsemaj9150 key word; ‘training’. The last time they jumped into action was 1956. They operate the same as any other light inf battalion these days, only thing that sets them apart is a chippy 5 day phys course and an outdated brize Norton jump. Hardly ‘elite’ now is it😂
I feel the Army are trying to regain a sense of purpose as the Royal Marines are surging forward with a new focus and set-up and have a clear and crucial role in the kind of global operations we could face in the future.
@TheGoat Agree I feel one problem with the Army is internal cap badge rivalry coupled with Victorian era attitudes of Horse Guards generals.
yes, but only for a sub set of them- the majority are now surplus to requirements
@@hwntwww Certain people said the same before WW2.
@TheGoat you also have to remember the army being big is a historical aberration for us. We're an island nation. The navy should get more funding as it's beginning to.
I love our military more then my own life. I would fight and die for this country an infinite amount of times. Yet everything is pitted against those like me. And it weakens the military and our nation and especially our people, It shows.
Sounds like a total disaster in the making from the top down.
Sadly the brown smelly stuff will hit the bottom first .
The army is getting more dependent on things on paper that sound good rather than the mk1 eyeball .
Its high Time a lot of the old crusty officers got the chop.
It's the politicians who order it. The officers just have to carry it out. The Armed Forces will ultimately be a paramilitary with drones for controlling the British people. That's how our rulers want it.
@@ingurlund9657 I'm aware of that but officers have become spinless goons saying yes to any rubbish no10 puts out to ensure they keep their comfortable life styles.
So glad I left when I did.
“Mk1 eyeball”?
@@1anre refers to the human eye; eyeball, the eye, and mk1 meaning it's the first and unchanged.
Basically, refers to the idea of using plain ol' sense of sight.
@@ingurlund9657 officers are the new politicians
Deffo got civvies on under there sir
How does it feel that their special forces before you?
@@finchy77finch79 elaborate please?.
@@finchy77finch79 mocking it 😭😭😭
@@finchy77finch79 why do u want to know, not assed
How do you see the future for The Parachute Regiment? The spotlight isn't really on them at the minute.
Combat jacket on for the interview in the office 🙄
That's all he got on thats why lol
The old "Look forward, not back". And Blair's 'going to War when we want to'. Afghanistan was "Pretty straight forward". If so "Straight forward", why did we have to leave, defeated again, with so many hard lost casualties? When we go up against our Peers next time we will need to out think, outgun and out fight them. We are in great danger of being Young and Contemptable when we are caught out again next time. Luckily there will be far fewer of us to take off the beaches this time!
“Afghan was pretty straightforward” joke of the century 🤦♂️🤣😂 camel backs where a “luxury item” kit required nothing wrong with our black water bottles dating back to the Cold War, those lovely fetching black combat boots too... cooked ya feet beautifully oh and then the DPM not being readily available in desert colours. Then there’s the Iraq issue with the chally2’s turning up with the incorrect filters so couldn’t use them in the desert straight away PLUS the previously stated issues from 2001/2002 still be in an issue in 2003 🤦♂️so straightforward that they where I’ll prepared and incompetent for years, I suppose that was for “traditions sake” over anything else then 🤦♂️🤷♂️
What a load of rubbish, we already have SF. and highly trained Infantry Regiments, we need to raise the standards of existing front line troops because in recent years these basic standards have fallen. We shouldn’t be following the US by creating extra units just beef up the great Regiments we already have, Argentina will be watching these developments to snatch the Falklands especially if the Army is also committed elsewhere. We still need boots on the ground, do they never learn from history.
Awwwh yes, another internet general...I'm sure you study and work on this stuff every day of your life and just have some deep knowledge that no one else who actually works in this world has...
@@Swift-mr5zi alright mate, no need to be so sarcastic.
I agree with what Alex says, these “rangers” seem to fill a slot that doesn’t need filling. Rather than slapping a plaster over the problem, the army should be doing a more permanent fix (I.e giving current regiments extra training and equipment to bring the army as a whole, to a higher level)
The thing is war has changed. The past 20 years have shown that.
We’re not going to be rolling around at Army strength across broader’s on mass. The government have said they don’t want that either so we instead need specialist, smaller hit hitting unit that allow us to be useful on the world stage without getting us bogged down somewhere.
@@Swift-mr5zi I joined the British Army in the 60s and served in an Infantry Regiment and our basic training then was far tougher than it is today. Standards have been lowered in order to attract and maintain recruiting and the Army is definitely not the same one that I joined all those years ago.
@@alexweatherburn4390 here we go... another ‘back in my day’ story. Your not talking from experience, your guessing what it is like now.
'Green Berets' then 'Rangers'. Green berets and Rangers perform entirely different roles. We have a ranger battalion (arguably three) with 1 PARA in UKSF, backed up by 2 and 3 PARA. Seems like some 'specialist' battalions being given roles assisting 'local' militias where they will need the real SF and Ranger battalions to come and rescue them... Can't wait.
these training btns are really only cadres, not fighting units with mass
Exactly my own thoughts based on the experiences of Green Beret advisers in Vietnam who ended up as POW's. Unlike the current Green Berets we do not have the level of air power and support necessary to rescue such forces in theatre if they are spread all over the place in remote locations. Sounds like a disaster in the making.
because the Ranger regiment will be similar to both GB and SFAB, not just GB. US GB has limitation, artillery training, logistics, conventional warfare and light armored warfare. GB is good in raising initial guerilla warfare up to the formation of light infantry unit through FID. But as we know in Afghanistan, conventional training needs its own cadre and instructors. The over reliance on Ktah Khas by ANA because of their extensive training is one cause of the fall. Imagine, 90% of your military operation is conducted by just less than 10% of your entire army. Because your conventional forces aren't up to the job due to lack of training by proper cadre. That's why US created SFAB, UK can't afford to have both GB as a brigade and SFAB as a training cadre brigade like the US, so Ranger regiment is the compromise between the 2 similar roles but keeping SFAB as an operational fighting unit. Several conventional units cadre and instructors can be attached to it from the original SFAB to train conventional warfare FID. You can't ask GB to train Ukrainian mechanized infantry/heavy infantry, you need SFAB for that. Ranger regiment will fill both roles in a compromise because most of it are based on mechanized light infantry battalion.
and all UK Paras are equal to Ranger regiment. US paratroopers are conventional light infantry troops, while UK Paras are more of a shock troops special operation capable like 75th.
UK Ranger regiments are going to be part of Army Special Operations Brigade which is going to use the budget of existing regiments to form.
The only comparison with the US will be that it is similar to US Army Special forces that do have assault teams as well.
US Army Rangers are a complete assault team so people need to stop with the comparisons.
Totally agree with the general in terms of the British army being busy with the reserves stepping in and being an integral part of the army.
I believe they are and in the case of a war would be our land defence or home Guard as they used to call it. Many a reservist eventually will join the regular forces.
Like Para and Marine training isn’t hard enough.. surely they will be recruiting from them as a natural progression and not straight from civvy street 😂
You can’t go straight from civvy street to ranger battalion you’ll probably have to go through a selection process after so long of being in battalion.
BEFORE YOU WATCH.
Everyone. All you civilians with ruffled feathers, bitter line infantry units wishing you had gone RM/Paras or even further or just anyone without an actual insight in to the military.
I want you to know that this man here. Nick Carter. The head of it all is utterly clueless. Everyone with any knowledge on this specific matter knows so. If you disagree you don’t hold the insight and should refrain from commenting.
UKSF title is currently held for those who have completed UKSF selection. Nobody else.
Outside of that you have Para, RM and PF. These are conventionally used forces. High end conventional yes. However all are what you could consider special operations capable units. This is because they deliver infiltration capabilities not held by line infantry units. It’s also designated because these units hold a selection that has a 30% or less pass rate at which soldiers are selected for a specific arduous purpose of which not all soldiers are capable of. This is both a mental and physical selection process that allows the units to select the right people.
However a definite special operations unit and the only real SOF title belongs to 1 Para and they are a decade plus in to holding both the skill set and ability, validated, tried and tested. They serve in the environment that suits the purpose. PF is still a conventional concept.
This spec Inf concept much like the failed commando aspect where 1 rifles tried to become a commando unit yet couldn’t pass the courses is nothing but bottom of the barrel infantry being given political titles in which they can now pick up all the non kinetic unwanted and timely jobs currently given to UKSF.
You cannot take under-performers and give them kit and equipment and change the core and heart of that soldier. Many of these Spec Inf soldiers would have failed Para or Commando courses, especially Para Depot whilst undergoing basic infantry training at Catterick. 50% of failures for The Paras are given to various line infantry units especially those serving within the now ‘Spec inf’ role.
At the end of the day Nick Carter here is saying he is personally and not officially but his personal opinion is that Paras and RM who hold 30% pass rate or less are lesser forces than bottom of the barrel line infantry units that have a 97% pass rate or higher where they undergo no selection, only assessments in training. He is saying they are SF, a title used to describe soldiers who have completed 6-7 month UKSF selection and who have completed various tests in order to deem them suitable for the environment and task.
This is little more than an absolute fail of an interview where the head of the army has displayed he has absolutely no knowledge of ground truth and currently fails to align the terminology he phrases. The whole interview was a n embarrassment.
Sorry to all the line infantry units who suddenly thought you were getting a special status for doing nothing. The truth is these line infantry battalions won’t even be changing cap badge and will still retain all the underperforming it has done for decades. Bottom of the barrel line infantry.
@colussus steel It scares me you are probably non Para Reg using Para Reg terms. Scary delusional youth. Want everything for nothing. Fail Depot and go line infantry and suddenly call everyone hats because they couldn’t get a chance to do it for real.
@@Gamer-bz2gl Well said 👍🏻
@colussus steel are you
As I understand, a Ranger Regiment is just not an infantry battalion but a self contained independant unit comprising a wide range of battle support equipment and skills. Something regiments have craved for going back many years.,
Have you seen the "rangers" demolition video on this channel? There was a female in the shot. How did she get there? What is the testing to qualify for "rangers"?
The only “Rangers” in the British army are The Royal Irish (Rangers) Regiment. Faugh a Ballagh.
Not any more lad!
FAB Alan!
Do they have spud guns
What’s their job description, Similar to this ?
@@1anre no they are line infantry
Numbers matter, and a soldier with the best kit and best training cannot be in two places at once or on non-stop deployment. The government thinks good kit can fill the numbers gap. Britain will continue to lose influence if numbers continue to drop. Cuts in transport aircraft and the landing ship docks facing the axe will reduce deployability. I hope the service chiefs put pressure on the government and maybe start calling publically out its spin, lies and post-review cuts and stop parroting government spin/lies.
And you think the chief of defense will keep his job should he go against his direct employers ?
But they couldn't even recruit their previous target never mind an increase
UK is an island that projects power. The basis of that power today will be the Navy and Airforce.
Dont u think that if the army gets abunch of specialist soldiers its better for us…we also have nato so numbers arnt a problem
If it ain't broke, please, please, don't fix it.
It’s so broke
The attitude of the Chinese military during the Opium War. Militaries need to continually evolve or they will lag behind the others.
Correct, that makes the decision right.
It is broken.
Yeah, no need to look forward...
Never change anything and wonder why we are not competitive or effective in any modern military engagement.
The reason for change is that we won't be fit for purpose at all otherwise.
The British army is finished
1:24 'US green berries' lol
Don't eat them, they're not ripe yet
This explains there sour moods 😎
I eat green berries for breakfast. And right now I'm hungry
@@sharkwolf7788 Well done. Very few will get that!
If they are struggling to get recruits for the regular army how on earth do they expect to man four battalions of rangers, somewhere between SAS, marines and paras. I really think they will struggle unless they are given a major pay rise for joining.
I like how he can forecast whats going to happen in the next couple of years, i bet that's what they said in 1913!!!!
well he's right on Ukraine and near peer threat. HIMARS, drone and lighter but faster armoured formation are making more impact on the ground than heavier armored column. Even better prediction with the SFAB and Ranger regiment training the Ukrainians.
Confusing again the US and UK. Very sad. Support better the Paras and Royal Marines.
Royal Marines are borderline special forces as it is so it'll be interesting to see how this "army rangers" unit will go above beyond.
If I'm honest it just sounds like a marketing plea to make them sound cooler and more useful.
They are almost exclusively unconventional warfare, so a totally different skillset to the marines and paras..... And very likely wont need the same fitness requirements
BEFORE YOU WATCH.
Everyone. All you civilians with ruffled feathers, bitter line infantry units wishing you had gone RM/Paras or even further or just anyone without an actual insight in to the military.
I want you to know that this man here. Nick Carter. The head of it all is utterly clueless. Everyone with any knowledge on this specific matter knows so. If you disagree you don’t hold the insight and should refrain from commenting.
UKSF title is currently held for those who have completed UKSF selection. Nobody else.
Outside of that you have Para, RM and PF. These are conventionally used forces. High end conventional yes. However all are what you could consider special operations capable units. This is because they deliver infiltration capabilities not held by line infantry units. It’s also designated because these units hold a selection that has a 30% or less pass rate at which soldiers are selected for a specific arduous purpose of which not all soldiers are capable of. This is both a mental and physical selection process that allows the units to select the right people.
However a definite special operations unit and the only real SOF title belongs to 1 Para and they are a decade plus in to holding both the skill set and ability, validated, tried and tested. They serve in the environment that suits the purpose. PF is still a conventional concept.
This spec Inf concept much like the failed commando aspect where 1 rifles tried to become a commando unit yet couldn’t pass the courses is nothing but bottom of the barrel infantry being given political titles in which they can now pick up all the non kinetic unwanted and timely jobs currently given to UKSF.
You cannot take under-performers and give them kit and equipment and change the core and heart of that soldier. Many of these Spec Inf soldiers would have failed Para or Commando courses, especially Para Depot whilst undergoing basic infantry training at Catterick. 50% of failures for The Paras are given to various line infantry units especially those serving within the now ‘Spec inf’ role.
At the end of the day Nick Carter here is saying he is personally and not officially but his personal opinion is that Paras and RM who hold 30% pass rate or less are lesser forces than bottom of the barrel line infantry units that have a 97% pass rate or higher where they undergo no selection, only assessments in training. He is saying they are SF, a title used to describe soldiers who have completed 6-7 month UKSF selection and who have completed various tests in order to deem them suitable for the environment and task.
This is little more than an absolute fail of an interview where the head of the army has displayed he has absolutely no knowledge of ground truth and currently fails to align the terminology he phrases. The whole interview was a n embarrassment.
Sorry to all the line infantry units who suddenly thought you were getting a special status for doing nothing. The truth is these line infantry battalions won’t even be changing cap badge and will still retain all the underperforming it has done for decades. Bottom of the barrel line infantry.
@@Gamer-bz2gl this comment should be the only comment you read about this ranger regiment drivel.
From what I've heard (and that's not much) they are not required to go above and beyond in the traditional RM or Para proficiences/demands. It may prove to be we cannot compare apples to apples because we have nothing in the British forces make up to compare them with. Training/leadership and unconventional warfare skills seem to be most important requirements. If they master what they are being asked to do they certainly will be more useful as it will offer options we now only have on a peicemeal basis. Cooler - difficult to see how with that capbadge, IMHO of course.
Spec ops don't mean physically fit to the extreme. That would only be suitable for one group of spec op. Spec ops is simply unconventional warfare. If we train pretty women as undercover spies, to seduce high ranking enemies, and infiltrate and gather actionable intelligence and data, that can be classed as a Spec op. It's not just about guns blazing and tabbing 50 miles in 20 hours. It's also about adaptability. Warfare is changing. What would a bayonet charge do in the face of a nuclear strike? As tech advances, warfare gets more "unconventional", and the skillset necessary differs. Each have their own roll to play. However, with that being said, do we really need a whole new regiment? As far as I'm concerned, sfsg can be beefed up a bit to fit. However It seems the rangers would be on long term operations, training and assisting foreign troops over a period of years, and sfsg would be needed for high readiness and cannot be stationed all over the world on a long term basis, since it's quick reaction and high readiness capabilities would not be usable if they're splintered all over the world. Excuse my long lecture here I'm just brainstorming trying to figure the reason for this brand new unit.
The UK needs more Apache gunships only got 42 we had 67 of them at one point.
The Government is purposely keeping this info from the public.
In the same way the RAF bomb disposal team has been disbanded
@@skylongskylong1982 because there are robots for that now, it’s a risky job but realistically it’s a boring one
@@Dan-zc7ut what robots? The wheelbarrow type ones? They are useful but bomb disposal are still trained to disarm explosives manually.
50 new Apaches being purchased some already delivered.
And of those 42, maybe 10, at most, are fully serviceable at any one time..
Being ex 2 para.....I'm not sure why these will be needed ...Reg and Royal have been supporting SF for years and are both very versatile.....just take a REG battalion and a Rm battalion and slightly tweek the training bish bash bosh Rangers 👌
My moneys on him wearing his civvies under that combat jacket
Nah he’s naked.
@@Cous1nJack nah, his wife's pearls necklace and bra
Ahh yes - the old getting stronger through "restructuring" line. This is always spouted when cuts are imminent. No senior officer in their right mind truly believes their armed forces become better by reducing man power.
The return of 'C' Squadron... later the 'Scouts'. Love it... and the cap badge.
long live Rhodesia
I watched 'Who Do You Think You Are' some years back and Chris Moyles described how his ancestor / relative was in the TA in the first world war, the Machine Gun Corps I believe and they were highly effective repelling the Germans. Admittedly we aren't going to have trench warfare again, but if it was me, I would have all T.A. units rolled as infantry. Just my view but the limited training time lends itself well to preparing for an infantry role. On a different note, I think there is still a bit of a mentality of keeping private soldiers in the dark, and I think that mindset should go, the population are more intelligent nowadays, so I would train all Reserve Soldiers in decent map reading / orienteering skills, every infantry soldier should receive training in using radio equipment and should have training in every (or the main weapons) browning, SA80, LMG GPMG 50 calibre. Looking back in history the number of missions that have been complete disasters because of bad radio equipment lack of operators etc. and they never seemed to learn from it. Perhaps the Army Reserve centres could still nominally retain their links to their former Corps by keeping their hand in with driving (logistics) medical etc and have shoulder flashes indicating this additional / past expertise, but for me, you would get better value for money training the reserves as combat infantry. In the past it was planned that they would fore-fill the role of Civil Contingency (as the Pioneers don't exist any more), which I thought was a really good idea, but this was changed and cancelled at the 11th hour and never came to fruition. But actually it was a really good idea and should be re-visited. Most civil disasters, no matter how varied, their net effect is the same, whether it is Tsunami, aerial bombing meteorite landing, flooding etc all have the same or similar outcome, power outages logistic issues, fire, and the need for manpower. having the Army Reserve undertake a Civil Contingency role would have been an efficient way to make use of a pre-existing resource. The TA centres themselves would have been well suited to that role as was demonstrated during the firefighters strike.
too many Army specialisms for all this- gaps need filling. Reserves, inf anyway, shd be attached to the regular btns, not in reserve formations. A fixed term of service shd include a mandatory 6 month attachment
Will it mean disbanding the current battalions that make up the specialized infantry group or will they rejoin the conventional forces?
I love that he fully confirmed that marines and the paras are *NOT* Special Forces, just high end conventional, and they are taking low end conventional units and they *will* be SF.
Who is making these decisions?
They're not just taking anyone 'low end' to form a regiment. Like all SF selection, it is open to anyone In the armed forces to attend.
The theme of the 'high end' conventional regiments filling up many of the slots in SF regiments will probably continue but the SAS/SBS/SRR ect aren't an exclusive club of ex-paras and Marines
There are high end troops in all battalions , what he means is high end troops as in the way they deploy , I've been on cadres with paras and marines they do the same courses / cadres and I've not seen anything that set them apart from the rest , oh and look at the Royal Hampshire regiment in the late 80s they won the northern European infantry competition causes the paras and marines to call for a recount as they simply would not believe they had been beaten even the US marines shook their hands and accepted it , the of nato provided a section of men on that competition and were beaten by standard rifle company guys 2 of which were straight out of training
@@jmcgaminghov9994 exactly. OP is talking as if current UKSF boys were born that way, weren’t they draw up from regular low-end military units too?
To begin with, it will be 'seeded' from the four current Specialised Infantry Battalions: 1 SCOTS, 2 PWRR, 2 LANCS, and 4 RIFLES
While these battalions have nowhere near an arduous selection process or general fitness levels as the marines and paras, they have certain skillsets that transfer well to the unconventional warfare that these rangers are based on
I imagine the role wont require the physical standard of the marines and paras which are tip of the spear assault units so it makes no sense to need troops to pass similar levels.
@@Dd-fb2tj makes me laugh marines and paras assume they are fitter, I am an ex tiger I was a long distance runner for the battalion , the 5 paras I was on a COP cadre with didn't demonstrate any superhero fitness levels that are claimed , basically it was pretty standard
I'M a white british male if that title even exists anymore. I have a severe neurological brain disorder from childhood trauma due to being psychologically and physically tortured, locked away for extended periods of time and treated generally like an unruly dog. Due to this i have a lack of remorse. Cold calculated, everything i do holds contingency and i see through all, Yet i hold good morals due to my military grandfather and uncles in the military, if it weren't for them i would probably have had my own channel 5 documentary. What about people like me who yearn for battle yet are left to rot at the bottom of this broken system. As far as im concerned you're all weak minded insects. But i can't help the way my mind is. So i rationalize which in my own way allows me to do and be good and kind to those around me. I tried to join the military years ago but i didn't meet the diversity quota. So idk carry on letting up the trojan horse. Those like me that haven't an hero'd will pick up the pieces after the mistakes that the money hungry passifists plunder away to the red menace to the east. Communism is the very definition of faliure.
It’s embarrassing comparing these new “SF” battalions to the US Green Berets. Those guys are some of the most professional soldiers going, you have to have a degree to join them. Most have degrees in geography/politics etc and can speak multiple languages. You can’t just slap a new beret and patch on someone and call them SF when all they’ve done is bog standard infantry training at catterick. There is nothing that will make these new rangers even remotely comparable to the green berets.
Let me guess --- you're American. I checked -- the entry requirement is a high school diploma. Are recruits being put through college courtesy of the American taxpayer?
@@bellumpraeparet he’s right regardless of nationality. CIC does not make someone special forces and the role that is proposed for these Rangers is no different to what standard line infantry battalions were already doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
@@maxpowerii7368 I'd agree with your second sentence, though he did not back up the "superior education" claim. Hm. Are you saying that these "Rangers" are merely window dressing because the army is not attracting quality recruits?
@@bellumpraeparet I would say it is a window dressing because the army is not getting the funding to maintain its size and the new Rangers Regiment will functionally provide no new capability that SIG did not provide.
@@maxpowerii7368 They're reducing numbers by 4,000 over 4 years, but commenters are reacting as though it's a 50% reduction. You've touched on the interesting point. Since the army's aim is presumably not to reduce capability, I'd assume that they are responding to a combination of budgetary diversion (from cannon fodder to high-tech "cannons"), reduced numbers of high quality recruits, time restraints to train troops up to higher efficiency ... and what else?
Did everyone know that I served with Eddy Murphy in the 14th Infantry Special Bus Brigade at DaNang Restaurant.
You don’t know man .. you where’nt there.. 😎
@@mashbury
Also know as sarcasm. I was nine when the war in Vietnam ended.
All my cousins who did serve were my heroes and and like all Vietnam veterans they're my heroes now
@@timfronimos459 I’m not ENTIRELY sure you fully understand that British squaddie sense of humour .. or perhaps you do.. 🤔.
@@mashbury
Indeed I do! Been a fan of Monty Python, Sorry, Are You Being Served and Basil Fawlty since the 1970s.
It has shaped my life😜
Finally, a Green Beret's like Special Forces in the UK. Looking forward for this regiment
My friends Dad was a Army commando in WW2, don't understand why it was disbanded.
@@danielfinch362 demobilization
@@danielfinch362 wasn't disbanded. Commandos transferred from army to royal marines. However I can see no reason why this "ranger " group could not be the return of army commando, and use that name
"Re-organizing to meet the challenges of the future". In other words completely cut the army in half. Lay-offs and lost livelyhoods. All in the name of "progress".
Where are they going to find bods for this? Anyone who wants or can join SF or SFSG is there.
Me first sfsg after sf
I think he was saying that application is open to anyone. That's not the same as making the grade.
@@bellumpraeparet well as long as the candidates participate with all their heart.... ;-)
@@broken1722 what donut
The training must be easyer
This British Unit is basically a modified version of the American SF CIF/CRF Companies.. They will not only train and council local commando type forces, but will also perform the role of what the Yanks call “Triple A” -
“advise, assist, accompany” .. What makes this change unique is not necessarily the Role itself, but the the fact that this is a job that historically was always a skill set of the 22 SAS and SBS.. By building a separate Unit to take on this role, it will free up the SAS and SBS to focus more on their unilateral/Hostage rescue role... This is also why the Brits raised the SFSG and SRR back in 2006... What makes this a Yank model, is that for decades, their Tier 1 SF like Delta Force and SEAL team 6 never had to worry or bother training local forces and advising, they always had the Green Berets to take over those jobs, allowing Delta and ST6 to master kinetic Unilateral roles. It’s a smart system IMO..In a lot of ways the SAS were almost being taken advantage of and over tasked with all these different roles and focuses. For how small in size the 22 Regiment is, its only logical that they only have a few roles to master and not hundreds.
It is what conventional infantry battalions used to do
Served for 12 years from 86 and IMO the British military has never been so weak 😕
What happens when you come up against a well organised and equipped super power, those number just won’t cut the mustard
Even worse than the numbers the equipment itself is also out of date and or undergunned.
Can see an argument for an equivalent of the green berets for training and foreign internal defence....an elite ground unit isn't needed....SFSG wasn't a bad start...put together a company or battalion sized unit drawn from SRR Para Royals and the Gurkha's....job done
To get anywhere near an elite you need about a 70% failure rate otherwise you might as well not bother. Back in the 90s all arms P company had about a 30% pass rate, it's now about 50%. A 50% pass rate is too high IMHO; too many chancers get through the net! I'll be interested to know what this ranger/green berets/army commando selection criteria will be.
I have heard it is going to be a 6 week selection process - not sure what that constitutes but as these will already be serving soldiers (mainly NCO's from what I've gleaned) that's not a million miles away from Pre Para 2 weeks then P Coy 4 weeks for all arms selection which was the norm in my day. Will hold off neg or pos comments on that one till I learn more.
Iv met Mr Carter in Afghanistan in 2009 very intelligent man 👏 i think its about time we stopped cutting and started growing with the global threat around the world
"Era of constant competition" = a nice euphemism for increasingly-threatening autocratic opponents.
Like the Brit Government for instance.
I wonder how he squares the circle by saying that a reduction in manpower will make them better able to face competition?
@Athos Aramis You could be right, I have not seen a single one star or above resign over the relentless legal persecution of our troops from Northern Ireland to Irag or Afghanisatan while the IRA walk around laughing with Tony Blair's "safe conduct" in their pockets and bastards like Phil Shiner still hold their jobs!
@Aliaholic123 Pearson Even worse soldiers are being charged with murder for events for which they have already been exonerated, in several cases, at least twice. A complete disgrace that Blair allowed it to happen but I find it deeply depressing that no senior officer has resigned in protest!
Just a general question, is there or has there been any ideas on a british version of the French legion where we take in anyone who wants to join the British army from any national background?
Yes they do recruit other nationalities but only from the commonwealth and they must meet immigration criteria
@@enochgathiaka916 Ireand is not in the Commonwealth yet there is a Guard and Irish Regiment, also Ireland has a world recognised Ranger Wing since 1980
@@johnmorgan9435 That's because part of the Good Friday Agreement was freedom to live and work in the UK and Ireland for both citizens. This includes Irish people in the British Army and British people in the Irish army.
@@johnmorgan9435 "Ireland not being in the Commonwealth" referred to the Republic. Whereas the Irish Guards and Royal Irish Regiment are from NI, they are UK citizens
@@jesseblack5812 There was already that freedom since 1925 I think. The GFA does not provide it only a right to dual citizenship.
Goooood interview technique. Many opportunities for criticism but he handled it really rather well.
Guarantee they won't have to pass anything as arduous as p company or Commando course.
Interesting he does refer to them as special forces though... Will they come under UKSF? Like the SAS, SBS, SFSG
@TheGoatthere is no tier 2 in the UK military. If anything, paras and marines can be considered tier 2 and I believe given the specific nature of the rangers role and to encourage a more diverse range of applicants such fitness standards won't be required
@TheGoat we have to disagree here. There are officially no tier 2 special forces in the UK. The SRR are a vital Component to UKsf. No less importamy than the SAS /SBS. Most standard Infantry Soldier will not pass the commando course or p company. There is a gulf in fitness standards between the paras/marines and standard Infantry owing to the jobs they do and their roles in the rapid reaction brigades. Even comparing initial joining entry standards will show you this. It takes months of build up from these units to attempt these courses that other units simply do not get.
@TheGoat there is not enough reason to support it. The attrition rate would be enormous if every Infantry unit had the standards of the Royal marines and Paras I understand what you are saying but I'll have to respectfully disagree and say only a small percentile of standard Infantry would pass p company and the commando course.
@TheGoat is that why that rifles battalion struggled to get more than a handfull of blokes through the aacc? You do realise there is a marked difference between all arms courses an the full wack from civvie street? I agree that any determined, fit infantry soldier that takes himself seriously should be capable of cracking cdo course or p company..... In reality... How many of those people actually exist. I havent met many.
@TheGoat Except they don't pass; something you tried and passed yourself was it?
To quote a WW1 phrase
"Lions led by donkeys" is a phrase popularly used to describe the British infantry of the First World War and to blame the generals who led them. The contention is that the brave soldiers (lions) were sent to their deaths by incompetent and indifferent leaders (donkeys)
In the modern sense for ‘Donkey’ read incompetent indifferent Tory’s who are more interested in a Naval ‘Gunship Diplomacy’ imperial presence, than a realistic RAF and Army able to undertake a credible and effective field presence, with Russia saber rattling and looking at the Balkan states as well as the Ukraine and China looking at expanding its presence, we are already woefully under equipped.
To take these fanciful flights of fancy where IT and mini drones are seen as the panacea to less ‘boots or aircraft on the ground’ is a dangerous sell out of our nation’s safety.
Boris bodged Brexit, Sold out to Cronyism on PPE and wasted 37 Billion on the failed ‘trace and track’ which was run by another Tory’s wife.
Expect the worst and then double it.
Carter dislikes the parachute regiment and he will be looking for a reason to cuts us off. The new ranger unit is his excuse if putting four infantry regiments struggling for manpower together and calling them SF then that must be the answer. 🤣
Carter didn't get selected for the parachute regiment at Sandhurst so couldn't follow in his father's footsteps and has held a grudge ever since. This is his revenge.
No one can hold a grudge like a officer.
😂😂😂😂
the marines need a new role- some will do proper commando stuff and specifically maritime tasks, but that still leaves the equivalent of 3 btn with nothing to do, will they become rangers?
The 'Ranger' concept is ridiculous.
Not only do we already have SFSG but the units being mentioned as forming it are mid range (at best) and not of the calibre required to operate at this level.
I saw the Trifles first hand when they were attached to 3 Commando Brigade and it was not an impressive performance!
They got rid of one of the finest units ever The Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry in the Royal Green Jackets. Pegasus Bridge and all that. "Up the Ox and Bucks"
@TheGoat - but Regimental Pride has.
Many battles have swung in the favour of a cohesive unit fighting for its 'honour'.
@@robinloxley205 - there was clearly something about LIs, the Durham LI has the record of more days in combat in WW2 than any other unit (by quite a margin).
They also, per capita, provided more volunteers to the new Commando and Airborne Brigades than any other unit.
Their amalgamation/disbandment was a ridiculous decision.
Never been in the military no expert but what’s wrong with keeping a small army but give them everything they need ? Why do we need to spend so much on our army when this country is so going down hill. Biggest threat to this country is the people running it .
No conventional force will invade our island and if they did millions would sign up like last century. Isn’t it time we started focusing on not killing eachother and spend the money sorting this country out. Get the vets some decent support. Keep a highly specialised well trained military small but top tech and equipment and stop this lavish hillocks waste of money pretending like we still have an empire. Focus on the children instead of spending billions so we can bomb other people’s kids with missiles. I never met a vet happy about war and it’s cost . It’s only ever keyboard heroes and net experts still gluing models together and watching war films that think it’s cool.
Imagine First Blood happening in UK, John Rambo is a British Army Ranger.
You got a permit for those muscles?
Who’d you like to direct the movie; Guy Ritchie?
Who should play the lead SpecOps Operator- John Boyega?
Oi mate, yew got a loicense for that spoon?
@@1anre Idris Elba man, washed out Ranger who developed a speech impediment, Micheal Caine as the colonel and Christian Bale as the Sheriff of Sherwood.
@@BenjaminWong Ben that’s makes a lot of sense too.
Let’s keep these suggestions rolling man.
sooooo, basically, it's a second round of options for change, more cutback's and amalgamations just given a flashy name.....
Passing Selection for Special Forces, Paras and Commandos is extremely hard, Where the failure rate is between 60% and 90%
So where are these Ranger Battalions going to get the personal?
To begin with, it will be 'seeded' from the four current Specialised Infantry Battalions: 1 SCOTS, 2 PWRR, 2 LANCS, and 4 RIFLES
On the basis of certain skillsets of these battalions being a good match for unconventional warfare that the rangers will specialise
Because of this I doubt a rigorous, fitness, orientated selection process such as p company will not be part of their process
@@Dd-fb2tj well I suppose it comes to down what they determine the term special forces means... however to the majority of people this ranger regt will not be SF..
@@Dd-fb2tj they now run a 14 week assessment and selection cadre out of brecon...
At last, the legacy of Robert Roger, a noted British American officer in the Seven Years War and the US War of Independence is being reclaimed. However, have we not got enough military history that we have to copy the title of an existing US army unit based on our own commandos, whose title was itself copied off the Boers? Why not resurrect the title an earlier specialist unit? We've recently copied "Homeland Security" and "Supreme Court" off the USA. What is the point of having great depth of history if we keep surrendering it pointlessly in some inverted cultural cringe to the USA?
Will we still have SAS and SBS?
@@christwrd Do you know how this fits with SFSG? Doesn't to a certain degree, this bleed into their role. 'Tiger teams' etc...
SAS is more of an inhouse & domnestic counter-terrorism organisations, with a flare of special 'n quick action operations, rather than full-on military operations, if you ask me.
I believe SBS and SAS will still take on missions such as high value targets and special reconnaissance missions , what confuses me is that the sfsg in afghan had the role of training indigenous forces and accompanying them on missions , so what is different about the rangers ? Surely sfsg could fill this role or expand them and open them to rest of army ? Not sure though I don’t know enough
The British rangers will do the same role as US special forces, which is foreign assistance and training not direct actions as the US Rangers bats are.
That’s what he said on the vid.
Our SFSG is more like the role of US Army Ranger Bats
@@christwrd yep just like the green berets do, I think it’ll be a great thing just wish I was still in now.
He used a lot of words but said very little. Just like a civil servant or politician.
Good video
Couldn't they just allow anyone from 21 or 23 SAS with a decent reference deploy as Rangers?
@Andrew I said a good reference. My pal did 13 years in 22 SAS, but he was in A squadron in the then Port Glasgow 23 SAS before that. People from the TA/Army Reserve do pass regular selection, and are the only non-regulars allowed to attempt it. It might only be 20% of the unit strength, but there will be a load of people in 21/23 (especially, from what I've heard) A,B and C 23, who could very quickly fit in. 21 is stuffed full of people working in the professions in London and the South East. Bear Grylls isn't that unusual. For the quasi-training job they're talking about his type might be quite useful.
@Andrew i heard from former sas and sbs operators that reservist are actually good
@Andrew what are you on about. Inf high standard hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Less ceremonial functions to allow more pay war fighting
Why not just add one of the RM Commando unit's to the SFSG and be done with it? All this waffle reminds of the British campaign in Helmand. Senior leadership creating grand 'strategies' whilst the NCO's on the ground pay the price for their strategic incompetence.
Training of Afghans went very well. Can the Army even hold its own after the debacles in Afghan/Iraq, let alone hope to train others?
So all in the new Ranger Regiment will have completed SAS/SBS selection to be classed as ‘Special Forces’? With the current failure rate, raising a force of around 2,000 will take years.
It'll take decades, US Marines started their first official Special Ops unit in mid 2006.
They only have roughly 850 Operators right now.
In 2016, after a decade of operation they were at 625 Operators.
Uhhhmmmmmmm...... I’m thinking that YOU REALLY NEED TO CHANGE THE TITLE OF THIS VIDEO!!! As a Former US Army Ranger, both “Short Tabbed and a Scroll”, you almost gave me a F’ing Stroke!!! “STOP DOING DAT!”
Is there going to be a Celtic regiment? Asking for a Glaswegian friend.
We already have the royal regiment of Scotland which has 4 active duty battalions which is much more than most regiments. You’ve also got the Scots Guards.
Nae pal cannae be both
@@nosamsemaj9150 The Kiddies - Strike Not With Impunity
The way his smock is done up to the top, he’s obviously wearing his pyjamas for this interview and threw something on top.
So we’re basically downsizing the military? Surely they’re the organisations that we don’t want downsizing in, the more trained soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines we have then we’ll have stronger and better forces.
But don't they think the our country defence is getting down and too small
Depends what your defending it from.
@@gfield1607 yh but they're investing money in the military tech but what happened if they're was a hacker who hacked into British militay cyber security Den he's gone control all the armed drone and da 🤣
@@broken1722 that threat has always been about since the military has had drones, computers and even radios, what’s your point?
Smaller defence forces, security and border security like a sieve, full of holes, with infiltrators every day, total insanity.
I watched a televised discussion of members of the Defence Select Committee, I believe, talking to Sir Nick Carter and the thing that struck me was they didn't seem to have a clear view of what the primary threat to the UK was. For me it's clear, the future threat which we should prepare for is Russia and a conflict on European soil. There are two reasons for this, and I don't believe it is complicated. You prepare for the worst case scenario. If you prepare for the very worst thing you could face, then generally lesser threats can be dealt with (One strength the army has, is its ability to be flexible and to adapt). Secondly, again, it's not complicated or a mystery, you just need to analyse past behaviour, and Russia's past behaviour demonstrates concern. (lessons can be learnt from the second world war, you could see it coming; but apart from Churchill, all the obvious signs were repeatedly ignored). Finally with this approach, again applying basic logic, if I am incorrect nothing is lost and the Army is able to pivot to deal with a lesser threat. If however I am right, and my thinking is not followed, then we would be in big difficulty and no amount of adaptability and flexibility on the part of the Army would help. The focus therefor needs to be on a worst case scenario i.e. a conventional war on European soil. I heard some of the Defence Select Committee discussing whether China is the threat we should look at. As Sir Nick Carter said, with a small army you have to be clear what your focus is, if you are not clear and are facing multiple directions you can not properly be prepared. The comments from the Chairmen of the Defence Select Committee, who I believe was formally an army officer illustrates the problem I referred to in my comment below, namely officers from Sandhurst aren't great at thinking strategically. The chair of the Defence Select Committee discussed the issue of whether China is a threat, I have to say I see things clearly and I get frustrated when others do not see what seems obvious to me. Firstly you have to consider conduct, China is bullishly furthering its interests but does not have a history of invading its neighbours. America doesn't like it because it threatens its ECONOMIC interests, unfortunately all empires rise and fall and America is in decline, that is not the same as China being a threat to Britain's security, whether or not they are creating man made islands or establishing military ports in East Africa. Secondly even if I am wrong, which I don't believe I am, unless there is going to be a massive ballooning in defence expenditure whether China is or isn't a threat is irrelevant because as I have said unless our defence expenditure were to balloon, tinkering wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to the question of China (Elephant v Mouse). The focus therefor needs to be that of what is the very worst case scenario i.e. a traditional conventional war on Europe's doorstep. No one wants a war with Russia and you have to be careful with that line of thinking that it doesn't become self-forfilling prophecy, but everything you need to know can be discerned from how people think (Putin) and past conduct. Russia will exploit weakness and you can only use politics and diplomacy from a position of strength. As well as establishing ourselves on an equal footing with Russia, we should try to build relations with them; improve trade relations work on space projects that foster better relations. I also have another theory, when a child is noisy you know what they are doing, when a child is silent and nothing is coming from them, that is more likely when they are up to mischief. Wild card considerations are Turkey, that adds an interesting dynamic and the Hungarian EU relationship.
""they didn't seem to have a clear view of what the primary threat to the UK was."" Would they spell it out publicly? I rather doubt it.
You seem to be dismissing China as a threat. WW2 suggests that nations take advantage by mounting aggression on a second, distant front. In other words, since China and Russia are feigning friendship, could either be trusted if the other initiated conflict?
@@bellumpraeparet There isn't much to gain from being secretive, its fairly apparent from information openly available. The Russians were trying to curry favour with the Chinese but Russia has been to war with China in the past. So my take is China is self assured enough to pursue its own interests / ambitions. Any one could form alliances with anyone else, so that doesn't move us much further forward, for me the main point is China simply hasn't been aggressively expansionist in the military sense. Its been quite sensible in building its strength economically, investng in Africa etc. That's not to say it hasn't pushed it's weight around in respect fishing rights etc. and it has had small flash confrontations on its border with India, but all these activities are on it's own turf so to speak.
@@whitesun264 You don't think the Defence Select Committee would hold anything back? I didn't watch the program, so, even though I wouldn't expect full transparency, I'll accept your opinion. I agree that alliances, particularly those between expansionist authoritarian states, aren't to be trusted. I also agree that China hasn't historically been militarily expansionist (accident of geography?) but that's no guarantee for the future, is it? Both Putin and Xi hate the USA, so they would see an advantage in an alliance. Also, the Chinese have a military base in Djibouti, and they aren't "helping" Africa to build (Chinese companies, aiui) transportation infrastructure out of humanitarian motives. It certainly appears that they plan to take Taiwan back. Merely stiff-necked pride or designs on access to the West Pacific? From a geographic standpoint, I'd agree that Russia is Europe's greater current threat, but I suspect that the MoD is growing increasingly alarmed about the strange bedfellows.
I disagree, Russia is acting defensively, but we do need to be as strong if not stronger. Russia does not have the manpower or resources or desire to invade any NATO region, it would prefer to trade and make connections with the west on a fair and equal basis for its own survival and development. It makes more sense for them and the west. We do not need another pointless Cold War Our enemy is amongst us and all over Europe, a silent invasion, and I am more concerned over Turkey and Erdogan than Putin, and possibly some of the middle eastern states. China and Pakistan are working together on Bio-Warfare agents and after the "test/experiment" with Covid-19 I am sure worse is to come. The rise of militants in Africa also has deeper connections and connotations, via the middle east and China. I can see your point of view.
@@robinloxley205 Russia isn't acting defensively, it's acting offensively. Russia absolutely does have the manpower to invade the baltic states, in fact they are part of what it deems to be in it's geo-political interests to do so. Watch Peter Zeihan and in particularl about how they have an obsession with controlling several key points of access to russia that lie outside of their hinterland. All of them are in areas like Poland, the Baltics, Romania and Ukraine is needed to gain the resources in order to do so. This has been Russian strategy for hundreds of years. You are just spouting propaganda without even thinking. If you are more concerned about Turkey why are you not concerned about their biggest ally, Russia?
Good effort it’s about time the military started letting tri-service qualify to work it specialist rolls it’s the best way to get the best people.
The key thing about the Green Berets is awesome medic skills. They influence through fixing people.
Not only. Ability to embed for extended periods with indigenous population/ forces, train them and lead them in combat operations. That takes a more experienced soldier probably with enhanced language and medical skills, and perhaps also trained in small unit raiding and non conventional warfare. It's why selected them makes more sense than re-roleing an existing battalion.
@@bigg4089 Didn't the US have so called SF babes? Loads of college students recruited straight in. You've got some clever kid who learns quickly and enjoys sport, why wouldn't you?
Green Beret medical training is superb, but achievable for UK medics IF they have the right training and support. The other thing about the USASF is that they have massive support, something our own forces cannot achieve and even less so if we make more cuts. Technology still cannot compete with the Mk 1 eyeball, a thinking soldier and boots on the ground. If the UK adopted a training scheme as good as the 18D or 68W programs in the US our medics might be allowed to reach higher skill levels, but with the current state even after Afghanistan and it's necessary advances in medical care, I do not see us having multi skilled medical specialists who can even do veterinary care. The Army did "hearts and minds" with SAS medics in the 1960's and later as I recall, but not of the level as an 18D Medical Sergeant
New Rangers will be considered 'special forces' but I bet with basic Army pay-scales.
So we are looking at an army that could just about maintain the home defence if these islands with involvement of reserves. We are taking tentative steps on the robotic warfare stage and we would like to make some controlled effort in space survey and maybe interference. We will have a very small series of specialist units for training and experience in foreign locations but have no intention in being involved in a foreign war of major proportions as we do not have that capability and the treasury and politicians might talk big but the forces could not support their ambition. It all sounds like the condition of the army leading up to the Boer War!
So basically US green berets. Training and focussing on local forces as well as supporting tier 1 units
Seems like they are meant to be like our special operations 75th Ranger regiment more so then the Green berets
New regiment, opportunity to try other new thinking. The British army has done things the same way forever and it's worked, but equally maybe there is a fear of trying new things at the risk of breaking what's working. But with a new regiment perhaps they can use it to trial new thinking. For example, trial moving away from Officers from Sandhurst (not completely) and trial more officers coming up from the ranks. Kids coming out of school are smarter than they've ever been. Perhaps try leadership courses which encourage soldiers to take on responsibility earlier. I think some of the recruiters at Sandhurst look to pick what they have in their minds eye rather than assessing with an open mind the material they have in front of them, which is why you get people with confidence and who have come from a comfortable background (however people from comfortable backgrounds will have that confidence and outward persona that the recruiters are look for inevitably) but such candidates often seem to lack strategic ability, and i think that is an inherent skill rather than a skill you can teach. Perhaps it could be said in the past the British Army were the best in the world, I think the Americans have now surpassed us. Other thoughts, I don't think we necessarily have to re-invent the wheel, most lessons can be learnt from looking back in history. The German military machine was probably the most efficient military machine in history (perhaps second only to the Romans) and as dispicable as they were, the SS cut through Europe like a hot knife through butter. so the answer would appear to be look at why the SS were so effective (leaving behind their hate filled ideology) and generally draw lessons from why the German military machine was so effective. Just hope that there is no detrimental impact on the Marines, that's one arm that seems more or less perfect.
Interesting. Will looking back work, though? After all, the Germans were effective because they moved forward in a strategic sense, whilst the French generals (other than de Gaulle, it seems) were tactically stuck in the trenches.
They had good equipment, good morale, good soldiers and good officers
@@davidhinde3229 "They" being the Germans? Early successes would boost any soldier's morale. By WW2, they also had years of pre-military training in Hitlerjugend, and the Luftwaffe gained experience in '36 over Spain. Meanwhile, the French were throwing money at the (bypassed) Maginot Line, and the Brits had downsized.
@@bellumpraeparet The maginot line has been a bit of a scapegoat, to make it seem like one terrible blunder rather than a result of armed forces rotten from the top down. Even the maginot line was the result of outdated thinking from dusty desk generals, who were appointed more for their political loyalties than their competence. It is forgotten that the French had nearly as many men, that they outnumbered and outclassed the Germans in armour and had simpler logistics fighting on their own soil. However, rotten leadership throughout the army, compared to the fantastic officers of the German army is one of the reasons for French defeat. It shows the importance of good officers. With regards to the German army gaining experience in the Spanish civil war. It was only really the luftwaffe whose pilots gained direct experience, and even then it was more technology and military doctrine which had been tested and honed in Spain. The army who attacked Poland was largely new to combat, and their good morale can be attributed to good training, leadership and confidence in the cause. It really boils down mainly to a competent officer corps, as the armoured tactics of Guderian and Rommel, as well as confident, brave and flexible leadership all the way down to junior command allowed the initiative of victory to be retained. Morale is also helped by confidence in leadership, and the vertical and horizontal leadership of the German army was pretty much what kept it in cohesion even in 45 when virtually all was lost.
@@davidhinde3229 Thanks for taking the time to clarify all that. I agree, particularly on the fact that good officers are vital. My point about the Maginot line was the folly of excessive confidence despite the weakness near the Ardennes --- as though trees and rough terrain would suffice. I think that your examples support the notion that military leaders must adjust in response to the opponent's shift.
1. I fully support the British Army and believe these cuts are going too far. History has shown that the UK constantly gets caught out and finds itself coming up short in military numbers e.g. WW1 and WW2. This has resulted in the UK relying on conscription to quickly make up its shortfall in military numbers and with that option no longer available we will get caught out again. We cannot rely on NATO to come up with the goods as politics is god and each nation will take a political decision, in their own interest, before committing troops to any conflict. This doesn't just apply to larger conflicts as WW's. Iraq and Afghanistan, especially when they were running concurrently, saw the UK struggle with manpower to meet those commitments.
2. My honest opinion is that this sounded like a man desperately looking for a role for British Army Infantry. He and anyone who fully appreciates military capabilities understands that at the core of the Army, is the Infantry. The Infantry are not flashy and shiny, with wonderful headline grabbing equipment; instead, they are the grunts who go out, find the enemy, and kill them, it's that simple, and that will not sit easy with our political masters. It will be interesting to see what role Reserve Forces get. Will they get the infantry role, I think, something they are not best suited too? The physical and mental requirements to fulfil the infantry role, in my opinion, should stay with full-time forces and the technical roles should stay with Reserve Forces.
What is the General doing about the Army’s poor retention of specialist personnel?
As a former Bootneck he is joking when he says these new Rangers will be Special Forces, I suspect it’s was someone’s idea who never managed to pass the Commando course or P company or SF selection and had their fragile ego hurt because they found out their Guards unit wasn’t elite 🤣
Spot on
One thing I don’t understand about this all is that surely sfsg does the proposed job of this ranger regiment
It would be better to spend more money available to the special air service and make another regiment
Pretty sure he has his pyjamas on under his smock. No one wears a smock zipped right up indoors 😉😂
Interesting as Ranger Regiments Historically have Been Irish Regiments like the Devils Own!
Actually historically they were North American who fought in the 18th century on the side of the British “Rogers rangers” I remember ray mears doing a documentary on them
@@MrTangolizard Counnght Rangers the Royal Irish Rangers The Munster Rangers and there Probably older than American and I have probably missed out other Irish Regiments
@@bigjohn697791 not sure on the Munster rangers but the Connaught rangers are from 1881 Rogers rangers fought on the royalist side in the American revolution
@@MrTangolizard yes your right they actually dated back before Rogers to around 1680. You can’t beat a ray mears docu 👌
"Special forces" and "elite" mantras have been thrown around so much over the last 15 years that the term is almost meaningless.
There is also a certain level of creep when it comes to training. Every unit is trying to model themselves after "the best" and train as close to SOF standards as possible. Course work has been expanded and intensified. All this leads to more personnel washing out and less troops to be spread around. As a result, the units themselves run shorthanded and the mystique of the SOF community gets watered down.
In the UK the airborne pathfinders are ALMOST trained to the level of SAS. In the US units such as the Rangers and Force Recon Marines try to get as close in their training to SEALS or Green Berets. Canada it's JTF envy. CSOR is a prime example of this.
At some point these conventional units need to let the SOF community do their thing and concentrate on conventional warfare operations
Open to anyone who doesn’t mind minuscule pay, a tiny reduced pension and little to no prospects of promotion whilst living in a ditch on cheap ration packs.
Whatever new special forces are developed the Army as a whole needs to look at the salaries of the Army and compare it with civilians who don't put their life on the line and earn substantially more. It is the only way retention of fully trained Army staff will stay up. Pay the Army what they are worth. More!
with the state of the uk there ought to be an increase of soldiers as lets face it the civilians and police aren't exactly capable of bringing order out of the chaos that was once caused by sending so many men and women off to other countries to fight wars in Britain's gluttonous nit picking battles that amounted to making money out of displaying loot in museums at the cost of many lives lost! obviously parliament is wanting to weaken the defences of the people upon its stolen lands... time for the military to step up and tell parliament to 'get orf my land!'
More Special Forces means less accountability for the government when they are used.
Basically the equivalent of the green berets
Hang on while i borrow a a cam jacket and have Rupert from the marketing team hrief me.
You need a full sized beret sir. It looks as if it's been severely shrunk. No requirement at all./ Get a grip - and set a good example. 'Exemplo Ducemus'
dude is basically trying to recreate green berets in 2021
The green berets are BRITISH from word war two, the yanks copied them. They were army commandos. Then later Royal marine commandos.
@@bulletproofguy5112 not really
Not Much in common between these two missions and organisation wise but whatever
@@lat78610 A lot more in common than you think (or know)!
@@Bootneck-RMC so youre comparing royal marines which are amphibious shock troops with SFG's, unconventionnal warfare/ FID specialists ?
@@lat78610 Take it any way you want, but I only know what I know from personal experience and it upsets me when people that have never done the job, tell everyone else what is what and how it works, because they read it on the internet or maybe even spent 5 minutes in an infantry unit. The Corp are not amphibious shock troops, or whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. The Corp are amphibious, but shock troops? we will leave that to the Para's, thank you.
Wouldn’t a name like Hellfire regiment be better than an already named American regiment. You need a name that will put the fear of god in the enemy. Don’t get me wrong our American ranger friends have a marvellous outfit and proud history but if we are going to have a new regiment why use a name that’s already out there, we need a name with some clout in the way that the soldiers will deliver?
Don’t you mean Grandpa Simpson’s old battalion the Hell Fish?
I wonder how many of our brilliant historical infantry regiment will be disbanded to fund this new project. Nothing is for free .
I think the arny and the MOD want to be very careful who they recruit and train as reservists.