This really does worry me. Why is it the army top brass believe we don’t require more people and resources. Technology will absolutely play the crucial role, however sadly our platform numbers are simply not large enough. Like it or not, numbers matter in warfare. We crucially have one window of opportunity to rebuild and respond to the security concerns and put something in place that will mean we aren’t vulnerable, and have the credibility to deter and fight. To fail in taking this opportunity and decision I firmly leave the blame at the top brass and political establishment for their negligence.
I suppose quantity of personnel isn't trivial for UK, but I also don't suppose UK is in any urgent need for personnel as much as South Korea (my home country) does. I have my reserves about whether the British forces are a little too minuscule in their respective size, mainly that I do agree with you, yet I am hoping that the chain of commanding officers are not neglecting the critical mass. Rather, I suppose (and it's probably not so unreasonable to assume) that the focus on technological development is not a cause of a trend of downsizing. With all that being said, I'd rather the UK return to their industrial and economical prowess in due time. The country has served my university years with all its positives. I have an affection for UK, despite the mismatch in nationality. I wish the reasons prevail - we are in a global need of the second enlightenment(s).
Good points and in some respects I agree. Your homeland is geographically in a tricky environment which is delicate for sure. The UK has been a military leader for 200yrs albeit the last 30yrs has seen a lack of investment and peace dividend by multiple governments. Whilst the world is in a competitive / uncertain time with large blocks forming it is clear the UK has to rise again as do other key democratic/ peaceful nations. Sad times
The key word is integrated. Voters to politicians to forces leadership to ranks. The Peace Dividend delusion has persuaded politicians to increase social provision and reduce defence spending so requires Voters to correct that to pivot to defence spending as the first responsibility of the nation state.
We need numbers, if you send the bulk of the army abroad how many fighting troops do you need to keep in the UK ? Great shame many years ago the TA was reduced even more.
In 1980, the establishment of the TA was 75,000 but manning was 62,000. Today the Army Reserve has an establishment of 30,000 but actual manning around 20,000. Simple truth, people do not want to join either the regular or reserve army. The UK no longer has a desire for military service.
@@VaucluseVanguard Hardly surprising when the treatment servicemen receive is so shabby. Anyone joining to day is an idiot. I did 34 years Army & RAF and my daughter is in FAA RN. Can't wait to leave. Country isn't worth defending.
@@johnbobson1557 I did thirty and I couldn't agree more. As to the treatment of veterans I look back on my thirty with pride but with shame at how we are regarded by politicians.
Even the fricking Guardian quoted a Ukrainian drone commander saying Russia fields 6-7x more drones as you'd expect from a larger country, and that this is a big problem for Ukraine. Meanwhile, British Army general says stuff like "Army is ready to defeat opponents up to 3x their size" but "we will work with our allies" and "defeat anyone decisively". I get that it's supposed to be motivational or whatever but it's pure bullshit. Chinese naval forces are at parity with US or more, they have vastly more missiles and RAND papers expect every US fixed installation from Hokkaido to Guam getting blown up with cruise and ballistic missiles in the first day. This guy is saying how they'll 'crush' an enemy with more weapons, more troops and a homefield advantage.
The British Army, one of the most professional in the world as highlighted at this conference. There is a lot of we are in NATO, new modern equipment but the main issue is that in battle the Army is not big enough, not strong enough Since Korea where they were over run by the Chinese in 24 hrs. Size, shape and strength is important and I didn’t go to any military college to know that for a fact.
🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:08 *👏 General Sir Roly Walker expresses gratitude to RUSI for hosting the conference and emphasizes the significant changes discussed over the past two days.* 00:53 *💂 The core strength of the British Army is highlighted as its soldiers, who provide a competitive advantage and resilience in various critical situations including support during COVID-19 and military withdrawals.* 02:01 *🛡️ Sir Roly emphasizes the army's role in modern challenges and its tradition of improving lives through service.* 03:09 *🎯 The focus shifts to the army's capability to overpower adversaries significantly larger in size, aiming for a secure nation both domestically and internationally.* 04:01 *⚙️ Critiques the traditional big army mindset, advocating for a medium-sized, more integrated, and joint force approach to enhance operational power.* 05:07 *🔮 The paradox of military preparedness is discussed, where future-oriented teams plan for long-term capabilities while current practices may lag, illustrating a need for quicker adaptation to technological advances.* 06:40 *🔄 Acknowledges contributions from predecessors in modernizing the Army, highlighting the shift towards a fighting-focused doctrine and innovative training systems.* 09:40 *⏩ Emphasizes the urgency to accelerate modernization to enhance fighting capabilities and meet the strategic demands of an unpredictable geopolitical environment.* 12:30 *🌐 Describes a vision for the British Army to leverage advanced technologies like AI and autonomous systems to integrate across all military domains for enhanced battlefield impact.* 16:04 *📡 Advocates for an interconnected military network that maximizes sensor and effector integration for effective operational execution.* 18:33 *🤝 Calls for a collaborative effort among academia, industry, and military to foster innovation and address modern battlefield challenges.* 20:19 *💼 Highlights the strategic necessity of aligning military capabilities with democratic values to counter authoritarian threats and protect national interests.* 25:38 *🚀 Urges forward-looking and innovative approaches to military operations, emphasizing the need for rapid adaptation and collaborative effort to maintain strategic superiority.* Made with HARPA AI
we do need more manpower. 70000 troops will not be enough cos u also have to have the man power at home also especially in a ww scenario. and also other land and infastructor we have to protect
We need around 130,000 regular volunteers and a strategic reserve force of between 40,000-50,000 to provide a credible defence and capability to react That would be more than enough to provide two simultaneous forward deployed expeditionary forces totalling around 30,000 troops and two armoured divisions of around 400-500 armoured vehicles (Challlenger, Archer, Boxer and Ajax). Obviously layered land air defence is needed, and also a complete review of our Navy which sadly will take longer. F35 I think we have 48 next year. Could we achieve 120 within 3yrs if we commit giving us full carrier operability and a credible reserve The UK can do this, we have proven ability, so this completely comes down to political will and reading the situation landscape (I.e. if this is just hot air say so and stop the scaremongering, if it’s a genuine risk, then as a nation we have no alternative but to re-arm and rebuild 🤷♂️ Obviously there is more than the detail above needed. However if it’s all about size, scale and of course sustainability on the battlefield, then just go out and say so. Do not endanger our kids futures on political grounds
An important lesson from Ukraine is that size matters. The British Army needs to at least quadruppel in size. The British Army has probably the best infantry in the world, but it is far to small. Start thinking in size. For example UK has to be able to have at least to expeditionary forces (think army corps size) abroad in different theaters at the same time, and still have a substantive home force left. This is crucial for the future.
The army and the infantry in particular are so small that they can no longer operate efficiently - the new doctrine is even adapted to the lack of manpower such as the new Assault and Suppress/Reserve instead of the usual manoeuvre in 3.s
@@lonpfrb Perhaps the future enemy will, and perhaps it's not always a choise. The thing is that one never really knows about the future, exept it's hard to see it before hand.
@nickgood8166 Three different conflicts; Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghan. UK defeated Iraqi armour in Iraq 1 with an integrated approach I.e. Air power. We would do so again in a coalition of the willing. The other two were quickly counter insurgency which don't require divisional operations, and arguably UK has as much experience and capability as anyone having spent most of 20th century doing it. USA has the Vietnam war, UK has Malayan insurgency, and the Troubles of Northern Ireland.
"... there's an American company capita ..." Wikipedia: "Capita plc is an international business process outsourcing and professional services company headquartered in *London* ." Doesn't sound like an American company to me.
Problem is. These officers do a 24/36 mth tour. Lots of speeches and well being. Then retire. Collect pension. And directorship with defence company. Same old. And we still have the smallest army since 18th century. Outrageous
Agreed, but they don't have much option: what else do they do - resign in a huff, and hand over to someone else? They are shackled by political decisions, and Britain is bankrupt.
They can get the dead-eyed kids from council estates (sort of), but they can't get the tech-heads who wouldn't look askance at an armed forces recruitment office. These words can't be clearer in saying that's who they want to recruit for the coming war.
I had to stop watching this at 8.16...he sounds like a CEO at a board meeting, I HATE BUSINESS SPEAK, makes him look like a total tool. God help this country, He's so wrong about the army, he has no idea what he's talking about.
The mixture between sophisticated expensive and basic but intelligent use of Simple cheap equipment and basic delivery methods has to reconsidered the simple can occasionally beat expensive sophisticated ones be by drone mine or mass use of anti vehicle handheld weapons depending on long distance war often is faced with close quarter warfare
"I am sorry, but Sir Walker seems to be out of touch. I say this in plain English: we all know we don't have enough troops on the ground for any large-scale battle. We're going to get crushed."
“Colonel” Roly was my old Commanding Officer and I had a lot of respect for him while serving but this is a poor and unimaginative speech that shows he’s been captured by blob think…
The Army could be made of supermen but the Army is just too small and with so little equipment that even if it was well led it would be irrelevant. The British Army could not have defended Kiev for example. The Army is now only twice the size of the Metropolitan Police and without real armor is little more than a Gendarmerie.
Please don't take this the wrong way, as I have a very high regard for the British soldier, having served/trained with them in the past. But this is pre-1914 thinking. As some wag once said about the planned size of the BEF "There is no military problem whose answer is '6 divisions and a cavalry brigade'." One of problem with the high-lethality deterence is that it is a bluff as a smaller force, however enabled with firepower, cannot sustain that lethality over time. Bluffs always work great in poker hands,... provided no one calls you on that bluff. Size matters, if only to give you a form or cadre to expand in a crisis.
Pre-1914 thinking would have Royal Navy front and centre. Most of security problems come from us being an island whose security direction is directed by an army mindset.
You're quite correct. The UK is not expecting to maintain a high intensity land conflict for a prolonged period. NATO doctrine for the Warsaw pact was worked up around 7 days. Today's Russia is very unlikely to be able to overwhelm NATO by force of numbers in any time frame. Even if the USA sat on its behind. I can't think of any other nation, except China, that would pose any serious risk to NATO forces.
Do you build your forces based around the last war, the current threat or perceived future threats? Bearing in mind it takes around 15 years to produce what you decide upon.
@@captainbuggernut9565 We are seeing the limit of Russia's capability today in the Ukraine. They are no threat to Western Europe in conventional terms. The only difference between us and them is they spend on their defence and we don't spend on ours. Instead we produce talking heads who talk utter rubbish in doctrinal terms and then give our money away to Third World.
I agree with that man 100%, The west can not to be in a position that Russia or China can take advantage of us if we want to preserve our values of freedom and liberty. Kev, Ireland.
The General is missing vital Points its soldiers / Retention of them / Pay & Conditions/service Accommodation none of what he's waffling on about unless you have the People
The Forces are facing their biggest retention problem in their history and then go and promote the head of recruitment. Gen’ Nesmith has overseen the disaster that has occurred and shouldn’t be anywhere near Top job.
So we deny the enemy the quick victory. How do we win the long war? Just a quick edit with a more tech dependent warfighting systems what defence do we have against the use of non ground impacting Nuclear emp detonations which might be the new grey warfare line?
We can learn from the wars in Ukraine and Gaza .. numbers count because equipment is damaged or break down as soon as combat starts noting that even the Russians are increasing numbers of old tanks in their forces and Israel also noting that tanks save lives even in urban warfare and get results combined arms also includes anti drone and drones inbuilt the force equipment and active defense ai dogs are also of value
Nine divisions minimum 135,000 troops three armoured divisions three mechanised two infantry and one airbourne assault division 90,000 regular 45,000 reserve any views?
No. Practically no weapon system in use uses anything more modern than what you could find in a cca 2000 consumer PC. All the precision missiles Russia is using in Ukraine are made with stuff they can make domestically and sometimes do, which is early 1990s state of the art. Only weapon system that could be really affected by a chip shortage would be autonomous combat drones using modern AI technology to spot targets, but no one's making such at this moment.
Should see my brothers camp, work place is falling apart with rusted old Land Rovers/Man Trucks and buildings/hangers have Asbestos. Half his Barracks building Condemned because its sinking. Has Asbestos and Rats in the corridors/Rooms. Expecting my brother to go to War in Thin fiberglass Land Rover. What a joke.
This sounded more like a speech from the annual shareholder meeting... He’s massively wrong about troop numbers being sufficient as more people move into the tech side of the Army flying drones etc. The infantry will decrease. Very sad
true we need new better technology like dragonfire more ships more submarine good drones in this are we don't need tanks like in World War 2 today is war different we need drones good fighter jet is different era look on ukraina how that fight
Interesting thoughts. Typical forward thinking UKSF General. There is nothing better than UKSF soldiers who deliver way beyond what is expected. By sheer hard work and aplication of intelligence and initiative. Both on strategic tasks and also tactical tasks. Way forward for British military is to truly become all arms quick to react operational assets. Put aside regimental jealousy etc and all combine and work together.
The entire British Military is smaller than the US Marine Corps. The US Secret Service is larger than the Royal Marines. Compare UK armed forces - population 65 million - with the IDF - Israeli population 9 million. UK defence is farcical.
Good to hear some aggressive language..... before he starts ladling out the buzzword soup. Sadly his description of a battle-winning force does not correspond to the kind of soldiers the British Army is now assisting through the selection process. Too much softly softly box-ticking
The British Army should be focussed on how it will defend Britain, and make that a realistic proposition, like Switzerland used to be before it got coopted into the WEF. It should not be designed as automatic support for the United States in a wide range of poorly defined potential conflicts all over the world, most of which have nothing to do with us, do not threaten Britain, and in whose outcome we have zero interest. The RMLI at this moment are sitting in boats off the coast of Gaza. For what? So they can join in a genocide on behalf of a criminal Israeli Government or a war they may decide to launch against Lebanon, Yemen, Iran or Turkey? Are we crazy? The British public do not want any more Iraqs, Libyas or Afghanistans. Don't give us the "we're fighting them here so we don't have to fight them at home" rubbish. All we are doing is making enemies of people who have no hostile intent towards us, for no good reason. Finally, Roly Walker is yet another political general who does what he is told, by politicians who do as they are told by some foreign power. He is an Agricultural College alumnus who knows how to kiss backsides. If British soldiers are committed to another neo-colonial war under his direction, against an opposition who know what they are doing, they are going to get massacred, because the Army is utterly unprepared for it and lacks the equipment it needs. For that reason, I don't expect much uptake for his citizen army. The Empire is over. Deal with it.
With due respect and love for Great Britain, I argue General Sir Roly Walker’s policy direction is wrong and dangerous. The international community sees NATO expansion as a threat to Russia’s national security; thus, Russia’s response is legitimate in the ‘just war’ tradition both in ‘jus ad bellum’ and ‘jus in bello.’ Second, in light of the military realities, especially when Britain is in asymmetric military strength and yet escalates from proxy to mutually assured destruction of no limits in the use of force. Third, Britain and the U.S. lacked intelligence about the Axis Forces’ global objectives. Still, they intended to use the preponderance of power based only on the ideological resolve to enforce the postwar rules and norms in the international system. This naivety plays into the hands of the Axis Forces, which stress the deterrence of maintaining a large military force and arsenal instead of pursuing détente because they want war to expand their territories instead of peace. Britain needs to solve the mirror image problem-the tendency to see the opposite characteristics in Russia as those seen in oneself and reappraisal of threat assessment in foreign policy.
in other words, Russia should be allowed to re-establish its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe at the cost of the post-soviet countries? No, thank you.
Sovereign democratic nations decide to apply for NATO membership and their motivation includes aggressive nearby dictators invading peaceful nations. The FSB thanks you for buying their NATO expansion delusion...
This really does worry me. Why is it the army top brass believe we don’t require more people and resources. Technology will absolutely play the crucial role, however sadly our platform numbers are simply not large enough. Like it or not, numbers matter in warfare.
We crucially have one window of opportunity to rebuild and respond to the security concerns and put something in place that will mean we aren’t vulnerable, and have the credibility to deter and fight. To fail in taking this opportunity and decision I firmly leave the blame at the top brass and political establishment for their negligence.
That isn’t entirely true. We have the ability to change and make a difference if we make the choices now
I suppose quantity of personnel isn't trivial for UK, but I also don't suppose UK is in any urgent need for personnel as much as South Korea (my home country) does. I have my reserves about whether the British forces are a little too minuscule in their respective size, mainly that I do agree with you, yet I am hoping that the chain of commanding officers are not neglecting the critical mass. Rather, I suppose (and it's probably not so unreasonable to assume) that the focus on technological development is not a cause of a trend of downsizing.
With all that being said, I'd rather the UK return to their industrial and economical prowess in due time. The country has served my university years with all its positives. I have an affection for UK, despite the mismatch in nationality. I wish the reasons prevail - we are in a global need of the second enlightenment(s).
Good points and in some respects I agree. Your homeland is geographically in a tricky environment which is delicate for sure. The UK has been a military leader for 200yrs albeit the last 30yrs has seen a lack of investment and peace dividend by multiple governments. Whilst the world is in a competitive / uncertain time with large blocks forming it is clear the UK has to rise again as do other key democratic/ peaceful nations. Sad times
Over-reliance on US might and the NATO Eastern frontier to hold off any direct threats.
The key word is integrated. Voters to politicians to forces leadership to ranks.
The Peace Dividend delusion has persuaded politicians to increase social provision and reduce defence spending so requires Voters to correct that to pivot to defence spending as the first responsibility of the nation state.
We need numbers, if you send the bulk of the army abroad how many fighting troops do you need to keep in the UK ? Great shame many years ago the TA was reduced even more.
In 1980, the establishment of the TA was 75,000 but manning was 62,000. Today the Army Reserve has an establishment of 30,000 but actual manning around 20,000. Simple truth, people do not want to join either the regular or reserve army. The UK no longer has a desire for military service.
@@VaucluseVanguard Hardly surprising when the treatment servicemen receive is so shabby. Anyone joining to day is an idiot. I did 34 years Army & RAF and my daughter is in FAA RN. Can't wait to leave. Country isn't worth defending.
@@johnbobson1557 I did thirty and I couldn't agree more. As to the treatment of veterans I look back on my thirty with pride but with shame at how we are regarded by politicians.
Over 5000 needed here for OP Temperer.
Ukraine teaches us you do need men and you do need tech. Not just one.
Even the fricking Guardian quoted a Ukrainian drone commander saying Russia fields 6-7x more drones as you'd expect from a larger country, and that this is a big problem for Ukraine.
Meanwhile, British Army general says stuff like "Army is ready to defeat opponents up to 3x their size" but "we will work with our allies" and "defeat anyone decisively".
I get that it's supposed to be motivational or whatever but it's pure bullshit. Chinese naval forces are at parity with US or more, they have vastly more missiles and RAND papers expect every US fixed installation from Hokkaido to Guam getting blown up with cruise and ballistic missiles in the first day.
This guy is saying how they'll 'crush' an enemy with more weapons, more troops and a homefield advantage.
The British Army, one of the most professional in the world as highlighted at this conference.
There is a lot of we are in NATO, new modern equipment but the main issue is that in battle the Army is not big enough, not strong enough
Since Korea where they were over run by the Chinese in 24 hrs. Size, shape and strength is important and I didn’t go to any military college to know that for a fact.
🎯 Key points for quick navigation:
00:08 *👏 General Sir Roly Walker expresses gratitude to RUSI for hosting the conference and emphasizes the significant changes discussed over the past two days.*
00:53 *💂 The core strength of the British Army is highlighted as its soldiers, who provide a competitive advantage and resilience in various critical situations including support during COVID-19 and military withdrawals.*
02:01 *🛡️ Sir Roly emphasizes the army's role in modern challenges and its tradition of improving lives through service.*
03:09 *🎯 The focus shifts to the army's capability to overpower adversaries significantly larger in size, aiming for a secure nation both domestically and internationally.*
04:01 *⚙️ Critiques the traditional big army mindset, advocating for a medium-sized, more integrated, and joint force approach to enhance operational power.*
05:07 *🔮 The paradox of military preparedness is discussed, where future-oriented teams plan for long-term capabilities while current practices may lag, illustrating a need for quicker adaptation to technological advances.*
06:40 *🔄 Acknowledges contributions from predecessors in modernizing the Army, highlighting the shift towards a fighting-focused doctrine and innovative training systems.*
09:40 *⏩ Emphasizes the urgency to accelerate modernization to enhance fighting capabilities and meet the strategic demands of an unpredictable geopolitical environment.*
12:30 *🌐 Describes a vision for the British Army to leverage advanced technologies like AI and autonomous systems to integrate across all military domains for enhanced battlefield impact.*
16:04 *📡 Advocates for an interconnected military network that maximizes sensor and effector integration for effective operational execution.*
18:33 *🤝 Calls for a collaborative effort among academia, industry, and military to foster innovation and address modern battlefield challenges.*
20:19 *💼 Highlights the strategic necessity of aligning military capabilities with democratic values to counter authoritarian threats and protect national interests.*
25:38 *🚀 Urges forward-looking and innovative approaches to military operations, emphasizing the need for rapid adaptation and collaborative effort to maintain strategic superiority.*
Made with HARPA AI
The Army made me who I am today. Proud to have served.
we do need more manpower. 70000 troops will not be enough cos u also have to have the man power at home also especially in a ww scenario. and also other land and infastructor we have to protect
We need around 130,000 regular volunteers and a strategic reserve force of between 40,000-50,000 to provide a credible defence and capability to react
That would be more than enough to provide two simultaneous forward deployed expeditionary forces totalling around 30,000 troops and two armoured divisions of around 400-500 armoured vehicles (Challlenger, Archer, Boxer and Ajax).
Obviously layered land air defence is needed, and also a complete review of our Navy which sadly will take longer.
F35 I think we have 48 next year. Could we achieve 120 within 3yrs if we commit giving us full carrier operability and a credible reserve
The UK can do this, we have proven ability, so this completely comes down to political will and reading the situation landscape (I.e. if this is just hot air say so and stop the scaremongering, if it’s a genuine risk, then as a nation we have no alternative but to re-arm and rebuild 🤷♂️
Obviously there is more than the detail above needed. However if it’s all about size, scale and of course sustainability on the battlefield, then just go out and say so. Do not endanger our kids futures on political grounds
@@michaelboulton295 anyone,s futures. But u are bang on
An important lesson from Ukraine is that size matters. The British Army needs to at least quadruppel in size. The British Army has probably the best infantry in the world, but it is far to small. Start thinking in size. For example UK has to be able to have at least to expeditionary forces (think army corps size) abroad in different theaters at the same time, and still have a substantive home force left. This is crucial for the future.
The army and the infantry in particular are so small that they can no longer operate efficiently - the new doctrine is even adapted to the lack of manpower such as the new Assault and Suppress/Reserve instead of the usual manoeuvre in 3.s
@@thatwhit1 Sad and extremly dangerous. A reverse process, with an enlarged army is necessary.
We don't fight like Ukraine, so any lessons need to be seen in context. We are not doing meat waves and WW1 trench warfare.
@@lonpfrb Perhaps the future enemy will, and perhaps it's not always a choise. The thing is that one never really knows about the future, exept it's hard to see it before hand.
Great speech.
Thank you for securing the future of the United Kingdom of Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Thank you very much indeed.
Ex SAS and a General - fair one
Does the British Army have enough resources to survive for more than a month in a battle of attrition?
We wouldn't last a week :(
We don't do attrition. That's for the orcs..
The British military cannot sustain 2 Brigades in the field; considerably fewer than 10,000 men. We saw this with Afghanistan and Iraq.
@nickgood8166 Three different conflicts; Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghan.
UK defeated Iraqi armour in Iraq 1 with an integrated approach I.e. Air power. We would do so again in a coalition of the willing.
The other two were quickly counter insurgency which don't require divisional operations, and arguably UK has as much experience and capability as anyone having spent most of 20th century doing it.
USA has the Vietnam war,
UK has Malayan insurgency, and the Troubles of Northern Ireland.
The problem with recruitment is that theres an American company capita that decides who joins and who dont.
"... there's an American company capita ..."
Wikipedia: "Capita plc is an international business process outsourcing and professional services company headquartered in *London* ."
Doesn't sound like an American company to me.
Problem is. These officers do a 24/36 mth tour. Lots of speeches and well being. Then retire. Collect pension. And directorship with defence company. Same old. And we still have the smallest army since 18th century. Outrageous
Agreed, but they don't have much option: what else do they do - resign in a huff, and hand over to someone else? They are shackled by political decisions, and Britain is bankrupt.
@@dvorak345 isn't there a precedent for breaking political deadlock by rebellion in Britain ? Some guy called Oliver something.
I get the vision, but my God. The mix of MBA waffle and hipster start-up language...
They can get the dead-eyed kids from council estates (sort of), but they can't get the tech-heads who wouldn't look askance at an armed forces recruitment office. These words can't be clearer in saying that's who they want to recruit for the coming war.
Haha spot on, and there are worse than him in the hierarchy
Go and tell him that. Let’s see what he has forgotten from his SAS days.
I had to stop watching this at 8.16...he sounds like a CEO at a board meeting, I HATE BUSINESS SPEAK, makes him look like a total tool. God help this country, He's so wrong about the army, he has no idea what he's talking about.
The mixture between sophisticated expensive and basic but intelligent use of Simple cheap equipment and basic delivery methods has to reconsidered the simple can occasionally beat expensive sophisticated ones be by drone mine or mass use of anti vehicle handheld weapons depending on long distance war often is faced with close quarter warfare
"I am sorry, but Sir Walker seems to be out of touch. I say this in plain English: we all know we don't have enough troops on the ground for any large-scale battle. We're going to get crushed."
well it is obvious how this yes man got his job
“Colonel” Roly was my old Commanding Officer and I had a lot of respect for him while serving but this is a poor and unimaginative speech that shows he’s been captured by blob think…
So this is how he got the job. How can you hold a position without boots on the ground?
The Army could be made of supermen but the Army is just too small and with so little equipment that even if it was well led it would be irrelevant. The British Army could not have defended Kiev for example. The Army is now only twice the size of the Metropolitan Police and without real armor is little more than a Gendarmerie.
Please don't take this the wrong way, as I have a very high regard for the British soldier, having served/trained with them in the past.
But this is pre-1914 thinking. As some wag once said about the planned size of the BEF "There is no military problem whose answer is '6 divisions and a cavalry brigade'."
One of problem with the high-lethality deterence is that it is a bluff as a smaller force, however enabled with firepower, cannot sustain that lethality over time.
Bluffs always work great in poker hands,... provided no one calls you on that bluff. Size matters, if only to give you a form or cadre to expand in a crisis.
Pre-1914 thinking would have Royal Navy front and centre. Most of security problems come from us being an island whose security direction is directed by an army mindset.
You're quite correct. The UK is not expecting to maintain a high intensity land conflict for a prolonged period. NATO doctrine for the Warsaw pact was worked up around 7 days. Today's Russia is very unlikely to be able to overwhelm NATO by force of numbers in any time frame. Even if the USA sat on its behind. I can't think of any other nation, except China, that would pose any serious risk to NATO forces.
Do you build your forces based around the last war, the current threat or perceived future threats? Bearing in mind it takes around 15 years to produce what you decide upon.
@@captainbuggernut9565 We are seeing the limit of Russia's capability today in the Ukraine. They are no threat to Western Europe in conventional terms. The only difference between us and them is they spend on their defence and we don't spend on ours. Instead we produce talking heads who talk utter rubbish in doctrinal terms and then give our money away to Third World.
I agree with that man 100%, The west can not to be in a position that Russia or China can take advantage of us if we want to preserve our values of freedom and liberty. Kev, Ireland.
The General is missing vital Points its soldiers / Retention of them / Pay & Conditions/service Accommodation none of what he's waffling on about unless you have the People
My ears are finally happy again🫡☯️
The Forces are facing their biggest retention problem in their history and then go and promote the head of recruitment. Gen’ Nesmith has overseen the disaster that has occurred and shouldn’t be anywhere near Top job.
So we deny the enemy the quick victory. How do we win the long war?
Just a quick edit with a more tech dependent warfighting systems what defence do we have against the use of non ground impacting Nuclear emp detonations which might be the new grey warfare line?
Be the best is no longer the recruiting slogan or indeed the ethos now…
We can learn from the wars in Ukraine and Gaza .. numbers count because equipment is damaged or break down as soon as combat starts noting that even the Russians are increasing numbers of old tanks in their forces and Israel also noting that tanks save lives even in urban warfare and get results
combined arms also includes anti drone and drones inbuilt the force equipment and active defense ai dogs are also of value
This all must happen, our brave MEN AND WOMEN deserve, need investment to do thier job effectively and safely. God save the King
Nine divisions minimum 135,000 troops three armoured divisions three mechanised two infantry and one airbourne assault division 90,000 regular 45,000 reserve any views?
The only issue I’m seeing, is if Taiwan is attacked. Won’t the chips in new tech be a vulnerability for new equipment?
No. Practically no weapon system in use uses anything more modern than what you could find in a cca 2000 consumer PC.
All the precision missiles Russia is using in Ukraine are made with stuff they can make domestically and sometimes do, which is early 1990s state of the art.
Only weapon system that could be really affected by a chip shortage would be autonomous combat drones using modern AI technology to spot targets, but no one's making such at this moment.
The US Chips Act has TSMC and Intel investment in state of the art chip factories in continental USA so that Taiwan remains important but not crucial.
I stand with our armed forces but not the political cowards they work for....
I like what he saying. And how he says it…nations win war.
Top bloke.
Should see my brothers camp, work place is falling apart with rusted old Land Rovers/Man Trucks and buildings/hangers have Asbestos. Half his Barracks building Condemned because its sinking. Has Asbestos and Rats in the corridors/Rooms. Expecting my brother to go to War in Thin fiberglass Land Rover. What a joke.
This sounded more like a speech from the annual shareholder meeting... He’s massively wrong about troop numbers being sufficient as more people move into the tech side of the Army flying drones etc. The infantry will decrease. Very sad
Inspiring
true we need new better technology like dragonfire more ships more submarine good drones in this are we don't need tanks like in World War 2 today is war different we need drones good fighter jet is different era look on ukraina how that fight
Agile Methodology?
Of course
💪👍👌
Interesting thoughts.
Typical forward thinking UKSF General.
There is nothing better than UKSF soldiers who deliver way beyond what is expected. By sheer hard work and aplication of intelligence and initiative. Both on strategic tasks and also tactical tasks.
Way forward for British military is to truly become all arms quick to react operational assets.
Put aside regimental jealousy etc and all combine and work together.
Rory 'Walker' wherever did you get that name (from a chicken carcass eating yorkshire terrier)?
This man is deluded
Not my king.
You are free to move to a Republic...
Superb 🟫🟥🟩✌️
What was?
🫡
Double 0 fighting power is still 0 triple 0 fighting power is still 0
The entire British Military is smaller than the US Marine Corps. The US Secret Service is larger than the Royal Marines.
Compare UK armed forces - population 65 million - with the IDF - Israeli population 9 million.
UK defence is farcical.
Good to hear some aggressive language..... before he starts ladling out the buzzword soup. Sadly his description of a battle-winning force does not correspond to the kind of soldiers the British Army is now assisting through the selection process. Too much softly softly box-ticking
Same old rhetoric. . Boring
The British Army should be focussed on how it will defend Britain, and make that a realistic proposition, like Switzerland used to be before it got coopted into the WEF. It should not be designed as automatic support for the United States in a wide range of poorly defined potential conflicts all over the world, most of which have nothing to do with us, do not threaten Britain, and in whose outcome we have zero interest. The RMLI at this moment are sitting in boats off the coast of Gaza. For what? So they can join in a genocide on behalf of a criminal Israeli Government or a war they may decide to launch against Lebanon, Yemen, Iran or Turkey? Are we crazy? The British public do not want any more Iraqs, Libyas or Afghanistans. Don't give us the "we're fighting them here so we don't have to fight them at home" rubbish. All we are doing is making enemies of people who have no hostile intent towards us, for no good reason. Finally, Roly Walker is yet another political general who does what he is told, by politicians who do as they are told by some foreign power. He is an Agricultural College alumnus who knows how to kiss backsides. If British soldiers are committed to another neo-colonial war under his direction, against an opposition who know what they are doing, they are going to get massacred, because the Army is utterly unprepared for it and lacks the equipment it needs. For that reason, I don't expect much uptake for his citizen army. The Empire is over. Deal with it.
With due respect and love for Great Britain, I argue General Sir Roly Walker’s policy direction is wrong and dangerous. The international community sees NATO expansion as a threat to Russia’s national security; thus, Russia’s response is legitimate in the ‘just war’ tradition both in ‘jus ad bellum’ and ‘jus in bello.’ Second, in light of the military realities, especially when Britain is in asymmetric military strength and yet escalates from proxy to mutually assured destruction of no limits in the use of force. Third, Britain and the U.S. lacked intelligence about the Axis Forces’ global objectives. Still, they intended to use the preponderance of power based only on the ideological resolve to enforce the postwar rules and norms in the international system. This naivety plays into the hands of the Axis Forces, which stress the deterrence of maintaining a large military force and arsenal instead of pursuing détente because they want war to expand their territories instead of peace. Britain needs to solve the mirror image problem-the tendency to see the opposite characteristics in Russia as those seen in oneself and reappraisal of threat assessment in foreign policy.
in other words, Russia should be allowed to re-establish its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe at the cost of the post-soviet countries? No, thank you.
The international community does not hold the views you fondly imagine it does. You really need to get away from RT and hear the grownups.
Sovereign democratic nations decide to apply for NATO membership and their motivation includes aggressive nearby dictators invading peaceful nations.
The FSB thanks you for buying their NATO expansion delusion...