British Army to be most lethal army in Europe by end of decade, chief says

The British Army will be the most modern and the most lethal army in Europe by the end of the decade, the head of the service has said.
In an exclusive interview with Forces News, General Sir Patrick Sanders said the British Army had adapted what was set out by the Future Soldier programme at a "real pace".
"We know that we could be required to fight and certainly we need to be able to deter the threats in Europe this decade," the Chief of the General Staff explained.
More: www.forces.net...
#forcesnews #britisharmy #military #army
Subscribe to Forces News: bit.ly/1OraazC
Check out our website: forces.net
Facebook: / forcestv
Instagram: www.instagram....
Twitter: / forcesnews

[@davidneal3684]

American former army soldier here. I’ve always been impressed by the British - competent, thoughtful, and they often have a great sense of humor. I’ve also noticed the tendency to be negative towards their own government and country… Everyone feels like the nitwits are in charge and they’re mad about it. Over here the fools really are in charge but people don’t seem to mind as much. Anyway, good luck to the Brits. I couldn’t imagine a better ally.

[@Kroner1941]

Well the Germans were more than enough to handle Britain during the World wars had it not been the soldiers from its former colonies and the Russians from the East. The Brits don't deserve to be the protected ones though. They've enslaved and harassed countries of numerous countries around the world. I hope the Russians take necessary actions to detain ruthless countries like Britain.

[@chapman9230]

It will not be. It being the collective known as Army. Individual soldiers may be well armed and well trained but the Army itself will be woefully small in numbers. And hence it cannot be the most lethal in Europe.

[@mrb180]

they do have a sense of humour. especially when they brag about what they aren't and whole-heartedly believe it.

[@grahamlongley8298]

How can anyone be anything other than negative about our governments. be they lab or con

[@DontBeAWollyy]

@@chapman9230lol. And numbers mean? Let’s say you have 200 000 untrained 18 year old recruits in Ukraine vs 10 000 highly trained British soldiers. I rest my case

[@marckart66]

The UK army is one of the best. The UK government is the problem. I whole heartedly believe if the UK was in any conflict, we would punch above our weight. However.. all I see is decline in budget and active troops. I do not believe the UK would be the most lethal army in Europe if we keep reducing our active troop count.... and tank count. Soon I'll be able to count the amount of tanks in our army with two hands!

[@PearlTheFrenchie]

❤ perfectly said

[@antonyxavier9349]

Well said and so true. Not just the army but this applies to the navy and Air force too.

[@dingleydell3250]

I agree, the Apache is supposed to pick up some of the slack from the lack of tanks but the seniors always forget the anti air assets of a first world opponent what ever is said about Ivan they do have some good kit it’s just not used correctly or with the right experience.

[@BaeNana6583]

Well said sir

[@brianharper8304]

100% investment is needed .

[@MrDK0010]

The highest degree of respect for the UK's servicemembers - they are highly trained like few others. However, the British Armed Forces are in a pitiful state and have a long road ahead to regain preparedness for full-scale war. In that regard, I see countries like Poland and even Romania taking more serious steps than the UK.

[@biddyboy1570]

Exactly. Everytime it's kicked off in the past it's been Poland and Romania that have been there. Like two rocks.

[@randomuser1911]

It is a shame the government doesn't treat our armed forces how they should be, constantly cutting budget and personnel. As you say, they are incredibly highly trained and the personnel are top notch and incredibly capable, the issue is that we don't have sufficient equipment, partly due to the fact that for a while we have not been investing in as much as we should have, and partly because we have not replenished (in full) what we gave to Ukraine

[@Foxtrottangoabc]

Yes and when comparing budgets . These nations are much more cost efficient buying off the shelf stuff. Where even though uk sounds lot of money in research development there is still terrible wastage

[@blairmarshall544]

Tell this to the SAS and SBS

[@StreetsOfRage2]

The same Poland and Romania who are stood watching their supposed 'brother' getting horrifically abused just the other side of their garden fence?

[@Rempai420]

As somebody in the British Army, I have no idea what he's talking about. The infantry see none of these upgrades. We operate warriors from 1982 and AJAX is a fever dream. Moving to Boxer in maybe 2045 if it stops getting pushed back. The Challenger 3 fleet will be a substantial 150 vehicles. That will last approximately a few weeks in peer to peer combat, as we have seen tanks are sitting ducks for artillery, ATGM's and mines. Even though the Eurofighter typhoon is a fantastic jet with great missiles it's getting a little old and outdated. Apache is great. We have no money for proper training, our vehicle fleet is mostly red and gets passed around more than Mia Malkova. The headshed are completely deluded from years in Afghan and we look at the limited losses we sustained from that conflict and think it translates to another peer to peer conflict.

[@Gisborne1990]

And we still the best, what does that tell you about everyone else? We won WW1 and WW2 with less.

[@Rempai420]

@@Gisborne1990 We’re not still the best. We also didn’t win WW2 by ourselves. You have to hand out the achievement to Russia and the US on that one, without them we would have taken quite the beating.

[@Gisborne1990]

The fact you said we handed that to russia shows me you know absolutely nothing about the matter and are a typical anti british lefty. Not even going to bother with you, read history, and all the aid we paid for and gave russia during ww2, which stopped them dying out.@@Rempai420 Anime pic says it all.

[@skygod1975]

Too busy farming out the boys to do striking public sector jobs too by sounds lately so even less manpower. May well be a gradual reinvestment turn out across the board but I personally think politicians are deluded and have no regard nor respect for their 'boys' or 'gals' when they expect them to work 24/7 everywhere and doing everything with not the correct level of manpower nor funding. Ring out the praise but continuously cutting expenditure yet throwing billions into the poorly managed bottomless pit NHS!

[@grahamlongley8298]

@@Gisborne1990 No we did not. The yanks won it for us

[@Bob10009]

He is utterly deluded. Poland is buying over 1,000 new tanks 1400 new IFVs and 600 new artillery systems, doubling its manpower to around four times the size of the British army, getting dozens of new fighters - F-16,F-35 and FA-50, 48 Patriot batteries, 1,700 new drones, 96 Apaches (almost twice as many as Britain) and is looking at up to 500 HIMARS launchers !

[@ironmantooltime]

Yea, define lethal. I'm not sure it means run out of ammo inside 2 weeks 🤨

[@pip5461]

Quality vs quantity...Hmm...!

[@andresbuitragomoreno]

The problem with Britain is that actions don't follow words. A lot of rhetoric, unfortunately the size of the forces is tiny compared to its foes. More action is needed from the government to fullfill the dream of the guy talking. Anybody with access to the internet knows that Poland is actually serious and it is getting ready for the real deal.

[@takeshikovacs4728]

RIGHT ? I'm American and even I know that Poland is the best equipped and trained right now

[@eddieboy4667]

Poland border Russia. Do we ?

[@stumps8672]

The UK is one of the best and professional armies in the world, unfortunately it’s embarrassingly to small, the British Army needs to be 3 times its current size, but our spineless government is cutting it yet again. This guy is just spouting the party line, must have been promised a golden handshake job when he retires.

[@TheLastCrumb.]

Yep, when someone like Ben Wallace gives up then you know hope is gone. I still can’t believe they even debated about giving up nukes on the election battle. All we’ve done is go around the world interfering in other cultures and creating enemies and now they leave us defenceless. We’ve done nothing except rely on the is a special relationship with the us to give us an excuse to not arm ourselves properly. Now they still can’t see the usa gives no damn about the uk. The special relationship has ended, the usa has more important allies and still…. They make more cuts. We’ve just sent out multi billion pound carrier out with drones on. If it were a different country I’d laugh.

[@garthwick19]

Yes this is true. Do you think Shrinking it down so much then upping the spend per soldier was part of the plan? The issue is they need the kit and the numbers and they are incapable of funding both.

[@derekowens1817]

@@garthwick19 too much spent on hotel accommodation.....

[@dardo1201]

yeah, he mispelled little.

[@stumps8672]

@@garthwick19 you are probably right, but as we have seen the rate of attrition in moderns warfare in Ukraine is extremely high, how long would 100k soldiers last in a large scale conflict, regardless of how good they are.

[@TheBoogeyMan002]

The British army is always going to be the best trained and one of the best equipped in Europe, unfortunately the government is the problem, cutting numbers to personnel and cutting funding is just letting it down, more money in getting people in the army and upgrading and increasing inventory would be a nice thing to see for our shrinking forces

[@BaeNana6583]

Couldnt agree more

[@Bob10009]

When has it ever been one of the best equipped in Europe ?

[@BaeNana6583]

@@Bob10009 learn some fuckibg history and you will see

[@redberries8039]

isn't the British Army the most lethal army in Europe now? Who else? The French?

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@splurbbat5438 "the yanks will do the fighting for you as they always have...so relax" Even though the British fought in both world wars from the start to the finish...

[@Roar1987]

"The most lethal" man for man perhaps, but the British Army is still far too small.

[@j2ax136]

​@@bobs_1429what war are you talking about 😂😂. Learn some history

[@koeman1873]

You have a valid point but the Army will still be far too small for what is maybe required.@@bobs_1429

[@winstoningram99]

​@@j2ax136You should learn. They're entirely correct.

[@maddog1016]

​@@j2ax136 what a silly comment

[@generalstack6540]

@@bobs_1429the same technology that had nato running away from goat herders in Afghanistan with civilians hanging off planes?

[@PiperX1X]

How many times has this been said, government has always been good at delivering the words the military want to hear but they seem to forget to deliver the goods they need.

[@Alan-cl2ix]

Military's needs are endless, even US with 850 billion budget still pushes for more however it matters how it spends it because as we saw Russia had Geran, Lancet, Zala etc drones while US had nothing of that sort to give to Ukraine except Switchblade 300 that was described by Ukraine as weak and not worth the time to even deal with it.

[@2ndcomingofFritz]

@@Alan-cl2ixthe US military is well-funded to put it lightly and everyone apart from the military can agree on that, but the British government has been cutting down on funding and manpower for years. Very different situation.

[@HalloweentubeUK]

It hurts my pride so much to see how weve declined as a great nation. We have the skills and mindset to be the best but no tools provided by the pen pushers.

[@Bigdangleebles]

It does me too, I’m saddened beyond belief.

[@shsh-he5qg]

Hahaha means you have no pride ! What you doing about it big boy ?apart from making halloween videos ? 😂😂😂😂

[@cabalamat2289]

Britain could be a much more successful nation if it wasn't for various British governments over the last few decades.

[@tobiasgriffin]

It just life every empire comes to a end

[@RNDM-nd7tj]

The empire came to an end decades ago, thats not the problem@@tobiasgriffin

[@xkeyscore1120]

I've just completed my 22 years in the Army. I wouldn't change it for anything...But, its not in a very good place, recruitment is in a very bad place. Up the pay and treat them better, this in turn will help recruitment and retention

[@gillkite6476]

Its been like this for years whats going wrong?

[@xkeyscore1120]

@@gillkite6476 You've been out too long mate. It's never been this bad

[@pincermovement72]

The pay is awful compared to police , the accommodation is good enough for a squaddie and his family to live in for years but not a dinghy diver , ask yourself am I being took for a mug .

[@paulleach3612]

Sprog...

[@xkeyscore1120]

@@paulleach3612 You can only call me a sprog because you did your basic at Stone Hendge and your POL point was a haystack

[@RalphBrooker-gn9iv]

Served 12 years in the infantry: 1978-1990. Lads losing feet’s during ‘hard routine’ on Banner. Having to spend fortunes at Silvermans. The equipment was appalling then. I don’t know about kit today. But the army has been broken. Throwing money into demonstrably unworkable projects (AJAX, the mobile abattoir) to having idiots like Boris Johnson lecture us on the look of the modern battlefield. Sir Patrick Sanders is whistling through his navel on an unchallenged platform. I’m 62. NATO+EU will have to fight a major war on European soil in my lifetime. I doubt we’ll be ready. And for all the Tory flag-shaggers out there, it’s that shower of shithouses which has decimated the British Army. And Ben Wallace wanted to replace Jens Stoltenberg as NATO Sec-Gen! We live in cuckoo land. 😊

[@shsh-he5qg]

Losing feet 😂 Drag those disabled to the nearest nhs

[@johnallen7807]

But at least the RAF don't want "useless, white, males pilots" so they have their priorities right! Oh! wait wasn't it white male pilots that won the Battle of Britain and the air war in the Falklands?

[@pincermovement72]

I agree with you on most things but fighting a European war , nah , time to sit them out .

[@pevebe]

@@pincermovement72 like we'll have a choice with our politicians

[@ptonpc]

I'm sure all 5 soldiers left in the Army, by the time the government ditches everyone, will be very well armed.

[@daffyd5867]

There's still 5 sailors and 5 airmen...

[@ptonpc]

@@daffyd5867 Ssshhh. Now the government will be sending them redundancy notices.

[@death_parade]

@@daffyd5867 You forgot the 2 ships and the 20 Admirals. Oh, and the "Space Force".

[@samtheguru]

I interpreted it as switching to digital warfare.

[@davidduke2662]

The British Governent has tried to let the Armed Forces run like a private company. The vast majority of it has been outsourced to private companies on contract. The diversity ticket has led to a general weakening as you can say one thing to one person but not to another as it will cause offence. I have personally worked in a Military environment for 34 years and I do not think we would last long in a convential theatre on our own. It's a sad state of affairs.

[@johnpixie]

"you can say one thing to one person but not to another as it will cause offense" that's how people work, its always been like that. the only people complaining are those that now have to hold their tongue or be professional

[@Foxtrottangoabc]

, housing outsourced , training recently outsourced . How the graft corruption continues yes and no one in politics , newspapers or public compkains is disheartening

[@shsh-he5qg]

G4s is more powerful than the uk army 😂

[@daffyd5867]

Outsourcing.....it's corrupt...

[@cabalamat2289]

> The vast majority of it has been outsourced to private companies on contract. For 2 reasons: (1) so the government's mates can get the contract, and (2) so when things go wrong, the government can say "not us, it was the private contractor who did it"

[@jonathancunliffe]

2021 Kabul evacuation? British army didn’t have the resources to take an airfield to get there own people out, had to rely on America. Best army in Europe? Poland is putting us the shame, we are an embarrassment

[@Revup1]

Ukraine should teach us that while technology has its place it doesn't provide depth, and there is no substitute for numbers. ...digitisation? Less platforms but more capable?......OK, but how long will the technology last faced with the scale of another war in Europe? In 1914, after the biggest reforms the British Army had ever experienced under Lord Haldene, Britian sent the 'best trained most lethal Army in Europe' into Belgium. Six divisions of the BEF, British Expeditionary Force, (Expeditionary...ther's that word again!). There were 90,000 men (we only have 78,000 in the entire Army today). By Christmas 1914 the 'old contemptibles' had suffered 98,000 casualties! The devastation to the ranks of the professional army was such that Lord Kitchener had to mount a national campaign to recruit an entirely new Army, ('your country needs you'). My great uncle went to that war, he was made an officer because he'd learned to march in the BB (seriously, its in his records), he never came home. In more modern times I have served in his Regiment, and we simply don't have enough people to even push the buttons on all new technology. Sorry General Sir Patrick, but we've heard it all before, twice before infact....small and lethal simply doesn't win land wars in Europe!

[@veyblu7]

Seems hard to believe given our allies no longer consider the UK a tier one military; our own military leaders admit we can't fight longer than a couple of months; and our standing army is the smallest since Napoleon.

[@gootusfootus3229]

Think about it thoe Britain defeated napoleon with such a small army, I personally don’t think numbers matter too much anymore most of its artillery and technology

[@alexanderrose1556]

@@gootusfootus3229the british didnt defeat Napoleon with such a small army thats the point, the british army had TO GROW to be able to fight napoleon, and even then it was one of the least important armies in the field, being dwarfed by the Prussians,Russians and Austrian field armies that took Paris.

[@paulbedichek5177]

The UK in a year makes enough ammo (155mm) for five minutes of fighting in Ukraine ,rejoin EU so they can rebuild their economy.

[@death_parade]

@@gootusfootus3229 Ignorance is bliss. I bet this dude thinks he defeated Nazis with just what UK has today as well. No mention of its own colonies or allies.

[@Ultron-o3i]

Lol thats not true, UK has the third or 4th largest defence budget in the world, a nuclear state and a blue water navy where very very few countries have. Its about technology and advancement not size

[@spookyt8692]

Considering the decline of almost everything else in society I highly doubt this. Didn’t the MOD just threaten to sue the families of those who are complaining about substandard housing?

[@Phil_AKA_ThundyUK]

As a nation, the UK has really lost belief in itself in every area. All I hear from anyone now is how bad everything is and how nothing good ever happens. It might be true, but once upon a time people had the belief they could succeed in life and had the will to try. It's like everyone is just beaten now, told they're going to fail from birth, and just gave up.

[@Mozzie7920]

@@Phil_AKA_ThundyUKlost the ‘stiff upper lip’

[@dnmurphy48]

@@Phil_AKA_ThundyUK 13 years of Tory socialism and continued failures.

[@VanderlyndenJengold]

It's the guy's job to claim his Army is the best. That it may not be the most numerous, or have a lot of the best equipment, or be suffering from past cuts and poor procurement is something that he might not like to admit.

[@VanderlyndenJengold]

@@Mozzie7920 The 'stiff upper lip' was not entirely true though. People like to believe the best of themselves, it's comforting. A nation rarely likes to admit the bad history do they? You don't see many commemorations of the surrender of 85000 troops in Singaproe in 1942.

[@cabalamat2289]

The fact is that Britain (pop 68 million) has a smaller army in wartime than Finland (population 5.5 million). Sure Britain's army during peacetime is bigger than Finland's, but armies are for when there's a war. So even if individual soldiers are well trained (which they are), that's not necessarily enough. Quantity has a quality all of its own.

[@samtheguru]

You are embarrassing yourself.

[@mmcd8199]

That's down to Finland utilising national service. They also share a land border with their greatest threat, so have very little time to respond to it.

[@cabalamat2289]

@@mmcd8199 There's no reason Britain couldn't do that if we wanted to. Britain's armed forcers are not currently value for money.

[@mmcd8199]

@@cabalamat2289 it doesn't make financial sense when the largest threats an island faces aren't ground based

[@cabalamat2289]

@@mmcd8199 The biggest threat to UK is Russia. If there's a war between Russia and NATO it will mostly be a ground war.

[@peterhall728]

Afghanistan. Us and the Yanks. Tooled up to our cravats in technology against blokes in their pajamas using fairly old kit. No airpower whats so ever. Men went in and fought, and died ,to take ground only to leave not long afterwards due to lack of personnel. The Russians eventually beat a far better equipped and trained German foe due to sheer weight of numbers ( including the massive American war effort , for which their industry managed to produce overwhelming amounts of materiel). Technology can make a difference yes but , only if you have the men/women to use it.

[@paulbedichek5177]

As a US citizen I am proud we left Afghanistan,a great nation admits defeat, I would hope we are not sending food there. Women and children lead to terrosists. Let them reach a natural balance with the carrying capacity of the land,No food.

[@DontBeAWollyy]

We didn’t leave due to lack of personnel lmfao, mission was complete, not our issue the Afghan army ran cos they were scared of the Taliban, also had nothing to do with the British then anyway, we also lost the least troops. Mug

[@DontBeAWollyy]

Russia defeated Germany because Hitler made the mistake of trying to take the world on 😂 and the Germans froze whilst on the eastern front. Are you disabled?

[@peterhall728]

@@DontBeAWollyy read the comment. I said we left ground taken on operations, during the overall conflict, due to lack of personnel. Not that we left Afghanistan due to it.

[@pevebe]

@@DontBeAWollyy we're the mugs for going there in the first place

[@jeffreystrudwick3687]

The BEF in 1914 was the most highly trained army in the world but it only lasted about 4 months superb soldiers but not enough of them still the case today

[@studentaviator3756]

It formed the bases of a much larger army, though. Back then, we had millions of volunteers and an industrial capacity to go from a few hundred thousand too millions.

[@jeffreystrudwick3687]

@studentaviator3756 Agreed but not viable now high tech equipment requires highly skilled operators eg a tank crew commander gunner loader and driver, you lose 1 crew where are your replacements OK maybe on regimental strength but that is finite then back in the training stream you need a long tail to wag the dog effectively One time cold War warrior

[@death_parade]

​@@studentaviator3756 Back then, you also had colonies like India. Now you don't.

[@studentaviator3756]

@death_parade why did you comment that?

[@death_parade]

@@studentaviator3756 Because that is a fact that often goes unsaid.

[@naja2270]

If the war in Ukraine has shown us anything, the British army can be the most lethal in Europe, but it will be attrited to uselessness and out of ammunition within a week should we ever have to fight at scale again. I read somewhere about a Soviet generals opinion on the British army after the wall fell. And he stated something that i still think is relevant today, and whilst not verbatim, he stated they had great respect for the British 1st corps, but we only had one. It seems we've not learnt our lesson.

[@user-qp6vg9ho8u]

With what money??? UK can’t even find the NHS properly! How about sorting out our internal affairs first

[@namoi45]

I think it is time the Americans and NATO should read history and do some math. Stalin lost about 27 million people but they continued all the way to Berlin, winning that part of WW2. America used two bombs to win in the Pacific. If they didn't have those bombs, I'm not sure America would have beaten Japan.

[@thehumancanary131]

Yeah, yeah…we’ve heard it all before! The results - from the Charge of the Light Brigade through to Gallipoli; the BEF disaster; The Fall of Singapore; The Battle of the Denmark Straits; The Gazala Line; Tobruk; the Suez Crisis; the loss of the Prince of Wales & Repulse - the new Prince of Wales which spent 9 months in dock after its propeller problems in 2022 - the list goes on and on!!

[@catchasmurf762]

there were a fair few W's in that time as well however...

[@semperf1dude]

Got to say that any soldier / officer etc who did not know that the purpose of the army "is to fight and win wars on land" probably has not read much military history

[@colonelangus8247]

That's why he's in charge and we are not, such insightful views show a lifetime of experience and you know the thing.

[@andyr2203]

Funny thing is he commands units that keep making a mockery of the strongest military nation the world has seen and am sure he has been trained in at Sandhurst where years of history are documented.

[@magicalgibus3006]

Over the past 100 years we have not needed to fight a large-scale land battle... Clearly you are the one who has not read military history

[@dan79600]

Makes you wonder what they thought there purpose was before reaching this point of clarification.

[@magicalgibus3006]

@@dan79600 Seriously? In recent years we have faced insurgency threats. Wars have been fought against hidden enemies. Therefore our military has specialised in precision strikes and small-scale attacks on specific targets with highly trained troops. Now we face a new threat, with the potential of a large-scale land battle in Europe.

[@gerrycooper56]

The most important thing, over combat capabilities is are they diverse enough?

[@aloys7716]

😂

[@PeterMaddison2483]

If this 'diverse' bunch wanted to sign up, they would. But they don't. They just want an easy ride, sponging off us Brits. I wonder if they even know they can 'sign up', after being given a British passport and then told, 'You're now British'. They're just a tool of the WEF to destroy white European people, then get destroyed themselves.

[@zoltancsikos5604]

Bring out the Multicam skirts.

[@overworlder]

That's a relief. I was worried there for a while.

[@markaxworthy2508]

"British Army to be most lethal army in Europe by end of decade, chief says" What, all seven men? The Army is now smaller than at any time since 1740, when we had only 13% of the current population.

[@reeseprince8]

Drones

[@markaxworthy2508]

@@reeseprince8 Drones do not substitute for "boots on the ground". We didn't have enough boots on the ground in either Iraq or Afghanistan and we have less now.

[@reeseprince8]

@markaxworthy2508 the more soliders you have the more easily you'll be attacked by Drones Just look at the Ukraine Russia war

[@markaxworthy2508]

So, who protects the drone operators? And how do drones occupy ground? Drones are just tools. They are not a substitute for manpower, just an adjunct to it. The war in Ukraine is being fought by infantry with drones, not by drones in the absence of infantry.

[@Subtleknife12367]

There is no point being the "most lethal" if your 'army' is one man strong. This is precisely why I left the Army, senior leadership peddling a lie that was continually spouted by politicians. I could no longer lead people in good conscience knowing that the lie would cost lives in the next conflict. Let's be honest here, the British Army (if you can actually call it an army anymore) has a massive size problem. This means it has no mass or redundancy to it. Senior Officers should be highlighting the perilous position our politicians (of both flavors) have put the military in not colluding with them.

[@DavidBarry-vj6dd]

An ambition to add a Brigade... Seriously? A Brigade? Does anyone wonder why no one takes us seriously?

[@stuartdowling5984]

And by the way I'm retiring before I get the blame when none of this happens due to lack of funds

[@AirplaneDoctor_]

Funniest video of the day without a doubt, l really can't believe they made this with a straight face.

[@tdolan500]

Yeah it’s a really poor statement if it isn’t going in hand with some major spending announcement.

[@rogerrees9845]

Nice to see a clear and concise strategy in situ... You can't fail to have faith in the the joint services with such leadership... Roger... Pembrokeshire.

[@KallegrandStudios]

If one thing the war in Ukraine has been proving is that quality can help going further and can help saving lives, but quantity makes a bigger difference. Quantity could be cheaper by maintaining the tools you already have instead of changing them every 20 years so you could field more modest forces in greater quantity instead of hoping for the best with the handfuls. Quality isn't useless. You go to a conflict where the enemy isn't as strong as you are and sometimes, the handful can do all the difference.

[@pincermovement72]

What Ukraine has shown us is like we did with Belgium and Poland we should stay out of it .

[@xornxenophon3652]

@@pincermovement72 How would the world look like if Britain had stayed out of WW2? Hardly a realistic stance...

[@JustFun-tv5er]

History has clearly shown the opposite. @@pincermovement72

[@PeterMaddison2483]

@@xornxenophon3652 The WEF wasn't in full swing then andwe didn't have the woke brigade.

[@ianross04]

I wont hold my breath on that statement. Whilst I never doubt the fact that the British Army is full of professional men and women whom provide quality over quantity, however the quantity aspect was once a leak and now become a haemorrhage. As it stands today, we don't have Russia threatening us on our front door. - our friends in Poland do and it is them, who will most probably become the most potent army in the West soon

[@philchristmas4071]

Much Respect to your military. We need you strong. 🇺🇸🤝🇬🇧

[@shsh-he5qg]

Send the some of your rainbow flags and mix use toilets 😂

[@dezmcgregor8169]

Trouble is we rely on america too much so thats why they cut military budgets not just UK but most other European countries. Most countries in NATO no that if war broke out they got USA backing them up.

[@WeLoveTheSlavs4]

​@@shsh-he5qgplease grow up

[@culshie]

After the end of the Cold War, Northern Ireland and the Blairite wars the Ground Forces seem to have been allowed to shrink to dangerously low levels, a effective fighting Army needs to renew itself every seven years bringing in new young people who may only do the one enlistment but that means there is a trained cadre out there that can be recalled to the colours, if you have an Army of Lifers they will be less effective because the young and fit are needed and that pool of talent that could be tapped into does not exist.

[@DontBeAWollyy]

Only way to fix this is with national service

[@TheDeepState2001]

Lets fix the NHS first instead of blowing money on pointless Infantry divisions.

[@DontBeAWollyy]

@@TheDeepState2001 no the military is more of a priority, if anyone has an issue with the NHS they are more than welcome to get a better job and pay for private healthcare instead of being a sponge. I’d rather my tax go towards a new drone than to a victim of a stabbing

[@xornxenophon3652]

I believe that the British army is really good, probably the best in Europe. But what is lacking in all armies in western Europe is sheer numbers. It is quite nice to have 100,000 well trained soldiers. But in a real war, with a country like Russia, you might easily loose 50,000 of those in the first three months of fighting. That is why I have a very bad feeling about those tiny armies.

[@RealSourLemonade]

A Russian offensive against UK forces would never get into infantry range intact. The Russians have not even been able to establish air superiority in Ukraine.

[@xornxenophon3652]

@@RealSourLemonade Maybe you are right, maybe you are not. Russia is not the only problematic country. I have some serious doubts about those small armies. They are perfect until some big country (like China, for example) declares war and you find out that your tiny army is too small to fight off a determined enemy.

[@G4x5da]

Yeah but most countries Europe (and the world) only have a population of a few million. Americans just don’t get that that and compare their nation, of freaking 335 million, to countries 10 to 100 times smaller. There’s only 2 other countries in the world besides the US that have a bigger population

[@xornxenophon3652]

@@G4x5da Well, the EU (even though not a country in the traditional sense) has a far bigger population and a slightly bigger economy than the US. But all the european militaries together would probably lose a war against a third of the army of the US in days! And while this would not be a problem (as the US is an ally), they are probably also unable to defend the EU against Russia or China!

[@G4x5da]

@@xornxenophon3652 we’re long way from forming 1 nation and working together with all the militaries.

[@moonbaby6134]

So his army is losing 3-5% every year. In a decade, it will be ten blokes and a girl in a tent with sticks and harsh language. He is absolutely deluded.

[@ajvoice6290]

Shouldn't that read 'smallest army in Europe by the end of the decade'? The Yanks are right, the British Army no longer tier one thanks to decades of cuts.

[@PillSharks]

Must be all them rainbow flags!

[@heinedenmark]

Let's wait and see 🙃

[@Dusty2feathers]

The man's a fool. A yes man to the mod. To be an effective fighting force you need sufficient personnel. I'm afraid 75000 personnel is woefully inadequate. Ajax is way behind schedule and will be obsolete soon after it enters service. Where was plan B , I'll tell you , there wasn't one. We simply cannot fight a peer to peer conflict anymore. 30 years ago we had 156000 regular army personnel with 900 tanks. We had 51 frigates and destroyers, today we have 18. We had 500+ frontline fighter jets, today we have 137 give or take. To say the UK will be the most lethal modern fighting force in Europe really doesn't say much for France Germany Spain and Italy's armed forces. God help us.

[@peterwait641]

We used to have about 900 chieftain tanks , Poland will be ahead of us with their equipment program !

[@Bob10009]

They already are.

[@peterwait641]

@@paultaylor9498 wont last long with AI drone torpedo

[@hectorcelaya8225]

i think poland might have be the best army in europe tbh

[@immortalmatter]

@@hectorcelaya8225No chance, they’ve got the third best behind France second strongest and the UK who is the strongest, I don’t think they will ever be as strong as those two no matter how hard they try, they are also in a very weak position geographically so they could lose all their military might in the blink of an eye if something did kick off, they would be the front line just like how eastern Ukraine is today

[@hectorcelaya8225]

@@immortalmatter im sorry i forgot to say eastern europe ofc theyre no where near france ermany or uk but they bee doing really good they got tired of being pushed around

[@Mark-ef2ly]

What's the point in having an army when we are just being invaded. I thought you were supposed to defend your country.

[@ieuanjones7615]

What good is cutting edge if you don't have enough of it?

[@Sanity800]

British Army that doesn’t even fill Wembley stadium, consecutive SDSR/ISDR has ripped our decimated our military. each of three services takes pain in a 1/3 rotation. RN gets two carriers, Army & RAF new tech, how to pay for it, freeze on Civil Service recruitment 18 months & appalling retention. Lethal is no good when you’ve not got numbers to back it up.

[@mnufeld8448]

So though thats the British Army not the whole armed forces , tho just the British army is larger than Australias entire regular armed forces and up to and incl its army reserves . and I mean Wembley is one of the biggest stadiums in the world ,seats 90,000, with 100 000 at standing room only , but I mean you put 80 000 ppl in a 90 000 seat place, it's basically full . I remember I was once at a stadium with about 50,000 ppl that at its max capacity.. took hours to get everybody in and out, a place just about 1/2 the size of Wembley . So, thats huge

[@Sanity800]

@@mnufeld8448 UK British Army continues to do more with less, training, current NATO and other operational commitments, UK Army with less than 100,000 is a national embarrassment, why? Because traitor politicians believe UK military will never deploy again like Falklands war, any current or future conflict will involve NATO. As a veteran of 30 yrs, it’s gut wrenching to see damage politicians have done to HM Forces, all three arms.

[@wewliusevola]

The Ukraine war has shown us a handful of incredibly advanced platforms is no match for quantity.

[@wewliusevola]

@@Djahto543 Yeah I tend to agree.

[@themarketm8382]

And that's only going to become more true as the technology gap gets closed when current weapons hit their peak development

[@pershorefoodbanktrusselltr3632]

The UK is ranked in the top 5 militaries based on technology and power, it has across its forces 185,000 personal including world renowned special forces and the Gurkha regiment, also another 50,000 reservists. It is one of only a few nuclear powers operational 365 days a year and is also one of only a few blue water Navies in the world boasting the most over seas bases apart from the USA, totalling 14. It also has the second largest intelligence services and building infrastructure outside the US, with MI5, MI6 and HQ intelligence Cheltenham, nicked named the (Doughnut) It is a permanent member of NATO and has a defence budget of $68 Billion per year, the 5th biggest spending in the world. The UK is changing its military as the world changes and that means investing in technology and capability, not hundreds of thousands of soldiers twiddling their thumbs with hundreds of tanks rusting away in hangers doing nothing. Who’s going to attack the UK? No one in reality would dare, the UK can easily defend itself. Having a million soldiers and all of this and that doesn’t mean anything, learn some history. India for example have a million soldiers, who receive a month’s training, carry Kalashnikovs and wear tin hats, now that’s not an effective army is it. The UK is tailoring it’s forces for the future, Deadly, professional, modern, effective and able to deploy anywhere around the world at a moments notice.

[@drdeadred851]

Being fair to India numbers of troops do matter when their main two potential peer enemies are either China or Pakistan, both of which they have massive land borders with. At the same time we're in pretty much zero danger of ever having to fight a peer to peer land war outside of some very unlikely conflict between NATO and Russia, in which case there is not much benefit in us wasting a load of money adding a few hundred thousand more to an already hyper one-sided fight. Point being numbers of soldiers can really matter a lot more depending on the situation, and for us we've never been some monstrous land power(compared to our peers at the time, obviously the army used to be massive compared to modern day numbers) just because it would make no sense for us to be, compared to countries like France, Germany and Russia etc. who's important conflicts will always be land wars and india fits in the same category. Other than some American escapade dragging us into some new third world conflict the only place we're in any real danger of attack are in our overseas territories, which is where better funding for the RAF and Royal Navy would really make the most sense. We're an island, a small advanced army along with well equipped air forces and navy are what has served us well for hundreds of years and its what we should focus on. All of the military could do with better funding, and better use of the funding it does get, but the RN and RAF dont seem to get a fraction of attention they deserve when their unquestionably the most important arms of the military for actually protecting the UK and its territory's. The navy and air forces should really be what we're worried about concerning parts of our military being under equipped, we'd probably be on our own again if some new Falklands like conflict happened and all this effort we make to improve the Army for supporting the US and Nato's objectives will do near nothing to help in what would be fundamentally Naval and Air conflicts.

[@n0body-z2g]

All I hear is "were increasing taxes by the end of the year"

[@stephenpine2448]

He's trying to put a nice shiny gloss on the fact that the army is much smaller and will continue to be so. Like many senior officers before him in his role, he's having to make the best of serious budget cuts.

[@toshe.6690]

every announcement of new equipment is followed by a review that cuts personnel numbers and sells off equipment for next to nothing.

[@phillipthomson]

The thing that makes the British army is quite simply the soldiers and the ability to adapt to change

[@death_parade]

And the thing that breaks it is its massive size of an entire 5 Brigades!

[@pincermovement72]

And the thing that breaks it is putting women on the front lines while our enemies will send men .

[@regenmeister3034]

Lmfao, The British Army can't even field 2 brigades. Pathetic. The entire British Army's combat effectiveness would be wiped out in less than a month in Ukraine, what a joke... 🤣🤣

[@Menace1GG]

Heard it all before.. heard it when I was in, ten years later hearing it again. We are nothing but a huge aircraft carrier for the US. Poland will be tip if the spear in Europe.

[@novak7970]

ha ah........lol. Still thinking like Britain has an Empire. The British Army is just a shadow of it's former self. The Falklands was the last major victory and that at times was shaky.

[@chrisrowland1514]

Tech great but as Ukraine has shown you still need boots on the ground and THAT'S where the British Army fails

[@yscsolja]

We can’t control our own streets never mind another country

[@overcorpse]

75000 isnt going to cut it.

[@LEFTY073]

Yeah you're right, that's why they are going to cut it again. Leaner and more agile force haha.

[@gootusfootus3229]

By 2030 the uk will have either the 3rd or 4th highest spending in the world 100-110billion which means more soldiers in the army, tanks, weapons vehicles bigger navy and airforce we just gotta wait

[@ragimundvonwallat8961]

@@gootusfootus3229 it meaan nothin in the army .more budget=75% disguised tribute to the USA and 25% more money in pockets of local enforcers

[@GosWardHen98]

Not with 75k personnel we won't. We'll end up as a special unit doing all the stealthy dirty work instead.

[@billymackie3040]

I'll believe it when I see it. Going by past events I won't be holding my breath.

[@diagorosmelos3187]

Quality over quantity proved itself in Iraq with the Challenger and Abrams. Took out 10 times its own force without a loss. But the UK is an island so shouldn't really bother itself with the issues in Europe. Let the broken EU deal with Russia. Why do the UK bother with these Europeans?

[@PF-vn4qz]

UK doesnt even have an anti-ballistic air defense system ,,, before defending other countries and sending weapons abroad,, lets defend ourselves first

[@Thracian117]

I think I can already hear Poland in the distance saying "hold my vodka" 😂

[@THissobeautiful]

The UK was shipping equipment to Ukraine prior to Russia's invasion. The moment our leaders thought it essential that we do that, they should also have put a huge effort into Challenger 2/3 production. A nation sitting on its hands is of no use when you could have 10 or more Challengers rolling off the production line each month.

[@studentaviator3756]

Challenger 2 hasn't been in production for decades. If we were going to make new tanks you would need to make a factory almost from the ground up again. At that point it might as well be a next gen tank design.

[@SuperEvilMonkee]

Challenger 3 isnt a new tank its a glorified upgrade package to existing Challenger 2 hulls.

[@michaelmazowiecki9195]

148 Challenger3s are simply updated existing Challenger2s , not new tanks.

[@WTLionofZion]

"most lethal" ? With less than 70,000 troops I think not!

[@ReallyFarFarAway]

- What about the numbers ?

[@hk416d4]

Quality over quantity

[@MrWorldwide00]

as weve seen in the Ukraine war you still needs lots of numbers. people are easy to kill and vehicles are easy to destroy@@hk416d4

[@earthcitizen7245]

not much good if all your small quality are dead and you don't have backup @@hk416d4

[@UsuallyTrolling]

@@hk416d4sounds like cope to me. 1 “quality” British brigade vs 1 Russian field army

[@orbitspec9199]

Excellent pr piece

[@tommyjoestallings855]

I so happy there our Allies, we Americans are mostly descended from england at least my family is and I am super proud that there are friends and confidantes

[@kogaiononN]

Should I remember that UK left the European continent, therefore you should never presume that your army is much better that European Army! You talk about your army and your reservists are on streets beging food and moneys! I saw them in central London. What a shame for your great kingdom 😂.

[@CochinKerala]

I think they mean "Diversity is Strength". In their eyes, Diversity and Equity makes them the best. The rest of the world watches on with mild amusement at the "strengthening" of the Brit Army.

[@thetruthhurts7675]

The world looks on with mild amusement? Really? How so pleas edo expand your stupid thoughts!!

[@CochinKerala]

@@thetruthhurts7675 The truth hurts, indeed. 😄

[@thetruthhurts7675]

@@CochinKerala So this is expanding on your thoughts? really? As I said please expand your stupid ideas! Then we might actually have a debate on here.

[@georgemorley1029]

It doesn’t make you the best, it is just a condition that makes it more likely for you to be the best. If you’re well trained, you’re more likely to win. But being trained isn’t a battle won. If you’re well equipped, you’re more likely to win. But having all the gear isn’t a battle won. Likewise for morale, and diversity and inclusion is a key part of that. You want institutionalised bullying and harassment? Then look at Russia. Commanding officers run over by their own troops in tanks. That’s the facts of the matter.

[@alsenar2]

Meanwhile the British economy is further tumbling down. Good job with the Brexit

[@BrianParkes]

We'll be down to 1 man, but that man will be Chuck Norris...

[@pip5461]

As we say, "It's the quality, not the quantity"...!

[@mangoo7879]

Quantity has a quality all its own

[@Aethul-wd9ke]

It's an absurd statement, we just do not have the production base to produce enough artillery shells, tank barrels etc for a prolonged war. Quantity is a quality.

[@stephenconroy5908]

To be fair, I think the Poles might politely disagree given their recent shopping spree.

[@K_-_-_-_K]

Plus Poland actually secures their borders.

[@BobDaly-l9r]

The Government has lost the faith of the comman soldier who is dumped on the streets after their Service. A massively reduced manpower over two decades. Good luck with being the best. Better equipment no man power no after care, that really works.

[@MrH1990s]

On paper, it all looks good. But in reality, it’s a complete delusion. British military is simply too small that’s a fact. Bare minimum we need another 100k in numbers in the army by 2030. And British military should also keep any old warrior, challenger 2, whatever they say they are getting rid of they should put in storage for future purposes, it will be needed

[@peterryan4851]

Modern armies must be able to create secure air envelopes starting at the platoon (stinger) and company level (on boxer and equivalent platforms) and battalion level. All armoured vehicles need active protection against missiles and drones.

[@catchasmurf762]

BA vehicles will have active protection systems to defeat agm's and drones, they're impressive I must say...

[@gunshipzeroone3546]

Well, only words, it doesn't mean nothing the mod need more money and we need it now 65 billion would be nice if not more.

[@markcummings6856]

Keep up the good work. Please support your Defense Budget increases. We are in different times.

[@theotherside8258]

As long as people keep voting for a government to give them tax cuts the army will be asset stripped to pay for them

[@Discoveryjamie]

If the government have said it’s going to happen….it’s not going to happen 😂😂😂

[@vickyking3408]

😂😂😂😂😂aint that the truth especially with the new clueless mininster

[@masked_vision]

im from uk and i doubt this, any time our gov or high officials say they are doing something good it either takes 3x as long as they said it will take or it doesnt happen at all. also our army is decreasing each year and each decade by about 10 thousand. if we want a large strong army we need conscription or something like that

[@garthwick19]

This is all super sexy, but without a large increase in the ammo budget to allow a lot more live firing exercises it's all just fancy kit. More live fire exercises please. That's how we become more lethal. From fireteam to battlegroup. And we need to grow. Probably to double the size of the number of infantry battalions. The accountants at the MoD just couldn't imagine it I'm afraid.

[@ChosenMan-be8mz]

High tech equipment is all well and good but when you hardly got any soldiers to use it it’s a waste of money if it’s just gonna sit in the stores, even the best soldiers in the world mean little if theres not enough of them, bring the army’s strength back up to a hundred thousand than you may have a force that can make a significant impact in world affairs.

[@CheersDits2979]

70 000 troops no matter how well kitted will never be a lethal fighting force in any conflict that has longevity.

[@gootusfootus3229]

Remember if the uk went to war with Russia conscription would come back Britain is looking after the world in peacetime by dealing with terroism but are ready to fight the budgets would change immediately

[@pavelmedek3968]

This article makes perfect sense: you just have to switch "UK" to "Poland".

[@Bob10009]

…..and double all the numbers he quoted.

[@Jordon168]

@@Bob10009Your American aren’t you?

[@allanlees299]

Not sure what alternative universe this comes from, but it clearly isn't the one the rest of us inhabit. In real terms UK spending on the armed forces has declined every year since CE 2000 and is set to decline further in the next 2 years (e.g. adjusted for inflation). The UK is now incapable of performing combined-arms operations without the aid of allies, and much of its kit is out-of-date. Far too much is still being spent on irrelevant fripperies like aircraft carriers, for which there is no real-world use case, and far too little is being spent on basics. Meanwhile, Poland is massively building up its land forces: 1,000 modern MBTs, more than 1,000 modern IFVs, and several hundred mobile artillery pieces. As the UK can currently (best case) field around 50 MBTs and its IFV program is bogged down in never-ending problems, it is clear that only in fantasy-land can the UK ever aspire to be more than a third-rate provider of point-solutions that must operate in close conjunction with allies in order to have any combat effectiveness. The UK really needs to stop deluding itself and pretending to capabilities it no longer possesses, and restructure spending commitments to address real-world threat scenarios. Empty posturing and silly puff-pieces serve no one except potential enemies, who chuckle to see the UK failing to address real problems and preferring instead to remain in fantasy-land where all real-world challenges can magically be wished away.

[@Bob10009]

Aircraft carriers are far more likely to see action than MBTs. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@gootusfootus3229]

The uks budget will be 100-110billion in 2029-2030 the uk spends more money on their soldiers even the us army has a lack of funding in its training and equipment for soldiers now

[@pevebe]

We are an Island, Poland is almost landlocked. Bit of a difference there. No point buying 1,000 MBTs if they're then stuck at Dover

[@zebman9228]

Nice job explaining. Can't wait to see the results in the real world.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

Went from 205,000 to 70,000.

[@gootusfootus3229]

Not it’s 200,100 we have about 143,000 active personal the rest is reserve

[@pevebe]

@@gootusfootus3229 we have less than half of that

[@JJ_Khailha]

Good to see.

[@dovidell]

with all the manpower cutbacks ?!!!!!!!!!!! .I've been watching Falklands war videos recently , remember all the cutbacks that were due to take place less than a year before THAT war took place ? , Britain needs to add 15 % more manpower to its numbers for the next 5 years to become what it was, feared and respected ( and not only because of its special forces )

[@doubledigital_]

you know we aint messing when you can make a brew in a tank very proud of our men and women

[@MrSatyre1]

How will any of this be possible when your numbers keep getting reduced and budgets keep getting slashed? You can barely meet NATO requirements of being able to field a division.

[@Azrael1st]

Laughs in burning challenger 2

[@spaceageGecko]

Thats normal during a war, almost certainly stripped of any classifed armour anyways.

[@Adamslifesentence]

I tried to join but because i assaulted someone in Australia couldn't. Ridiculous if we get invaded.

[@majormoolah5056]

The problem is the number of personnel. Royal Army has 77,000 active personnel. Look at the scale of the Ukraine War... how long will those 77,000 be able to fight? Wonderful professionals, but quantity has meaning too.

[@rickwalker2]

*British, not Royal. We all know what you meant but unlike the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, the British Army isn't the Royal Army. Otherwise I agree. Technology is tremendously important but quantity is a quality all of it's own.

[@grantchallinor5263]

Russia now has something like 750,000 properly-trained active, effective, and well-led soldiers and will soon have an army of c.1.2 million properly trained soldiers. The latter due to its successful recruitment campaign (I'm not talking about conscription) and as its reserves are retrained. If we, the US (NATO) had never poked our noses in Ukraine (and supported a regime that's been shelling its own men, women and children almost daily since 2014.....) c.400k-500k Ukrainians wouldn't have lost their lives. The last thing Russians ever wanted to do (even Putin) was to fight in Ukraine. We've done the same in Syria (documentation presented to the UN was doctored to show fake evidence that the Syria regime was using chemical weapons - to justify bombing and occupying the country), Iraq (again fake evidence of WMD used to justify an invasion), Afghanistan.... Like you, I'm generally proud of our forces' men and women. Hopefully you're not suggesting we send them to Ukraine. As for our weapons technology, it has generally looked pretty ordinary in Ukraine against a proper opponent like Russia. NATO has got too used to fighting goat farmers and not a peer adversary.

[@Bob10009]

⁠@@grantchallinor5263your grasp of history is pitifully childish. Putin has wanted a fight for 30 years, this is just one step in his lifelong plan.

[@gootusfootus3229]

@tonyc1167all of them pretty much are some of these cuts are also because certain soldiers don’t make it up to scratch

[@michaelmazowiecki9195]

If 10% of that 77,000 is fighting soldiers , it will be a lot.

[@markbridle9905]

We train Ukraine. Plus Russia is scared when they come across British trained Ukraine regiments.

[@microsoftword213]

Doesn't matter how good the army is, if our industry cant keep up with production for a war, and our stockpiles aren't big enough - which they aren't, then we wont last more than 6 months.

[@John-hu9qg]

The British army could barely fill Wembley stadium these days...enough said.