British Way of War

[@misterjones7248]

The British way of war usually involves winning

[@michaelpearl-r8w]

The British way of war is adaptability. Britain almost always goes into a war under prepared and fails badly at the start, it then gradually works out what to do . By the time the next war comes they start again at square one.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

We work out what to do _and then god help our enemies because nobody else will_ We're a fairly ruthless and vicious lot once we've decided that We Don't Like You Anymore.

[@captainbuggernut9565]

Do we? So having the largest navy in the world at the start of WW2 is under prepared? The installation of cutting edge radar and a whole command chain to go with it was under prepared. You shouldn't perpetuate daft myths. The BEF was a great force but too small to fight on its own. It was supposed to be supported by the French. Their stragedy famously failed. So contrary to belief the British were very prepared. If they hadn't been prepared the RAF would have been destroyed in days.

[@captainbuggernut9565]

Nope. But thanks for removing my comment. The truth obviously isn't liked.

[@cylac12]

you know, the more I think on it, the more I agree with you, and your stament goes very deep into the the 'british psyche' I suppose. britian always ems to have these cycles where the established' nobility' rules the roots and sets the rules....this inevitibly leads to failiure where they then give the 'common' chap a chance, given that in britain you have historically needed a certain kind of cunning to be able to rise in it's society, this leads to innovation and adaptability, but when the dust settles and things become calmer, the old nobility once again dominates, takes over and the cycle begins again. Examples I can think of include, The first world war. the commonwealth soldiers were much more successful than the homeland troops because they were allowed to use thier intiative, during the early years, the entire officer corp were made up of lenaded gentry, and this only started to change when they started getting killed in large enough numbers that the british allowed 'commoners' to become officers. At that time, the war started turning (sure there were a LOT of other factors involved) but it is where the british army started to become much more effective as a whole as new ideas were allowed instead of the same old "walk slowly en mass towards the enemy, as the common man cannot be trusted to do anything else" ( see battle plans of the Somme). In the lead up to WW2 Frank Whittle faced tremendous pushback from the ruling class in regards to the jet engine, which itself has echoes of what Parsons went through with the turbine engine. The british ruling class is notoriously conservative, but they are extremely adept at politics, (it's why the classics are a major feature of public school education, but not outside of it). You see it in modern day UK politcs too, the conservatives have always been dominated by the landed gentry, and they will always rise again to convince the populace that thier way is better, only to scarper when they have screwed the pooch so hard it is prety much dead, wait for the labour party to fix it, then come back again when times get tough, generally due to geopolitics. (see the 2009 crash, and what is happening now in the UK)

[@sharkwolf7788]

We seem to love learning new lessons. So much so we forget them so we can re learn them again at cost.

[@bigjohn697791]

I can't speak to grand strategic thinking. But as a former British Army NCO. I have seen the abilities at unit and sub-unit level down to section level of other countries. They have not impressed me although there are some who are similar but still different to us. I don't know if there is a cultural element to it? But getting it done, common sense, quietly without a song and a dance or theatrics seems to be our strong point. also at our best when it goes wrong compared to others.

[@lachlanchester8142]

You wanted to be a soldier so you joined the raf reg 🧐💀

[@tobiasgriffin]

​@lachlanchester8142 that 5 miles of death will make you stand toe to toe with the para and royal marine

[@lachlanchester8142]

@@tobiasgriffin well you need to be at that level to guard the camp in Cyprus

[@bigjohn697791]

@@lachlanchester8142 🤣😂😂🤣

[@bigjohn697791]

@@tobiasgriffin That's why I didn't join the Ref.. Sorry RAF Regt it was to hard don't think I could have cut the mustard mate lol..

[@HuntingCatIsBack]

I'm not sure if their is a British Way of War, per se, bit there certainly a British way of fighting. I served fora period of 20 years between 1983 and 2003 in the Royal Air Force Regiment. I joined for two reasons, firstly for the adventure, and secondly to be a professional soldier. It occurs to me that we are at our best when things are at their worst, and in between times fall back to the position of "doing the best we can to be professional in the circumstances. This might not always be enough. However it served me well through Northern Ireland, Belize, Gulf '91 and the whole former Yugoslavia mess and some post '99 Hong Kong stuff. Is that enough? I don't know , I demonstrated my political beliefs at the ballot box, not at " the muzzle of a rifle" to misquote a famous aphorism of Chaorman Mao. It seems to me that many of the comments here are making quantities arguments rather than qualitive one. History might suggest that we have been as good as required more often than not.

[@SomeOtherPooma]

Random guess based on your username & profession, but you didn't play a lot of Counterstrike in the 1.6 days did you?

[@Brit_81]

No, this was around a time when we had the best forces on the planet.. Nothing all that recent

[@tamlandipper29]

I only mention it since you have obviously given the subject some thought. I recall some dilletante criticising the Army for obeying the order to invade Iraq. I observed that an Army that writes its own orders is no longer democracy.

[@dave8323]

You joined to be a soldier, so you choose the RAF reg!? Mate, you didn't serve anyone, what do you think you achieved with your "service". Is anyone safer? No, you were just a rear echelon number, serving the interests of the military Industrial complex. And your experience doesn't give you any insight, given you were in the RAF reg you remf

[@biddyboy1570]

"Dave" Your comment is short sighted. Air power dominates the battlefield. It's highly complex. You probably lack the mental capacity to understand it. It needs REMFs like me sitting back at base as it is highly technical. RAF Reg keep me alive and unhindered so we can keep dropping 1000lb'ers on people.

[@seanoconnor8843]

I think the ability to field 3 divisions is something to aim for. It's a good career and keeps a healthy armament industry. It's not wasted money having decent armed forces

[@bueno_oneub_0]

I saw a man reconfigure the British army with only the addition of 4 thousand extra troops to make such a 3 Division army Structure. Through reconfiguring units and re assigning equipment he created 2 Regular Divisions. The 1st UK continuing to be the Light and Expeditionary division, having 4 Brigades. And the 3 UK Division having 2 Armoured and 2 Mechanized Brigades. Then having a 2 UK division, made up from the Army reserve. I thought that it was a pretty excellent idea.

[@pincermovement72]

More like 3 corps as in WW1, if we hadn’t had those when fighting a power with a conscript army they would have been destroyed before a move to a conscripted army could be achieved, this was critical, having 2 corps fighting with one corps training. However the intention was never to fight on the continent unless in small raids which being an island race with a large navy always allowed us. The French though pressed us to supply men which often happens with allies even though supplying those two corps really nearly broke our ability to raise further troops.

[@chrisdechristophe]

Firstly a fascinating video. You have Summerised neatly what I had observed based on my study of British military history. Despite starting your video with some equivaction, I think in the end you gave a strong justification and summary of what British military strategy should be. I think that those times when Britain has deployed large armies have been confined to the last two World wars (excluding pre 17th century wars), and frankly ww1 is an example of why Britain should avoid large scale land warfare. Playing to our strengths of maritime and economic warfare make sense. Actually however you touched on something in the video, but did not expand on it, even more important is the 'peacetime' grand strategy (Perhaps a bit disappointing given your channels title). What Britain expended most of it's energy doing over the last 400 years was preventing war. Preventing it by weakening potential rivals, dividing them, aligning with them, always ensuring a balance of power. Peace is always better than war provided that the peace works for British interests. Keeping the seven seas open and free for commerce, enabling the movement of goods and people, allowing free trade (at least in British terms), these were the hallmarks of British strategy. Defending British interests with vigour, such that potential rivals knew the cost of open warfare was not worth it. A classic feature of British maritime power was overseas basis. This allowed Britain to send forces at very short notice to any trouble spot anywhere in the world, in the days before jet travel.

[@nochancesimo]

great comment on the Pax Brittanica.

[@timphillips9954]

By the end of WW1 The British had by far the best army in France.

[@michaelshurkin613]

Thank you for watching.

[@michaelshurkin613]

@@timphillips9954 It was excellent, but the French Army in 1918 also was terrific. The shame is that the French Army of 1940 was not as good, and I strongly suspect that if the Wehrmacht in 1940 had the French Army of 1918 to deal with, it would have had a much more difficult time. Michel Goya has written great stuff about the 1918 French Army. This for example: amzn.to/3Wc0yG2

[@timphillips9954]

@@michaelshurkin613 The big problem with 1939 was the Americans who were part of the mess from the end of WW1. Even today most Americans refuse to take any responsibility for turning their backs on the free world in 39 and making a fortune doing business from both sides which resulted in the USA being a supper power at the end of the war and Europe being stuffed. Lets not hide from the fact not world wars and the USA doesn't become a super power but has to compete with the British Empire plus France and Germany for world power.

[@noahway13]

Corbett and your last analysis of the modern British military were spot on. Over time, a nation's military is only as strong as the nation's economy, and on the flip side, a nation's economy is only as strong as a nation's military, or organizational safety-- NATO

[@PMMagro]

The economy is not built on the military. it isa necessity but it does not really help the economy.

[@noahway13]

@@PMMagro The US has the biggest military and the biggest economy. When the Brits ruled the world, they had the biggest navy. You can't have one without the other or you will collapse like the Soviets. We are lucky to be in a stable world right now. I often wonder what if the Nazis had joined the Russians instead of fighting them. They would not have been defeated-maybe some kind of ceasefire. They would have been joined by the Japs. The world would look very different. Just sayin....

[@Andy-oc3ew]

@@PMMagroI think you are missing Noah’s point. A strong military guarantees national security, which then encourages investment. Companies and individuals don’t like investing in countries that may imminently be invaded which would likely see their investment lost. NATO is a way to spreadthe cost of national security across multiple countries.

[@thebossness1440]

Liddell Hart’s insane poisoning of the well when it comes to Great War historiography is something that should be noted. So much of the modern conception of the First World War in both the laymen and unfortunately professional historical realm has become one of “lions and donkeys” in some significant part due to him.

[@DrzBa]

And why is his opinion "poisoning of the well"? Genuine question, not looking for ad hom attacks.

[@trytwicelikemice3190]

Just replying to get notified by any replies to DrzBa

[@pincermovement72]

The western front association is a very good KZbin resource which has changed my mind from the Blackadder style of History , Harts ideas were relevant up to WW1 but with the advent of air power and the need to beat the main enemy on the main front we could not leave it to France who would have lost as their losses were astronomical. Also as the protagonists with the larger forces and resources a proactive approach was necessary as in WW2 to bring the conflict to a conclusion. The world wars were like nothing ever fought before and so were the losses , comparing the previous wars where a battle could often decide the outcome of a war and being able to use your island as a base to hit the rest of the world while safe in the knowledge your larger navy could always protect you was no longer an option.

[@DrzBa]

@@pincermovement72 Thanks. Makes sense. I will check out the Western Front Association. Appreciate the tip.

[@demondelaplace5161]

@@pincermovement72 “France would have lost” So? British strategy is not for the preservation of France as a central goal. Spain lost to Napoleon, Russia and Austria aligned with France and everywhere on the continent we were beaten- yet Napoleon was not the eternal master of Europe. Better to allow France and Russia to fall and rise again, than to pour our wealth into a bonfire of continental vanity.

[@cryhavoc999]

When Corbett and Hart were writing Britain had a near monopoly on world trade that was instantly apply able in the first week of any war. WW1 is interesting as while trade with Germany virtually ceased as soon as the war started Lloyds of London notice an uptick in trade with the Nordics, Denmark and the Netherlands pretty much equal to the trade no longer going directly to Germany. Obviously this was simply a way of circumventing the blockade* and so trade with those nations was reduced simply by Lloyds of London refusing to insure shipping to those nations unless they were pretty sure that the goods were not being passed on to Germany and the Central powers. Obviously today the UK does not enjoy this monopoly but it does enjoy being a senior member of NATO and while out of the EU still a partner with those nations. So while it cannot on its own drive such a blockade it can through its member ship of like minded clubs achieve the same. *It has been noted that in cases of luxury British cars that there was an increase in car sales in those central Asian nations neighbouring Russia equal to the number of cars no longer sold to Russia since the sanctions imposed over the Ukraine! That needs to be knocked on the head.

[@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044]

Banker's war

[@MostlyPennyCat]

This is fun though, your describing the _exact process_ by which we've capped the price Russia can sell a barrel of oil for. Sure, it's us AND the EU doing it but if we think you're blockade running, well, no more insurance for you and good luck finding a port that'll let you dock an oil tanker with no liability insurance!

[@Ben-fk9ey]

Increased luxury exports to counties bordering or that have close ties to Russia is such a joke. It negates sanctions and needs to be sorted out.

[@jeroencrabbe]

Hitler thought the English would stick to the logical maritime strategy and a deal could be struck. Im sure he would have been willing to let the English occupy northern France (Calais) and the west of Belgium up to the Scheld river (the old border of the Holy Roman Empire) to assure them. He was flabbergasted the British were willing to throw away their empire to "win" the war. It was the moral thing to do. But he was right in this of course, it was inevitable the empire would be lost in time because of that decision.

[@andrewcombe8907]

Hitler admired the British Empire and wanted the land version of it in Europe. Don’t forget the British had the first concentration camps and happily massacred unarmed Indians and Africans to preserve their Empire. If some in the British cabinet had their way, Britain would have vacated Europe and kept its overseas territories much like the Vichy French kept their African and Asian territories. What would have happened when the Japanese inevitably attacked the USA due to oil embargoes is another question. I believe the Japanese still would have taken Malaya, Singapore and Borneo but left India alone as Nazi Germany was an ally and would have not wanted Japan to attack the UK’s largest overseas dependency.

[@mks1975a]

@@andrewcombe8907 To say British had the first concentration camps is misleading as this associates it as being the same as the concentration camps in Germany - this was not the case, they were never set up with the same intention of the German concentration camps for forced labour or later as death camps . It was to remove the civilian population from the areas of the fighting and so they could not give support to the opposition, its true people died in the camps but those deaths were from poor planning, management and logistics to support such large camps in those regions

[@Chiller11]

The colonial era was ending irrespective of the war though WW2 certainly accelerated that end. Like slavery, colonialism was morally indefensible in Western democracies and the burgeoning movements of the colonized peoples toward independence made that independence inevitable.

[@jeroencrabbe]

@@Chiller11 indeed, cutting a deal with Germany in WW1 or WW2 would only have postponed the process for perhaps a couple of decades.

[@drno4837]

you keep referring to the English, there is no such thing as an English Army, Navy or Airforce, are you aware there were more soldiers from the Indian sub continent in the British army than British people in WW2, the largest volunteer army in history

[@1337flite]

Economy of force with an emphasis on information and intelligence I’d say is one of the central tenets of the British way of war.

[@shaunfarrell3834]

I agree, it is perhaps informative that it was Britain developed the likes of the Commandos, SAS, and the Chindits, and for that matter earlier the Royal Marines as a maritime raiding force that meant nowhere where there was water was free from potential attack.

[@DaveFrags]

Very interesting! Thank you for the video it was rather entertaining

[@vaudevillian7]

“Learning to Eat Soup with a Fork” is a good book tangentially on the topic

[@alst4817]

British way of war: 1. Tea 2. They don’t like it up’em

[@1337flite]

Don’t Panic!!! Good ol’ Jonesey.

[@DamitTucker]

That's how America won our independence. We put #1 in the harbor.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

​@@DamitTucker Meanwhile, in 1812. 🇬🇧: "Say, that's a nice _white_ house you got there..." 😈😉

[@lukepaul7931]

Something something healthcare…

[@fenriders7008]

@@DamitTucker that’s how France won Americas independence for them more like 👍

[@RogerS1978]

Indipendent thought, adaption, deception and missdirection from global to squad tactics has to be a defined part.

[@Nenikikamen13]

Excellent! Wrongly, I had not paid much attention to David French's book in the past. I realise now I should go back to it and read it more carefully. Thank you!

[@AdurianJ]

There is no Swedish way of war that i know of but there is a Swedish way of fighting thats very much shaped by the armies under Charles XII and Gustavus Adolphus. And that is that you are very active even if you are inferior because if you cause problems for the oponent he has less time to create problems for you. Swedish units like to be offensive whenever possible on the tactical level. I have heard this descrobed as the Lutheran work ethic from swedish civil society manifesting itself

[@Chiller11]

@AdurianJ Interesting perspective.

[@j.johnson3520]

Another great presentation, and I, on the whole, agree with what was said, but sadly no mention of that zone inbetween sea and land - Amphibious Assault - which I believe is an essential british capability, but many think AA's days are numbered due to modern warfare techniques. I disagree. I would love to see your view of AA ops and to use the british Falklands campaign as a case study of AA generally. In my view, AA is probably the most challenging combined manoeuvre op mountable involving subs, intelligence, destroyers, frigates, aircraft carriers, aircraft, helicopter carriers, helo ops, assault ships, landing ships, marines, air assault troops, various armour, etc. Huge! Thanks again for you presentations, they're very enjoyable.

[@leothecat9609]

Britain should aim to be a top 3 naval power, a top 5 air force power, and a top 10 land power

[@clausjensen5658]

That is true. But I doubt the brexit benefits can pay for it.

[@johndell3642]

Good video. When considering anything Liddell Hart wrote I would strongly recommend reading John J. Mearsheimer's 1988 book "Liddell Hart and the Weight of History". Hart wrote so much stuff between WW1 and 2, some of it contradictory, that it was easy for him to go back afterwards and "cherry pick" the bits he had got right about the coming war and thus cement his reputation.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

I think the Gulf War is really an important pinpoint. Britain should be able to deploy a corp at least on the ground, with the capacity to bring in more troops if necessary. That should be what the armies abilities should be in this modern age. With the navy and the air force having the cobertt approach.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

Another element of Corbett, that we see in modern times is that britain is a supplier of not entire aircraft, but cruical elements. Which can be cut off making the force over time impossible to wage war. This is the reason Argentina went from an incredibly powerful airforce to practically no airforce, because Britain could block vertually every plane. Due to having British components. It's why Isreal was incensed when Britain said it would block arms sales, even though it made up a small element. But this was because key components of both F-16 and F-35's are British so if they were banned them for Isreal over time they would have a continually degrading airforce until they had no funcitoning airforce. Britain didn't ban these components in the end.

[@captainbuggernut9565]

British military policy has always followed British foreign policy. To wit the guiding principle is pragmatism. In nearly all cases, save a few like the Falklands, the question asked is? Is it worth it? Can we afford it and can it not be solved any other way and can it be done. If military force must be used, can it be shortened? Can it involve allies, et al. British long-term foreign policy as Humphrey so eloquently put it is to divide and rule. Never let your enemies unite, including your so-called allies in a cause that runs contrary to the states interests. This policy has worked very well for the last 500 years, mostly.

[@brenthogg4684]

Don’t forget to upload these to your podcast! Saves me a lot of data haha.

[@PBScourge]

Nice work, Michael. I really enjoy these. Given these great periods of time (1688 - 2000) over 300 years - would any nation have a truly consistent way of war? I doubt it. Every war is unique, the circumstances & goals will be different in each, and technology forces change. And, is “muddle through” really a way of war? Maybe very loosely. That basically means “try to find a way to win.” Isn’t that every society’s way of war? Looks like I need to read some of these texts. My wife is going to love me buying more books.

[@hansoskar1911]

Robert Citino would say yes ;)

[@GarudaLeader]

Could you do an analysis video on the Dutch Military? They're a fairly compact military that is very modern.

[@bairdrew]

The issue with Hart re WWI is that maneuver warfare was tried - its called the Race to the Sea. Similarly, the ability to control communication and act in the littoral with impunity did not exist either, because of the invention of radio and the existence of a German Navy that could meaningfully contest the European littoral through the use of mines and submarine warfare. Additionally; no invading amphibious raid in 1900-1940 can move with as much speed as a division being redirected by rail from some rear sector of a main front to counter said raid. Based on your descriptions it sounds much like learning to fight the last war.

[@Whalebone66]

Thanks Michael, this is great. The trouble is that flexibility and grand strategy are expensive. Both imply forces that might be under utilised at any given time and force projection, both of which cost a lot by definition. Very few militaries can do these things well or even at all (Russia 🙄) We are good at both, with (some) corporate memory from running an empire and from riding the American's coat tails. None of this is possible without more money. Listening to Justin Bronk talk about how "sweated" UK aviation assets are is terrifying. I've lost count of the number of people who have said that the British army is too small to be viable, that the Royal Navy's shiny new carriers can't operate without allied support and/or don't have all their planes yet. And that's before we're even in a hot war.

[@michaelshurkin613]

Sadly all true.

[@Evan_Bell]

This video is even better on second viewing. Thanks for your insight.

[@bryanoflynn5938]

Found this very interesting, thank you.

[@martiansoldier]

keep going and choose your battles.

[@megapangolin1093]

Excellent video, very good explanation. Recent governments rely on the maxim that we reduce investment in armed forces to the absolute minimum, then spend too much when the war starts and bankrupt the country. That is a strategy...

[@System-Update]

The only Brits who still understand a Maritime Strategy are what is left of the Royal Navy, The Royal Marines and a handful of strategic thinkers, historians and academics. The Army dominates current British Military thinking right up to the question of "how will we get there?" In the days of BAOR this was less of an issue but the criticality of the littoral is basically lost on British Grand strategists. The Army love joint effects chat right up to the point that it doesn't have direct effects on enemy land forces.

[@ratchet2505]

British way of war is adaption, we always start off on the back foot but then adapt and grow.

[@TontonMacoute]

It’s not ‘lines of communication’, it was trade.

[@thehum1000]

Just look how they took the Falkland islands, navel, ground and air, Outstanding.

[@lewis123417]

*retook

[@Chiller11]

Haha I spend hours on navel intelligence each day.

[@darthknight1]

*Naval.

[@Chiller11]

@@thehum1000 They took down my navel joke! Why KZbin, why?

[@rburns9730]

The UK had NO chance without TONS of American help. 100's of AIM 9 missiles were provided clandestinely by the USN. Without those missiles they wouldn't have racked up so many kills. (17 of the 20 air to air kills were with Sidewinders.) Mind you at the time the US was officially aligned with Argentina because of the drug war. But Reagan had a thing for old bags like Marge so we got very involved. We redirected an oil tanker and refueled the UK taskforce otherwise their attack would have ended off the shores of Ascension island. We also supplied millions of gallons of aviation fuel, thousands of mortar rounds, 10's of thousands of small arms rounds, tempoary runway grating. Not to mention we moved a spy satellite to monitor the area. (This significantly shortened the satellites life span. ) All because someone tried to come between an Englishman and his sheep!

[@PaulGualtieri-m6v]

I'm an American, but I have always thought that since Great Britain is an island it should dismantle the Royal Army and INCREASE the Royal Marines to a Corps size, like the USMC. This would give the UK a flexible "land option" that better fits Britain's maritime needs.This is NOT knock on the Royal Army, just practicality.

[@Tailssonic1999x]

Good point, but it's not the Royal Army. The last time it was referred to as such was during the rain of James II.

[@BobAbc0815]

9:38 Clausewitz managed to write on War without mentioning Naval Operations more then once, otherwise he treated Oceans as if they did not exist.

[@michaelshurkin613]

True. Unsurprising for a Prussian, I guess.

[@SimonHeartfield]

"I get to talk about two of my favourite British military theorists" Please don't say one of them Basil Liddell Hart I say to myself. Groan followed by eye roll.

[@andytongdee921]

Excellent! I think you missed out the contribution of Royal Marines and Special Forces. We are very good at raiding and working with friendly forces in different cultures and countries. Ireland has also taught us how to work militarily alongside an evolving political process. "Hearts and Minds" is too simplistic a term for this.

[@kjs3431]

I am only a 1/3 through, but the discussion on economic warfare to defeat Germany in WWI reminded me that Britain did have a realistic, possibly workable(?), early war plan to break Germany financially. I’m being lazy here and I’m not looking anything up, but again it is my recollection that they started to implement it, and it was effective, but the problem was is the plan would’ve broken the allies economies too. I don’t know if Michael mentioned this. I hope he does but I would be interested to see how this plays into the British way of war thesis. But in closing, this is an interesting academic discussion but not currently relevant. In their own words, the British have said that they will never go to war without America. Now that would be an interesting addition to this talk.

[@seanlander9321]

By 1916 Britain was broke, Treasury reserves were at zero. If it hadn’t been for American money and their seizure of German assets in 1917 Britain couldn’t afford to pay to continue the war. The 1918 August advance, planned and led by the Australians, was crucial because all the allied governments were heading to a fiscal cliff in 1919 that would have meant withdrawing financial support for France and being unable to continue to fund a stalemate or the blockade. It was a very near thing, as they used to say.

[@jwadaow]

@@seanlander9321 All powers fighting in the war were broke including Germany and France.

[@widsof7862]

The best British military poetry is all about when we screwed up like for eg The Charge of the Light Brigade, so having an ability to admit mistakes is an important part of it. Alongside self deprecating material there’s a regimental tradition that usually connects people to a more localised history and it has created a strong morale which if you look at Ukraine can be vitally important when talking about scale. The army seems at its best when it’s not too big to retain quality or too cutback. Haven’t kept up with the state of the other forces, mainly as it was too depressing when they launched the last carrier half full of planes and needing US marines on board gave a sense of decline and it was saddening to see. We tend to politically deprioritise, get caught off guard, have to scrabble something together and make it work somehow and underlying that is the professional ethos in between that allows it not to fall apart. Alongside that I’d say there’s the idea of a ‘can do’ attitude and there have been some innovative moments, the formation of units such as the SAS, usually during the more active spells.

[@Castorcato]

I think the JEF is the proof of purchase in you being right about protecting the Baltics and Nordics.

[@ewok40k]

British, in my humble opinion have a tradition of making excellent professional navy (and later air force) as they had policy of denying enemy even ability to land on the Isles as best ground defence. Land forces oscillated between small, professional expeditionary forces and large armies capable of fighting continental powers, as the need arose. In the XX century such need arose three times, once with WW1, second time in WW2, and finally in the Cold War. I expect return of Russia as a threat might warrant at least some revival of the large army concept, especially as Russian naval and air force sink (in the case of Navy, often literally, see Black Sea campaign of Ukrainian war) ever more into decay and irrelevance, while Russia remains land based threat by simple virtue of mass of soldiers and equipment, which, while decimated in fields of Ukraine , still counts in thousands of MBTs, AFVs and artillery pieces.

[@alganhar1]

Twice. Britain has not maintained a large, Continental style Army during the Cold War. Conscription was loosened after WWII, and came to an end in 1963. Even prior to that though National Service as it was called was not the kind of full scale conscription we saw during the World Wars. Its scale was hugely reduced and was only used to maintain military numbers as much as possible until the UK had fully withdrawn from all its former colonies. As for returning to a full scale conscription? Unlikely. Unless you can magic up enough MBT's for example for say three or four Armoured Divisions large scale conscription is essentially worthless in the UK. We just do not have the industrial capacity to build the weapons and equipment for a large scale Army, and it would take years, if not decades to rebuild that capability, especially in critical areas for conscription, such as Armoured Vehicle construction.

[@thehum1000]

Look at the falklands campaign, its got it all.

[@pincermovement72]

Russia and its 140 million people are not a threat unless things go nuclear and then nobody wins, there are 500 million people in Europe to get past before they rock up on our shores , garrisoning every town , city and installation which could be under threat from a partisan enemy . None of these so called military advisers or politicians ever explain this or why nato keeps poking the bear. Europe needs to stop being Americas poodle and start concentrating on national lines again , putting its own people first, second and third. We have a war coming in Europe but it will be internal because of the mass immigration America forced us to take , despite knowing we would become balkanised , all for businesses profits they have sold out their own people.

[@kramelbbiw]

​@@alganhar1Hi, you disagreed with the 80,000 strong cold war British Army of the Rhine being large. The BAOR was about the same size as the entire British army is now 👍 (It did get smaller over time, so I assume you weren't aware of the earlier numbers)

[@kevinhaylett]

No mention of the importance of information: wars are fought on the basis of information. The UK invented the computer for this purpose - the British way is to use 'intelligence', in all it's forms. The focus on intelligence has always been at the heart of the British way and still is. 'Intelligence' won the Second world war together with technology and resilience. Never underestimate the mindset of the British people - as we say: necessity is the mother of invention.

[@rodwoodsman2828]

When I think of the British way of war, I think of overwhelming firepower- the arrow storm at Agincourt, the broadsides at Trafalgar, the firestorms at Hamburg and Dresden.

[@bengoacher4455]

It goes beyond that. it's having the best soldiers, airmen and sailors lead by the best generals and admirals and fighting with courage, determination and humor.

[@superted6960]

​@@bengoacher4455True. But also not wanting a "fair fight" if you can avoid it

[@Spartan-jg4bf]

The British way of war is actually about being subtle. Overwhelming firepower is US doctrine

[@Chris-mf1rm]

That firepower depended on logistics, and the ability to fund it. Henry V planned his campaign superbly and had massive credit amongst merchants, Trafalgar was possible because of the foundation of the Bank of England (and growth of empire & economy), Dresden (as a symbol of WWII) was an extension of that system.

[@Chiller11]

During WW2 the conventional wisdom was that the British were partial to set piece engagements that utilized significant bombardment artillery & air followed by armoured and infantry assault. In contrast the Americans were more adept at maneuver and exploitation though they were also rich in artillery/air assets.

[@tonyhawk94]

It’s very interesting to hear that considering how Britain has been neglecting its navy these last decades. And also to be revised since the UK’s GDP share of the world is significantly smaller now.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

The 1970s was us neglecting the RN. In the 21st century we've built one if the world's premier air defence destroyers, two supercarriers and we're building the newest and most deadly hi/lo frigates in the world from our brand new dedicated "frigate factory" We've got a squadron of the most advanced nuclear attack subs and our independent Continuous At Sea Nuclear Deterrent. We do OK I think 😉

[@tonyhawk94]

@@MostlyPennyCat I think you are very optimistic about the British navy. This year the RN decommissioned several ships and struggles to man it's active fleet, year after year it is shrinking. In this context the overall availability of the ships and crews is questionable... And the "best xyz ship in the world" doesn't mean much, everybody is convinced they have the best ships, the French, the Italians, the Americans. But if on your side your are fine with this then good for you.

[@DaveDave-e6t]

​@@tonyhawk94We're not smoking anything kinky over here.. Biasism aside our attack subs and destroyers for example are second to none.. All three of them.

[@michaelmulligan0]

By maritime is it encompassing trade and naval ?

[@MaxwellMoore-d1u]

One must be adept at being able to adapt.

[@simonharwood5999]

There is a lot to agree about with what you are saying. The only problem I can think of is if British air and sea units become more adaptable they become more valuable as targets. We no longer have a vast empire to scatter huge quantities of very capable units. Modern total war scared Churchill and rightly so. It is better that we stay a modular NATO force. One that alone doesn’t present too much of a threat.

[@kingdedede1066]

I think that Britain has been adaptable in terms of its strategy purely in response to the threat to the homeland from the continent. In Napoleonic warfare, Britain maintained a naval strategy because that was what was necessary to prevent a French invasion of the mainland. The same is seen in WW2 after the collapse of the British expeditionary force. But in scenarios where the threat to the homeland is limited Britain can dabble more heavily in continental affairs such as in WW1, the latter stages of WW2 and the Cold War. Nuclear weapons meant that there was no real possibility of an invasion of the homeland and therefore it was acceptable to adopt a continental approach. This thesis really depends upon the fact that Britains strategic focus lies in Europe, but Britain is still so connected to it economically and societally that I believe it still holds.

[@shaunfarrell3834]

Interesting and balanced analysis. Resources will now and in the future constrain and determine our military forces and our war-fighting strategy. As we no longer have the wealth or power that could be wielded in the 18th to 20th centuries the strategies available then are no longer applicable except in alliance. We have to determine where and how we can best apply our resources and expertise within the alliance structure we are committed to. Our geographic position makes us well suited to maritime operations in the Atlantic, North Sea and the Greenland/Iceland/Norway gap. Our overseas possessions are useful bases for force projection of a limited expeditionary nature across the globe ergo amphibious strike and raiding is an area well suited to both our resources and traditions. Perhaps we need to look further in to our past for inspiration, to the pre imperial age where we were a small island off the coast of larger powers yet still contrived to punch above our weight?

[@martinheidegger517]

Corbett at a time of Empiric power. UK exports what now? What is the size of the merchant fleet? The largest vessels, QE class and LPD, we can only set one each to sea at the same time. But American F-15's are flying over the house right now at low level in the dark, @$5000 an hour each. We don't even have a small arms factory any more it was closed down, and we sold H&K back to Germany. We aren't buying any more Typhoons either. One tranche has been retired, not even replacing them. Taiwanese sea cables just been cut as well. Will the Pax Americana hold in 2025? South China sea lanes must be kept open. Japanese fleet will get bigger. So Corbett is still right, about maritime strategy. Did you watch the Bridge Colby interview with Tucker? He has been appointed Undersecretary for policy. Expect focus on China, and Europe will have to deal with Ukraine.

[@blsteen1831]

Corbett was…in my opinion too focused on Victorian Britain. Yes, the strategic need for Britain to have a Low Countries free from a threatening is a primary security aim. But there more than just that to the reasons why British troops fought at Malplaquet (1709), Waterloo (1815), and Mons (1914) all with in a two hour drive. But the part that Corbett and Liddell Hart miss is that Britain has to fight on land to keep their allies who both of these authors who like to throw around like cannon fodder , in the fight. If the maritime strategy worked, why did the Napoleanic Wars end in 1815 after Waterloo? Where a large Allied army with a sizeable British contingent under a British general won? Marlborough led a similar force a century before over the same terrain. Muddling is a typical British strategy that’s true. Same as counting on the colonials to serve as some of that cannon fodder. But I contrast the research of NAM Rodger’s and his stories of how Britain built its naval power and how it sometimes was effective and sometimes not. Good video. Good food for thought.

[@robmcrob2091]

It seems to me that today we're completely geared up to support bigger, more capable allies ie the US with an impregnable operational base on our Island complemented with elite light infantry units and special forces that can mount rapid counter strikes or raid deep into enemy territory. That seems to be our skill. Of course in a really big, prolonged conventional war we'd have to revise that and raise a big, heavily armed conscript army.

[@statmonster]

The problem with these theories re WWI is that Germany probably would have beaten France without a major British commitment to Flanders, maybe not in 1914 but surely by 1916. Further, Churchill’s indirect approach led to the fiasco at Gallipoli in WWI (and in WWII would have led to dithering in the Balkans in 1944 if the US and Soviets hadn’t insisted on a landing in NW Europe). Fast forward to today - Britain no longer has the economic/industrial or naval power to pull off a maritime approach to war and needs something g new for the 21st century. Still a focus on the Royal Navy and Air Force (with a small expeditionary force) today might make more sense. But all of this is trumped by having a decent economic and industrial policy - the UK is pretty rapidly slipping from genteel poverty to straight out poverty. Fixing (or eliminating) the NHS and re-industrializing the north would do more for Britain’s power than fiddling with army recruiting or procurement.

[@Chris-mf1rm]

If you eliminate the NHS you will fundamentally weaken the economy. It is the most cost effective health system in the developed world. £/population/GDP. With more expensive or less healthcare you weaken both your capacity to spend on war and your availability of, and willingness, of the people to fight.

[@JasperKlijndijk]

Are the netherlands and belgium independant because of british wishes to keep france and germany away from the rhine and schelde

[@JumboGaming001]

Might be, Britain did guarantee Belgium in case of a German invasion in WW1, and Britain during the Glourious Revolution saw the replacement of the Catholic Stuart Dynasty with a Protestant Dutch born Orange Dynasty, so perhaps that played an important role in keeping Britian interested in Dutch affairs and vice versa?

[@michaelshurkin613]

I think that's how Corbett saw it. Not saying I agree.

[@tzazosghost8256]

Arguably so. Englishmen went to fight alongside the Dutch for their independence against Habsburg rule.

[@mjwoodroff8446]

@JumboGaming001 Worth noting that James II was the only Stuart Catholic monarch during his reign (although Charles II did convert on his deathbed). While religious turmoil was part of the Civil War, Charles I was Anglican and the main dissenters of his rule were Reformists (rather than Protestants) such as Scottish Covenanters and English Puritans. James I, while baptised a Catholic by his mother, Mary - Queen of Scots, was raised from an early age as a member of the Protestant Church of Scotland, following the forced abdication of his mother. Mary II was also Anglican. Religion absolutely played its part in the strife of 17th century in Britain and Ireland, but more important was the supremacy of the crown vs parliament.

[@markaxworthy2508]

Britain was normally a small country on an island with limited natural resources of its own. It therefore needed a good fleet, larger allies for continental warfare and a means of paying for both.

[@edwardburroughs1489]

Britain's natural resources aren't limited, even if we fail to make use of them these days. A good example that comes to mind is the wool industry which exported cloth (often in exchange for wine etc) to the continent for centuries, nowadays it costs more to shear the sheep than the value of the wool; the Romans established tin mining in Cornwall I believe. However the current political milieu demands that we wring our hands about climate change rather than extract gas via fracking for instance.

[@CB-fz3li]

Britain was sitting on a massive amount of coal that powered industry from the Industrial Revolution until recent decades.

[@seanoconnor8843]

One of the reasons the industrial revolution happened in the north of England was its abundance of coal and iron

[@sichere]

The UK is the only place on earth that has an abundance of natural resources located in such a small geographic space. It resulted on being first off the block to the Industrial Revolution before most Countries even existed and whilst many of them are still dealing with Revolutions. On a side note Coutts Bank is the second oldest bank in the world and it has a few ££££ in its coffers.

[@raymondporter2094]

...and limestone... ​@@seanoconnor8843

[@TrevorPoole-y7b]

Brittania waves the rules

[@AdurianJ]

Corbit seems very oposed to Churchill in the use of amphiious forces. In both wars Churchill gathered the royal marine components into regular land units which did little. Something we know cost the UK Norway in 1940

[@pincermovement72]

Churchill was an idiot who sold out his country at every opportunity, he was a man of rich tastes but had no money , a perfect example of a man who would sell his own country out for rich benefactors from Britain and America.

[@timphillips9954]

Do you have any idea what British amphibious forces achieved in WW2, they were outstanding.

[@Yandarval]

Churchill both stint's as first Lord of Admiralty were excretable failures. He proved during those period's that he did not understand the RN and naval warfare at all. As the political head of the RN, He made several devastating mistakes. Which the RN was very against, and told him so. At the start of WWII. CHurchill was in his second stint as First Lord. He slapped a suspension order on all capital and carrier ship construction for six months. Then had all those worker's transfered to other yards to crash build small escorts. The RN ALREADY had roughly 150 of these small escorts on order, at every small yard in the country, in '39. These are the Flower class Corvette and several sloop classes for convoy and ASW warfare. There was no more yard space to build them. Yet Churchill still did his suspension and crash build order. This "misstep" caused a roughly 10 months delay on carriers and major warships at the open of the war. So in essence, all major combatant new builds were almost a year late in commisioning. As the workforces had to be shipped back and given a refresher on capital ship construction again. As the Flowers are a converted commercial design, It uses a very different construction method to a warship. Such as steam triple expansion engines, very unlike the turbines of a warship. The second "mistep" during his second stint. The RN wanted 2000hp engines for it's carrier planes. When they finally got the FAA back under RN control in May 1939. Churchill supported the RAF over the service he was political head of, for production of RAF 1000hp engines. As the RAF was happy to slap two enignes in planes needing more power, than 1000hp. The RN was happy to pay for the R&D for the 2000hp engines, yet Churchill vetoed the First and Third Sea Lords from doing so. Doing so, also put the kibosh of the new carrier aircraft for the Royal Navy. As navy planes need a lot more hp than a land blased 'plane. From the existing record's. The FFA's naval aircraft would have been a lot like the US F6F Hellcat, bent wings and all. (The extra RN R&D was to iron out the problems with the Napier Sabre and make it production ready). I likely has some of the dates etc wrong, a little, as my rant is from memory. As for The RM, as you stated. it another "mistep" from Churchill about anything to do with naval warfare and the sea. Marines, especially back then, are not just soldier's who happen to be aboard a ship. They are specalist's in what they do. Im sure the Royal Marines, who usually man a turret on British ships, looked at having to fire a rifle, as the only weapon, rather bemusing after using naval heavy guns. I speak of all this as a British person.

[@shacklock01]

Fleet in Being

[@andrewpeterson549]

Like the bad guy in 300 said I will erase all history that you’ve ever existed…..

[@nicobruin8618]

There used to be

[@m.sutton04]

Ultimately the 'British Way of War' will have changed drastically in a post-1945 world. And pursuing a maritime strategy needs to come with asterisks attached. For much of our history, we have been one of the worlds major global powers (or occasionally, the global power). We always had a seat at the top table and had vast colonial possessions & trade lanes to protect from hostile incursions. Come round to 1945, and the entire global power dynamic began to really change and Britain's role in the world with it. Today, our Armed Forces need to be a lot more expeditionary in nature. Today, the role of our navy will change massively. Whilst historically it was concerned with protecting the isles, colonial possessions & trade lanes, we don't need to worry as much about any of those today since we will have the United States protecting free flow of trade (even if they are flirting with more isolationist & protectionist ideals). When we look at our threats, our Navy requires something else entirely. It's much more likely we'll be needed to protect and secure the Baltic Sea in the European theatre. Look to the Indo-Pacific region, we're much more likely to be part of a much larger multinational task force to assist the United States Navy in a war with China. When looking at these 2 key threats, we don't need as much of a large naval focus since we'll either be fighting second-rate naval powers (i.e. Russia) or assisting the major global navy (USN) in their fight against China. At that point the consideration is do we want a 'dual-theatre navy' (i.e. A navy that could deploy to both the Indo-Pacific & Europe and sustain both) or do we want a single-theatre navy. At which point, I'm more inclined to side with the latter. Since I am very doubtful the USN will require our help in the pacific. If the USN won't require our help, we could very well stick with a navy which focuses on locking down the Baltic Sea against a second-rate naval power. At which point, our 'maritime strategy' seems a lot more affordable, and could allow us to additionally sustain a significant Army. I am conscious of the fact this sounds dangerously close to the Armed Forces specialising in the Baltics, which is where N.Drummonds idea of a dual-division Army with a focus on both light & heavy warfare comes into play. Allowing the UK to still engage in Counter-Insurgency operations comparable to that in Iraq or Afghanistan, which I have no doubt we'll need to at some point in the future. Or indeed other various roles a light force would need to fulfil.

[@chillithegerman870]

Do not forget about the Russian northern fleet with all its submarines, I think Britain should focus a lot on patrolling between Greenland an Norway so the Atlantic does not become terribly infested

[@seanlander9321]

The measure of Britain’s insignificance at the end of WWII is the occupation of Japan, where Britain cannot afford to participate unless Australia pays for it. Britain then finds itself under Australian command, its judiciary in the war crime trials subservient to the Australians who also prevent the British embassy from reopening until 1952.

[@thegreatestdane8978]

​@chillithegerman870 Russian submarines don't have a good track record of functioning well beyond their territorial waters, mostly due to corruption eating the budget and corners getting cut that leave the vessel far worse off than it should be. As an aside here, FRANCE'S NAVY could likely fight and win against Russia's entire fleet without other nations' intervention, and France has likely the third or maybe the fourth best navy in NATO which should say something. Basically Russia as a naval power is insignificant with the only scary ship they have in service being the Kuznetzov, or however you spelt that cursed ships name, and that's only scary because of the ecological disaster it'll leave behind when sunk with every other ship falling into one of three catagories: corruption damaged (corruption has sapped the money needed for modernisation and/or repairs leaving the ship unusable) ignored (lack of money being dedicated in the first place leaves these ships unmaintained) 'acceptable' (technically seaworthy / somehow actually seaworthy for an example of an 'acceptable' vessel see the Ukrainian cultural heritage site the sunken Moskova, which was the FLAGSHIP OF *THEIR MOST INTERNATIONALLY NOTED FLEET,* and if the degree of maintenance done on that poor ship is any indication than none of Russia's ships are being adequately maintained). (Unless you were talking about the hidden ability of Russian ships to magically transform themselves into submarines then you can disregard this comment _sarcasm_ ).

[@m.sutton04]

@@chillithegerman870 Well see that too deeply concerns the United States since they require the free ability to both trade, and to transport troops. So the GIUK gap is something else entirely and not something the UK would be solely responsible for. Personally, I am of the opinion that Canada should take up far more responsibility for protecting the arctic.

[@alansdorsetfossils4028]

Fascinating discussion. I think it's true that we do the unexpected and that puts our enemy's on the back foot. However Our navy, army and air force are I believe much depleted, and frankly all three arms are in a very sorry state these days. If there is a British way to fight wars we can't even begin to do this at the moment.

[@christopherpinnock7900]

Interesting; I would like to see a balanced armed forces to cover land, sea and air the EU and UK should now combine to have effective deterrence against any aggression on any of our countries. Together we can be a superpower in Europe.

[@gazza2933]

The Duke of Wellington but unfortunately, no longer around.

[@heinkle1]

Yes, drift into economic free fall and then allow your armed forces to shrink to the point you can’t defend yoursel

[@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044]

And bang on about blitz spirit and other jingoism. After all the straits of Dover where the British Army escaped from France in 1940 defeat was one thing capture would have been another. Yet an army of young men comes over and we can't see how we have fallen

[@pincermovement72]

I think the army will be increased if only to stop us taking our country back, or possibly they have already imported one and are spreading it around the country as we speak.

[@matthewbarry376]

The British (read as English) way of war is all about sowing discord amongst the enemy, espionage and counter espionage, assassination, blackmail, etc. That is the most consistent way they have waged war since the 1400s. It is the one ares where they are still arguably on par or better than even the Americans, particularly in the realm of human intelligence.

[@drno4837]

yes the English are really good at the sneaky stuff, the actual fighting is done by the Scots Irish and Welsh

[@davidz2690]

@@drno4837well that’s ridiculous as there are a lot more english than irish scottish and welsh, and the irish are too busy being nazi sympathisers to actually fight

[@pincermovement72]

Intelligence left our politicians around 1900 .

[@timphillips9954]

Uneducated fools. The British read as English = no need to read any more of this crap! Some Americans give me a headache.

[@DaveDave-e6t]

​@@drno4837You've clearly never been on one of our council estates..

[@tiikkifi]

Finnish opinion: army is too small if its size (total active force and trained reserves) is less than about a fifth of the total population of the country.

[@georgesterland2010]

If we applied this to the UK today, that would require an army of around 13.5 million people. That would be almost three times the size of the combined armed forces (Army, Navy, RAF) of the UK at their highest strengths during WW2 (5.1 million).

[@julius9055]

You must realise that Finland and the UK are just different in this respect. Finland has a land mass 50% larger than the UK, with a population 1/12 of the UK, and shares an enormous land border with Russia.

[@georgesterland2010]

@@julius9055 Sure, but this was a comment on a video about the UK. I understand why Finland has a large body of reservists, but its silly to apply the same criteria to other countries with much larger populations and different circumstances.

[@herptek]

There may be a huge reserve, but to make the most out of it we could also use a lot more spending on equipment and armament.

[@tiikkifi]

I fear that most of the western militaries are glass cannons. They may be hard hitting once, but they cannot take a hit without shattering. In any real near pear conflict they will be overran quickly as they have no way of rebuilding their power in any meaningful time.

[@jgw9990]

Britain's way of war is typically to be risk adverse in the early conflict, because their small army would be outnumbered. The British army's performance in Iraq and Afghanistan was not stellar. No fault of the average soldier, the generals were incompetent and there was no consistent commander of either conflict which is basic.

[@desydukuk291]

The American way of war is to wait and watch the British way of war for 2 years then engage Hollywood to write its history lol.

[@robertdavis100]

suppose it depends on who they're at war with, these books are concerned with near peer advisories, the best advice in modern world is don't it'll ruin both and probably forever

[@GoldenRivet]

The Royal Navy would never have to fight to justify its existence, whereas the RAF and British Army have always had less certain futures. An area of massive success for the RAF has been diversifying its capability set far beyond merely flying aircraft. The British Army on the other hand has rather been riding on the coattails of Waterloo, WW1 and WW2 in its justification for investment / existence and has kind of neglected to adapt and diversify properly. In my opinion, deleting the British Army overnight would be far less impactful than deleting the RN or RAF. They just don’t do very much the other two services can’t do. Putting mass on the ground has never been a strong suit of the British, as this video suggests. This is not to say that I think we should neglect the Army. Having a professional Army with a maintained skillset is definitely still important. I’m just saying the Army leadership has done a bad job at justifying continued investment, which is why, in my opinion, it has been cut back in favor of new/improved RAF and RN capabilities.

[@davidoldboy5425]

The way the British get to wars is by ignoring all the signals there'll be one, in the interim running down forces. Then when it actually happens stumble around until their 'experts' are killed or injured, only then do they show the reason they used to be so feared. Naturally warlike, stoic with a warped sense of humour they fight, they fight without expecting luxuries or back up, they fight for the simple reason they like fighting.

[@ThroatSore]

Peninsula?

[@DukeDanseMacambre]

Return to the two power system, our navy should return to double the size of the next two largest navy’s combined. British domination at sea, it’s a big ask but a man can dream.

[@terranaxiomuk]

We're going all in on technology. We're heavily invested in lasers right now. Standing armies will be taking a backseat to AI and unmanned units within 10 years.

[@frankthompson6503]

Okay? Recruit 200,000 volunteer professional soldiers over 2 years, lower pass mark standard all pass and train up at their respective unit's. Armour Increase tanks from 213 to 500 Challenger 1, 2. Upgrade. Bring back 100 warrior APC upgrade turret. Bring back Saracens and upgrading the turret and gun build 100. Bring back scimitar light recon tank building another 200 Scorpions light recon tank 200 Bring back scimitar. Increase wheeled artillery pieces platforms. Air force Building another 10 Attack helicopter and chinnocks 10. Have a air force base in the Shetland islands. Navy Building 2 invincible class aircraft carrier. 2 commando carrier. Put one of each alongside the queen Elizabeth and prince of Wales aircraft carrier strike groups. Shetland islands north of Scotland. Put 1000 soldiers 800 royal marines. 1 attack submarine 1 destroyer 2 frigate 4 fast hitting inshore patrol vessel platforms. 4 chinnocks helecopters 4 attack helicopter. Drones. 4 boxer APC 4 warrior APC 4 boxer APC 4 Ajax APC 4 scimitar light recon tank 4 scorpions light recon tank. Make the Shetland islands a forward base platform for the protection of united kingdom.

[@wiliam74984]

A huge change in Britain's strategic position over time that you didn't mention is Britain's wealth relative to other countries. Prior to the second world war, Britain was a very wealthy country relative to those on the continent. Since the second world war, Britain has ended up being in the middle of the pack. Wealth is good for adaptability. Navies are relatively capital intensive and manpower light. From a strategic planning perspective, it needs to be asked whether britain will continue to be in the middle of the western pack, or whether britain will return to its pre-war, modern norm. I lean towards the latter, I think that changes in the global economy will benefit britain more than the continental countries, i think that the relatively strong performance of e.g. france and italy is built on unsustainable levels of public spending, and the british labour force is probably higher quality than those of france and italy, but there are obviously counterarguments and exogenous factors.

[@edbucci5216]

I absolutely agree with the first part of your comment, but I don’t really understand the bases for your opinions/conclusions in the second part. The UK has run a larger deficit (albeit pre-debt servicing costs, which for Italy and France derive from much older borrowing sprees, which the UK has instead embarked on more recently) than Italy and France for much of the last decade, and labour productivity has largely been aligned to, if not lower than, those two countries’. Britain’s pre-war wealth was largely driven by two key factors unlikely to come back: coal as primary energy source, and empire. Britain’s economy is now disproportionately reliant on financial services and internal consumption compared to the Continent’s high-quality and innovative manufacturing, which to me does not really show a fundamental resilience to any sort of shock like the ones we are likely to experience more and more. On a more anecdotal side, being a dual national I’ve also had the pleasure of working both in the UK and (albeit briefly) in Italy and, insofar as professional services are concerned, I’d argue that British workers make for excellent specialists, but very poor generalists compared to Italian ones. I don’t think Britain will be able to ever detach itself again from the “middle of the pack” purely on economic grounds, but it can do so if we start making more decisive prioritisation decisions on what we really want our armed forces to do and not simply throw money left right and centre in the hope of being able to do a bit of everything, poorly.

[@JumboGaming001]

The problem is Britian isn't really a international trading power, most of its trade is with European countries with the big exception of the United States, but that makes sense because Britain and the US are part of the North Atlantic region. Along with big trading wars between China and the US, international trade is increasingly getting deprioritised in favour of domestic tarrifs and other protectionist policies, so for Britain to persue internationalism now probably won't be very positive for the economy like it was in the 90's and early 2000's. Personanly I think the best thing Britain needs to do is bolster domestic manufacturing, reduce reliance on foreign powers for energy and materials and focus on exporting goods to generate wealth while cutting imports.

[@wiliam74984]

@@edbucci5216 I don't think it makes any sense to remove debt servicing from government spending. Britain does have a productivity problem, although the productivity gap is exaggerated by unsustainable public spending on the continent. Britain also has a much brighter demographic future than countries on the continent, with the exception of France, but France struggles with integration a lot more than the UK. The UK would be well served by more manufacturing, as it is it does as much as Italy, less than France and Germany, but European manufacturing doesn't look like it has a positive future in general. In general it doesn't have as good an environment as East Asian manufacturing, and it has totally failed to transition to next generation products like chips and EVs. "Coal and empire" is very reductive. Britain did not become rich because of empire, it got empire because it was rich. Empire then made it richer. During the 19th and 20th centuries, the UK had a really strong service sector, providing the capital and engineering expertise for a huge amount of overseas infrastructure, both within and outside of the empire.

[@wiliam74984]

@JumboGaming001 most of everyone's trade is with the EU, US or China. Those are the world's largest economies. Nowadays, for the first time in the post industrial era, we seem to be in a world where developing countries will outgrow developed ones. The UK is in a strong position to capitalise on that, with its strong courts and financial sector. We're yet to see whether increased trade with the rest of the developed world will outstrip decreased trade with the EU post-brexit. Potentially following the US too closely regarding china is one of the big exogenous events that could really screw over the British economy. Increased protectionism is in goods, not services, so that benefits the UK if anything. Increased protectionism is as a result of discontent in "left behind" segments of western societies.

[@JumboGaming001]

@@wiliam74984 There is no doubt Britain needs to capitalise on trade deals with South America and Africa to gain access to cheap resources to make Britains manufacturing more competitive internationally. But will UK trade with europe be outstripped with trade from South America, Africa and Asia? I say no, because its cheaper for a cargo vessel to run from a port in England to a port in Germany than it is to run a ship all the way from Britain to Japan. Plus British military assets will be incredibly vulnerable trying to protect British Far-east Asian trade in a war where as its much cheaper and easier for Britain to protect trade in the Atlantic and Western Europe.

[@hansoskar1911]

Its a question if the british way of war would look now, during a period when they are no longer the most powerful and well connected economy on earth. A lot of the economic warfare that Britain used to wield is now firmly out of Britains hand and today (honestly for 70 years already) a tool of the US. So what does Britain do if it can no longer do these things?

[@timphillips9954]

If we the Brits have to rely on the Yanks for defence we are in deep do do. History shows the Americans are no friends of the British, 1914, 1939, Suez and the Falklands. The only thing the Brits can rely on with certainty is the Commonwealth.

[@etherealbolweevil6268]

a) not fighting within your own borders, b) not unilaterally invading your neighbours

[@jeffcurtis5980]

We need to define what we need as a country then achieve it. Our armed forces are too small, but for what? No question our soldiers are totally professional, as good as it gets, particularly our special forces. They way we are heading is to be whittled down to a nuclear power with a small rapid deployment special service.

[@CartoType]

Illuminating but dry. Could have benefited from more examples and maps.

[@michaelshurkin613]

Understood

[@casey203]

Just from a person who reads history for fun I’ve gathered the overall strategy is: A large navy to protect the island and a professional marine force to tip the scales of continental wars to ensure nobody else has a large enough navy to attack the island. Obviously today the strategy is to cling to NATO and use diplomacy. Since the navy is no longer large enough to defend the island by itself.

[@Roman_Eagle]

I would argue that the modern British strategy is a combo of naval power and quality ground/marine forces over quantity, leaving NATO to bring the numbers for a continental war. Of course, decades of peacetime underfunding and complacency means that the UK can develop new next-gen ships, aircraft, weapons, and strategies, but can no longer afford to produce them in sufficient quantities or in a timely fashion. Meanwhile, cultural and political changes mean that each branch of the military struggles to recruit for even their relatively small forces.

[@casey203]

@@Roman_Eagle The British population has been exponentially smaller and the British navy exponentially larger in the past. Battleships have always been just as expensive (i do agree, ruinously expensive) relative to the budgets of the time. The issue is only political will. Don't let them fool you.

[@Roman_Eagle]

@@casey203 Oh, I agree that political will is lacking when it comes to inadequate funding for the UK military and Navy. For instance, HMS Victory (a quite standard 1st-rate ship of the line) cost 6% of the GDP for the year she was built, and we can only spare 2.3% in 2025. However, costs have also changed, for comparison, HMS Queen Elizabeth cost an estimated £6B whereas the UK GDP is estimated at £2.54T, I can't be bothered to calculate the GDP % but it sure isn't 6%, But think what the UK defence would be capable of if we spent what both NATO and several previous defence secretaries have advised and requested of Chancalors, 5%. A matter of extreme pertinence with WW3 within sight, the Theusideties trap set between the great powers, and the UK involved in conflicts around the world, such as in arming Ukraine.

[@pincermovement72]

Casey, the only threat we have now is the one the government keep importing against our wishes .

[@Chiller11]

An interesting episode. It was the case that the British emphasised naval and later naval and air power over a land army. The home island was rather small and relatively resource poor with the exceptions of coal and agriculture. Clear shipping lanes to their vast colonies were paramount to maintain British wealth and international standing. It’s also interesting that in the last two major European land wars Britain initially responded by sending quite a small well trained expeditionary force that was quickly decimated which led to the formation of a large powerful army that was pivotal to eventual victory. The prevailing Western European strategy of the last 3/4 of a century seemed to be to create NATO then let the US be responsible for security while we spend our money on civilian infrastructure and social programs. I wonder if the British will recalculate with a trend toward isolationism and a more pro Russian regime in the US.

[@timphillips9954]

What do they teach in the US educational system? I can see very difference between education in the US, China and the old USSR.

[@gleggett3817]

Britain has both coal and iron. Germany only had one of those.

[@gleggett3817]

The Second BEF differs from the First in that jt was removed from the battle before it was worn out.

[@jasperlawrence5361]

No one talks about demographics. Even assuming that young men these days in the West are willing to die in the tens or hundreds of thousands in pursuit of some distant economic, political, military or moral quest, which is dubious. Can a country like the UK even with all the immigration designed to deal with demographic issues, afford to expend so many young men, and it is men, on such a thing? The Russia Ukraine war will end one way or another, but whenever it does what follows at some point over the next 25 years will absolutely included the collapse of Russia demographically and economically and politically, in some order. Ukraine is desperately trying to preserve its younger men for this reason. A large army is not practical, even could we afford it, for the UK. And any outcome involving its use is of dubious value. From my perspective. The EU is an attempt to head off the inevitability of large blocs and powers dominating the world, and if the EU fails then a German or Russian or French hegemony over continental Europe, ignoring the impending apocalypse of course, seems inevitable. To me.

[@philstabler]

Doctrine, you plunk .

[@jameslewis2635]

The British way of war - every campaign begins with a disaster. Primary examples include The Battle of France/Dunkirk and the destruction of the main column before the Battle of Rourke's Drift.

[@pincermovement72]

Not really the old contemptible showing in the retreat from Mons was one of the greatest achievements of our army in history but I get your point and very often when we have had problems there was always a political reason of underfunding old Tommy Atkins.

[@timphillips9954]

The Brits had less than 300, 000 facing over 2000000 Germans. Btw thats two examples from over 1000 years of history James.

[@CliSwe]

Hew Strachan's name is pronounced 'Strawn' - not 'Strakken'.

[@eddhardy1054]

The weird thing is footballer Gordon Strachan's name is pronounced 'Strakken' and he was also born in Edinburgh so go figure

[@CliSwe]

@@eddhardy1054I'm only going by what his bio says: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Strachan

[@eddhardy1054]

@@CliSwe The only thing that draws me towards Gordon's version is that in Gaelic 'ch' is pronounced kinda like k as in loch. Also the Gaelic surname MacLachlan is I believe pronounced like 'MagLoklan'

[@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044]

Yes indeed keep the fighting far away from Britain itself. No ground warfare since 1746 in Scotland and 1688 in England

[@pincermovement72]

I think the summer riots and our politicians refusal to listen will change those stats very soon

[@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044]

In the spring of 2024 i said to my mother something i wouldn't have said before in my life in that this country is going to blow and the riots later that year from a Welsh choirboy striking at the Saxons sic! Was in that sense predictable

[@lewis123417]

Navy, Navy, Navy

[@kampanja06]

Well, this topic is now irrelevant for 45 years. Economically failed island, demographically in the rut, overflowing with hostile cultures and in possession of 2 rusting buckets. It's like exploring Way of War of some South-African tribe of 70 members. Perhaps intriguing, but quite irrelevant.

[@DamitTucker]

Hart is just wrong. Sometimes that hardened position needs taking. Some defenses cant be bypassed.

[@johnwood6750]

Thanks for the video, Michael. Corbett's book and Lambert's book are both in my reading pile, not sure which of the two to tackle first. On the British Army, Nick Drummond has a nice video that you may already have seen that looks at how to reorganise it and where to invest to get the most bang for your buck: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pHivqHikoKyaeac

[@timphillips9954]

The British way of war = Not loosing a major war since 1066.

[@lilacfloyd]

Losing.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

How do you get to the British way of war? _"Practise"_ 😂 You know I think we actually love fighting?

[@timphillips9954]

@@lilacfloyd Pathetic point Lilly.

[@darbyheavey406]

@@MostlyPennyCatA famous American Senator made that very point in “Born Fighting”…

[@darbyheavey406]

1789….close runs in 1917 and 1941…

[@josephpalack1440]

Who cares? Britain is irrelevant going forward. Stop waxing nostalgic about the past and start asking hard questions about the future. What about the Indonesian way of war? What about the Vietnamese way of war? What about the Chinese way of war? The British way of war was to use subjugated Indian soldiers as a means of cannon fodder and to support logistics. After they lost India they had one war of demonstrated power and then stopped mattering. Even Churchill understood this. Who cares? Jacques Barzun was right: when a society becomes more obsessed with navel gazing over its past instead of the future it is doomed to decadence instead of relevance. People need to wake up

[@rexmccoy6451]

Thanks for this! Very useful framing. I recently listened to an interview with Andrew Lambert on the School of War podcast. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sHK2XmiFbqqkmZo is the link to the YT version. Also, the US Naval War College just posted and award to, and a lecture by Prof Lambert. I haven't listened to it yet but look forward to it. Here is the link I hope: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hGWsqqepaZZ-nJY Keep up the good work and fresh perspectives.

[@kodor1146]

British way of war? Sure it does exist. British way of war always was a strategic approach, therefore the focus never was on the military by itself but on politics, with the result that the British armed forces (especially the land forces) always were very mediocre and never on par with their continental adversaries such as the French, not to mention the Germans. The real strength of the Brits always was politics. The British always mastered the field of politics, there is no country with better politicians than Britain. The key factor of the British way of war is, only (no matter what) go to war with very strong allies and even when you already have strong allies on your side look for even more in order to let them do the heavy lifitng of land warfare. This concept always was highly succesful. With the view on the Brits it becomes clear that for winning wars constantly you need two things: strong allies which you only can get by making good politics and furthermore you need a good geography.

[@jwadaow]

The Royal Navy were superior to the next two powers combined.

[@AndrewTeale-cy3dw]

So how do explain Splendid Isolation and Pax Britannica? As for mediocre forces, what nonsense.

[@kodor1146]

@@AndrewTeale-cy3dw Splendid Isolation was possible because of the outstanding geograpghy England, as an island nation, has. The performance of the English armed forces always was (and still is) very mediocre, no wonder, because (as I wrote above) the English approach to war always was a strategic one, never one on tactical level. The masters in the art of warfare, i.e. tactics are the Germans, in this particular field the Brits were not just mediocre they even were very bad. The Brits never were a soldierly people, this is true for the Germans. The strength of the Brits always were politics.

[@AndrewTeale-cy3dw]

@@kodor1146 Repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it any better. You obviously have no understanding of splendid isolation. You have conveniently ignored Pax Britannica. Your level of understanding would make You an excellent candidate for Imperial domination by the British. As for the German masters of War, their strategic goals were at best stupid and at worst horrific. Tactically they failed again and again and again.

[@pincermovement72]

The navy can take you anywhere but to take and hold a possession you need to have the best troops which we have always been blessed with despite politicians starving them of resources. I suggest you read a little history of the British soldier , a lion amongst sheep. We never earned the right to have the largest empire with only a navy .

[@victorfinberg8595]

there seem to be a couple major problems with some of this theory. first, the western front in ww1 was stalemated for a long time, with full british land commitment. had britain NOT done that, france would have been overrun quickly, and then the british maritime strategy could go fish. more importantly, perhaps, is that you CANNOT simply apply old ideas of warfare to the modern era, because new technologies and processes existed, which previous analysts had not even imagined.