What are we to make of Britain’s new top soldier, General Sir Roly Walker, and his widely reported address to the Royal United Services Institute’s Land Warfare Conference earlier this week?
Bullish, upbeat, and perhaps overly optimistic, he pledged to ensure the British Army would be ready to fight in the next three years, to double its fighting power by 2027, and to triple it by 2030.
This would be achieved, he opined, not by increasing troop numbers but by “urging” the British Army to modernise quickly by focusing on AI and technological advances in firepower to enable it to defeat an enemy “three times its size”.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
Compare and contrast with his immediate predecessor, General Patrick Sanders, who told it like he saw it and was rewarded with early retirement. His much more pessimistic valedictory message to troops and media was that Britain’s armed forces were so worn down they would only be able to fight a small war for a month and that ammunition stockpiles are so low their true size “would put the hairs up on the back of your neck”.
Sanders also said that Britain’s political leaders are “trying to shield the public from the reality of the world that we’re now finding ourselves in” … facing “as dangerous a moment as any time that we have had since 1945”. Worryingly, he advised that NATO may have less than five years to substantially re-arm to ward off a Russian attack on its soil.
Who to believe? Well, it appears to me that Sanders’ assessment is the more realistic of the two. Insiders say that Defence Secretary John Healey’s commitment to be able to contribute two British armoured divisions to NATO is an aspiration and nothing more. They say that Britain’s 3 (UK) Armoured Division is a division in name only, lacking the equipment, the combat support, or the manpower.
And, more importantly perhaps, it may be a formation without a role after the Strategic Defence Review reports back. At the moment it can’t even put a brigade in the field without major contortions, about a third of its designed establishment. And as for the other formation, 1 (UK) Division, it would be hard-pressed to deploy a battalion-size battlegroup in short order.
The message is stark. If we are to accept that the UK may well be involved in a conventional war in Europe by 2030, then it’s quite clear that we are not prepared adequately. Walker talks about doubling the lethality of the British Army within three years without saying how we define “lethality” or how we get there. And the idea that technology can replace numbers is pie-in-the-sky stuff.
He seems to have fallen victim to the techno-romanticism which has infected military circles recently, the belief that new sensors, networks, and integration are the answer to the maiden’s prayer and will solve the real and enduring problems in war.
I have often said that the fundamental tenet of warfare is to “get there first with the most men” (attributed to Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest in the US Civil War, 1862-65) and that everything else is detail. I believe this is still pretty appropriate. Unfortunately, Britain has neither the capability of getting there first nor the most men.
A succession of Chiefs of the General Staff (Carter, Carlton-Smith) has let the British Army down. They have focused on their comfort zone of small unit operations in far-off sandy places, leaving it with too few troops and the wrong equipment to operate in a conventional armoured confrontation like we see in Ukraine.
Now, we’re facing the possibility of being at war in the next five years without the means to wage it satisfactorily. The only light on the horizon was Sanders, who has been replaced by yet another small unit-oriented officer who is destined to repeat the errors of the past two decades.
It’s enough to make you weep.
If it’s three years (it could even be sooner) then there’s work to do and they really need to get a 3 year plan happening (that should be easy or what?) and get on with it! Three times the lethality!? Need to keep that target real and don’t forget all the lower tech stuff and personnel matters while chasing for the higher tech items. My 5p worth.
Sadly not a chance with a current pro-marxist and previous globalist British governments. Things are going to get much worse before we see the necessary changes to reverse the damage done.
Logical assessment of the British armed forces, sadly. Nothing will change much under Labour, the UK is living in a dream world. 😎
Tech will never adequately cover for lack of numbers.
Every new bit of tech is followed by tech designed to counter it. Then there’s a stalemate until a counter to the counter is developed. That pattern just keeps on repeating indefinitely.
Unless you are are lucky enough to be in the short honeymoon period before a counter is developed you will need numbers. That’s always been the case and always will be. The only people who say otherwise are the accountants and shareholders in defence tech companies (and politicians they have bought).
I keep reading that officers with DSF experience are ending up at the top, and this contributes to their view on tech, and lack of emphasis on mass?
Whatever, CGS commented that SACEUR want the ARRC, of which the UK is framework nation, with 3 Division, to act as SACEUR reserve, along with a French Corps.
This makes sense to me, given our geographical location and lack of garrisons forward in Eastern Europe.
On 3 Division, as so often mentioned, it should ideally have 3 deployable all arms manoeuvre brigades. This it had, until the 2015 Strike crap and General Carter spoiled things. Now it has but 2, with the DRSB in support, which is not itself deployable without considerable help from the reserves, as it lacks regular CSS beyond a REME Bn.
Healey wants 2 Divisions? Armoured? Pie in the sky. 2 Divisions of 3 proper brigades each, fully supported by CS CSS. Possible, but lots of reshuffling required from the army, and the Royal Navy if necessary with 3 Cdo support formations.
1 Division has 7 Light Mech, and 16 Air Assault. The 3rd Bde, 4 Light, needs regular CS CSS. Can we take 24RE and 29RA from the Cdos and place them here?
Dern the other day suggested moving 10 QOGLR, a Divisional support Transport Regiment, over from 101 to be a Close Support Reg for a Bde. Yes, but that leaves 101 with just 27 RLC rather than the usual 2 Transport Regiments assigned to a vehicle heavy Division, so not ideal.
Does the army cut Infantry units to form more regular CS CSS formations? That will set off the “cap badge mafia” according to some critics. And do we have that many Light Infantry left, now some Bns are SFA assigned, with few personnel, and others are Rangers. Not really.
Can we cancel losing that third Armoured Regiment, KRH, due to go over to Armoured Cavalry, and convert more CH2 to Ch3?
At the same time, SHORAD is said to triple, MRAD double, and there is the MLRS Deep Fires expansion planned. There is still no official word as to how the army will manage this regards forming new Batteries, as personnel will need redistributing?
The army either needs more personnel, or has to substantially reorganise with what it has.
And it needs more CS CSS! Before anything else. That includes more HET, RLC, RAMC, REME, Signals, EW, all of it.
While expanding the AD and fires areas, having got rid of most of our artillery!
Over to you, Healey, and HMT! Cameron and Osborne really have an awful lot to answer for.
This small unit stuff starting happening after the Falklands! We had a CO who came from para engineers to 32Armd and all he seemed to worry about was how fast we could run🙄
😳
was tha forwards or backwards…..😄
Well the phrase basic fitness test became loathed😂
To be meaningful you would need to do BFT five days in a row, many could do it in the time on the day but suffered the next day as they were not really fit enough.
Our maximum commitment should be an army deployment of upto 60,000 troops fully equipped. If we can support and sustain that effort indefinitely that should be our commitment to land warfare in Europe. Let the 500 million Europeans living in mainland Europe worry about the 120 million Russians of which only max 20 million are men and women fit enough to serve in the armed forces. There is no way on god’s green earth Russia can threaten Europe unless Europe is totally unprepared and totally unwilling to fight to maintain their freedom and democracy.
If that brings the case why should the UK deploy a large land army and spill blood on mainland European shores if those 500 million people aren’t prepared to defend themselves.
So a cap of 60,000 British troops. Highly trained and by comparison far superior to Russian forces should be enough.
To be able to deploy 60,000 troops we need an army of around 100,000 with a reserve of say 20-25,000 in the TAs. That should be achievable.
It should be, yes.
But I prefer a RN, RAF, Intell first doctrine, so an army of that size seems too big and not achievable without all out war.
Just getting the army back to 1 PROPER deployable Division, with the other expeditionary assets it has, with 82,000 people, seems more realistic.
That extra 10k could form an awful lot of extra CS CSS formations to get the rest of the army more deployable.
Yes indeed, a deployable armoured division with 3 armoured brigades ( 1 Bn MBT, 3 IFV…not an APC) with the added ability to deploy a wheeled mechanised infantry brigade and an airmobile brigade.
Plus the RM, plus the SF, plus the logistic capability we still posess, plus the overseas bases to enable deployment.
This is the benchmark.
Agree, not sure what the RM is looking like, but a baseline should be the ability to put a full strength brigade down on the northern flank…not sure they could do that now…best effort maybe elements of 45 and 40 commando..with what is left of 29 commando and 24 commando in support…that In really is going to be a battalion level battle group.
29RA and 24RE are still intact as far as I know.
24 RE also never grew to full regimental size I believe.
Add 30 Cdo ( the HQ & ISTAR ) element, the Armoured Support Group, and the Cdo Logistic Regiment too.
So a small Bde. I don’t think they’re all arctic trained either, as 40 Cdo is aligned to LRG(S)
45 Cdo are the usual arctic specialists, plus other bits.
They’d be going over on ferries, planes and STUFT.
RM moved away from a light infantry Bde to a raiding force.
Shame. Some of our best soldiers too.
I’m pretty sure 24RE was pretty much gutted and has only survived by the skin of its teeth..I’m think they also cut the establishment of 29RA, the last I read generating all three batteries and support would be hard.It’s very sad.
Really….? Hmmm, I’m intrigued, I’d not heard of that. I’ll have to look into it, I still have all their Sqns listed.
On 29, I’d read Batteries were down to 4 guns, but all 3 Batteries, plus more importantly, 148, were still in existence.
No not happening, your thinking of fighting troops which have been drastically reduced. The Army of 70,000 is made as well by support arms. Going back some 30 years when we had the numbers only we only had enough munitions for 24 hours of continuous combat, I was with a combat supplies troop at the time.
The first Gulf experience was to rob our own chieftain tanks of all the uprated kit to enhance the tanks of the Saudis.
The problem as before give the military a pay rise but take more back from them by leveling up charges placed on them, food and accommodation for some.
The RM are starting to bleed guys, a lot more are leaving, unfortunately it’s more than those joining.
Daniele we need to keep the balance right between mass and lethality. To be honest I would rather have 6 type 45s than 30 Type 42 (Sheffield Class) Destroyers. Especially as we continue to upgrade the T45. Sorry to choose as naval example I just thought it easier to contrast the benefits and the shortcomings.
Absolutely, no doubt there. You need quality but enough of it, too many places we are exquisite but that’s it.
I’d like to see a better balance in procurement getting some good enough, I don’t see any way to improve mass otherwise.
Russia got to Hostomel first with many more men and failed horribly.
Defeat the Enemy 3 times the size ? Sorry but can’t all be done with AI. Has he got a secret weapon system in mine? Sorry all for new Tec, but end of the day it’s called Boots on the ground 🤔 🇬🇧
OOps sorry this was suppose to be on an other Article 🙄
The EU still expects the U.S. to do most of the heavy lifting if Russia attacks NATO countries. It’s sad that new NATO members Sweden and Finland have done more for their own defenses the past 50+ years than most NATO countries especially Germany that not only outsourced their own defense to the Americans and Brits but continue to fund the Russian war machine by buying Russian energy.
We couldn’t effectively support our population in the event of a major war let alone fight anywhere else. We still need manpower, maybe not as much as in the last world or korean war but it is boots on the ground that rules and will always rule. Could we even handle the number of casualties, let alone resupply? When there is a parity or near parity of technology then it is the sheer weight of numbers that will win. And while we have good technology we just don’t have enough of that either.
Just going to quietly point out that we deployed 2 Brigades and 2 Armorued Regiments to Korea.
And we had multiple bases airfields and dock facilities all over the world, hundreds of thousands of personnel, equipment and the means to resupply them all under war time conditions! We led the world in aircraft development too!
Our closest base to Korea was Hong Kong, now it’s in Singapore… neither is ideally placed to support a deployment there. Then, as now, it is our alliances that enabled us to deploy that force. And while the UK armed forces are much diminished, we still maintain a good CSS back end, certainly enough to maintain a two brigade deployment.
I’m sure Japan & US bases in Japan would host any forces in a Korean war. Not that I’m suggesting we’d join in there. Just that bases in friendly countries are quite close by.
Exactly, we used them to stage and supply in the 50’s, and Japan would host a British Brigade or two if we fought in Korea again in the 30’s.
They are not bases for large scale deployments. A two brigade deployment is laughingly small unless merely to support a limited scale police action. It is less about bases and the associated infrastructure but the overall capability and ‘back-office’ that is currently lacking, If we even had that capacity instead of immediate deployable forces we could have a credible contribution but we don’t.
You said:
I then pointed out that the British contribution to the Korean War was two Brigades. So by your own criteria the Korean War was a Police Action? I don’t think so.
And as skeptical as you are, the back office to put two brigades out the door is certainly there
Also pretty sure that Japan is used to hosting Large Scale deployments from it’s allies….
Why do people see things so black and white and incapable of looking at the wider meaning and context behind comments? Two brigades is not a lot in the context of Korea, and woefully inadequate for anything European. Why pick one small element of a statement and create a whole new argument about trivial detail? The point being that we would absolutely nowadays struggle (and probably fail) to maintain a long drawn out continental style campaign on current levels of funding and society. Europe and the US cannot even maintain sufficient ammunition for Ukraine! Unlike in WWII we wouldn’t have the luxury of a couple of years of being able to hold the line while rebuilding our armed forces. Modern tech equipment takes far too long to build, let alone train on.
You were still a country not a NGO with the name of a country.
Cool, go back to Moscow.
👍Certainly!
Disgraceful. The British army should always be ready for at least a small land war in Europe. It’s not as though Putin’s Russia has been sneaking up on us given the poisonings, asassinations, wars with neighbours, cyber attacks, spying, interfering in elections etc. HMG has been treasonous dismantling capacity in our forces, negating our voice & deterrent.
UK’s strength in NATO is navy and airforce primarily. As an Island we have not needed to fight land wars with adjoining countries. As a result we have focused on expeditionary warfare with other nations.
We should focus on our strengths as we cannot do it all. With this said we should build back land capabilities, upgrading all our remaining Challenger 2s to 3s. We should also add more air defence and artillery. We need also to build back our war stocks and regenerate our sovereign capability to build and maintain armour and artillery. I cannot believe we lost the ability to make tank guns how were we planning to replace tank guns. It is almost as if our politicians never thought there would be a future war.
That’s it. They didn’t. Not a conventional one anyway.
It seems though, that Ukraine would like more C2’s. Not interested in C3’s as they are too similar to L2’s & AM1’s that they find tend to struggle in theatre. And exactly who do they expect C3’s to be facing in future? Sure C2’s needed an update. Not so sure C3 (as presented), is it. Everyone keeps saying all militaries are learning the lessons of Ukraine. Sometimes I think it’s more a case of shifting the eyepatch from the left to the right.
Whilst it is reasonable for the British army to reorganise and modernise I can’t seriously believe the rationale behind it should be a Russian attack on NATO. The chances of such must be miniscule given the shambles they’ve got in Ukraine. If NATO was threatened by them in the land domain there are plenty of other NATO countries to deal with it who have a more ‘land warfare’ focus.
The UK’s focus should be as traditional on naval power backed by the RAF and now cyber/ space domains ( Russia is more likely to stick to hybrid/ grey area activities than outright confrontation with NATO). The army should prepare for a modest expeditionary commitment at best in the high end spectrum ( plus various other roles SF, home defence etc). The above mentioned speech by Walker is as much about army positioning itself for obtaining funding as anyghing else.
The trouble with that theory is if every other country in Euro NATO thinks the same. ‘The other guy will do the hard land fighting’.
Isn’t that what some NATO countries are doing already. Take France, Italy & Spain. Look at how much aid they are giving Ukraine compared to USA, UK, Poland etc. Freeloaders plain and simple.
There are 500 million people living in Europe. Russia with a population of just 120 million cannot invade, defeat and occupy any part of Europe unless those 500 million people are cowards and have no back bone to stand up for themselves.
Britains contribution to European defence should be an expeditionary force of upto 60,000 troops that we can sustain indefinitely. Our air force and navy are much more important and we should not allow ourselves to become land warfare centred.
Sure bring in Ajax, boxer and upgrade all available C2s to C3 standard. Sure fix the mobile artillery and MLRS requirements. Sure provide lasers, radar guided guns, MANPADS and SHORAD for the army to operate in a drone infested environment with impunity.
The majority of our defence budget needs to go on the navy and RAF. No one can threaten the UK if we have control of the skies and the sea around us. Secure our sea lanes of communication and offshore national critical infrastructure and UK plc will be just fine.
I’m not convinced Russia can even threaten Poland and if they attack the Baltic states then you’d hope those 500 million Europeans with their fine, fully equipped and armed armies would rush to their defence.
I’m of this opinion too, just think we’d not get back to 60,000 deployable if we expand the RAF and the RN to that degree.
It’s the population of the CSTO you need to consider..as all of Russians minion states would be tapped for cannon fodder in the case of a Russia NATO war..so its more in the region of 200 million to be honest…don’t forget..there are also a fair few supporters of Putin and Russia in the eastern part of Europe as well…But I don’t believe for a second any NATO Russia war would remain a NATO Russian war for very long at all…as happened in WW2 every predator on the planet will take advantage if the west is distracted…
But I honestly believe there are a couple of the triggers for general war in Europe and I will bet the most likely trigger will actually be in the pacific first..I would say Russia would probably wait for china to make its move on Taiwan ( which lets be honest is very likely) as soon as the west in embroiled in an indo pacific bloodbath that’s when I would hit the Baltics if I was Putin…the problem is I suspect North Korean many just take the opportunity as well..and finally there is not an insignificant chance of an Iran, China Russia linkup to cut the western Indian Ocean sealanes to Europe and cuts its oil.
This is the problem….the west does not just need to be able to fight Russia and the CSTO nations.it can to that..( only MAD is the real risk), it does not “just” ( and that’s a very big just) need to be able to fight china in the indo pacific…and across the globe in a prolonged war to strategic exhaustion ( it can probably win…but may be not), it does not even just need to subdue Iran if it tries to close the gulf or fight a major land war against the masses of North Korea….the way the geopolitical situation is going and the geostrategic picture in each region, means it need to start considering how the hell it can fight a worldwide conflagration including a European front, a war in the western Indian occean and gulf ( fighting Iran and the now very large PLAN blue water navy) to ensure its key energy shipping lanes stay open..as well as make sure South Korea does not get buried and fight china in the pacific….essentially engaging in a global war to strategic collapse.against a massive essentially contiguous set of land powers…with access to a massive industrial base, huge energy reserves and populations…when all the while access to most of its supply chains, energy access, industrial capacity semiconductor manufacturing has been cut………
Most of the CSTO loathe Russia, none of those countries have been actively aiding Russia, only selling them things or turning a blind eye to sanctions busting, basically anything that will make them a quick buck. Look at how Kazakhstan has pivoted away from Russia as soon as it got the chance. Russia is the threat, it would not be backed by any “allies” in another war of aggression in Europe.
I believe that Poland, Finland and the Baltics would make a fight of it. Between those guys and the Atlantic i don’t think there are any European players that wouldn’t trade them off for not having to fight. We would only be able to offer moral support.
Trying to decide what the army should be configured and equipped to do is genuinely difficult. For decades after 1945, we managed to field a substantial force in Germany, and also conduct operations around the world. Even as late as 1991, we could deploy a large armoured force in Iraq. By 2003, numbers had declined and the forces sent to Iraq and Afghanistan were too small for the tasks expected of them. We are in the middle of wholesale and long overdue re equipment for peer warfare- Ch3, Ajax, Boxer, wheeled SPG. Should we be planning for a British army on the Vistula? With the renewed emphasis on NATO, this seems to be the current direction. It is also much easier to scale down heavy forces to conduct lower grade operations than vice versa. So Future Soldier probably makes sense.
In the light of the Ukraine war, there are other capabilities we need to acquire or expand. GBAD and an enlarged Typhoon fleet would ensure air dominance over the UK and its near abroad. Long range ground based conventional missiles would deter an enemy from attempting to use similar weapons against the UK.( Would Moscow hit Ukrainian cities if Ukraine could inflict similar death and destruction on Russian cities?) We also need to be certain of neutralizing any Russian naval threat so ASW capacity needs increasing.
Assuming all of the current re equipping is achieved, we perhaps need only a modest increase in overall army numbers to provide greater resilience and to rebuild some of the necessary support capacity that has been lost.
👍
The only reason Ukraine can’t 1: hit Russian Cities or 2: Airfields in Russia??
1 Hitting civilian infrastructure is a war crime
2 The Americans won’t let Ukraine hit targets in Russia apart from ones close to the Ukrainian border.
The Americans and Europe don’t really want Ukraine to win, they just want Ukraine to kick the snot out of Russia, if Russia collapses, then what happens??
The Chinese take back Outer Manchuria, what would Iran do, what about the Chechens or any rogue, rascals and scaly wags that fancy their chances, it could turn into a real shit show 🙂
Good perspective. The period since 1945 has really only been a cease fire. Russia still wants to expand westwards, the Chinese Communist party still wants to eradicate the Kuomintang and Turkey would still rather see a rebirth of the Ottoman empire than faux neutrality and reluctant membership of NATO. The profile of UK force increases you suggest seems about right. Interestingly I read last week that Germany and the UK are planning to develop a 3000km range conventional missile.
The thing is it’s not going to be a Europe war in three years…if Russia kicks of in the Baltic states, undoubtedly china will use the opportunity to invade Taiwan and while everyone is distracted you can pretty much guarantee North Korea would have its go and Iran may move on its agenda…when ( and I would say it’s more likely when not if) China makes its move on Taiwan’s, if Russia has finished it war in Ukraine it would very likely use the opportunity of western distraction for another land grab…
When we considering the threat of Russian, china, Northkorea and Iran, we must never forget that world wars are not the cohesive thing that Cold War planning envisioned..instead they are a quickly developing conflagration of both interaction between treaties and nations taking advantage of distraction… the Axis powers did not form for a full year after WW2 started…with the final allied and axis power blocks not finally forming until late 1941…be it a European spark or a western pacific spark..once lit it will almost inevitably blaze across the globe.
I agree, although I’d think it could be the other way around: with Chinese escalation around Taiwan leading to deniable grey-zone attacks in the Baltics. With a quarter of Estonians and Latvians being ethnic Russians, and the UK having a small force in Estonia, we could find ourselves in the middle of a brewing “civil war”, al la Donbas. With Estonia screaming Article 5 at the top of their lungs and the waiverers in central Europe saying it doesn’t apply in a civil war, we might find ourselves fighting not against near-peers directly, but supporting the governments against proxies in the form of little green men.
I don’t think that’s beyond our Armed Forces unless the government decides to follow the waiverers and pull out of the Baltics instead. Civil Wars, real or feigned, are very hard to fight, and as we’ve seen with the pro-Gaza movement, a well-coordinated propoganda campaign works to tarnish both sides. So the possibility of us being ordered out rather than stand up would be more real than the civil nature of the war. It would soon be provable that Russia was involved, but remember Gordon Brown and Litvinenko? We may know, but if it’s not politically acceptable to admit that we know, it can take far longer to be publically admitted. All the time the situation in the Baltics will worsen, as Russia’s proxies create facts on the ground.
Russia offers to “help” and magically receives an invitation from the Latvian Russian Union. If Russia has international support and the UN vote is vetoed by the US, what happens when Russia goes into Estonia and Latvia anyway? It all gets very messy. The US is busy with the Chinese blockade of Taiwan. Central European decision making is paralysed. The Middle East is flaring up again, with the Houthis back to blockading the Red Sea, strangely well-armed. Floods of refugees move north into Turkey again. Only now we have South America joining in the fun. Venezuala perhaps, but there’s also an announcement of a new military agreement between China and Argentina, and the Falklands and South Atlantic are in play. Mauritius suddenly has an awful lot of money available to press the matter of the Chagos Islands and Granny Indigenous is trending on Insta. Our economy is falling into recession, starved of the high tech chips it needs to make progress, with everything from car manufacture to software production affected and Rachel Reeves is talking austerity by another name.
Poland moves into Lithuania to protect the Suwalki gap, and are threatened with nuclear destruction if they cross into Latvia. The Finns mobilize to protect their own border, but make it clear they won’t be going into Estonia. We are on the brink of WW3; NATO is riven and in danger of falling apart. President Trump is unhelpful. Will Britain lead the rest of the JEF into the Northern Baltic States against what is fast becoming an entrenched Russian position? Could we keep this a constrained land war only in those countries, knowing that the longer it takes to kick Russia out, the more likely it will be to escalate? The PM calls in CDS and CGS and asks, are you confident of a quick win?
Interesting observation regarding the timeline of WW2 and the coming together of Axis powers. There’s a school of thought that WW2 started in 1937 when Japan invaded China. As witnessed by anti-west geographically distributed conflicts I do think WW3 started a while back, perhaps with 9/11 but I am open to other suggestions.
The aim should be to be able to deploy a decent medium-weight division to Europe with reasonable notice, or perhaps 2 well-supported brigades to different areas. That should be do-able within 3 years and the reason we currently can’t is the army’s own doing.
148 CH3 ought to get us 80/90 deployable, so why not 1 heavy brigade based around those and Ajax, 1 medium Boxer based, and 1 light-medium with whatever’s left.
A lot of these doom-mongerers “most dangerous time since 1945” etc, don’t seem to realise how potent the Polish and Finnish armed forces are, or how Russia is burning through it’s human, military, and financial resources extremely quickly. I honestly think Russia might be less dangerous in 2028 than it was in 2022, but we should still be prepared and be able to meet our NATO commitment should things really go west.
We weren’t in a position to fight a proper land war in 1983 either. That should tell you something.
The best we can do these days (and we are damn good at it) is FIBAB: Fighting in bars and brothels.
If Russia moved into NATO territory, would China move on Taiwan?
Maybe we can “urge” the Infantry to kill more bad guys than they currently do – like a post Boer War with reform!
As tanker, Crawford has skin in the game for big armies, however, he’s missed what our SAS man actually said ‘a CORPS’ in the field.
How in God’s name will Britain ever, sustainably, put a Corps in the field?
And yes, SAS are a force multiplier but just as a Brigade with 1,000 bayonets couldn’t hold territory the size of Wales, 400ish blades couldn’t hold London.
Someone is mainlining bleach and it was not Sanders or the author.
You really have to hope for better but I fear we are like the band on the Titanic.
You did say ‘tanker’ right?
Why on earth should the UK, an island, want to, or be prepared to, fight a land war in other peoples countries? Do you now think they should do it themselves with help from their political and geographical neighbours?
This is outmoded thinking for which the military is famous.
You are so right.
I forgot the Peninsula War
Heavens
I forgot Blenheim
I forgot funding resistance fighters to France.
You make such a welcome appreciation of our current situation. Thank you for your contribution .
The world has changed. You mention things which were relevant when we were top dog. We are no longer and never will be again since there is a lot of competition these days.
If you look at the world as it is instead of how you wished it would have stayed you might come to another conclusion
Britain was not top dog at Blenheim nor in most other conflicts, we used money, influence and trade to conduct warfare but, at the end of the day, we sacrificed blood. In any future conflict, we will have to do the same.
It is not outmoded thinking, it is the reality of defending the UK.
When did you say you go back to school? Good luck in your GCSEs.
👍Exactly 💯
So you think the UK being prepared for a ground war in Europe (alone of course) somehow adds to our defence?
Nice to see that the level of contribution here is roughly the same as other tabloids where insults are the recourse for the great unwashed and not civilised debate. Please try to impress your mates over a beer instead.
Pathetic
The person being pathetic here is you and just a tad disingenuous re-read my comments – we fought in coalitions and used money, trade and influence to gain our victories, you kyboshed that and then wrote “we used money, influence and trade to conduct warfare…” which is what I had said. Bore off you sad git.
What the hell has it got to do with “top dog”..the Uk was not “top dog” when it was fighting against the Spanish superstate at the end of the Middle Ages, nore when it was fighting France as it rampaged against Europe…by the time it was fighting Germany in the 20C it was also no longer “top dog”…it was a nation in crisis when it stepped up to help fight the Cold War against the USSR infact the only time the UK was not fighting and bleeding or spending treasure to maintain European stability was when the UK was “top dog” during the century of PAX Britannica.
🤣
because we don’t want Europe to fall to an aggressive superstate. what exactly happens to the UK when a euro Asian superstate has conquered its way across Europe and is sitting on the Chanel….supporting its European allies to maintain the integrity of individual European nations has been a key a function geostrategic function of British armed forces and foreign policy since around 1581 ( when we provided military support to the Dutch to fight of the Spanish superstate). Fighting in Europe to ensure sovereignty of individual states is what keeps the UK safe..if a military aggressive dictatorship arises in Europe, the Uk always moves against it.
Modernising and bring in new tech is fantastic but we still need more troops. We need more MLRS, air defense and artillery which requires personal. We also need troops to take/hold positions.
Ideal I’d like to see the Army have 100k regular troops but would take a good few years to get to that number.
Crawford regularly writes in the Express and frankly it worries me and should you.
He, like many in our military seem unable to define the threat and the enemy or seem to understand that politics these days plays a bigger role than in the Boer War.
He thinks we need a big army and lots of toys to be there first with the most men – as though Europe is a wasteland waiting for the saviour. Those days have gone and heaven forbid that he and others think we should be sending troops to places where we have no business or on the coattails of our master, the Americans.
Sadly of course, he and others advise our politicians who don’t seem too bright. As an aside, any warmongering will never get the support of the British people even if conscription were in place.
But what is the threat first? Does he seriously think Russia is a threat to the UK? If our politicians keep poking the bear it might react but not militarily.
The problem is that the Forces should not be in the hands of military men because they only see fights where none exist.
It’s enough to make you weep – to quote Crawford
What a great contribution; please ask the Americans about 9/11 and where threats don’t exist, I’m sure the thousand of victims would welcome your sage advice.
So how does your sage contribution add to the discussion of threats requiring a ground war? That oxymoron, military intelligence
Sad bitter rusty troll! Just working your guts out,
for your masters in the Kremlin!
What an intelligent contribution..
He is trolling. 💯%
💯
Everyone and his mother has defined the threat: Iran, Russia, China and North Korea (in no particular order) breaking the global system through force and grey-zone attacks. It doesn’t help that the US ignores the system when it suits them, but that’s not a systematic attempt to break it, which is what the deadly quartet are working up to.
As for Russia not being a threat to the UK, have you forgotten the recent inflation spike due to the Ukraine War? I assure you most of us haven’t. We live in an interconnected world.
Stand by to be shot down after the Kremlin supply his rebuttal 😉
Too what extent the British Army should be prioritised is the biggest question that the current Defence Review will need to answer. There is no expectation that there will
will be a cut the UK’s defence budget, but Starmer and Reeves will undoubtedly be delighted if no increase in spending is recommended before 2029/30. Early reports suggest that the focus will again be on Europe and NATO, and that the Tories 2020 tilt to the Indo-Pacific will be binned. This potentially allows the sale – or at least placing in reserve – of a QEC aircraft carrier, no further purchases of F-35B’s, cancelling the FSS auxiliary ships and Type 32 frigates, and ending the MRSS programme – “saving” in total perhaps £8-10bn over the next decade. Also, transferring the 4,500 Royal Marines from the RN to the Army would allow a headline increase in the number of soldiers from the current c.75,000 to say 80,000 to be achieved at a minimal, if any, cost.
Not really. Carriers are essential to NATO and American carriers are rarely hanging around Europe. It is our patch. We and the French are the main maritime force and frankly would be needed regardless. Besides we have paid for the carriers now.
If the Government attempted to essentially decapitate the RN I think they would be out of office quite quickly.