Britain's Shrinking Military - From Cold War Colossus to Cash-Strapped Shadow
War with Russia is often spoken of in 2023, but the drastic reduction in the size of Britain's armed forces is often overlooked. Here, I compare the sizes of Britain's military in 1991, when it was specifically trained and deployed to resist a Soviet assault into Western Europe, and 2023. The figures are fairly shocking, something the US government recently noted as well.
Dr. Mark Felton FRHistS, FRSA, is a well-known British historian, the author of 22 non-fiction books, including bestsellers 'Zero Night' and 'Castle of the Eagles', both currently being developed into movies in Hollywood. In addition to writing, Mark also appears regularly in television documentaries around the world, including on The History Channel, Netflix, National Geographic, Quest, American Heroes Channel and RMC Decouverte. His books have formed the background to several TV and radio documentaries. More information about Mark can be found at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fe...
Visit my audio book channel 'War Stories with Mark Felton': • One Thousand Miles to ...
Help support my channel:
www.paypal.me/markfeltonprodu...
/ markfeltonproductions
Disclaimer: All opinions and comments expressed in the 'Comments' section do not reflect the opinions of Mark Felton Productions. All opinions and comments should contribute to the dialogue. Mark Felton Productions does not condone written attacks, insults, racism, sexism, extremism, violence or otherwise questionable comments or material in the 'Comments' section, and reserves the right to delete any comment violating this rule or to block any poster from the channel.
Credits: US National Archives; Library of Congress; United States Air Force; UK Parliament; Ministry of Defence; Royal Navy; British Army; Royal Air Force; Bundeswehr; US Navy; Shaun Farmer; John Fielding; Android Nikolaienko; Simon Q; R Soner; fabric; Simon; Wonkabar007; Ronnie Macdonald.
The state of our armed forces is a national disgrace. What you have said certainly needed saying, Mark. Thanks.
It really is.
You can say the same about Russia. Do you think that the Soviets army of 1985 would struggle with a conflict similar to what's going on in Ukraine?
Marks video wasn't asking that was it?
Add to that the state of our: Schools Hospitals Roads Rail network Power grid Rivers And on and on and on. It's all being run down to the benefit of foreign and domestic billionaires and mega corps.
The state of the roads, nhs, education system, trains, etc etc.. the country has been run into the ground by a bunch of crooks from Tony Blair to Boris Johnson. Look to Argentina to see where we're heading ..systematically looted with the cash stashed abroad in Spanish banks.
While in the Marine Corps in the early 70's, I trained with British Marines. Their kit was top notch, the best that money could buy and their field rations made ours look like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Imagine reaching into your rucksack and pulling out a can with an entire deboned, "Fricasee" chicken. They had cream camo makeup in kits with mirrors, while we had hard camo sticks in "push-up cans" you had to heat up just to apply it and when it cooled it was just caked on like dried mud. They had individual med kits that rivaled our platoon size med kits and the list goes on and on. To see these proud soldiers reduced to a fraction of their potential readiness is just a sad thing.
Ironically in the 70's they were already a shadow of their former selves. The 50's and 60's were they heydays of the Royal Navy and Marines. The late 60's and 70's saw a heavy drawdown of the Royal Navy.
HORRIBLE!!!
I find this a bit hard to believe Jim, many stories tell the opposite. Are you sure or is this sarcasm?
Jim thank you for your service our forces now reduced to pre WW2 ,sleeping while the enemy sharpens their swords against us. God help us in what is to come
RMCs to this day are still top notch monsters
It seems like Britain's economy has gotten worse since the 1990s too. The money saved by more than halving the military budget did not go toward helping the poor and the middle class. Rebuilding the military will likely be done on the backs of the poor and middle class. In 2023 with the burden of a cost of living crisis. Thank you Dr. Felton for the timely and informative video.
Outsourcing and privatization reduced tax take with profits often going abroad and taxable income reduced by being offset against large debt repayments . This made the 5 -15 percent saving a pointless exercise !
Britain has been in decline since the second world war, but patriots are blind to this. Also the Soviet union no longer exists.
Yet they spend billions in aid to other countries and magically found billions to keep people at home during the so called COVID epidemic.
It really sucks. I’m currently in the British army and there’s talks of tons of cuts being made to reduce personnel EVEN further.
That’s really sad 😞 actually.
I heard some stuff from government reports about a potential shrinking of the army to 76,000 men. Though that was a report from last year which I think had been commissioned before the war in Ukraine came along as a wake up call that large scale wars can indeed still happen and are likely if a dictator decides they want their neighbour's land.
Could that change because of the invasion of Ukraine and Putin's demonstration that Russia is a threat to Europe? Hope so.
You name it, same here in Germany: Just the battle tanks went from close to 3000 down to 266. They cannot even replace the 14 given to Ukraine.
Said only 80 to100 work.
@@jimshoe402 part's problem? Or engineering
Production needs to increase, or your export must cease
@@shivanshna7618 More parts than engineering - but really it's a policy problem. Successive cuts have meant that consultants to the government were able to implement extremely smart strategies such as scheduled maintenance and order. Meaning there are little to no spare parts held in storage until right before maintenance is planned... this leads to extremely long wait times when something breaks earlier than anticipated as no parts are on stock and lead times can be horrendous.
Imagine all the Turks without work if the US Government closed their bases in Germany😂
When I joined the Royal Navy in 1984 we had more than 18 of just the Leander class frigates let alone the Type 22. type 21 and the type 42's. The deliberate rundown of our navy is absolutely scandalous.
your people voted for it, thats where leftist policies lead , impotence and bankruptcy
Look on the bright side, Britain is far more inclusive now. Why spend money on building up Britain, when you can instead waste it on parasites that will tear it down.
If the rich pay now taxes , how could we finance a big navy , army or air force ???
Well face it the British military just like Canada's isn't much use the US has had to bail you guys out of two world wars that you managed to get involved with the US pur in more men equipment and supplies and money than Britain and Canada combined
Good point. What do you estimate the shipping tonnage lost is per month, now that Britain has foolishly given up its convoy escorts? Of course, they cover it all up. But we know.
As an American, this helps to put the current situation in perspective. I have heard that the German military is facing a similar problem as well
As a brit it's sad to see what our government has done. Basically the money is being used to keep immigrants.
It doesn’t help. Very few are keen to point out that we got poorer by keeping an unaffordable armed forces alive all the while, Germany who have a larger economy than us had a much smaller defence force while they got richer. Don’t blame us for being selfish for once.
@@Hollows1997 But until around 2014 Germany committing to further disarmament was taken up as good news even among our own Allies.
@aegian48 All the cuts were a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Germany didn't get suddenly richer. It had to invest a fortune in East Germany. Perhaps it was not all well invested, but the average German didn't get richer. Did the UK make all the right investment decisions with the money from the forces cuts and savings? Invested in private housing?
Italian military too. Although at this point I think it might be the one who between the major European military powers, better "preserved" it's cold war era numbers
As an Italian I can't stop to feel related to this problem: our military is facing a similar problems. Although I have to say that compared to Germany and the UK, it seems that we are the one who better "preserved" out former numbers of the cold war eras (although our army back then was smaller than the British or the German one)
Your military spending is half the UK's...
Bro, abbiamo tipo 200 ariete e tipo 200 pezzi di artiglieria. Cosa parli di "numeri"?
Serving in the late 80s, British Army as a driver in Germany, even then it was a pretence. We were always under strength with manpower and a lot of our vehicles broke down a lot. Very old equipment. Even when i finished basic training, i had to give back half my uniform, because they did not have enough for the next lot of recruits. I was supposed to get some new clothing at my new units, got some but never a full issued set, but lucky being ex TA, so had a lot of my own clothing etc. Morale at the time was very low, no money for any type of adventurous training or doing anything, some of our troops like B troop stalwarts, since they mostly would not even run, their lads never even really drove anything, you can imagine 3 years of doing nothing. Turn over rate was around 89% of lads getting out after their first 3 years. It was around 86% of the whole army leaving after their first 3 years. So on paper we were a massive army, but reality NAH. I would presume though it was the same for the Russians.
Was Lucas, the Prince of darkness mostly responsible for the breakdowns?
@@juliogonzo2718Hahaha! Grounding (Earth) issues! I was also in the American forces in the 70’s in Europe, and we looked good on paper. Still, a lot of time training was chipping paint and rust off of Vietnam era vehicles. The saving grace was that Ivan (Russia) was truly exponentially worse in every sense. By the Soviet collapse it was indeed worse, Ivan wasn’t 10 feet tall, more like knee high. The UK can integrate newer technologies cheaper then building masses of tanks and surface naval vessels. Drones, manpads, and superior communications can quickly reduce battlefield masses-notable exception remains artillery.
However, in 3 years they were well trained and we had hundreds of thousands of trained people in civvie Street who could be called up and put into the line. All armies kit gets old fast and all arenon tight budgets. But numbers matter. Britains armed forces can barely defend the islands of rhe UK. Overseas operations are a major risk that we cannot support. Shameful. Defence should be 4% of GNo. That level enables the sustainment of a domestic arms industry, which is another scandal.
I knew an ex military man who tld us that our helicopters had to be repaired using other broken down helicopters.
@@landoremick7422 It should be 10% of the nat budget min.
Mark, as an ex soldier its been heartbreaking watching this happen over the last 30 years. All governments have let us down. This is going to haunt us. It leaves complete reliance on other forces without the experience and culture to fight conflicts. Please keep your content coming and thanks again for all the great content.
The low birth rate and high immigration rate might have something to do with the disposition of forces.
@@highpath4776 sure bud
@@CARBONHAWK1 Their statement is absolutely correct. All of Europe is suffering from low birth rates and unlimited immigration. Both of these problems that were created by the very same governments that were meant to protect its own citizens.
It would have been a successful strategy if NATO hadn't been so hell-bent on making enemies out of Russia. Rather than incorporating them into a defense establishment as partners, we backed up into a corner by breaking our promises not to grow NATO. THAT is what will haunt us more than anything else, because without them it will be very, very hard to win a conflict with China.
@@highpath4776 Correct....if you have only ONE child your just gunna not tolerate any high casualty rates, There is also the very real cultural development where folks who might join see the woke culture and stay away....they don't talk about this reality at the Pentagon but its reality anyway....
The Navy part is really the most troubling thing when looking at UK's military as a whole. Long ago top officials already recognized the need for a powerful Navy to protect overseas interests and secure safe shipping to the homeland. Us Americans also eventually realized this and built a massive armada ourselves. Thus it is concerning that both the British and Americans have been neglecting their navies (though the US not quite as much) at a time when the biggest threat to our security as nations that mostly trade lies on the other side of the world separated by an ocean.
Well, you dont have the right for overseas interests, so it is nice that your fleet and international military strenght is history.
The rest of the World's navies combined couldn't beat the USN. And you think that's neglect? Think a bit harder, FFS!
@sammybeutlin2763 on short.....bye bye.
People forget how crazy the seas were pre-ww2. You had to have your navy patrolling your shipping lanes. Problem is, the colonies provided the loot the build the nations and navies in the first place... without that revenue, nations have to tighten the belt, or like the US, build a 30+ trillion dollar debt.
I'm coming up on my 20th year in the U.S. armed forces. London needs to give her armed forces more support. We need our British cousins with us ALWAYS! God bless Great Britain.
Great video Mark!! As a Canadian, I today discovered that Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany offered to purchase Anticosti island, off of the canadian coast, from the canadian government in 1937. Mainly to operate U-Boat in the St. Lawrence region. It would be a great and interesting video topic to hear from you!
Fascinating
Instead of Hitler, you got Castro Jr.
@@wadehampton1737 You know that the current PM can't possibly be Castro's son, right? Maggie Trudeau didn't meet Castro for the first time until Justin was 6 years old unless there was a secret meeting that no one has ever discovered.
@@wadehampton1737 Thousands of Castro's special tadpole division soldiers invaded someone's wife...no doubt.
movie/film called "49 parallel" with lesile howard and laurance oliver...
I am 70 this year. I did ten years as ground crew in the RAF de mobbing in 1980. My last 4 years were at RAF Lyneham. We had 96 C130J aircraft stationed there. Its an absolute joke what we are left with now. Just a cardboard replica. I thank You for chipping in with your very well respected knowledge Sir. Though, I doubt very much however, that it will change the fat cats minds. 1936 all over again -- Peace in our time. -- Won't happen now, will it. -- Much respect to you Dr Felton.
@Bobs_1 It's simple. There's just no war. We dont need to fight for our lives and throw away luxuries. Every god damn military through history has went through the ebbs and flow of peacetime size and wartime size.
@Richard Williams of course otherwise he wouldn't say that, As he is a vet, He would've told you if they were from other countries but he did not
@Bobs_1 I always still see the military as a possible job option since I like the feel of comradship, But yeah, Death, Too low pay when you're risking your life and defending your country doing the job, Only benefit is that your pension is way earlier, It's a much harder choice than back then where you were given benefits such as a brand new paid for house, Welfare options, permanent paid for healthcare insurance, it was nice
@@valyshknee4203 very unlikely since we only ordered 14 C130Js.
I'm a New Zealander. If you think this is bad, consider the New Zealand military. Our Army consists of 5 guys with a single air rifle which they all share, and a single pedal powered tank with cardboard armour. In the event of foreign invasion, current military doctrine states, that once the ammo runs out, we are to start throwing large, heavy objects at the enemy, like chairs, tables and pregnant women.
yes, but the whole point of New Zealand is that it isn't worth invading :)
Great Kiwi humour. Your parody could apply equally to Canada's military but when our ammo runs out, we just retreat so far the invaders would run out of supplies crossing the vast wildernes trying to find us. To DCamore's point, no one wants to invade Canada either.
Realistically, everyone has shrunk their military spending after the Cold war. The key difference is, while the NATO powers have small forces, but with more modern equipment, Russia still maintains a fairly large army, albeit usually equipped with older or only partially modernized equipment. Of course, no European country could 1v1 Russia without outside support, but as we can see even Ukraine who is not a NATO member is getting massive support from NATO countries. And again, even in the 1980s for example, when all European armies were bigger, neither was still large enough to take on the Soviet Union alone, because the Soviet army was also much bigger than the Russian army is today. Russia today is also a shadow of the former Soviet Union, as far as the armed forces are concerned. Just to give an example, before the war in Ukraine Russia had about 3 000 or so tanks in active service, and according to numbers that a quick Google search provided, the USSR had between 30 and 40 thousand tanks in active service just before its collapse. This means that while the number of British tanks in active service got reduced by a factor of 5, the number of Russian tanks in active service got reduced by a factor of 10 or more. Furthermore, Russia no longer has its Warsaw Pact allies, which all also had quite sizeable armies during the Cold war.
I wouldn't say massive support. We're sending in good equipment but no actual combat troops. I have to wonder why NATO powers don't send in a coalition force to overwhelm Russia and end the war more quickly since it seems costly for everyone, not just Russia and Ukraine.
@@TheSm1thers But it is quite massive support in equipment. Just the US aid to Ukraine is probably not far off 100 billion dollars so far (edit: I looked it up, apparently the total value of US military aid is around 33 billion dollars, not quite as much as I thought, but still huge). Just a reminder, for the past couple decades the Russian yearly military budget was 50-70 billion dollars or so. Without all the equipment they are getting, the Ukrainians couldn't fight so well and for so long. Most people talk about the numbers of tanks Russia lost, so just to use that as an example - I bet a pretty decent portion of those were destroyed by the western anti tank weapons sent in as military aid. So, even though I understand your point about the aid not being so massive because no NATO troops were sent, I disagree with it wholeheartedly. Ukraine clearly has a pretty decent number of people willing to fight, but without all the western equipment they certainly could not have done as good a job. As far as sending a coalition force into Ukraine, that would be a huge escalation form NATO's side, and could entice a big Russian reaction. Russia is one of the 2 main nuclear powers in the world, so nobody really wants to commit directly to a war against Russia. It is literally Russian doctrine that nuclear weapons can and will be used if the existence of Russia is threatened. Basically, their doctrine allows the so called "first strike" with nuclear weapons. That does not mean they would instantly bomb the whole world, but it might not be impossible that they would use a couple tactical nukes here and there in order to destroy the hypothetical NATO battlegroups in Ukraine. And if that happened, it could all quickly escalate into a full blown nuclear conflict. Now, all of this is hypothetical, but I think nobody really wants to risk it right now.
That opinion is the reason European military power is so poor.
227 Tanks and not all of them are fully functional.
@@joshfeehan6929 it is poor in comparison with what it was, but so is Russian military power in comparison to Soviet. Russia is struggling in Ukraine, do you think they could realistically take on the whole Europe?
30 years of savings on military hasn’t paid off…
Well that depends on what you want the government to spend money on! Of course it doesn't take a genius to work out if you reduce defence spending, defence capability will reduce. The question is are you are happy to pay more taxes for more defence? Myself personally I am not, we should not be throwing money at wars which are being fought one thousand miles away
@@corinth492It was Stalin who said "You may not be interested in war, but is war interested in you?"
The army was the same state 40 years ago!
Why would any any Englishman even want to join to fight for a government which hates it's own native people?
@@corinth492 The money has not been well spent anywhere else though. We're weaker with nothing to show for it; barely any native industry, a terrible education system, an NHS that is crumbling under the weight of its overly large bureaucracy and then there's the debt.
Same here in Denmark. Our military has been systematically cut down to a token force of its cold war size. Granted, we are a small nation. But we used to be able to field 2 divisions, now we can't even put together a single brigade. Same goes for the navy with 5 frigates but only personel to staff 2,5 of them. The air force is in the same bleak situation.
Why the hell wouldnt Denmark significantly cut it s Cold War size forces ? This is 2023....
@@amblincork One thing is trimming down our forces because we assumed no neer-peer adversery would exist in the post Cold War era, another thing is to butcher our forces to the point of almost breaking point.
@@PhilipDK5800 Who exactly are you expecting to invade you ?
Phillp, we are far less prepared than in the Cold War . everyone seems to see what is developing in Europe and Asia, yet we sleep. May God help us in what is coming
good grief. Incredible that nothing much is even mentioned in public. I should take a closer look at the situation of my homeland Australia, calibrating the tremendous leaps and bounds of our neighbour and major trading partner China who counts by the higher x10 rail, flotillas of ships commissioning in about 2 years, the envy of our navies.
I remember seeing a news story about royal navy sailors guarding the queen. My friend thought it was awesome. I corrected him and said no. This is what happens when you don't have enough ships for the sailors. And no wars to fight for the guards.
That story is bullcrap. Public duties are carried out by all three services. Mostly it's the guards, but every now and again you see the RAF and the Navy take their turn. It has nothing to do with the amount of ships we have. Fewer ships mean fewer sailors. Which is correct, our Navy is the Smallest it's ever been.
@KirstenandTom2011 Quite logical indeed. Why would there be even an overflow of royal sailors if there aren't ships for them. Makes no sense.
This is a common issue throughout Europe. For the most part, many countries in Europe have deferred their defense to the United States and the threat of the NATO alliance as a whole. But it’s kind of worrisome to see European powerhouses like France and the UK drop the ball in maintaining military readiness. The US is the most advanced and capable military in the world, but even we can’t do it alone, especially now with China breathing down Taiwan’s neck. We NEED the UK, France, and Germany to be stronger and more ready.
I agree that things are starting to look rough but if you look at the military spending of NATO compared to any realistic threats to NATO they still massively out spend them. That was the whole point of NATO, so that any 1 country would not have to fight alone reducing the huge burden on their individual economies and militaries. True the US pulls a lot of the weight but they are also the largest economy in the world as well as one of the most resource rich. I'm willing to bet that the economies of the smaller partners have improved since cutting their military budget and its not been needed for 30 years. If that money had continued to be spent on a large military they would have less of an economy to back it up in the event of an actual war. So if they are able to recognise the threat early enough then they are more likely to be in a better position to expand and improve their militaries. Not only is there the cost of maintaining a large military but also upgrading and refitting it too, if these smaller countries had to maintain their forces then they would have likely not been able to modernise their equipment to the standard they have and would be harder to modernise doctrines. In conclusion i do not think it was necessarily a bad thing that military spending was reduced when there was no threat and instead spent elsewhere, assuming they have enough foresight to rearm when necessary. not every country has the ability to do what the US can.
And the US is worse that it was. We have the numbers but they are DEI specialists
France at least has a pretty robust defense indsutry.
I joined RAF in 1991 and left in the 2000's and can relate to this video. we went from exercises designed to hold of the Russians in Germany, that changed in the late nineties to becoming an expeditionary force, expected to deploy to the Gulf
thank you fro your service. a yank
I was airforce in Canada till ‘86. It was shameful to see how they cut spending, training exercises to the point that we are highly inefficient. Here we are today that we have an impending war On the horizon in the South China Sea and another one in Ukraine. Even back then our instructors had warned us of the looming wars that were on the horizon and sure enough they are happening today. The politicians should’ve listened to the old soldiers that had experience back then and we would be better prepared today.
@@SoloRenegade Or spineless politicans manuvering for votes and popularity. At the end of the day, bombs and bullets have no particular preferences when it comes to saving someones hide.
@@nzs316 be careful what you say online. Castro's bastard son might shut off your money and arrest you. Seriously, it's starting to look like we (usa) need to invade Canada to liberate you from that tyrranical gov't.
To deploy to the golf so you can try to colonize and rob the countries from their wealth
I`m currently serving in the UK Military, its appalling how cuts upon cuts have for years entirely rendered our military obsolete. Retention is horrendous, nobody wants to stay, the wages stay low and the manpower is stretched thin in the efforts to save cash leading to overworked personnel working on kit that's also being stretched thin.
This is why they recruit more from overseas than the UK nowadays
@@josephbowman1092 since 2018 recruits do not have to of ever lived in the Uk. This is due to the not being able to fulfil its recruitment needs and problems with retention. I served in the mid 1990s, the British military is a pale shadow of what it was then.
@@josephbowman1092 There're Gurkhas from Nepal or India and Pacific islanders serving in the British army, as far as I know. One of them even earned a Victoria Cross medal.
@@josephbowman1092 You're right. I should have clarified that I was referring to recent years.
@@josephbowman1092 from the commonwealth countries. Caribbean being one yes. It is shocking what’s happening to the British military. We sent all our self propelled artillery to Ukraine. We literally have nothing left. We could probably just about scrape together a combat ready brigade. The US aside, the rest of NATO is the same. When you think that the Russians destroy a brigade or two of a better armed Ukrainian army every month it brings home just weak we are militarily.
The Royal Navy being so diminished is infuriating. The last time we appeared this weak, Argentina tried to conquer the Falklands and we had to put old Hermes back into service (luckily she hadn't been decommissioned, just put in reserve) and bring a load of civilian ships into service. At least we have two new carriers, but that's no good if we can't make up a proper carrier group to defend said carrier. We need an actual fleet or else our flagships are useless and will have to rely on allies for protection. For the Royal Air Force, it's again painful. I recently watched the Evacuation documentary about the evacuation of Kabul in 2021, and we struggled with the amount of planes we had available to us to get people out. We just don't have the heavy lift capacity any more, this has been made worse recently by the retirement of the last two C-130 Hercules from RAF service last month (June). The RAF is the branch I'd thought about joining if I ever did join the military, but it just no longer has the scale to take recruits really any more.
The German Military complex shrunk even more dramatic, from active peace time personnel of ~480.000 troops in 1990 to roughly 180.000 today.
If you aren't talking about the entire army and just the infantry then you are quite lucky. The ENTIRE Dutch Army has 41,000
Watching this as an American, it really seems like that has been the trend for western Europeans to become utterly reliant on outside powers to save costs. Whether it be relying on American defense, Russia for energy, or China for manufacturing, western Europe is making the same mistakes now as the empires proceeding them in having the core pillars of stabilization outsourced beyond their borders.
The problem at the core of all thjs was 2008 financial crisis. Europe never really recovered from it. Look at key measures of gdp trends pre 2008 and after. Europe just flat lined.
De-industrialisation is part of it. Another is a decline in birth rates. The other is a belief in the peace dividend of a post cold war europe. This was a term coined by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who both suggested that an end to the cold war would mean less defense spending. The UK defense spending review of 1990 makes this perfectly clear. Policy review was called "Options for change". Defense review of 2004 also makes it clear that UK interests are with the US and will always fight as part of an international coalition. The 2010 defense review is a mess. Less a defense a review and more about terrorism, foreign relations, diplomacy and soft power. This defense review announced withdrawal of all British forces from Germany. Canceled nimrod. Further reduction in the fleet to 19. Cut harrier jet program before a direct replacement was operational. 2015 defense review says that British forces should be "world leading". Total garage. By 2019 the government had conceded that its funding was indeed "fake news". All puff. 2017 defense review wasn't a defense review. The government ignored concerns about Russian aggression. Matters of defense were not examined, in a defense review! The 2021 defense review created a new foreign, development, and commonwealth relations department. The review says the world is becoming multi polar and fragmented. Sounds very similar to what Putin says. And China is the biggest threat, mostly due to its economic importance. Very strange since the 2015 review said that China would be an important future economic ally. Yet more cockups. It is yet more evidence that "long term" planning turns out not to be best when the "long term" finally comes around.
I don't think it's a desire to rely on others, I think it is a general political complacency about defence issues, and probably wishful/hopeful thinking the next wars won't need people with actual guns...
Please remember we don't have to rely on American help you are free to go... 🇬🇧👍
i really feel france just wants to chill drink wine and eat fine foods lol and has no beef with russia ooo and maintain there secrect north african and pacific empire
Using an internet search and Dr. Felton's numbers, the entire active duty British armed forces are smaller than the US Marine Corp and have far less jet fighters. The RN only having 30 line combat vessels is shocking. Got a tour of HMS Churchill back in the 80s when she made port in Norfolk, VA. Three of us from USS Bainbridge took one of the Churchill crewman with us to see the sights in Washington, DC. Fun times.
I think the entire British Army should be marines. They should have navy, air force and marines. Then they should have territorial defense forces, made up of trained volunteers. Or have every 18 year old able bodied male go throw a mandatory 3 months basic training, optional for women. The military doesn't just need frontline soldiers, they also need mechanics, truck drivers, drone operators, etc. Those things can be easily assigned to territorial defense forces or volunteers, in case of a large scale conflict. I hope the West now realizes we need two tier equipment. The high tech, expensive equipment is too expensive to buy and maintain in large numbers, we also need cheaper equipment that can be easily manufactured and purchased in large numbers. It's nice to have Javelins and NLAWs, but it's nicer to also have a whole bunch of things like the Ukrainian Stugna-P . It's nice to have Reaper drones, but it's nicer to also have 1 million Shahed drones.
@@scratchy996 Marines are naval commando infantry specialists, it would be impossible to have just marines, with no land forces dedicated to that role. Three months training would be inadequate, and the training base would be impossible to maintain, the costs would be enormous and a waste of resources, and frankly with the demographic diverse makeup of the UK as it stands it might be a dangerous path to chaos to train people with no loyalty to the UK in the use of firearms. I cannot see the majority of the ethnic groups even be willing or capable of going through such disciplined training without riots and major dangerous disruption.
@@scratchy996 That's how we do it in SK with our tank fleet. 500 modernized M48s for the reserves, 1000 105mm K1 tanks as a cheap option, 500 120mm K1A2 tanks as a middling option, and 300 K2 Black panthers as the high end option.
good thing. much better to have free and universal education and healthcare than killing machines to invade other countries for oil.
@@robshirewood5060 I can see a two tier army where the arms bearers are mainly anglo saxon and some but not all commonwealth. At best the others might get to blow a bugle or wash the floors. (bit like the irish come the end of WW1)
Do The Netherlands next! Actually had a decent army before the end of the cold war. It's scary how little is left now. I guess we'll pretend to wage war for 4 days again in case of an invasion...
Thank you Mark for saying what needed to be said.
As an American, this was shocking to hear. Informative as always.
it's better to invest in society btw USA got us covered - they don't have reasonable social security and have more poor people that any developed country and yet spend almost 1 thrillion on the defense. If there ever is a war between nuclear powers then the whole spending on the army is questionable. Beat russia in combat and then be nuked anyway?
Shocking... it was obvious... where have you been lol
@Jim Enigma most Americans could care less about the uk; much less researching their pathetic military capabilities
The British aren't even the worst culprits of military downsizing. Is it any wonder many American politicians were calling on Europe to step up their military spending?
@@trolltrama9780 I disagree. The UK is our closest ally. Many of us came from the UK.
Friend of mine served in the RAF, they went to the US for whatever reason on a C-17 globemaster. The US air force base they landed on had more C-17's than the entire of the RAF, he spoke to one of the american mechanics and the mechanic said that if it was the USAF then the americans would gave retired the plane as it was in such bad condition. He also had to get a commercial flight to the US once as they were no RAF planes available. Our armed forces has shrunk so much its embarrassing.
Would like to see how big the US military would be if America had a full universal health and welfare system to pay for!
@@B-A-L It's a question of balance. Service or services? Independence or dependence? Vanquisher or vassal?
I was in the US Navy in 1982 during the Falkland Islands War and remember the Royal Marines had to use the QE2 ocean liner to get to the South Atlantic. Sad.
@@B-A-L Our Democrat Party is trying their best to move us in that very direction!
@@B-A-L We actually pay more than any of the countries with universal healthcare...Part of the reason we rank along Cuba in healthcare access.
Excellent Video.........one of Marks best
You didn't mention ammunition stocks and rate of production Mark. In most NATO countries ammunition availability is a huge bottleneck. I believe in the titanic struggle that NATO airforces fought above Libya (/irony) already France, and I believe the UK as well, had to petition the USA for resupply of munitions during combat operations
You called Libya fight...😊😅😮😢 It's invasion
I left the Army in 2015 and a good reason for my leaving was the absolute ineptitude of my chain of command. The system had become one of box ticking and internal bureaucracy. The job at hand became unbelievably difficult to perform and this depleted the moral of the juniors. I loved my time but my last unit was a totally unfit for purpose. It was 40% undermanned too.
I’m currently signed off and some of the reasons you mentioned there as the reasons I’ve signed off also what unit/ rank where because I’m a junior and there is little to no morale in the ranks
I knew a man that wanted a full lifelong career in the army, fully intended to do 22 years or more and he did a good job of it, he enjoyed the first half (when he wasn't at war of course), but something changed for him. He said it was like the entire culture had shifted in the army and nobody had their heart in it anymore, the old spirit was gone and he couldn't bare it. Left after nearly a decade or more of being a soldier I think. It seems like this story is becoming all too common, and its sad to hear because I'm trying to join myself.
@Billy Halliday RAF even worse 🙄
Kinda funny since I had many of the same issues when leaving the US Army. My Cav Troop was running at around 70 people total, with an authorized strength of 120ish.
@@billyhalliday9811 I was a Sergeant in the Signals. I couldn't keep my guys protected from the B.S. and the only advice I got was basically, give up caring. Unfortunately that wasn't and option and I decided to leave after 14 years. Most of my peers also wanted to leave but were either happy to go with the flow or pension trapped. We had more people on the biff than able bodied and that funnelled down with duties and deployments. The professional ones got spammed to death and made miserable while the biffs were sitting pretty. Like I said. I had many many reasons for leaving. Those are just the condensed versions. It's a lifestyle and career and a KZhead comments section can't really do the experience justice. I wish you all the luck in the future. Thanks for the comments everyone btw.
It is not only britian that has a shrunken military. All the NATO members wound back their militaryies after the fall of the Cold War and iron curtain. I had a debate with a character about the manufacture of Leopard 2 tanks by Rhienmetal. I stated there was no rolling assembly line. They were being made on a static workshop basis, which is slow to turn out tanks. I have been vindicated as the Poles have now purchased 250 Abram's M1 A2 tanks from the US with 115 delivered and the rest to come in the next year or so. The scrounge around for Leopard 2 tanks for Ukraine is a total embarrassment to the NATO nations.
After Ukraine NATO is next to fall
Don't forget that Poles are also buying tanks from South Korea.
@@ifyoudontfailyouarenoteven6210 Don't forget the Big Guy always gets 10%💰🇺🇦💰
I say this as a committed pacifist, the countries who are members of NATO need to increase the size of the their militaries and military spending significantly.
The American don't have an assembly line for Abrams tanks either though. That production line was closed decades ago. Whatever Abrams tanks Poland buys come straight out of US Army reserve stocks.
Very informative video. Outstanding video as always 🙏. God bless you and your beautiful country 🙏🎄 Happy New Year roo you 🙏🎄
Great video coverage 💯 you spoke the truth
Almost every Barracks, from Catterick to Aldershot and even a injury rehab Centre i had to attend, in Surry during my 6 years Army service in the 70's is now a housing estate. Those figures are shocking, especially considering the £ Billions that have been wasted in the last couple of years.
Pakistani families are living there now. They are calling it there little Jalalabad.
@@richardv9648 oh wow, so sad. I would be livid too.
@@richardv9648 Where?
@@richardv9648 but isnt jalalabad is afghanistan city?
@@luchko3936 No Its in Pakistan, It used to be a British army cantonment during the first and second anglo-Afghan war. Its now a Pakistani Army's cant. after Pakistans independence. Osama bin laden was found hiding there.
Thanks Mark! So true. And if you then look at Germany, as I do as a German artillery officer in the years 1989-1994, you can only shake your head and burst into tears. So many years of decline. Especially here in Germany, after the end of the cold war, it was not possible to win a single vote by demanding a higher defense budget. And that is the real tragedy. A defense budget (up to a certain margin) should never be negotiable. At no times. Nowhere. As democracies, we must be able to defend ourselves. An in the end nobody wanted to listen to the few voices that repeatedly warned: "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" ... "If You Want Peace, Prepare For War."
Germany was a puppet of the allies and the Soviets East Germany Russian west Germany democratic
The brits have keept their ships afloat better, but the british army might well be in a worse state than the german army. Seen a report that the UK would take 3 times as long as Germany to put together an armored brigade or so. German one would run out of ammo faster tho.,
its funny how NATO seems to be doing all it can to provoke Putin with little to back it up.
The thing was And after Reunification we got East Germany's stuff to, because of treaties groud army and many system typs, ships hat to be cut copied older comment not up to date Germany had practically no threat, has friendly relations with its neighbors, Poland etc. as a buffer to Russia. Reunification with East Germany was expensive, which is why savings were made in the military. Who should also attack Germany? China Economic relations make it still too impossible, many Chinese like Germany (e.g. also because of John Rabe, the good Nazi, who saved 200k Chinese civilians), China is far away. Iran, North Korea etc. have no direct problem with Germany, are too far away or their military would not be strong enough. Let's say Iran would be hostile now, they would have to build a fleet first, bring their army through the Mediterranean Sea/around Africa, past Spain, France and later the English Channel past NATO members to attack then on Germany's North Sea coast next to, the Netherlands, Denmark.
@@markcallaghan8389 Well, not really, provocation either way, and since the military is not designed to stem the national defense alone anyway, but in the alliance defense, Russia would still have no chance. And one has Poland etc. as larger military numbers at equipment. If one could lead the war long enough, NATO or the European countries would win even without the USA, because the economy is simply much bigger and industry exists which can be converted for military production = the military potential is much bigger than what Russia could convert. In addition, there are nuclear weapons.
Great video Mark 👍 Complacency has creeped in stopping rational thought on the risks of not having a proper scaled, equipped defence force. Also the over reliance on just in time supply chain methods along with needing to import just about everything leaves us open to not just military attack, but economic shocks. The state of our supply chain and the lock of power capacity in the grid means we are a sitting duck to even conventional attacks. I have heard noises that the plan was to have the UK join a new central European Military so to avoid anyone one nation having a huge expenditure on military force.
Thank you for illustrating the actual numbers.
Thanks for bringing this to light, Mark. As a former US Army officer, I’m shocked and appalled at this information. I really had no idea the UK military was so depleted. We often see Britain as a viable military ally. I hope the recent developments with Russia and China cause a shift in UK military readiness going forward.
We are some of the best trained in the world. We are though small. I've taken part in exercises with a number of foreign countries and can tell you apart from I think the elite Danish soldiers we tend to smash most countries in a number of areas. We do need more funding and equipment though
It seems some shifts may be coming as there’s been lots of talk about the military the past few months, hopefully there will be some action taken because the state of the British military is unacceptable.
Man for man the British are the best trained in the world. There's just not enough of us
China is nowhere near the UK so no need for us to worry about them. Russia has shown its incompetence so again no need to break the bank on useless military spending.
@@Hill_Walker if you think we don't need a strong military you've not learnt the lessons of history
Dr. Felton- I’m sure that the men and women of the British Armed Forces are appreciative of you raising the alarm bells. Politicians Talk. Soldiers Walk.
Men are soldiers, women are just there for show and "bonus points"
Dr Felton. Very informative. Any chance you could perform and report on a similar analysis for continental European forces and (separately) US forces?
When I joined the Royal Air Force in the 1970's there were over 100,000 personnel. When I left in the 2010's there wasn't enough to fill a football ground.
(Britain) "Our Armed Forces have shrunk significantly and pale compared to our past." (Canada) "Hold my beer!"
Canada is at least ordering 15 Type 26 frigates, whilst Britain orders. . . 8.
@@alexanderfoster3628 you are forgetting that the british are ordering 5 type 31 frigates and have type 32 frigates in the works too
@@XxRemixerzxX Currently there is no funding for T32. As for T31 it is a glorified off shore patrol vessel with 24 Sea Ceptor missiles. With so few hull all the new frigates should be T26.
took the words out of my mouth, lmao
@@alexanderfoster3628 Ordering doesnt mean getting. The oligarch drydocks build god awful boats full of problems and then demand more money from the government to fix THEIR mistakes. Canada's procurement system is a joke.
Thanks Mark. These numbers are rather shocking especially given the current tensions in Europe. You can see why our American allies have become fed up with how most NATO members do not pay their way.
@@KRGruner Troll.
@@KRGruner dope
@@KRGruner you bet he was! That’s not related to what we were talking about though!
The US has effectively bankrolled 70% of the cost of defending Europe post WW2. Western politician's need to wake up from their complacency coma's and realise that with China becoming increasingly bellicose, it's only a matter of time before the US turns around to Europe and notifies NATO that they have prioritise defending their own back yard and interests in the Pacific region. If you look at Germany, in 1990, the Bundeswehr possessed 4000 main battle tanks. Today, they can barely field 100-150. Europe has spent 30 years disarming, collectively, European countries need to wake up and start spending 4% GDP on defence, even then, it would take at least a decade to reverse *some* of the damage that has occurred.
👑🇪🇺🇬🇷👑✝️🇪🇺🇬🇷👑 Britania has CIVILISATION And global language and tea.............. They dont need army British are civilised They are not blood thirsty as mongols and other empires of past and now And communists And rioters barbarians 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Great video, Your missing the pension rework for the armed forces which was an incentive for longer service and the state of defence infrastructure particularly where armed forces personnel are trained and accommodated in the UK. Our equipment is lacking but retention of personnel is the unseen cracks that will break the back of the armed forces in time.
When I joined the RAF hundreds of years ago, I was among 80,000 others. Now, apparently, you can fit all three services in a large sports stadium. There was a joke going around at the time among the 'old and bold ' that they didn't need ID cards in their time because everyone knew each other. Seems like history repeating itself.
I suspect that the many Western-European countries' militaries have followed similar patterns since the end of the Cold War. Many governments have been too complacent, playing down the risk, not taking warning signs seriously
They became accustomed to the US paying the lion's share of NATO and UN funds, along with personnel and equipment in their countries, as a sort of proxy military. That said, even the US has BRAC, or Base Realignment and Closure, which also cuts the amount of active and reserve forces.
@@persnikitty3570 No they didnt. Its simply the case of the USSR and the Warsaw pact collapsing and with a weaked Russia. There was not a cause to justify spending 4% on defence. Europe helped the Americans with their idiotic wars in the Middle East which many seems to have forgotten
yes... we were all caught being idealistic and not realistic... we were so busy being "woke" that we were caught sleeping...
@@stc3145 But European help was not in the form of providing large forces but token detachments so that US presidents could claim they were leading international coalitions, and not a massive US invasion by itself. For that Europe did not need to maintain large forces. A battalion per country at the most would suffice.
Also having to pay for massive social programs for the illegals and all the crime, rape, murder etc.
Wow, Mr. Felton. I didn't realize the Royal Navy has shrunk so much.
Thank you Mark. Another excellent video. Does anyone know of a similar video documenting USA state of readiness with comparative "then and now" type of stats?
My first experience with the British military was during an exchange with 1 Para of the Parachute Regiment. As an American paratrooper, I was impressed with them. I was saddened to learn that the Connaught Barracks were closed.
Almagation was the saddest thing. There's a great documentary, called In the Highest Tradition.
Almagation was the saddest thing. There's a great documentary, called In the Highest Tradition.
Almagation was the saddest thing. There's a great documentary, called In the Highest Tradition.
@@johnw1954 What have you been drinking old chap............AMALGAMATION and I agree, we lost the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry aka 1st Royal Green Jackets, one of the finest Regiments ever.
Did you find the Paras to be 'mental' - I did.
In general, only about 1/3 of ships will be available on station at any given time. 1/3 will be in maintenance/refit and unable to deploy, while 1/3 are undergoing replenishment in order to be deployed or are doing their end of deployment tasking. In 1944, losing a destroyer wasn't great, but it didn't really hurt the available forces, but losing one today represents a huge loss of capability.
Indeed, that's also why only having two (especially non-nuclear!) carriers will never do! They can't stay on station as long as a nuclear carrier can, they can't steam as fast constantly and if you also have only got two? Well, you'll not risk them, thus giving your enemies a lot of freedom to move! Hell, look at Argentina! They had one carrier during the Falklands War and they did everything they could to keep it safe, which gave Britain (despite being thousands of miles from re-supply!) the freedom to move (especially since the had a few tireless hunters - nuclear subs! - hunting for that carrier!)
Red Dawn 🌿🇨🇳🌿
Indeed, and Britain's manufacturing base is too weak to sustain a long-term, conventional war. As US Armed Forces Veteran, I feel similar about the US right now. I got out in 2021 after 14 years. My Navy Veteran Wife got out after 16. We both got out as Senior NCOs.
Yep, always heard the old "one in three" mantra and it seems to hold up.
At least the navy has a good supply of Superglue🤣🤣🤣👍🇷🇺🇷🇺🇮🇪
Very informative video. Please do more of these on the current capabilities of other NATO and Western nations.
Part 2: And another thing most important is that the total strength of today's military forces is much smaller that 30 years ago. The UK could not fight itself out of a wet paper bag, if it wanted too.
The manpower of the RAF when I joined it in the early 1980's, was more than the total present manpower of all 2023 UK armed services. Frighteningly small it is now.
As a German, i can sit here and say, that it is fascinating what you say about the British Army specific. It sounds exactly like the News here at the Moment. No Personal, no Tanks, no Aircraft, no Ammo etc. Also heared the same from some french Friends.
I'm Polish and the same can be said about all EU armies. Every year since 2009, Russia has always been putting AT LEAST 3.5% of their year GDP into military. They reached as high as 5.4% in the fiscal year 2016. For comparison: the EU (as a whole) has only been spending around 1.4% for the same time period. Significantly below NATO's minimum 2% requirement. The thing about democracies is that politicians are incentivized to neglect the military, because spending money on social programs/benefits will get you more votes than spending the same amount of money on military equipment.
@thematic2177 Greece put 3.8% last year, more -as a percentage - than even the US.
@@kavas1970 The US defense budget was 742 billion in 2021, more than the rest of NATO combined.
@@Thematic2177 Ah but hold even with just a min defence spendin Nato can still defeat the russian army that is why its not tried.
@@rayjames6096 He is talking in national defence share, stop being silly. The US even with that kind of money on defence has alllowed the US navy to be over taken by China, that is why the latter is more aggressive, so is russia.
What a mess. We are unable to even to defend ourselves. It's really pathetic.
This is a genuinely terrifying video.
I was an infantry soldier, and it was a standard joke the RAF will soon be RAF plc owing to the vast number of jobs now done by civillians. Great content, best wishes all.
As an ex crab, that joke has sadly become reality!
As someone who works with the British Army frequently, your small military is a very professional and competent force. I'm always impressed that they can punch well above their weight.
Yes but they can’t keep on doing it forever without the government funding them properly
That's nice but our weight is currently bantamweight when it should really be, based on our population and the size of our economy, middleweight.
@@Akm72 amen
Every one can punch until they got punched back or something or other. 😅
That is what they said in 1914, my good man, and that fine small army of very professional and competent men effectively disappeared after six months of fighting German conscripts. The British Expeditionary Force did fight better, man for man, but they were still far outnumbered by an enemy that was only so much less capable than them.
Mark, your certainly right about one thing. And thats how attritional and prolonged warfare can have an affect on the quality and quantity of equipment you can field. While its fun to look at super cool modern technology, how much of that can actually be put into use, and deployed on a battlefield larger than a country in the middle east?
One problem with downsizing, especially in the navy, is once you’ve stopped building submarines or surface warships, you lose the experienced shipbuilders, supply support, and other infrastructure that’s slow to recover once gone. The U S can keep the systems operating because of all the far flung presence they project globally and they justify the cost. It’s not a priority for other nations where some of the ruling parties are against military spending when other needs are present. That lack of preparedness may cause future belligerents to take notice.
I'm American, and the state of the Royal Navy makes me the most sad. A service with such a proud and great history and tradition, to have such a decline in strength is so depressing.
Thanx you HATEFUL leftwingers!
Dont be too sad, I doubt they would feel bad if the US Navy was in that condition, in fact, they would probably love that.
Lord Nelson wept.
I'm pretty sure that it was that strength that was used to blockade US ports during and after your Revolution. And they kept it at strength because of all the other economies (India, China, Burma, Malaysia) that they crushed with it, which was great for business, I gotta tell ya. What are your feelings on that glorious history?
I think it’s funny, it’s even funnier that most of those RAF bases contain USAF jets.
I'm ex USN aviator- I saw a recent British documentary on a Submarine crew - the boat was rusty, the interior was shabby the crew dealt with an onboard fire while submerged as if it was an everyday occurrence; No offense meant here, but the vaunted British Navy looked really really - weary.
What films are used in this video? just curious as they look quite interesting. Great vid btw!
Mark, as a US Army Veteran those are shocking numbers to my ears. The UK is one of our greatest allies in times of conflict. With those numbers we will not be able to depend on them for any great help if a conflict does occur. I’m not sure who we can truly depend on if we can’t depend on y’all. (By the way I did work along side some British soldiers in Afghanistan while deployed in 2004 and they were excellent soldiers.)
Well if you ever need help taking on glorified drug dealers in a third world middle eastern country, we can still round up a few lads to help out with that. If a real war breaks out... yeah we can't do much. :/
England is a dead power. I'm confident that Germany, France, and the US are not in the same boat.
European countries l( uk Germany France) are just thinking why spend billions on our defence when Uncle Sam will pay it for us 😂
None of these comments make sense. Why would you need a large army when nukes exist? All the UK needs to do is keep a small force to maintain the trident
There probably depending on NATO just like a lot of other countries in countries that belong to nato aren't paying their fair share
yes, the hardware we use has improved, but that does not mean we can cut numbers, because our potential enemies have also improved their capabilities. Our politicians do not personally benefit from the military, so they do not care, and many seem to HATE this country.
Sad to see y’all dealing with that as an American. I got respect for our buds across the pond and it’s disgraceful what’s happened to your armed forces. Some of the same issues happen here too
The UK had a difficult time keeping its citizens heated this winter. Funding the armed forces should be the least of their worries.
Very true. The American military has had its own issues with shrinking conventional capabilities after 20 years of fighting terrorists, but the state of the UK (our number one partner) and our other NATO allies’ militaries is very concerning.
When you finally realize that we are the actual terrorists.
The only bright light among the European military's right now is the Polish army, which is undertaking a huge modernisation effort at breakneck speed that will see it effectively become the shield of Europe. If successful it will become by far the most powerful European NATO army by 2027 capable of holding Russia at the border in the event of an invasion, provided it's given sufficient air support by other NATO members. Basically the Poles have seen the western European military's shrinking and have said 'fine, I'll do it myself'.
@@NoName-qs6ei Terrorists are, by definition, non state actors. As such any actions taken by the western nations, or any other nation for that matter, literally can't be called terrorism. When acts of terror are committed by a state they are referred to as either war crimes or crimes against humanity, depending on the severity and circumstances.
@@ddandymann Call it what you want. Pot meet kettle.
@@NoName-qs6ei Definitions are important dude, that's the only point I was making. If you want to call the wests actions in the middle east, and more specifically Iraq, war crimes then I won't disagree with you. However calling it terrorism is just flat out wrong.
I joined the RAN in 1987. I was confident in our leadership, hardware, civilian support and fighting spirit. Having left last year, I have confidence that our current personnel will die bravely in defeat. Hardware is bug ridden, over reliant on contractors, and ludicrous maintenance costs. Shrinking assets, front line numbers and morale. Top that off with the military more worried about checking boxes than training, and I look at our adversaries with gloom, especially a certain country that has expended their military in leaps and bounds and looks at the west with disdain. And they have every right to do so. There will always be combat losses in a shooting war, on land, sea and air, not matter how technically advanced you are. in the past, crash construction and industry ramping up could make up the shortfalls. Today? A single loss of a frigate or sub would be devastating as they could not be replaced quickly. Reserve fleets are a thing of the past, years to build a frigging patrol boat and most young folks want to be tik tok influencers and not wear the uniform. Sorry for the rant, Mark, but a shrinking military reflects a shrinking desire of a nation to defend it's values. We are just about there.
Same thing here in America with the youth that are more interested in being some sort of internet influencer than putting their country and others first. I served in the us army in the early 80’s and we had Reforger back then. The 5th Infantry Division I served with doesn’t even exist anymore. It really makes me sick.
Your words hurt. Because they are true.
When there's no more uniformity in the martial tribe the tribe fragments and is dissolved.
These days it is all about "diversity" as if that will save them from being killed. I agree with your statement on a pitiful military reflects the lack of desire to defend western values. I will also add is the slow decay of western society. Rather than correct it we pander to idiots with pronouns and positive descrimination tick boxing quotas.
@@Veldtian1 Is that a quote?
I joined the RN in 1978 which had about 76000 personnel and 50 frigates assigned to NATO. I left in 1999 when they had 36,000 personnel and 16 frigates assigned to NATO. Last job was in MOD Operational Requirements. Realised the Government was broke and there was no money for Armed Forces equipment. Left and went into Superyachting. Far more money, easier job, very very different and retired aged 57.
Realised the Government was broke" Yet e still have money for tax cuts... So no, not broke, just stupid priorities! As voted for/demanded by the British people!
Excellent video, I always hear it argued that the modern warships are more advanced but as mark puts it you always have ships in maintenance and a ship cannot be in 2 places at once It’s sad that the Royal Navy was once the biggest and most powerful in the world now it’s not even the biggest or most powerful navy in Europe
That’s how I feel about arguments about better armored vehicles. Even if the tanks, artillery, and IFVs are more accurate and more capable, they can’t cover a line as vast as Eastern Europe
It's pretty much the same with the Australian Defense Force (ADF). An article appeared recently in the Oz media in which a retired Australian general said that if we went to war, we would last about 2 days. Frightening and visions of 1939.
They also said Ukraine wouldn’t make it a month. But here we are. I think any solid enemy of Australia would get there and realize the mess they got themselves in by how tough and ingenuitive you bastards are. And even then, the US and the rest of the free world would be right behind them to help you out. That’s why nato and the UN exist
... hopefully the forces of the big, hungry, yellow draggon will not be on Pervitin then .....
@@_Alfa.Bravo_ No, just plenty of MSG in their food!
Alonso, they got rid of a lot of the 7.62mm SLRs, permanently! Crushed and scrapped!
Na us yanks would bail you out till you got up to snuff not to mention y'all kick japanese ass in new guinea
I remember when I went through armor officer school, we had a British Army SGT Major as an instructor and he said there were more tanks at Ft Benning, GA than in the whole British Army. I didn't believe him at the time.
what's even worse is that the government before the Ukraine thing happened was looking at going down to 100 and scrapping the others for parts. it's painful being British.
Again if numbers were the key the chinese would walk over the US now. As we have seen in ukraine numbers are not important it how you use what you have. The UK armed forces is too small though way too small.
@@Ben-ek1fz That's the thing about being a declining economic power, you have to peddle harder to just stay still. Economic power = military power. Now ask yourself WHY the UK has had a virtually stagnant economy for the last 10 years.
@@mlc4495 If only we could identify certain policies, etc over the last 30 years that have sapped the economic power and crushed the will of the average Englishman........
@@thetreelander7378 At least you aren't speaking German!!!
This is a sterling example of history repeating itself. Wasn’t this the situation pre-World War I and II? Have the Brit’s forgotten the words of Winston Churchill?
I think this isn’t only a British issue but a European issue, European nations need to get their act together with regards to their military’s.
Well said, Mark! I was shocked to learn that at the time of the Falklands conflict if the Argies had launched their invasion two months later, by then, HMS Hermes would have been at the breaker's yard! Thus one could only imagine the out come!!! As always, keep up the excellent work!
and if they invaded today, they’d win!
HMS Hermes was sold to India. The Falklands delayed the sale.
@@hunty1970 They definitely wouldn’t, as their military has declined even more than ours! Their airforce consists of about 8 A-4ARs which can’t even break the sound barrier. The eurofighter Typhoons stationed on the islands could deal with these easily - the Argentinian airforce wouldn’t stand a chance in 2023. This is also without considering the modern anti-air and anti-ship missiles also stationed there.
@@hunty1970 Man. You're giving the argentines way too much credit. They can barely have a navy now. Let alone a small invasion force
It's not only the UK. It's most of western Europe. In my country Portugal we have 16 F-16 and about 60 leopard 2. I read somewhere that to make a German tank battalion ready they had to get parts from all the other battalions.
That's ok though, as long as you have diversity and use the proper pronouns, you should be good to go. LOL!!
@@The_OneManCrowd yea swallow that propaganda from the Alt-right in order to justify billionaire military contractors get their pay check. Tell me, Who is this who says that diversity and using proper pronouns would mean that you are good for military service or whatever ficitional argument you are trying to interpret? is it the "Cultural Marxist" or "Woke illuminati government"??
@@zeyadsaeed9580 it's not his fault. Years of reactionary propaganda takes a toll
We all know what this means, utter defeat and conquest in this upcoming world war.
@Vasco That's makes a lot of sense. They all became reliant in American blood and treasure.
Cash strapped is a fictional term to describe the UK Military. They have the third or fourth highest defence budget of $70 billion+. It is rather a matter of fundamentally reorganising the structures of procurement, civil service interference, and funding, rather than anything else.
The Finns were the only ones in Europe (apart from the Swiss) to maintain a conscript-based force after the Cold War ended. As a result, the Finns are in much better shape, militarily-speaking, than their neighbors during this time of increased tensions with Russia. Even Sweden jettisoned much of its military capabilities after the Cold War ended and is now scrambling to try to restore them. "Better to have them and not need them, then to need them and not have them."
I had the opportunity to sail with the Finnish Navy aboard the FNS POHJANMAA in mid-2003. Despite some pretty outdated equipment, I was incredibly impressed with their professionalism and Esprit-de-Corps, from the newest conscript to the CO. Particularly so given this was during a time of general peace in northern Europe. I'd imagine its the same, or perhaps even stronger, today.
@@notpopeye interesting. Thanks for those personal insights!!
Estonia also kept their conscription based army after regaining their independence in ‘91
Just like Germany who is currently facing problems with their military possibly due to those leftist in the government
Finland and Sweden are only wanted in NATO so they can monitor and possibly disrupt Russia's legitimate interests in the Arctic (which incidentally means "with Bear") and its legitimate clearance of sea routes north of Russia which open commercial routes Atlantic to Pacific and vice versa.
I’m actually personally annoyed at this. A few months ago I was rejected from the British Army because one of my eyes was only just outside the minimum eyesight range. (+- 6.00). Even though I was fit, able and willing to join I was rejected for this. It’s even more annoying that I could’ve fixed it with laser eye surgery but they don’t let you join if you’ve had laser eye surgery until a few years after. This is especially annoying since even though one of my eyes is within the minimum requirement, frankly both my “good” and “bad” eye are equally fine with glasses/contacts, and equally crap without; there’s no practical difference. My point being, is that the military has a lot of arbitrary and outdated entry requirements, especially with modern medicine/treatments etc. It’s hypocritical that they complain about a manpower shortage while simultaneously having stupidly strict entry requirements.
US army is eager for recruits right now if you are interested. I would say it's not a great time to join, but compared to the British army it sounds like it is better.
Why on earth would you want to fight for a country that hates you? (I assume you're an ethnic Englishman?). There is nothing worth fighting for anymore.
@@SoloRenegade how good does your eyesight need to be to man a drone? the robots do all the fighting these days.
Furthermore, (if accepted) you wouldn't have complained about the Army food on account of your love for Spam...
@Twitter Is Cancer Probably be a general if Trans lol
I did not realize the cumulative issues were this profound. Its my hope that things improve. A strong Royal Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine will be essential no matter where or what threat NATO or the West may face.
The % of GDP figure is misleading. The UK in real terms spends more now on the military than we have ever done. The fact is average wages and the sophistication of military equipment is now so high that you dont get the same bang for your buck (ie a plane costs almost 80 times more than it did in the past, even after adjusting for inflation). Still, the UK spends more on its military than any other country in the world except China and Russia. The main problem is the UK is no longer economically dominant, so we really can't afford to have such a large military, even if there is a need for one. Unless we can reduce spending on the NHS, Education or raise taxes even higher (already at a post war high). Good luck with that. Basically everyone wants more spending on everything but no one is prepared to pay anything.
A sobering review. Thank you. As a retired member of the US Air Force, I always very much enjoyed working with the RAF and British Army. Top notch personnel.
Wait until Pedo Joe and his woke pals get done with our military. Won' t be pretty
They are nice to our faces but behind our backs they dont talk so nicely about us.
US officer here. While the sun has set on the Empire, British soldiers have always been squared away. I have always enjoyed working with them.
100% agree.
Agreed -- the best of the best of all our allies, bar none.
They're shockingly relaxed in a lot of ways. They can even have alcohol aboard their ships. But it doesn't seem to change anything. When you meet them you see why they conquered the world.
I view Force News videos and I am heartened by the fact that the Royal Army is purchasing more Apache attack gunships and cross-training with the US in very deliberate and encouraging ways. It's going to take a while but I think the British Armed Forces are going to top quality, albeit smaller contingents trained to a high operational tempo. The Anglosphere countries are functioning as integrated extensions of one another: US, UK, Canada and Australia.
The British Army is not Royal. Some regiments yes. The other forçes bear the name Royal.
I think militaries tend to ebb and flow in numbers in response to current threats and world needs. Past 30 years has been smaller surgical operations with overwhelming air superiority. Now we are seeing older conventional tactics and needs developing. Give it another 5-10 years and we'll see US/UK/NATO beef up. It's good for economies too.
so sad, our government has forgotten defence is its number 1 purpose for too long
Voters want free stuff, defense naturally suffers.
The army was the same state 40 years ago!
Less costly overseas conflicts is a plus
@@robjmck So you have already told us a number of times previously. Do you have a memory problem? I would suggest you seek medical help for this ailment.
@@castercamber Britain was at its strongest when it had a huge welfare state post WW2, after Th*tcher dismatled it and made it the UK's purpose to serve the posh cousinhood it was all downhill.
Great video, Mark! I served in the Brit Army in 1985. I was shocked to read in the news a little while back that they plan to reduce the army to 72,500, less than half than when I was in. In 1987 I served in the USMC, the smallest US military branch. Then it was 186,000, and currently about 177,000. the Royal Marines has remained the same at about 7,000. If the UK goes through with the planned cuts it will put their total combined land combat forces to less than 80,000, less than half the size of the relatively small USMC. That isn't even enough to defend the home turf, let alone if you're also deploying units overseas to protect national interests. It was especially disheartening to see how small the RN and RAF have gotten when it comes to the number of ships and planes. As we've all seen in Ukraine, with Russia's mass mobilization of military aged men, it takes a lot of time to properly train these men, lest they end up ground meat as we see happening. It's sad to see Britain becoming less and less a dominant player on the world stage. I would only hope that the politicians back there in would see your video and finally pull their heads out of the sand, or whatever orifice they've got it stuck in.
The entire UK military (Army, Navy and Air Force) is smaller and less equipped than the US Marines.
Am I wrong in thinking we don't need a substantial ground based force as an island nation? Priority should be towards Royal Navy and RAF.
@@rayjames6096 That does not mean anything, the smaller british army could whipe the floor with the US marines, but not the US military. The US navy is reducing in the fact of a chinese naval build up with is madness. Stil the army is too small, the navy is way too small and in the light of russia is madness they are too small, we are relying on the US too much as well as other nato allies.
@@Mulberry2000 The British couldn't put an army in the field (only 8 C-17s and 36 C-130s and A-400s to the US 230 C-17, 55 C-5s and over 500 C-130s) and wouldn't stand a chance against the much better trained and equipped US Marines.
@@harryALAW Last year Dr Felton comment on our abysmal air defence system, that would be hard put to withstand Russia's aim to win, without nuclear escalation. Scary stuff will try to find it.
4 months later, the Royal Navy is now willing to send its own Carrier Strike Groups to the South China Sea for joint maritime patrols with our sailors and vessels in the Philippine Navy and perhaps other allied nations (not even going into how ridiculous this sounds now considering the state of His Majesty's Armed Forces). I believe that by 2025, we expect the 2nd Royal Navy CSG to arrive or at least start to make their way to us. People have also been critical of British efforts to modernize and replace equipment, such as the up and coming Challenger 3 MBT among other things, as well as the British Armed Forces giving some of their own equipment to Ukraine, a move that some say is "depleting their own stocks". Memes of "broke Britain" and "RIP empire" aside, this can definitely be seen as a problem even by some young international observer/young Army reservist that literally lives on an island in hotly contested waters with perhaps the most powerful Asian nation to date.
The hand writing on the wall was seeing Britain struggle so much taking the faulklan Islands back.
Too small an army but great, great soldiers. Firsthand knowledge of this. Great respect for the Brits. 💪🏼
100% agree. I got to train with our British cousins many times in Germany and here in the states. Lots of good natured joking. I often thought that the Brits looked upon most Americans as "half-savage" but also loyal friends as well. Lots of enduring respect from this aging American sapper.
I say this all the time. What they lack in quantity they more than make up for in quality
Even with relatively small forces, Britain still punches above its weight.
@@RBAILEY57 I disagree I'm not saying that they're not good soldiers I just wouldn't say they punch above they're weight the US put more men and materials into the two world wars that the British got involved in and also Canada
Quality alone won't cut it. You need quantity as well.
Gone are the days of us having a good capability and of being able to defend ourselves. You bring good points to the table. We had a very respected Army, Air Force, and Navy. We have really gone downhill fast.
That would just mean more that more people who can see the writing on the wall and oppose the message would be able to do something to express their discontent and we cannot be having that new world order and all. Better to neuter and confuse the next generation and have them stuggling not just with each other but with their own identity from the time they are learning how to count and that way more of the authoritative liberal projects can gain more legitimacy.
No the UK can defend itself, its just it canot defend itself in europe or any in the world. The navy is too small, so is the airforce and army
@@sashanksingh6714 NO
The armed forces can defend the island we live on. We should keep our noses out of other peoples business
The army isn't that useful for defending an island, what are soldiers going to do, swim out and fight ships? As for the RAF and Royal Navy, they both have access to the most advanced planes in the world and our two new carriers are equal to three Illustrious class carriers each. So we've doubled our carrier capability. We have not gone downhill, quite the opposite. The Americans didn't want us to fight in the Falklands because our military was in such bad shape they thought we'd lose. It would be a walk in the park for us today.
I passed out of Royal Navy training on 30/03/2023 and they kept telling us that we're joining the Navy at an "exciting time". Yes we're getting new frigates to replace the Type 23's but we really could do with more ships and submarines to counteract the Russian and Chinese navy, rather than just relying on the US...
this might be my new favourite Mark Felton video, I remember when the UK armed forces had 250,000 personnel and even then i thought that was too small.
Iraq had a million men, and they melted under a modern army.
Still: Henry V. I tell thee truly, herald, I know not if the day be ours or no; For yet a many of your horsemen peer And gallop o'er the field. Montjoy. The day is yours. with luck...................
@@SamTheManWhoCanTwice no they melted under their own government. You forget we were at war with Iraq for 8 years. 9 if you include the Gulf War. That’s longer then Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. When they were still at strength they did a lot of damage but the leadership went to pot leaving them to fight in a poor state.
Churchill should have never given up Empire
@@SamTheManWhoCanTwice So did many other Armies throughout history
UK: ‘Don’t forget we can feed as many Aussies into the wood chopper as we deem commensurate.’
Time and time again this happens. We get complacent, wind the armed forces down and are caught completely off guard when war breaks out. It happened against Louis XIV. It happened against Napoleon. It happened in WW1 and WW2 only 20 years later. How many times do we need to learn the lesson that merely having a strong armed forces is a deterrent and makes war less likely?
As the saying goes, good times create weak people, hard times create strong people... Unfortunately, humans become victims of their own success. Those in power (e.g PM) who have never lived through a war and wakes up in silk sheets, will find it very hard to understand the importance of defense. Arguably, the political system reinforces this, as term limits don't produce long term thinking prime ministers, with it being easier to cut the defense budget to invest in the NHS for political reasons. Long term problems requires long term thinking, which the UK lacks. Resulting in a "reactive" government policy, instead of one that subscribes to, "prevention is better than cure". Putting the UK on the back foot, as what is now being exposed with the Ukraine Vs Russia war. UK not having enough ammunition to last in a war for more than a few days.
@@joscmc personally I’ve always disagreed with that assessment; that is that good times > weak leaders > hard times > good leaders etc. The same men who disarmed Britain in the 1920s and early 1930s for example, were in many cases the exact same men who fought in the trenches of the western front. For me, it has more to do with this “end of history” narrative we tell ourselves and are only just snapping out of. That all human history basically lead to the major confrontation that was WW2, and then everyone was so terrified of starting another conflict that the Cold War fizzled out on its own. Then everyone who mattered became a pluralistic western style democracy and here we are. It’s a silly view and is what, in my opinion, has led to our lack of preparedness, that an a lack of forward planning in Whitehall and the successive failures of governments to plan for a war for 30 years.
I don't really see a problem with neglecting the Army, but Britain neglecting their Navy is what is deeply disturbing. That is your key to defending your island.
Are you wiling to see your rate of tax go up 20, 30, 40% to the levels it was in the 40s, 50s and 60s? No? I thought not. The reality is that the UK needs to pull its head in and concentrate on rebuilding its society and economy so it can afford the things it wants. Right now to have a military as large and well equipped as it used to be would mean that the middle classes would be wiped out financially by the high taxes required to pay for it.
@@person.X. if the alternative is another European war, which would mean taxes going up even more btw, then that’s fine by me. Anyway, we have other streams of revenue than just PAYE these days. We could bin all those “consultants” the government uses for a start. How many tens of billions we spent on consultancy fees just over Brexit again? Paying people who objectively had no better idea than anyone else what was going to happen and they still mucked it up. The government has plenty of revenue to spend on a first rate defence force and a more than adequate NHS. There’s just too many snouts in the trough.
I recently watched a documentary series charting the sailing of a RN warship in the waters north east of the UK. It was filmed maybe a couple of years ago and featured a number of 'encounters' with Russian naval vessels and Russian fighters above. What struck me most was how often the British ship experienced equipment breakdowns which in the end resulted in it having to pull out of the exercise and return to Britain. I would love to see a strong Royal Navy again, we need it, but this was really just embarrassing.
Surface navies are fast becoming obsolete anyways.
@@openphotoright, this comment and the video itself do not nearly enough consider the changing times. Also, the idea of a traditional war between nuclear nations doesn’t make much sense. The U.K. is smart not to spend the ridiculous amounts that the United States do on the military industrial complex.
@@TauCetiAurora So are you saying there have been no war's since 1946 ( the last time a nuke was used in anger )? Nukes are not an answer for everything!
Lmao what’s next you’re going to say tanks are obsolete
@@austindavies6371 1945
The way we are funded... is the problem. Mostly the engineering and planning phase is the issue.