British Army would be destroyed ‘in six months to a year’ in a major war, minister warns
https://news.sky.com/story/british-army-would-be-destroyed-in-six-months-to-a-year-in-a-major-war-minister-warns-13266702
Posted by topotaul
British Army would be destroyed ‘in six months to a year’ in a major war, minister warns
https://news.sky.com/story/british-army-would-be-destroyed-in-six-months-to-a-year-in-a-major-war-minister-warns-13266702
Posted by topotaul
36 Comments
That’s probably longer than expected.
That’s why we are a part of NATO and also have other alliances.
War with who?
The only real chance of the UK being in a major war is with Russia, and then it would be destroyed in about 48-72 hours, as would most major armed forces in the world, due to massive nuclear exchange.
Pretty standard for Britain’s professional army in europe post 1914.
Against Russia? Yeah, that’s one reason we joined NATO.
Pointless metric. The UK military has been cut to be basically an expeditionary force ever since we became a nuclear power as that is the ultimate force multiplier. Russia would be destroyed in hours in a war with a single Vanguard sub.
Isn’t that the bog standard thing people say when they’re trying to get more funding?
A minister wants more money for their department, the pope is Catholic.
Six months until nuclear war then following Russias doctrine
Honestly that is more than I expected. Russian army that existed at the start of their Ukraine invasion was also more or less destroyed in that time, and they had to build a new one. Which is what other countries would also do in that situation.
Mind you, they came close to a total collapse with Prigozhin’s coup attempt. It was really that bad.
Which sounds like a massive incentive to stay out of any major wars.
This does not provide any encouragement for people to enlist.
Just as a point of reference: Dunkirk evacuation happened about 8 months into WW2.
For most of the Napoleonic wars the British army stood no chance vs France and evacuated several times.
Yet both those wars were won by Britain. It’s almost as if brute force land army was never one of Britains main strengths…
In other words this is pure clickbait, invest more into RN/RAF, we only need an expeditionary army.
A lot of the issue is “Smart Weapons”, you can go watch the wargames of a NATO (Inclusive of US who take the lead) warring Russia in Ukraine back to 1991 Borders. The plan would be a 2 month long onslaught that would deplete NATO ammo stocks in Europe and the US (to the point where it only has stock left to Shock and Awe China, not China and Russia at the same time – so untouchable stock).
Meanwhile, Russia just produces dumb weapons en masse.
I highly doubt this is true if we went to war with a country such as Andorra, Luxebourg, Liechtenstein, Vatican City, Fiji, Samoa, New Zealand, Trinidad and Tobago, Iceland, Monaco, San Marino, Malta, Cyprus, Croatia, North Macedonia, Serbia, Albania, Croatia, Czechia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti, Suriname, French Guyana, Paraguay, Panama, Belize, St. Lucia, the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Madagascar, Aruba etc.
Of course it would be, as it stands. But in a major war we aren’t just going to send what we have on hand and then call it quits.
your achillies’ reliance on others is quickly shown to your enemy, never rely on anyone to sort your shit out.Massively increase MOD funding or else.
Our army is a bit of a joke. It’s even more worrying with Trumps lack of commitment to NATO. Anyone who claims that he’ll make a more peaceful world is either a fool or a fraud.
This has been known ever since the war in Ukraine started. Ukraine ran through their ammunition stockpiles in a couple of months, and then through the rest of Europe’s in a few more months. We just don’t have the industry to produce enough equipment to sustain a prolonged full intensity war. For example, at the start of the war, British/Swedish NLAWS were very common amongst Ukrainian troops. Now I can’t remember the last time I saw one
I know he focuses on equipping and preparing the reserves, but without the industry to back it, you’re still doomed to failure.
It took the 2nd largest army in the world (Russia) 10 months to take Bakhmut, a small town in eastern Ukraine.
I’m not worried about them anymore
Military procurement and long term planning is a joke, it’s fully reliant on the private sector as well, all round shit show.
In a major war …. Where?
Not here, or we’d consider the use of nukes.
Who is this minister that keeps prompting countries to start wars.
Oh look at us, so weak, would be awful if we got into a war *wink wink*
This is a really stupid analogy using Russia’s casualty rate as a standard, they are still using the same meat grinder tactics that they have been for their entire history. Higher reserve numbers are not going to help you in any real war scenario, it will always degenerate to the point of people being drafted.
The whole article is really weird.
I think what’s often overlooked is not what we have, but what we could become, given a push in that direction.
With partners, strong links, commonwealth, potential for large standing army etc, and a history of making war, and tactical know how.
Difficult to imagine a UK that wouldn’t rally and show its teeth tbh.
Just got to beat the enemy in 5 months then, no rush. /s
Not if they stay on this fucking island like they’re supposed to
I’m really getting sick of these headlines. It’s entirely because they need the next big bad to focus on to make us scared.
First, let’s ask WHO we’re at war with.
CHINA can’t survive a global conflict, won’t be them. Russia is on the border with Poland who has keen interest in hosting NATO nuclear weapons (as of 2024) is practically able to knock Russia out themselves.
Russia can’t even beat a former soviet state with the wests wonky potato weapons.
Who’s left? And anyone that is left you’ll need to tell me how that country was able to first CROSS THE SEA to get to the United Kingdom, it is our best defence matrix. AND the mainland of EUROPE.
Germany in 1940s couldn’t even achieve it, and they were in a better position than modern day China or Russia. Remember, China has no interest whatsoever in killing the UK. It wants an Island, and that’s about it. It’s pretty happy being a trade giant, the most conflict we might get with them is the realm of India/Pakistan/China but again, I doubt it.
Russia has practically zero chance. They can’t even achieve Air nor naval superiority in a country that doesn’t have either of those.
AND you’ll be up against some of the best soliders and special forces the west has to offer with the UK armed forces, AND NATO backing us up, against some conscripts that are shooting themselves before they even get to the frontline.
GIVE ME A FUCKIN BREAK.
Can we all just ban these articles. They are beyond inappropriate and genuinely fucking stupid.
>Al Carns, the veterans minister, who is also a reservist, said the casualty rate suffered by Russian forces in Ukraine – killed and injured – is around 1,500 soldiers a day.
>He said this ability to absorb such losses and keep fighting is part of Russia’s plan and is why Britain needs to rebuild depth when it comes to the layers of fighting forces it has available
This guy is a fucking weapon, there’s absolutely no chance in hell UK forces will be in a frontline ground assault at any point of time in Ukraine, Russia or across Europe.
IN THE EVENT THEY ARE, THEY’LL BE COMBINED INTO THE FORCES THAT NATO COMMANDS.
The manpower NATO currently holds, is about 3.5 million. That’s more than German had when they invaded Russia in 1941.
The nation has always acted in this way, mobilization has always occurred in the instances of large scale field warfare. Thank god the age when we had to battle greater numerical adversaries is over. And by age, I mean the last 1,000 years.
So, pretty much like every war since the late 15th century then.
For as long as Britain has had a standing army, it has been neglected so that the money could be spent on the navy (and later the air force) instead. The result has always been that the army (effectively an expeditionary force) is destroyed in fairly short order and the channel relied on to hold off invasion while the army is rebuilt into a much larger force as needed.
Don’t worry, the UK could send all the internet tough nuts screeching for the UK to be dragged into a war…..
Why are we ignoring nuclear warheads in “major war” ? In case the possession of those wmd weapons is not enough to show off and they are bound to be used, how would being able to “hold on” a few more month be the concern of anyone ?
But oh boy, the military complex is pushing very hard for it. Ressources wars can only intensify, for metals or water of oil; and once GDP growth cannot be maintained, war will be the way to go ? In a nuclear warheads civilization !
Time to watch Threads again ? :]
I do find the publicity of such information strange nowadays
*cue the Reddit armchair generals that somehow know the ins and outs of the British army
Funding the armed forces anymore will be a waste of money. Russia would get slapped by just Poland and china would break with no trade. And they’re the only threats.
Then why are we contuining to spend billions of pounds on its upkeep every year
That’s a pretty scary warning. If the British Army is really that vulnerable, it’s a big problem. Definitely sounds like a wake-up call for better defense planning.