camberwell gypsy Posted February 21 Report Share Posted February 21 45 minutes ago, King Billy said: You wanna buy a dog? What you mean you no hungly? Bruddy tlaverrels! Do ya like dags? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted February 21 Report Share Posted February 21 On 20/01/2024 at 20:28, Basil said: With all this talk of WW3 kicking off, let's have a look at how our military may fair: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-army-armed-forces-ukraine-b2482059.html Oh dear.. Our army is now so small it wouldn't be able to put even 1 brigade in the field, according to a NATO general. Quite a fall from grace. From one of the world's pre-eminent military forces to unable to adequately defend ourselves, all in a generation! I don't know if more recruitment is necessarily the solution either - what's worse, having only a few thousand highly trained professionals, or hundreds of thousands of obese, mentally challenged, millennial morons who would end up shooting themselves if it all ever kicked off. I think this may be a bit of a reality check for those who were promised the earth post-brexit. Overall point taken, but I think the size of the British Army has continued to decrease for a number of reasons. Take the war in Ukraine, as you've pointed out in your somewhat biased article, for example. Britain's weapons have proven themselves to be way ahead of anything Russia could muster, which has allowed a much smaller country with limited manpower – and with chiefly untrained conscripts – to hitherto fight off what is still a military superpower with the third-highest amount of trained boots on the ground. Cutting-edge anti-tank missiles, better drones, long-range missiles, advanced rockets systems (which have utterly destroyed Russia's supply lines) have given UK authorities a means to test their latest weapons to huge success, and as a method to demonstrate fewer humans are required to gain an advantage. Off the top of my head, the UK has committed circa £4.5 billion in arms, during which time it has trained around only 30,000 new Ukranian recruits how to use them effectively. So, times have changed, and the war in Ukraine has indicated it's not all about sheer manpower or number of new recruits, with a smaller number of highly-trained personnel showing this. Investment into more weapons is important, for this reason, as is a lower number of frontline soldier deaths (from our perspective) with any conflict. The internet and globalisation also means warfare has changed, placing emphasis on computers & technology as a means to overcome absolute frontline soldier numbers (nuclear submarines, AUKUS, South China Sea – a small number of personnel preventing China from an all-out attack on Taiwan, not to mention the latter's US-supplied advanced weapons systems). I am unsure of the overall death toll, but with the Kremlin's famous bushitting I'll wager the ratio of dead Ukranian troops to be far, far fewer than Russia's. It appears Russian military leaders have been gobsmacked at just how advanced the UK & US weapons arsenal is compared to theirs, and perhaps why less emphasis is placed on numbers of recruits in future. Russia wouldn't wish to go to war with the UK, and this is perhaps one reason why numbers are decreasing, because there is less need for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChildeHarold Posted February 21 Report Share Posted February 21 We still have Trident.... oh dear! The rest of the world must be laughing it's head off. 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.