British army prepares for the great war in Europe

[jhungary]

What I am saying is that I am not sure whether the Bulgarian army is stronger than the British army. Because Britain has better quality, but Bulgaria has more. For example, Bulgaria has 400 to 500 active tanks. How many are there in Britain?

That's probably because you never know how a war is fought. Maybe it's time to pick up a gun instead of typing it away on a topic you do not familiar with.

True, British does not have as big an army than Bulgaria or Turkey, but the thing is, THEY DON'T NEED TO. British is an island. Which mean unlike Bulgaria, which have one side facing the Black Sea, you don't need a large army to defend the UK, that's if you have a top notch Navy, that sea surrounding the British Isle would be act as a strategic depth in the UK. While Bulgaria could face a land invasion, there are no possibility for Britain to face one. Because any one wanted to invade the UK would have to come thru in the air and the sea, which a good navy can deter such an action before a landing even took place.

And consider the World's amphibious capability, the only country in the world that can land 6 digit troop in an amphibious operation is the US, with 11 Aircraft carrier and 9 LHA and 20 LHD and almost 300 Transport aircraft, and even if US land that force in CON-UK, UK can defeat that force with 70,000 troop, because traditionally you will need 3 to 1 ratio to overcome the defence. But you can march 200,000-500,000 troop easy with a land corridor, which is something UK did not have.

The only thing UK did away is their Expedition capability, which mean they at most cannot secure their colony (Diego Garcia, Gibraltar or Falklands) But the troop UK have now is more than enough to defend UK.

 

[MH.Yang]

That's probably because you never know how a war is fought. Maybe it's time to pick up a gun instead of typing it away on a topic you do not familiar with.

True, British does not have as big an army than Bulgaria or Turkey, but the thing is, THEY DON'T NEED TO. British is an island. Which mean unlike Bulgaria, which have one side facing the Black Sea, you don't need a large army to defend the UK, that's if you have a top notch Navy, that sea surrounding the British Isle would be act as a strategic depth in the UK. While Bulgaria could face a land invasion, there are no possibility for Britain to face one. Because any one wanted to invade the UK would have to come thru in the air and the sea, which a good navy can deter such an action before a landing even took place.

And consider the World's amphibious capability, the only country in the world that can land 6 digit troop in an amphibious operation is the US, with 11 Aircraft carrier and 9 LHA and 20 LHD and almost 300 Transport aircraft, and even if US land that force in CON-UK, UK can defeat that force with 70,000 troop, because traditionally you will need 3 to 1 ratio to overcome the defence. But you can march 200,000-500,000 troop easy with a land corridor, which is something UK did not have.

The only thing UK did away is their Expedition capability, which mean they at most cannot secure their colony (Diego Garcia, Gibraltar or Falklands) But the troop UK have now is more than enough to defend UK.

If I understand correctly, do you mean that Britain is going to land on Russian territory with amphibious forces?
Dude, amphibious troops are used to bully small countries. Do you take this to the beaches of Russia?

 

[jhungary]

If I understand correctly, do you mean that Britain is going to land on Russian territory with amphibious forces?
Dude, amphibious troops are used to bully small countries. Do you take this to the beaches of Russia?

Dude, it's the other way around.

Russia is NOT an island, why would UK need to land on Russian Territories with Amphibious Force? UK is an island you can only invade the UK with an Amphibious Force, you cannot march Tank into the UK without crossing either the North Sea or The English Channel.

Again, only comment on stuff that you do understand.

 

[khansaheeb]

Do you honestly believe Britain would fight Russia alone? How about you look around you for a minute, the UK is not an Isolated country... Secondly, most of Russia's inventory is soviet era rubbish, they have been proved ineffective in the Ukraine against modern Anti Tank Weapons and infantry tactics.

Finally and most importantly, in terms of naval prowess, the UK has two aircraft carriers featuring the state of the art fighters, Russia only has 1.

And coming back to my first point again, do you honestly think the UK would stand alone in this conflict? I hate to disappoint some Russian fans here but this is a non-starter... The UK is a global power, don't discount the UK because it's an Island or because of BREXIT. You will do well to remember that.

Behind Russia are opportunistic India and China. The whole world order would change Tipsy Turvy.

 

[RescueRanger]

Behind Russia are opportunistic India and China. The whole world order would change Tipsy Turvy.

Agreed with this statement, but India is also part of "Asian Pivot" so India is in a delicate balancing act vis-à-vis Russia. I am more concerned about some ill-informed posters here treating the UK as some sort of minnow.

 

[MH.Yang]

Dude, it's the other way around.

Russia is NOT an island, why would UK need to land on Russian Territories with Amphibious Force? UK is an island you can only invade the UK with an Amphibious Force, you cannot march Tank into the UK without crossing either the North Sea or The English Channel.

Again, only comment on stuff that you do understand.

Wait, we are discussing that Bulgaria's work in the Ukrainian war is bigger than that of Britain. The theme of this post is that the British said they would go to Ukraine to beat the Russians. Why do you want to compare British and Russian amphibious forces. Would the British send amphibious troops to Ukraine?

To be honest, the British do not have much power to help Ukraine. All the clamour of the British now is that they just hope that the EU and Russia will fall into a greater quagmire of war, so as to benefit the five eye countries.

 

[doorstar]

Wait, we are discussing that Bulgaria's work in the Ukrainian war is bigger than that of Britain. The theme of this post is that the British said they would go to Ukraine to beat the Russians. Why do you want to compare British and Russian amphibious forces. Would the British send amphibious troops to Ukraine?

thread title should be:
Threat from Russia: British Army Prepares for War in Europe

The Russian invasion of Ukraine shows that the British Army must be able to protect the kingdom, says Sanders, the new chief of staff. There is an "urgent need to forge an army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in combat."

The chief of the British General Staff, General Patrick Sanders, believes it is possible that the British Army will have to fight in a war in Europe again. "We are the generation that must prepare the Army to fight in Europe once again," Sanders wrote in a message to soldiers, according to the British news site inews.

"There is now an urgent need to forge an Army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in combat," Sanders continued. "I am the first chief of staff since 1941 to take command of the Army in the shadow of a land war in Europe involving a continental power."

He declared that his sole mission was to "make our Army as lethal and effective as possible."

In the message to troops, he went on to say that the Russian invasion of Ukraine underscores the core mission of the British Army: "to protect the United Kingdom by being prepared to fight and win wars on land."

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, meanwhile, called on Western allies to brace for a long war in Ukraine. Putin has resorted to a war of attrition to bring Ukraine to its knees "with sheer brutality," Johnson wrote in an op-ed for the Times on Sunday.

"The United Kingdom and its friends must respond by ensuring that Ukraine has the strategic staying power to survive and emerge victorious," Johnson wrote. Time is a critical factor in this, he said. "Everything will depend on whether Ukraine can strengthen its capabilities to defend its territory faster than Russia renews its offensive capabilities."

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg had also expressed concern in an interview with the "Bild" newspaper that the war could drag on for years. If support for Ukraine wanes, there will be a high price to pay, Stoltenberg warned. Johnson's assessment in the Times, however, contrasts with a statement he made Saturday. In a television interview, the British prime minister had advocated holding the next Eurovision Song Contest in Ukraine. "Kiev or another safe Ukrainian city would be a fantastic venue," Johnson said, adding, "It's a year away, a year! That will be okay."

 

[jhungary]

Wait, we are discussing that Bulgaria's work in the Ukrainian war is bigger than that of Britain. The theme of this post is that the British said they would go to Ukraine to beat the Russians. Why do you want to compare British and Russian amphibious forces. Would the British send amphibious troops to Ukraine?

First of all, this post is not about British said they would go to Ukraine to beat Russia, this is about British to prepare for War in Europe. That mean anywhere in Europe and with the British military of any size, they can expand and they do have the strategic depth to expand as I explained.

On the other hand I am responding to you who say UK have a smaller Army than Bulgaria, more does not equate to being stronger, and that is because British does not need a large standing army to defend it own, and that is true to anyone, they don't need 200,000 standing army to defend UK from Russia or the US.

Nobody is talking about UK sending Amphibious force to fight Russia, if UK want to fight Russia, they would have send in their British Army under the cover of RAF, the joint operation component of the British army is very elite. just because their number is smaller than say Bulgaria or Turkey does not mean their combat power is less. And this is again something you don't understand.

If the west want to defeat Russia conventionally in Ukraine, they don't really need UK to do it, even Australian working with Ukrainian can defeat the Russian if they send Australian Army and RAAF into Ukraine. Any country with a functioning Air Force can do it.

 

[Viet]

Among the European countries of NATO, at least France, Turkey, Poland and Greece have stronger armies than Britain. I'm not sure if the Bulgarian army is stronger than the British.

Nonsense
Bulgaria to UK is like Cambodia or Brunei army to Vietnam.
The British has the strongest army in continental Europe. Don’t be misguided by the current small number. UK can very quick raise a million army men. That shows the history.

 

[RescueRanger]

Wait, we are discussing that Bulgaria's work in the Ukrainian war is bigger than that of Britain.

With due respect, what are you talking about? Britain has been in the lead among nations in Europe to training, equipping, supporting and advocating for the Ukrainian fight against Russia.

Military Aid
3000 sets of body armour
2000 helmets
4000 boots
Over 5,000 Anti Tank Missiles with an additional 1,100 planned for July.
1,360 Anti Structure Munitions
3 MRLS
5 Air Defence Systems and 100 star streak missiles
4.5 tonnes of C4
Deployment of Sky Sabre Air Defence along with 100 Training for 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers every 120 days.

-- Humanitarian / Economic aid -
85,000 visas for Ukrainian's displaced due to the war
1.3Billion GBP humanitarian and economic aid to Ukraine.

 

[khansaheeb]

thread title should be:
Threat from Russia: British Army Prepares for War in Europe

The Russian invasion of Ukraine shows that the British Army must be able to protect the kingdom, says Sanders, the new chief of staff. There is an "urgent need to forge an army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in combat."

The chief of the British General Staff, General Patrick Sanders, believes it is possible that the British Army will have to fight in a war in Europe again. "We are the generation that must prepare the Army to fight in Europe once again," Sanders wrote in a message to soldiers, according to the British news site inews.

"There is now an urgent need to forge an Army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in combat," Sanders continued. "I am the first chief of staff since 1941 to take command of the Army in the shadow of a land war in Europe involving a continental power."

He declared that his sole mission was to "make our Army as lethal and effective as possible."

Nazi Germany didn't have the ability to take the war meaningfully to the UK mainland, Russia does. The UK public doesn't have the appetite for war and have no reason to fight. The rich folks in the UK may have a reason to maintain their status quo but the masses don't as they have suffered from one recession to another.

 

[doorstar]

Nonsense
Bulgaria is like Cambodia or Brunei army to Vietnam.
The British has the strongest army in continental Europe. Don’t be misguided by the current small number. UK can very quick raise a million army men. That shows the history.

you ARE the cause of all the trouble in this thread by using a misleading title and manipulative and untruthful first post instead of posting the original title and subject as it was

 

[RescueRanger]

Nazi Germany didn't have the ability to take the war meaningfully to the UK mainland, Russia does. The UK public doesn't have the appetite for war and have no reason to fight. The rich folks in the UK may have a reason to maintain their status quo but the masses don't as they have suffered from one recession to another.

HMS Prince of Wales and Queen Elizabeth says hello to Russian aggression. You discounted the deterrent from Trident and the lethal capability of Area Denial via Sky Sabre and the capability of the RAF.

 

[RescueRanger]

The title of this thread is misleading and should be changed.

 

[Viet]

The title of this thread is misleading and should be changed.

That is the translation of the original text:


Threat from Russia

British army prepares for war in Europe

The Russian invasion of Ukraine shows that the British army must be able to protect the kingdom, says new chief of staff Sanders. "There is an urgent need to forge an army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battle."