The British army has admitted it is no match for Russia

[Mavett]

The Russians field good Air-Defense but when was the last time in modern history that Anti-Air batteries were a major obstacle in achieving objectives?
The West/NATO has a massive advantage in terms of combined air power and it's just a matter of time until air superiority is achieved.

It's more of a massive hint to throw more funding.

[Alydael]

Not really a surprise. Russia is bigger, has more people, a larger military and spends more on the military. It would be sad for Russia if Britain could beat em. In fact, I bet Russia could probably beat all of Europe. Most of Europe doesn't really spend on military. Plus they let in all those refugees. The refugees certainly won't fight. They ran and didn't fight for their own homeland, you think they will fight for you? Haha, they will just run to the next place...

[Theodarzna]

Its all about numbers.

The British Empire was built on seapower not its army which has always been small but professional.

If push came to shove you better believe that our army would swell like it did back in WW1 and WW2 but its pointless cause Nukes has made a normal war impossible.

Britain could annihilate Russia with its nuclear weapons and Russia could respond in kind with there huge nuclear arsenal.

Bottom lines is we live in a world where theoretically we have 2 enemies Russia/china and terrorists and we cant go to war with Russia/China cause that would lead to nuclear armageddon and as for terrorists? Those sanddwellers have only IEDS and AK-47s and they sure as shit aint gonna be parachuting into Whitehall or Pennsylvania avenue anytime soon!

I think if Russia threatened Britain they would find the Brits are much more dangerous then first appearance.

With Terrorist groups my fear is that apocalyptic folk, they are the kind of people that would engineer some plague or find some way to release some deadly disease upon the world.

[Grummgug]

Russia is not planning on a conventional ground war. Their goal is to flood Europe with middle-eastern immigrants that have more loyalty to Russia than NATO. Once the immigrant population in Europe reach critical mass, the immigrants will destroy the culture and demand change to support Russia instead. There may not be a shot fired. This is how you fight a war without firing off nukes, because your invasion army is immigrants.

Maybe in the process of converting Europe into a Russian colony, Europe may suffer from a severe economic crisis that cripples it to the point where Russia can just invade normally with its army, so it must be ready for that. But its not needed. Europe's multiculturalism is a sufficient weakness to conquer it with immigrants.

[Xires]

how the hell is that even a surprise ? the only reason hitler didnt took over britain in WW2 was because it was an island and not worth the hassle

Wow, you don't know your history. Ever heard of "The battle of Britain"? Hitler DID try for a good while. He wanted to destroy the RaF and then he was going to invade Britain but because of a new invention "Radar" and the fact that the Brits wouldn't give up Hitler failed to destroy the RaF and infact suffered HEAVY casualties on his own Luftwaffe and called it off.

[Ulmita]

Russia is not planning on a conventional ground war. Their goal is to flood Europe with middle-eastern immigrants that have more loyalty to Russia than NATO. Once the immigrant population in Europe reach critical mass, the immigrants will destroy the culture and demand change to support Russia instead. There may not be a shot fired. This is how you fight a war without firing off nukes, because your invasion army is immigrants.

Maybe in the process of converting Europe into a Russian colony, Europe may suffer from a severe economic crisis that cripples it to the point where Russia can just invade normally with its army, so it must be ready for that. But its not needed. Europe's multiculturalism is a sufficient weakness to conquer it with immigrants.

Give us some of what you're smoking lol

[Xires]

Russia was beaten badly by Japan so the size of the country dont mean shit.

But then this isnt the early 1900s anymore where Britain woulve wiped the floor with Russia! We live in a age where manpower dont mean shit because you could launch a drone strike against a army barracks and wipe out tens of thousands from the safety of your home country.

Britain will never go to war with anyone (unless the US says otherwise but thats a different story) The only country Britain could possibly fight against on its own in the future is Argentina over the Falklands and you can bet that aint gonna happen again any time soon!

No....wrong. Japan beat Russia over a few islands and that was naval warfare. In WW2 in 1945 Russia finally attacked Japan in asia and they mopped the floor with the Japanese army and before then when Russia and Japan actually had a few small fights (early 40's late 30's) Russia mopped the floor with Japan. Japans army in a ground war was no match for Russia.

[Ulmita]

I also used to say exactly what the OP linked and some people here, mainly Kell and his minions came fast to argue. The truth is that no EU nation is capable of waging war against Russia.

[Xires]

We got run out of Helmand by a militia. Our army is garbage. We pray every day that a stagdo doesn't turn up pissed at HMNB Portsmouth take over.

No, we didn't. Thanks for playing. You are a no nothing civilian that thinks fighting guerrillas who blend into the civilian population and use women and children as human shields is anywhere near the same as fighting a conventional warfare. First off, we destroyed the Iraqi army and their anti-air defense networks with ease and the Iraqi's had one of the most advanced anti-air defenses in the world. They had the 4th largest army in the world and were combat hardened and we still mopped the floor with them. We also have this thing called "ROE's" RULES OF ENGAGEMENT where the politicians put a leash on the military. America has never gone "all out" in a war since WW2 and the allies won WW2 so their you go. Go back to your call of duty ya schmuck.

- - - Updated - - -

No.
And we need to be more scared of the murricans than the Russians imo. Poetin is less crazy than both their presidential candidates.

Sick and tired of seen pussy Europeans that rely on America for defense...talk shit about America. I hope Russia does invade..of course we all know he won't. Why? Because the US (Europes big brother) wont let it happen. Be lucky that us "murricans" have the balls to fight- unlike you skinny jean wearing hipsters that just cry and scream like girls with your "man buns".

[Deleted]

But who knows, the British army is surely less knowledgeable than the usual posters here when it comes to how strong or weak Russia is.

I doubt the British army has ever in its history been a match for Russia - the countries are just such different sizes and the UK military has always disproportionately emphasised the navy, with the army in peacetime being seen as essentially an expeditionary force. Even in the Crimean War, Britain had to be allied with the French and Turks. (We had to scramble in WW1 to raise a mass army; WW2 we were second fiddle to the US after they entered).

The report seems to be more about quality, than quantity however. No British military person is gong to be deluded enough to say overall their army can match Russia's; that would not be worth discussing. I'd say man for man, the British army is still superior to the Russian (it's small but very professional). But no doubt there are things to be learnt.

[Deleted]

Mother Russia Rulzzz

Has sexy lady army

I surrender.

[La]

It's a lot easier to not have an army that can match Russia when you know it'll never be just you fighting Russia if the time came.

I would imagine that's why life as someone in Britain would be way the fuck better than in Russia, because they don't put all that money into their military.

[Xires]

You know why no army in the world would ever be a match for Russia?

Not because of air superiority, superior technological potential, better weaponry or else. In fact, NATO army should surpass Russia in all these fields. But because of something else.

In Russian society, even under current pseudo-democratic regime (which is still way more liberal than the Russian Empire or USSR have ever been), the needs of many have always prevailed over the needs of one. This is one of few most important "Russian traditional values". Russian governments of the past were always ready to sacrifice as many lives as necessary to achieve their goals; not much have changed since.

This is the most drastic difference between Russian army or U.S. / NATO army; while every European or American government would do everything in order to protect / save / bring every soldier home (since in Western World individual comfort and human rights are above everything else, at least in most cases), Russia would make no big deal if few soldiers got killed or MIA, cause the political goals are always more important.

So, in case of WW3 or any other large-scale military conflict Russia will eventually throw more and more cannonfodder in, until they get what they need. This is how Hitler was stopped near Moscow in 1941 - the toll was few millions or soldiers forming a living shield wall, which saved USSR in the end.

More then just that. The US also supplied arms to the Russians. Also technology nowadays would make those human walls pointless as drones and robots would make quick work of them. Night technology, missiles, and stealth invalidate numbers in the open. The Iraqi Army knew from their experience back in '91 with the US that if they went up against us conventionally they would get their asses handed to them and the few units that did try to square up....were destroyed...many before they even knew what hit them and where it even came from.

21st century warfare is a LOT different then 1940's warfare. If you send a million poorly armed/trained people in a massive wave against 10,000 well armed/trained troops with air power....the million men would lose.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, there would never be a UK-Russia isolated war. It would be NATO vs. Russia. And despite the recent political unrest with the rise of various alt-right, national conservative, paleolibertarian or fascist political parties and Trump across the West, without any doubt aided by Russia in various ways, be it through Russian banks giving loans to Front National, be it Putin's Troll-factory in St Petersburg trying to form a false narrative online, be it media like RT or Breibert.com and others who buy every Kremlin-produced lie, or be it the Russians lying themselves about sending forces into Ukraine, which they later admitted after annexing Crimea, or more recent lies like the Ukraine allegedly attempting to do a terrorist act in their own occupied territory of Crimea, which is nothing more than Russia trying to make up reasons to attack Ukraine. Despite all of this, our societies are stronger. We do have freedom, and like in the Second World War when the US after much hesitation and internal objections eventually did mobilize it's entire society to help the war effort against the Nazis so would we all do against Russia should it come to that. Though it would certainly not make it any easier if Trump won the Presidency. Though I am quite sure that if Russia advanced into Latvia and Trump did nothing about it Congress would impeach him and, as much as I dislike the guys political positions on a large range of issues, President Pence would have no clouded judgement about where his loyalty lies, and the US would get their act together. Ultimately the Russian people tolerated the authoritarian rule of Putin because of two factors: he delivered economic growth and a general held cynical belief that democracy cannot work in Russia because it has always been this way, regardless of whether the ruler was called a Tsar of the Empire, a Chairman of the Supreme Soviet, or the President of the Federation. Everyone knows that Russia is a corrupt state to the core, even Russians - because it is not limited to the top but it is everywhere from top to bottom in Russian government and business. You know, aside from the fact that there is no free media but only state propaganda controlling the narrative. The first factor is gone now. People don't like their sons dying in a war with a neighboring country with which the cultural and people ties are very close. People don't like economic stagnation or decline. People tend to get tired of their leader over time, even when all the media is on their leader's side unconditionally. I'm rambling.. my point is the West is stronger, and Britain is part of that. But that is no reason for Britain not to increase their strength or not be more prepared for the unthinkable that has become less unthinkable every day now for quite some time.

Awwww....is the DNC still pissed that the Russians hacked them and exposed how corrupt and racist they are and how they rigged an election which finally killed democracy? Yeah....those damned Democra....er...I mean Russians...../rolls eyes

[Mormolyce]

United Kingdom
Budget: $60.5 billion
Active frontline personnel: 146,980
Tanks: 407
Total aircraft: 936
Submarines: 10

Russia
Budget: $84.5 billion
Active frontline personnel: 766,055
Tanks: 15,398
Total aircraft: 3,429
Submarines: 55

http://www.thejournal.ie/miltaries-w...68509-Oct2015/

No idea if that's accurate but...

I mean, Russia has twice the population of the UK and is highly militarised. So no shit there would be a "significant edge" in a hypothetical scenario.

But what that translates into in the real world is a whole different kettle of fish.

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt the British army has ever in its history been a match for Russia - the countries are just such different sizes and the UK military has always disproportionately emphasised the navy, with the army in peacetime being seen as essentially an expeditionary force. Even in the Crimean War, Britain had to be allied with the French and Turks. (We had to scramble in WW1 to raise a mass army; WW2 we were second fiddle to the US after they entered).

The report seems to be more about quality, than quantity however. No British military person is gong to be deluded enough to say overall their army can match Russia's; that would not be worth discussing. I'd say man for man, the British army is still superior to the Russian (it's small but very professional). But no doubt there are things to be learnt.

It's not all about size though.

*That's what she said*

[Versy]

More relevant: how's Russia faring in the medal count rankings in Rio?

Great Britain - 3rd (pop: 65 mil.)
Russia - 7th (pop. 143 mil.)

Rough!

Nothing compared to the glorious country!
http://imgur.com/a/HTtQa

[Chrysia]

No need to admit that really. It never was a match for Russia.
Well, maybe in the British Empire days I guess. But certainly not after WW2.

There is no other European country that can match Russia either. Not even the combined forces woud be enough, no matter if Russia has old material or not.
The only country that can beat it is the USA.

Ahahahahahahhahaha. *HUUUUUUH* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No.

[Deleted]

People really believe this report is accurate and "leaked"?

It's just the army trying to shame the UK leadership that has overseen massive cuts to military spending in the last 8 years by stirring up some fear that our army isn't up to scratch. The reality is that even if the report is true, the army doesn't need to be capable of matching Russia on the field; Russia isn't about to do anything to us, and if they did they would have the entire rest of the world on top of them anyway.

[Khadgar]

since when UK is so close buddy to China ?

largest = / = best , didn't you learn anything from the movie 300? :P

[Deleted]

Dunno....did the US beat Vietnam? Did they really beat and liberate in the long run any country? Or did they (and Nato) just live a big steaming mess everywhere they went that also ended up as brooding spots for terrorists?

Russia in Afghanistan...the US in Afghanistan...not like that place is paradise today...

Vietnam didnt beat the US though, they lost that war on the homefront. Plus, the US never really committed in that war.

It was mostly the same type of war you see today: massive numbers of bombing runs and no real attempt to overtake the enemy.

[Tester2086]

Let's just hope that regardless of the size of army, that they will never come to use against each other. Or it'll be GG for all of us.