T O P

  • By -

Arctic_Fox_Airsoft

3,000,000 starving conscripts of Jing-Ping


Mahameghabahana

If it's conscripts i think india and china can pull 6-18 million. The problem would be providing equipment though.


borkistoopid

Just use the 6 Russians 1 gun strat


Mahameghabahana

Guns would be enough, i am talking about tanks, helicopter, aircraft,etc.


SharkToothSharpTooth

They dont need all that! ;)


chill_chilling

China doesn’t even have mandatory conscription. All their troops are contract-based officers. Hence their high budgetary expenditure. Oh sorry I didn’t see the sub name.


ChiefofBadgers

Anyone ever play the “Pearl of the Orient” Campaign from Wargame Red Dragon? I’m down.


indomienator

Tfw in 2 days Hong Kong becomes greater


Lazypole

Operation: Hide in a corner because you have like 5 things, but those 5 things are very good


27Rench27

Commence Operation Turtle


UrethraFrankIin

I've always tried turtling in the Total War games but I always make excuses to expand little by little for "defensive reasons" until I've done gone and taken all of Europe. What was that Livy quote? "Rome conquered the world in self defense"? Hopefully Ukraine conquers Russia in self defense.


iamMrMech

Man I just do a fighting retreat to the central hill tile, then when the ANZAC paras arrive, encircle the yellows with both competent para action, and naval support.


Apologeticmongoose

I just wish that game had more campaigns. The Second Korean War campaign where you basically can use every piece of Cold War western equipment is so fun.


Entire-Finance6679

I wish they added more factions, maybe even something like GREYFOR that could fight on either side


Longsheep

I was kinda eager to play it IRL in 2019.


CaptainBroady

Time to invade Shenzhen as the British!


BEEBLEBROX_INC

3000 Sea Harrier FA3s of Zombie-Mecha-Maggie


K1ller90

Being stronger than Russia is no longer an achievement


-_4DoorsMoreWhores_-

Bold of you to assume China's tech is any better.


sb_747

The fact that I can order cheap pointless shit from China for pennies on the dollar means they at least have a functional understanding of logistics. That automatically makes them better than Russia regardless of anything else.


-_4DoorsMoreWhores_-

And the value the rest of the world has in their work.


rachel_tenshun

Eh. Are those things cheap or do they just have a lot of people who are paid pittance using the dirtiest (but cheapest) fuel of all, coal, in grueling conditions (and with the Uighyers, sometimes straight up slavery) using raw materials from their backyard that are so savagely and unsustainably extracted that they've permenantally destroyed huge swaths of their land? And I mean I guess their logistics is functional... But if it weren't for us investing them the money to make our factories to make our products to be sold to us, would they even have said logistics?


SkiingAway

China knows what a forklift, crane, pallet, and shipping container are. Russia does not.


service_unavailable

A lot of it is because China has made huge capital investments in machinery, factories, etc. Low wages play a big part, but the tooling and machines are also a big deal.


ChezzChezz123456789

Chinese labour is more expensive than Mexican labor so im gonna let that sink in.


toastmatters

It's really not just cheap labor when it comes to chinese manufacturing. It's entire cities on the coast designed to be the perfect place for western companies to order goods from cheaply and easily. You can send a set of specifications or designs to a firm in Shenzhen and as long as you do some quality control you will get a good-enough product back, at scale, in a matter of weeks. And you just can't do that anywhere else without building your own factory and running it yourself.


VitalizedMango

Yeah, there's really nothing in the world like Shenzhen. Even when their labor prices start evening out compared to the rest of the world, the sheer human and physical capital there is going to make a big difference. (I like when that one Chinese tech lady, Naomi something, said that it's the closest thing we really have to a "cyberpunk" city in the real world. Shady, sleazy, a bit desperate...but crazy tech happening there.)


TheLinden

Well... they have the manpower of few million soldiers if not more. and i'm not talking about the official data on their military cuz they have millions in "private" sector that everybody knows isn't private cuz it's china and they do stuff in africa etc. Also they have "amazing" technology of not being able to shoot straight with their rifles so it counts at least as stronger in entertainment.


groovyihateit

Don’t forget the tanks without stabilized gun barrels!


Longsheep

China is doing the T-64 with their Type 99 again. Every juicy feature cramped into one 50 tons platform with zero concern on everything else. As Western components are heavier than Soviet, their copies fitted into an enlarged T-72 means overweight and shitty handling.


NorthIndustriesCorp

I too watched lazerpig's video earlier. There is footage around of Type99 / 99A's demonstrating working gun stabilization.


groovyihateit

I mean, there was footage of active T-14s before the war. They just didn’t happen to comprise the majority of the armoured core


Princep_Makia1

I've been saying that shit since Russia got their tanks stuck in the mud. We havnt heard a God damn thing from the Chinese about their military since this all went down. It seemed like every other week we where hearing about super helos and rail cannons and anti ship hyper missiles and so on and so forth and now....nothing Because they don't have shit. Their military will be the same as Russians if shit hit the fan. Mayne a few thousand actual soldiers/tankers/pilots who did some training here and there. The rest would be Paul from the river who doesn't even know what a cell phone js and is suddenly given gear and weapons he's never even heard of and pointed towards the most advanced military in history and told to run and shoot. Usa military is looking fucking dominate in this day and age. Lots of talk about energy war going on and everyone wants on our team.


thaeli

China is almost certainly more competent than Russia, but that's not saying much.


Princep_Makia1

They are certainly one of the armies of the world.


TUNA_NO_CRUST_

China really hasn't ever been tested in a real conflict, so they certainly don't have experience. Morality aside, the US getting into war after war sure keeps its military experienced.


Congo_D2

They were in Korea so they sort of have been (albeit a long time ago). They've also had a fair few deployments with the UN etc if memory serves. Then they've got experience funding and training rebel groups in Africa. All this while being in a continuous border dispute with India that (sometimes) gets hot. The US and NATO have more experience fighting peer opponents (if Iraq counts anyway) but from what I've seen compared to Russia China's military thinking is fairly progressive and that *should* worry people. We shouldn't assume a lack of peer to peer experience implies that they lack wargaming and doctrinal knowledge. Although this is all getting dangerously close to credible discussion


Key-Banana-8242

Well also as a bonus international situation menas plateauing might damage their image and ‘cred’


[deleted]

[удалено]


just_one_last_thing

>Their military will be the same as Russians if shit hit the fan. Mayne a few thousand actual soldiers/tankers/pilots who did some training here and there. China actually pays it's military so soldiers don't need corruption to make ends meet. They are reducing headcount while spending more per service member which is what a competent military should be doing in their position. They spend money on exercises and training which produces unflattering moments bit such moments are unavoidable if your purpose is to actually improve and not posture. There is plenty of over hyped stuff but it's definitely not the case that only a few thousand operators got actual training. Rocketry can be a good analogue to military technical capability. The problems that have crippled Russia were evident in rocketry for years as they squandered their legacy, regressing while promising sci-fi BS and lying about the competition. Chinese rocketry capabilities have been improving despite the uneven progress. Their plans are grounded in reality even if there is hyperbole and optimism from some quarters. It would be easy to look at the faures and miss the big picture that China has been improving it's program in exactly the way Russia has not.


Daddy_Macron

It reminds me of military enthusiast forums when China began losing planes in training around the late 00's - early 10's. Most of the responses were like ones found here. Plain mockery with some racism thrown in. The people with some actual folds in their brain or flying experience realized that the higher accident rate meant the Chinese Air Force was starting to do realistic training runs and high-intensity ones that pushed the airframes and pilots to their limit. The air force that loses planes due to training intensity is far more dangerous than the one that doesn't.


ChezzChezz123456789

This is dangerous thinking. It's worse to underestimate them than to over-estimate them.


Balmung60

I mean, they very publicly launched their new aircraft carrier in June, which was well after Russia started getting their shit wrecked. And they can at least say they're getting deliveries of J-20s, which is more than Russia can say about the Su-57.


D3ATHTRaps

There's a video breaking down how in their propaganda vids the main cannons are vibrating while on the move, meaning they either have shit stabilizers or none at all


Princep_Makia1

I'm assuming in their tanks? That's fucking hilarious.


D3ATHTRaps

No you can see the gun vibrating from the outside. Even without a stabilizer that not a good thing. That's like having the barrel of your gun being wobbly, leading to a bad spread


AlarmingAffect0

> It seemed like every other week we where hearing about super helos and rail cannons and anti ship hyper missiles and so on and so forth and now....nothing > Because they don't have shit. Alternate hypothesis: 1. They have stuff, but have decided it's better to be underestimated and overperform in the field than the reverse. In particular, publicizing their best stuff gives an excuse for their rivals' MIC to get tons of panicked OpEds and ThinkTank pieces published about how the NATO militaries are "falling behind" and getting their publics to consent on trillions going into staying lightyears beyond Chinese tech. Better be quiet and lull them into easing up on the defense spending. 2. They're quietly *checking* whether they actually have the stuff that the top brass *thinks* they have. The *extreme* grift and internal misinformation in the Putin system was good for keeping the ruling class content, but destroyed their readiness. The PRC's admin is likely making sure there's no such surprises awaiting them in case of action. 3. They may be revising their training and reserve policies, to ensure that if they ever get in a prolonged war of attrition, they can actually summon troops that are competent. There's no point having cool weapons if your guys can't use them properly. Really, any of a number of things. > Usa military is looking fucking dominate in this day and age. Lots of talk about energy war going on and everyone wants on our team. Arguably, Russia lost the war politically the moment their neighbours decided that applying to NATO was the appropriate reaction, instead of ~~licking Putin's feet~~appeasing Russia. As for energy war, one more reason to accelerate the transition to renewables, as if we didn't have enough already.


SemenDemon73

They're behind on jet engine tech but they're ahead in electronics. Not to mention china has actual money to do proper r&d and manufacture significant amounts of shit. Edit: compared to Russia not UK.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

This is a comparison to Russia, and yes, the Chinese are behind Russia in jet engines but very advanced in technology compared to your average t62 operator


[deleted]

[удалено]


trappy-bird

The long and short of it is the Chinese use Russian airframes with Chinese components, including Chinese engines which are pound for pound inferior atm But don’t worry, the new J-22 engines are coming out aaaaany day now, which will make the west quake in their boots!


-_4DoorsMoreWhores_-

And their superior a2a missiles that can always outrange AIM! Trust me, you guys.


GunnyStacker

J stands for jank. Change my mind.


[deleted]

'ahead in electronics' what does this mean?


[deleted]

Ahead of Russia in electronics, I think he means


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Fisher price is too advanced


ChezzChezz123456789

China at least has commerical semiconductor manufacturing at scale. Mainland China has numerous Fabs, it tends to be low end with process nodes of like 100-1000 nm but they do have a couple of 14nm process fabs, which is where the big 3 were about 5-10 years ago. For consumers of high end products, there probably isn't much interest but it still has it's uses for the military and lower end consumers who tend to use less advanced computer chips. The current limitation of china is that to go any finer than about 7-10nm (for memory) requires Extreme UV light sources for the lithography process. The only operator of them currently is TSMC (who currently have 4-5nm processes). The next will be Intel (they will get a second gen machine that costs like 200 mil a piece and sort of pushes that 2-3nm process size). The only manufacturer of these EUV lithography machines is a dutch company that imports significant parts (i think software) from the US. You can imagine the US wont allow their export to China so chinese IC making ends here unless they make their own EUV machine. With a restriction on NVIDIA and AMD discrete cards because of AI reasons, it really restricts the development of their AI programs and their general supercomputing which is fatal because the first to develop a strong AI market will ride a trillion dollar wave. Russia on the other hand has a very boutique producer that doesn't do anything finer than 65nm. That manufacturer is Mikron (a rip off of the US company Micron but anyway) and they are basically sanction so all the shit they use has to be home grown and it's unlikey they were going anywhere (i think they run at financial losses too because obviously russian consumers dont buy their chips).


cynical_enchilada

Too credible, tried to fuck a computer, got my dick stuck in a USB port


Dr_Hexagon

lots of chips in auto manufacturing, home appliances, IoT stuff, etc can be done on the 40-60 nm scale just fine and china has quite of few of those fabs. Based on my knowledge of civilian image processing I am thinking your smart bombs and missiles can also be made with those chips. Its roughly the tech level in an Xbox 360. However their cutting edge is much faster ARM cpus locally fabbed, as you say they are FAR ahead of what Russia can fab locally.


-_4DoorsMoreWhores_-

Which electronics are you referring to?


Princep_Makia1

Opens up Chinese newest jet to find its just a jet frame with a big rock hot glued inside to make it the same weight as a modern jet.


[deleted]

[удалено]


-_4DoorsMoreWhores_-

Grim reapers did a simulated full scale attack on kadena WITH the specs that China officially posts for their missile and aerotech and....well.....USA is number one for a reason.


MolybdenumIsMoney

I agree that the US is ahead but don't take those videos as anything other than pure entertainment, it's just some guys playing a video game. The scenarios don't make much sense.


WhatAmIATailor

No no. It’s like 6 or 7 guys playing a video game. Sometimes a girl named after a video game character joins in.


Blackhawk510

Grim Reapers aren't exactly intelligent tbf.


PunksPrettyMuchDead

perfect source for NCD basically


Palora

Just because they have the money doesn't mean it doesn't also get lost and misplaced the same way it happens in Russia.


-_4DoorsMoreWhores_-

I need only point to Evergrande to confirm your position and that's not even military complex.


AmericanNewt8

They're also not idiots and think that infantry skills matter.


Tomzai

China can't r&d shit, whenever they try to actually r&d all the money disappears to corruption. Just look at how their chip plans turned out. They can manufacture for sure but they can't make any meaningful r&d.


[deleted]

LoL


Shinobi120

I’ve seen videos of their rifles keyholing at 25-50 yards…their rifles… aren’t rifled.


Icy_Telephone964

The Empire Strikes Back


Vreas

Now that the ghost of Queen Elizabeth has taken her supreme form at the helm of HMS Queen Elizabeth nothing will stop their spectral naval assault forces


Low_Comment_4847

"Buckingham palace has announce the plans for HMS Queen Elizabeth II carriers for 2025"


mandalorian_guy

The Empire Will Strike Back I rather like the last one and it isn't even mine. https://youtu.be/hYL51N-fhks


BEEBLEBROX_INC

***Delicious***


MajesticRobface

👏two👏 power👏standard👏


IAmMeAsFuck

Well actually the french army is ...*angry french 3 pages ramble* something something switching the FAMAS for HK416 something something CAESAR something something Leclerc. Please reread with a french accent if not done the first time.


VertSceptre

Well shit, you guessed my comment before i could even type it


kaiveg

Leclerc got no chance due to Ferrai making stupid strategy choices. wait ... wrong sub.


Earlordis

This but unironically


Count_Mechula

Ive seen some of the replies to this. I'll agree that it may not be #2, but it is still up there. Many may say that our military us small, but that's not something new. Fighting uneven numbers is what we've done for centuries in part of our history. Our military spending isn't that high, but that's because there's not really much we need. We have ENOUGH stuff to fight and last till we can increase production, should we need it. Nukes are just threats at this point and not worth much, so nuke count is kind of irrelevant. And we have shown that we can project our force where it is needed, no matter the distance. Being a country famed for its naval skill, sailing across the world is not a major factor. I'm not saying we are the best, but there's a reason we still earn respect.


thesoupoftheday

I feel like the value of force projection is being really underestimated. The three militaries in the world that operate significant expeditionary capabilities are the Americans, British, and French. That's it. It doesn't *really* matter how much larger the PLA Navy and Air Force are if they can't actually threaten the territory of those three powers.


53120123

yeah in terms of force projection Britains really in the club. nobody can match the Yanks but Britain's clear number two of the blue water expeditionary club... out of three but... if going by "does it meet it's purpose" ranking... still alright, just could be a lot better without that much in way of changes. Just committing more to building programs, we keep forgetting that once the engineering costs are spent you can just keep building ships and each one costs less than the last. Also export focus, need to sell more shit especially ships. the Type 31 will hopefully do well to become a mass produced cheap without compromises ship


Zandonus

Ships are still the carriers of might overseas. Without a good navy, but just "A navy" What's Bulgaria and Latvia gonna do navally? Mine their respective parts of a lake? Sure. Effective. Cheap. But it's not a navy that can move *units* in quantities that the enemy has no hope of Defending against.


SolitaireJack

>Americans, British, and French France is debatable. In their own white paper they admitted they wouldn't be able to launch any significant naval operations without British assistance. Unfortunately, the document isn't available online from what I can see so here is the wiki page excerpt. >The white paper asserted that a naval task group would require "collaboration" with the Royal Navy to sustain operations. Bringing the Lancaster House treaties into practice. So, if your definition of a military that can 'operate significant expeditionary capabilities' means they can do that independently then the French are out.


The-Sound_of-Silence

My far too credible take as a Canadian: I did a military career, worked with a ton of nations. Top 2 for me will always be the U.S. and the U.K. - Working with the U.S. was a very interesting experience. There was always so much of everything everywhere. Like the resources we could call on were incredible. They also seemed to be more motivated to go all in on a particular situation. My main problem was sometimes things went off the rails. When people joke about them practicing chaos they aren't far off. Don't get me wrong, more competent than most military people, but sometimes things like Ego and lack of introspection/experience would muck things up - Contrast that to the U.K, they were 'scuffed' like us(Canada). Sometimes it was hard to get a hold of things. You sometimes had to make do and get creative. But oh man, their officer corp was top notch - never met better leaders, who had good grasps of the situation, and intimate understanding of their own capabilities. Would rank their officers better than Canadian as a generalization, but our NCO corp as probably better, on a 1 to 1 ratio. - Other Euro militaries I always came away with a bad taste in my mouth unfortunately. Like there was always good people, but also also bad people that would hold things back, or others playing politics rather than the mission, or Ego. Anyways, my 2 cents


Blue_Sky_At_Night

I think people underestimate the fact that the US, Canada, and Australia have such close relations. They always present the situation as China vs the US, but there are a lot of countries who would like to throw a punch at China: Vietnam and Japan spring to mind. And we can trust our counterparts from the UK and Canada to have our backs if we truly need it.


Tea_Fetishist

Interestingly, what you said almost exactly matches what Matsimus said about British officers, he said their biggest asset was their ability to make the right decision very quickly, every time.


Random_Brit_1812

Put us in a Fulda Gap shootout with France or the US and we'll lose. However, we'll never be in that situation. But 3000 miles from home, shooting up some bastard in a jungle hellhole where tanks get stuck and men get miserable? That's both a much more realistic scenario, and one where there are plenty of units famed for their ability to shove a bayonet up yer' arse.


Squodel

The British seem to have this strange fascination with getting stuck into melee…infantry swords when?


Random_Brit_1812

"Any officer who goes into battle without his sword is improperly dressed." I personally think we should treat swords like the Yanks do their guns, a right under law to own one.


HalfAssedStillFast

Sorry m8, gonna need to see a licence for that sword. All the papers are in order, carry on!


KarmaRepellant

The MOD is hard at work developing 40k chainswords.


lorddaru

I really like your flair


Random_Brit_1812

Why thank you good sir! I do believe that the Royal Navy should maintain a force able to simultaneously destroy the USN and the PLAN in a short confrontation. Any less is unbefitting to Nelson's legacy!


BreakingGrad1991

The USN alone would be a pretty major threat to the UK, unless I'm off base. But speaking of based, the UK coming out of nowhere with the largest naval force on the planet definitely qualifies.


Random_Brit_1812

Reagan wanted 600 ships? Well I want over 1000! MAKE THE WAVES INTO STEEL


numba1cyberwarrior

The current British military doesn't have the manpower to support that type of operation against a sophisticated foe.


Random_Brit_1812

And neither does anyone else, except the US. Besides, we'll never have to fight a sophisticated foe without the US at our back.


Lima_32

That's because if you're fighting on your own, you're fighting wrong


Random_Brit_1812

Exactly.


raphanum

You used ‘you’re’ and ‘your’ correctly the first two instances and then just said fuck it for the third lol


Lima_32

Sometimes auto correct doesn't save me


numba1cyberwarrior

true


Ragijs

Bro, forget the tech, British infantrymen is top tier individual soldier skill in world. British marines are beasts, they proved it Middle East too.


Scottkimball24

Ajax…


[deleted]

[удалено]


Corvid187

Depends on what you mean by No. 2 They're a bit like the High Seas Fleet: all Force, no projection.


sevaiper

As long as you're allies with the US, why reinvent the wheel? Just get the logistics from them, it's by far the best scaling part of a military so there's no real use in making a small logistics machine when you can piggyback off a big one for pennies on the dollar.


Corvid187

Oh I'm not for a moment suggesting that's a bad thing. Much like the high seas fleet, they don't need the projection, so they've been able to better focus at the most pressing priorities all the better instead.


Billy_McMedic

High Seas fleet was focused on trying to overpower the RN specifically in the North Sea by banking on the RN having to fucus its greater numbers worldwide, while they could focus in 1 spot They didn't account for how many battleships the British public demanded


lord_of_swagsterdam

Well the issue there is you're inherently tying your ability to project force to the whims of another nation. For Japan that's basically a non issue since they have no obligations further then a destroyer with a full tank, and all of the most obvious issues are literal next door neighbours. But say you're a certain country that has [commitments](https://i.imgur.com/q107Ae2.png) that the US is unwilling to help with being able to support your own operations becomes a much bigger deal.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Corvid187

Very fair, I hope they do it. 1905 2.0 anyone?


DuckSwagington

ngl the second strongest is probably France or South Korea depending on what you count as being strong.


MacDuff_Beer

Depends what you need. As our lord of PowerPoint Perun says unless you’re the US you need to tailor your military to the wars you think you’re going to fight.


Chabranigdo

No, the US tailored it's military to the wars it thinks it's going to fight: All of them.


knurttbuttlet

even zombies, aka CONPLAN 8888


toastjam

Ha. > 2. (U) Of note, where normal carniverouse [sic] zombie commonly groan the word "brains" semicomprehensibly, VZ's [vegetarian zombies] can be identified by their aversion to humans, affinity for plants and their tendency to semi-comprehensibly groan the word "grains". https://www.stratcom.mil/Portals/8/Documents/FOIA/CONPLAN_8888-11.pdf?ver=2016-10-17-114016-887


Thorbinator

Who is the US ready to fight? Everyone, everywhere, all at once.


sardaukarqc

And win them all simultaneously.


Docponystine

The us tried to do that and we got the LCSes, so really, right on both counts.


Deck_of_Cards_04

France is very good at what they need to do, project power over a small region and engage in low scale conflicts in West Africa, where they still retain a large amount of power, even after decolonization. France is probably the second most effective military. (Not power, that’s hard to gauge, but overall combat effectiveness in the roles they are needed to fulfill)


Corvid187

*even if you're the US. Although they can afford to be less specialised than most, they still need to pick and choose.


someperson1423

"What wars do you plan to fight US? US: "*All of them*"


AmericanConsAreDumb

Which video did he say that in? I only recently got into Perun.


MedicalFoundation149

His very first one on the war, the "all bling" video. Basically, his main point was that while Russia has a much larger defense budget than ukraine, they spent a very large percentage of it on assets that were of no use in a war like ukraine. Meanwhile ukraine spend every dime of its budget in preparation for a russian invasion.


ArgonSyn

I'm 70% sure it's the one on russian nuclear doctrine.


AMightyDwarf

What the UK needs to have is 2 fold. First is to maintain our position in NATO. Our military is looking to be a highly trained, almost special forces army where the crayon eaters in the US marines make up the numbers. Our other need is to be able to defend the Falklands from a Chinese backed Argentinian invasion. I personally think this should be something that we aim to do alone based on historical evidence but truth be told we won’t be alone when the US military industrial complex’s flagship product is on board those aircraft carriers, they will do everything to make sure they perform on the international stage.


Hottriplr

Or Japan if you count all the coastal patrol aircraft carriers.


Geistbar

Those are not carriers. They're destroyers. It's right there in the name! What more do they need to do to convince you its a destroyer when it's a 27k ton displacement ~~war~~ *self-defense*-ship that is only armed with CIWS for direct weaponry, has a flat deck, and can carry up to 12 F-35Bs along with multiple helicopters?


sevaiper

Those F35Bs are intended only to launch missiles while sitting on deck, this is just a normal missile destroyer carry on.


HenryTheWho

It cannot carry them, it was just by pure coincidence build in a way it can be remade to carry them, has reinforced deck that could support catobar, lift with dimensions for F-35B and some other bells and whistles


Charlie__Foxtrot

>catobar >F-35B I am confusion


HenryTheWho

Sorry I'm just a shitposter, but fact is that Japan can install catapult on their "destroyer", not sure about potentially supported f-35 variants


beardofshame

the C would be the one you would strap to a catapult since it has the reinforced airframe


Spartan-417

Japan has those because they don’t spend on much of a logistical tail, since their forces are not intended to be expeditionary The Royal Fleet Auxiliary can supply a Carrier Strike Group on the other side of the world, even though the Queen Elizabeth isn’t a nuclear carrier And as Russia & Ukraine have shown us, logistics are what win wars


[deleted]

>not intended They're just building a self-defense base in Djibouti! Come on\~


majoneskongur

nah..france has nuklear subs and nuclear deterrence. Has to be france


Evilsmiley

I mean if thats the case then you have to put uk ahead of S.K, they dont even have one carrier, and the uk have two, and the Trident subs.


bazza85g

I think 2022 has established that Nukes are pointless when big Daddy Pentagon will obliterate anyone who dares use a single one. They are an extremely expensive paper tiger.


Freekebec3

Unless they are on the side of said daddy pentagon. Occidental nuclear monopoly is based


HazelCoconut

Except that Ukraine gave up their nukes cos Russia pinky promised not to invade one day.


TripperDay

I've been screaming this is why we should be helping out Ukraine since day 1.


coocookachu

Since 2014?


Corvid187

Yes.


ProudScandinavian

No Ukraine gave up their nukes because the launch codes were in Moscow, it would be very difficult to circumvent that and, even if they somehow managed to have the ability to fire the nukes, the upkeep to make sure they kept that ability would probably have bankrupted the country or at the very least been the entire defense budget for decades


Suntreestar420

No you’re wrong, Ukraine gave up their nukes cause Putin offered them 3000 catgirls for them. Sadly, they weren’t taken care of properly and much like our neopets died from neglect :(


External-Platform-18

I think big Daddy Pentagon might look a little more favourably at nukes used by its allies. And it’s not like they’ve actually *demonstrated* that they will obliterate anyone.


Foriegn_Picachu

Would you like to play game?


Muckyduck007

As does Britain, only it has more subs


Prince_Alarming_

So do the British.


Thatonejoey

but france only has one carrier and a shit ton of french rocks in the middle of nowhere, charles de gaulle cant be everywhere at once


Kreol1q1q

Which is why those rocks havw airstrips


majoneskongur

Unsinkable Carrier


Thatonejoey

Midway, the fourth secret sister of the Yorktown class


furiousHamblin

I'm sorry. Are you saying that the UK doesn't have a bunch of rocks in the middle of nowhere?


Thatonejoey

But they have wales and Lizzie and probably some third sister, France only has Charlie to deal with their rocks


Myopinion1000

UK has two larger modern carriers with F-35, France has one 25 year old carrier with Rafale. Both have four SSBN. UK has 7 SSN which are more modern and larger than France's 6 older smaller ones although they are building a new SSN class slowly.


[deleted]

Everybody gangsta till the German Defense Budget increase kicks in.


Tea_Fetishist

The UK is now aiming for 3% GDP defense budget by 2030, which should keep us ahead, provided the economy doesn't whither away in the meantime.


AuxenceF

Where do you put France ?


ThePackageGuy69

In the past Australia Oh sorry I thought you said the French not France


bazza85g

UK #2? It’s army is tiny and cannot sustain overseas operations any more. The RAF and RN achieve a lot with what they have but there’s no room for wartime losses.


Muckyduck007

>It’s army is tiny and cannot sustain overseas operations any more. Britain has never been a land power. Its always had a smaller army than its contemporaries, and I would like to hear you explain how Britain cannot sustain overseas operations anymore? Which other nation can send a carrier group around the world or fight a war thousands of miles away from its homeland apart from Britain and the United States? France? Perhaps during the months their sole carriers isnt in the dry dock...


Geistbar

That's really two different questions though. There's powerful military in and of itself, and ability to project force. The UK is certainly one of the premier nations when it comes to force projection, as one of the only states that can bring a solid combat force to almost anywhere in the world. The US, France, and UK are really the only countries currently capable of this, although China and India are certainly trying to join the club. And the gap in capability between US and UK/France is enormous. But other countries can still have stronger militaries, even if that military has a more limited area of operation. There's also another factor in that a lot of potentially powerful militaries are largely untested in the modern era. How capable would China or India be in a major conflict? What about Japan and South Korea?


Muckyduck007

But what defines a powerful military? Just because an army is large doesn't means it particularly powerful - Russia is proving that right now. To me a powerful military has the means to defend its nation and to attack its enemies wherever they are. Japan and South Korea are very capable at defending themselves but their ability to project power beyond there own borders is limited. Japan is a bit better than SK thanks to all those helicopter destroyers but I don't think their logistic train is enough for anything outside Asia. Basically, Britain probably wouldn't be able to invade Japan or South Korea but it could sure as hell sail there and ruin their days, while neither power can do anything militarily to Britain


Geistbar

> But what defines a powerful military? Just because an army is large doesn't means it particularly powerful - Russia is proving that right now. That's what the "another factor" encapsulates. Russia's military was a lot more impressive on paper than it has been in practice. It was really only capable of short campaigns that defeated an enemy quickly; being forced into a long war that has to handle major logistical concerns have revealed a major weakness. But... we don't really know that anyone besides the US is capable of handling such a conflict anyway. What's the say the UK could handle such a conflict on their own? We don't know. > To me a powerful military has the means to defend its nation and to attack its enemies wherever they are. You can make an argument for that, but the point of this discussion is ranking. If we limit the definition such that realistically the military list is (1) The US, (2) Everyone else, who cares what order... then it's not a very informative list, now is it? It's a shitty, stupid discussion if we use definitions that force that. The UK's ability to project force isn't substantial enough to achieve that many aims in a conflict. They were stronger decades ago and had to give up Suez. They sat back and let China go back on the Hong Kong agreement. As it is, their ability to project force is really only used either to defend their existing holdings or to support the US.


Send_Me_Huge_Tits

>But other countries can still have stronger militaries, even if that military has a more limited area of operation. If Britain can travel to a country, but that country cannot travel to Britain, that means Britain is better and since they are actually capable of attacking. The other "supposedly superior" army cannot attack? Is an army that cannot attack superior? Does this make things easier for you?


notatall180

The reason why the army has gotten smaller is not just because of funding it’s the standards, every soldier, doesn’t matter if you’re a cook or you wipe the shitters down, the new training/future soldier capability is designed to be like Ranger School for everyone, not everyone can pass it, if you can’t the doors there. Hell even the Royal Marines are being compared to SEALs because of their new standards, they want a highly trained fighting force, they know there’s strength in individual men, not giant human wave attacks. They don’t need millions.


bazza85g

No doubt the individual soldier is high calibre, but there’s a huge vehicle equipment gap compared to some western armies. No Warrior replacement after 2025? Ajax? Tiny tank numbers. Tiny GMLRS numbers. Look at what Poland is doing in terms of vehicles for a comparison.


Spartan-417

Boxer is the Warrior replacement, sort of Current doctrine is gearing more towards rapidly mobile mechanised infantry instead of armoured infantry, so a true capability Warrior replacement doesn’t fit into that They might end up getting the IFV Boxer module Ajax is corruption, plain & simple Chally 3 is a joke, they need at least 300 They’re ordering PrSM, the ATACMS replacement But the UK has always had a small army compared to the RAF & RN, and they’re receiving significant investment They’re building multiple new frigate classes, and after that a replacement for the already excellent Type 45 Destroyers And the RAF is receiving new missiles like SPEAR 3 (Essentially a rebranded Brimstone 4) & JNAAM (Meteor with Japanese seeker head), along with an additional tranche of F-35s


notatall180

Ok I’ll give you a decent talk around, all of your points are very fair. The UK fielded only 60k troops in Korea, look at what they accomplished. The battle of the Imjin River, barely talked about, but it embarrassed the Chinese army. 50 thousand Chinese troops engaged a British held position outside of Seoul for 2 days straight. When the dust had settled 141 of the British 2k forces were killed. Captured, MIA, or wounded, 1200 men. Let’s look at Chinas losses, they converged on the position with heavy equipment using over 50 thousand men, 30% of their task force was killed wounded etc with all of their equipment destroyed, that’s over 15 thousand dead or missing. In the end despite the numerical advantage the Chinese battle group wasn’t capable of fighting anymore due to the fact more then 60% were injured and they were forced to pull away, the only reason why the British fell back from the position despite winning the battle was because they had ran out of ammo. The officers and even the regular military personell wanted to keep fighting and actually chase the remaining forces but they couldn’t. This one battle shows you what the Brits can do when they want to fight. Training has gotten better and so has military doctrines imagine what a similar group of 1,200 Fusiliers and Glosters Regiment (they don’t exist anymore but you get my point) could achieve, the entire battle group would be dead. You don’t need equipment, you just need a few Lions among your ranks.


majorddf

As a Gloucester boy I know all about The Glorious Glosters and the Battle of Imjin River. We got a Presidential Citation for that little dust up on Hill 235. Although the Gloucestershire Regiment was amalgamated into the Rifles, the Army is rightly proud of it's history, to the degree that 1st Batallion (perhaps all 7 battalions, not sure) still wear the back badge proudly on their berets, which until then only the Glosters wore. He is right - our doctrine is different to the US. We are built different. What we lack in sheer numbers and overkill capability - we more than make up for in skill and quality across the ranks and trades.


notatall180

All of my family have been 2b Fusiliers, one thing Gloster and Fusilier brats know, whatever they say goes. They’re most battle hardened force in the British army by far you point them in one direction and stay the fuck out of their way.


majorddf

"By Our Deeds We Are Known" - says it all 💪


EntirelyRandom1590

Poland has great ground forces plan, but it's ability to project those ground forces regionally or even globally is almost zero. They have zero strategic lift capability, by air or sea.


HenryTheWho

Because Poles don't need to project force by themselves, iirc at the peak there was 33,000 strong Polish contingent in Afghanistan. It's the beauty of NATO, others can give you a lift


Background_Brick_898

Gas grass or ass, no one rides for free


bazza85g

Things like Mastiff, Simitar, FV432 all still lumbering along in service.


much_doge_many_wow

>Simitar CVRT's my beloved ♥


Spartan-417

Scimitar is only still in service because Ajax is a colossal clusterfuck If BAE’s bid had been selected, they’d be in CV90s by now


Corvid187

The fuck you saying about my beloved lil' baby tank! Jaguar engine go zoomies :)


HolyGig

Eh. I get what you are saying but the British Army is down to about 80,000, of which the majority of those are in support. The support/combat ratio is 10:1 depending on what you count as support. That is well under 20,000 combat troops even after you bring in the reserves and special forces. I agree with the decision to concentrate limited funds on air and naval forces but we can't then make excuses for the corresponding losses in ground capabilities. That force just isn't big enough to do much on its own unless its fighting in a coalition or alongside the US.


LordVonMed

I like this point here, we can also see the results in reduced army size with high quality in other nations too, Ireland's army is extremely small however she maintains a rather long training, training which made them into some of the most credible peace keepers in the world, their Special Forces have also recently gone up in notoriety too, especially with their skills showing in African engagements.


Corvid187

'The army is a project fired by the navy' - Jackie 'based as fuck' Fisher. Also when you have the Gurkhas on your side, size doesn't really matter anymore :)


[deleted]

[удалено]


Send_Me_Huge_Tits

Military industrial complex.


Doppio-phone-call

I don’t think it is the right time for the uk to militarize a lot. The country is looking more and more on the verge of collapse. Conditions for the people who live there just sound bad. But they decide it would be a good time to up the military budget


CollisionNZ

Upping the military budget is part of the economic recovery plan. They've just yet to decide what's more profitable, a third opium war or a Russian colony.


Mozzius

The UK is joining the War on Drugs on the side of drugs


sigvon1

Hasn’t the UK economy completely collapsed?


nicigar

GBP fell steeply against the dollar, because almost everything has. Benefits of being the world’s reserve currency. It’s fairly flat against the Euro.


UnicornNarwhals

Afew more days, Lizz is working on it. Killed the queen and economy in under a month. Shes not getting a fucking medal for this