Military Review

The telegraph compared the British army with the Russian

48
The defense expenditures of the Russian Federation and Britain are almost comparable, but the Russian army is superior in strength to the British, the newspaper The Telegraph writes.




The author analyzes the armed forces of the two countries against the background of a statement by the Chief of the British General Staff, Nick Carter, about the superiority of the Russian army over the British.

“According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, in 2016, the defense budget of Russia amounted to more than 46,6 billion dollars, in Britain - 52,5 billion dollars. At the same time, the armies of the two countries differ significantly in their power, ”the article cites. RIA News.

According to the information, "the number of Russian army is more than 830 thousand people, while the British army has 152 thousands of servicemen."

In addition, the Russian army is superior to the British and in the number of units of military equipment - 270 thousand against 82 thousand. Armed with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation about 2700 tanks and 4900 infantry fighting vehicles, while Britain is significantly inferior in these indicators - 227 and 623 units, respectively.

The statement by the military leadership of the United Kingdom about the higher quality of British technology, the newspaper notes that “only numerical superiority gives Russia an advantage,” besides, the capabilities of Russian military equipment are constantly improving.

The newspaper also stresses that the Russian authorities are carrying out an extensive modernization of the armed forces, while the British army, according to retired general Richard Barrons, "is outdated by 20 years."
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com
48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. shura7782
    shura7782 24 January 2018 10: 41
    +8
    I would like to know more about the fleet. Apparently the ink is out. smile
    1. Anarchist
      Anarchist 24 January 2018 10: 52
      16
      Why compare the ass with a finger? I understand when they compare Russia with China, Russia with the United States ... With India or Turkey, at worst! But such comparisons, with countries that dry up the very first hours of the war, are insulting and incorrect!
      1. Cxnumx
        Cxnumx 24 January 2018 12: 24
        +1
        Quote: Anarchist
        Why compare the ass with a finger? I understand when they compare Russia with China, Russia with the United States ... With India or Turkey, at worst! But such comparisons, with countries that dry up the very first hours of the war, are insulting and incorrect!

        What offended you comparison with them? the fact that they now drank the budget and the hope for the US with NATO led their army to degradation? We had a similar situation 20 years ago, given that we did not have our own US and NATO. and for only half a century or a century they were more than a strong military power, second only to the USSR and Germany (on land) and the United States at sea.
        1. Shurik70
          Shurik70 24 January 2018 13: 21
          +2
          Quote: K0

          What offended you comparison with them?

          What does it offend? How can one compare the armies of a small (albeit economically strong) state and a large continental country? We have completely different conditions.
          England's main mission is to bring destruction to other countries, emphasis on aircraft carriers
          Russia has the main thing to protect its territory, the emphasis on tanks, air defense and ground-based aircraft.
          Here's how to compare a shark with a bear?
          1. Cxnumx
            Cxnumx 24 January 2018 15: 05
            0
            Quote: Shurik70
            What does it offend? How can one compare the armies of a small (albeit economically strong) state and a large continental country? We have completely different conditions.

            but in this comment, the man reacted to what? on conditions or quality? Personally, it seems to me at last, without reference to "continental / island".
            Quote: Anarchist
            Why compare the ass with a finger? I understand when they compare Russia with China, Russia with the United States ... With India or Turkey, at worst! But such comparisons, with countries that dry up the very first hours of the war, are insulting and incorrect!
            1. Anarchist
              Anarchist 24 January 2018 15: 56
              +5
              I wrote that this so-called power will dry out the very first hours of the war! Stupidly left without a country in the very first hours of the conflict, a full-blown conflict with Russia! Nuclear missiles will do their job ...
              But if you like when you compare with the British, then please ... Just do not ascribe the whole country to yourself!
              1. Cxnumx
                Cxnumx 24 January 2018 20: 22
                +2
                Quote: Anarchist
                Nuclear missiles will do their job ...

                ahh ... so here you are talking about ... well so ... they also have nuclear missiles that will do their job. 160 warheads is minus how many cities? consider Britons toothless and weak - stupidity of the highest order. throughout history, in different periods, very many considered them weak, as a rule these citizens did not finish well.
                PS well, if you think that with any the conflict between Russia and England, NATO will remain on the sidelines ... well, I don’t even know ... I don’t feel such illusions.
      2. Lelek
        Lelek 24 January 2018 12: 30
        +2
        Quote: Anarchist
        Anarchist


        hi , Alexander.
        Here is what British bloggers write about this and the “aggressiveness” of Russia.
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 24 January 2018 10: 57
      18
      Quote: shura7782
      I would like to know more about the fleet. Apparently the ink is out. smile

      And what about the fleet you want to know? The British fleet should be considered only as part of the NATO fleet. And this comparison is not in our favor. As for the land component, this is generally a joke - to compare the army of a continental power with the army of an island state.
      1. shura7782
        shura7782 24 January 2018 11: 16
        +2
        Absolutely agree with you.
        But in the newspaper The Telegraph there is no comparison of its fleet with ours. Therefore, I had such a question.
      2. korvin1976
        korvin1976 24 January 2018 11: 19
        +4
        An anecdote is not an anecdote, but on the budget it is quite comparable, and this is precisely why the comparison is taking place. Budgets are almost equal, but what these budgets are spent on is a slightly different story, and just this comparison shows the whole difference in approach
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 24 January 2018 11: 24
          +6
          Quote: korvin1976
          An anecdote is not an anecdote, but on the budget it is quite comparable, and this is precisely why the comparison is taking place. Budgets are almost equal, but what these budgets are spent on is a slightly different story, and just this comparison shows the whole difference in approach

          And why the hell, forgive me, tearing the back hemisphere, how do we do it if we have the USA with our military machine? The British layman is fed up with the idea of ​​aggressive Russia. But, since the Russian Federation is far beyond the puddle, they systematically escalate the psychosis of the evil Russian submariners and their terrible submarines so that the layman does not relax.
          1. korvin1976
            korvin1976 24 January 2018 17: 07
            +2
            And what does the rear hemisphere? Talk about something else. If, with our budget and our corruption (whatever one may say, but no one canceled it), there is enough finance to support the army, to maintain and modernize. What can be said about what is happening with the British budget, provided that their army is several times smaller. This is what it is about, not about tearing someone, but not tearing someone.

            And if a separate topic, then these comparisons very well characterize the so-called component of the GDP of countries, if you draw parallels, you get a very interesting picture
    3. Evgeny RS
      Evgeny RS 24 January 2018 11: 44
      +3
      They built a new aircraft carrier for themselves, the old one in Russia.
      All these kamlani in order to increase the military budget.
  3. svp67
    svp67 24 January 2018 10: 42
    +7
    The defense expenditures of the Russian Federation and Britain are almost comparable, but the Russian army is superior in strength to the British, the newspaper The Telegraph writes.
    Why compare? Maybe I have forgotten and someone will remind me how many times Russia attacked England? And how much is England to Russia? Here the score is clearly not in our favor .... Just someone wanted to beg for a LOT of money or gathered "to bow to Uncle Sem" ... like: "Our whole earth is great and plentiful, but there is no order in it."
    1. bouncyhunter
      bouncyhunter 24 January 2018 10: 48
      +6
      And why this tabloid did not ask a question: why, with a larger military budget, the UK is losing and aching about a lack of funds? wink
      1. svp67
        svp67 24 January 2018 10: 51
        +4
        Quote: bouncyhunter
        And why this tabloid did not ask a question: why, with a larger military budget, the UK is losing and aching about a lack of funds?

        Yes they asked ... and got the answer: "We DO NOT have Putin"
        1. bouncyhunter
          bouncyhunter 24 January 2018 10: 59
          +6
          Quote: svp67
          We DO NOT have Putin

          good An exhaustive answer!
          1. svp67
            svp67 24 January 2018 11: 02
            +4
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            An exhaustive answer!

            Democracy w, sir
      2. bobba94
        bobba94 24 January 2018 12: 53
        +4
        A warrant officer (in our ensign) of the British Armed Forces receives about 4200 - 4500 dollars per month, and this is without any allowance for participating in hostilities, business trips, etc. If you compare with the salary of our ensign, then questions about the military budget of Great Britain disappear.
    2. kapitan92
      kapitan92 24 January 2018 10: 49
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      Why compare?

      Really, why? The usual propaganda stuff, pretty cheap. Calculation of the British inhabitants. hi
  4. 210ox
    210ox 24 January 2018 10: 43
    +4
    Fair remark: the Britons only have to count on the striped uncle.
    1. Third kalach
      Third kalach 24 January 2018 11: 35
      +1
      Yes, they rely not only on SGA, there are a lot of Russian money there, unfortunately ...
  5. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 24 January 2018 10: 44
    +1
    Saw the Shura, saw .... the UK budget is still golden ..... where is Britain doing business? Ask their Defense Ministry, really no technology, no fleet, no aviation ..... request
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 24 January 2018 11: 20
      +3
      Quote: Alexey-74
      Saw Shura Saw .... The UK budget is still golden ....

      It’s not just a matter of sawing ... the degree of anti-Russian sentiment is supported, presenting the image of the Russian Federation as an aggressor in every possible way. At the same time, you can immediately explain to the average man who the United States launched the update of the program of the nuclear marine component of the triad.
      But the average man is not completely stupid and understands that Russia is far beyond the seas and oceans ... and here the hysterical throw-in about our nuclear submarines is logical. Like, Russia is beyond the seas and oceans, but its submarines are right here, right next to it.
  6. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 24 January 2018 10: 44
    +5
    the costs of the Russian Federation and Britain are practically comparable, but the Russian army is superior in its power to the British
    Following the example of the Americans, it was necessary to measure the size of the red buttons on the table.
    higher quality British technology
    And more specifically you can (this is for the British)? What is the British military equipment of higher quality (TTX)? Air defense, aircraft, what exactly?
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 24 January 2018 10: 51
      +4
      The Britt-headed big-sized closets are warm and in the tank inside like in Rolls-Royce, in the sense of a shelf for a cane and an umbrella, there are diapers in stock ... such an advanced technique I really want from jealousy !!!
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 24 January 2018 10: 58
      +2
      Quote: rotmistr60
      What military equipment of higher quality British

      Helicopters 8)))
      I remember that they had a huge confusion about this, when it turned out that in Afghanistan "higher quality" full-time helicopters were malfunctioning on the ground, and Soviet Mi-8s with Moldovan crews carried out transportation in the interests of the occupation contingent ...
      In general, in this regard, everything is very sour. Own defense industry is driven under the baseboard. All that is new appears in British land-explorers of foreign origin.
  7. Berber
    Berber 24 January 2018 10: 45
    +2
    A dwarf with imperial ambitions. For a long time there are no colonies, but the same ambitions. Time puts everything in its place.
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 24 January 2018 10: 55
      +5
      The Englishwoman, in principle, should crap, but here almost whining !!!
      Perhaps their budget is not the same, especially since everything is "transparent", and their enemies, most likely, all ends are hidden in ... somewhere there.
  8. HAM
    HAM 24 January 2018 10: 51
    +2
    ".... higher quality British technology ....."

    The Baltic states appreciated the "high quality" of British technology, for Laboes it is, well, very high.
  9. Egorovich
    Egorovich 24 January 2018 10: 56
    +5
    We may have the same military budgets, but the concept is different. Russia is defensive, the Britons are for attack, and therefore they build aircraft carriers that are not needed for themselves. And for what? That would be built into the tail of the "hegemon" and destroy others.
  10. BVS
    BVS 24 January 2018 10: 57
    +2
    The given numbers look strange. Most likely, someone has everything turned on, including toothbrushes, while someone only has weapons and a salary. Or are there other explanations?
  11. Altona
    Altona 24 January 2018 10: 57
    +3
    The statement by the military leadership of the United Kingdom about the higher quality of British technology, the newspaper notes that “only numerical superiority gives Russia an advantage,” besides, the capabilities of Russian military equipment are constantly improving.
    --------------------------------------------
    And what do they have of higher quality? Around shoals that in tanks, that in ships, that in airplanes. All the same.
  12. morpogr
    morpogr 24 January 2018 10: 59
    +2
    Another attempt to beg for money from the budget. Everything is bad with us, give pennies for the Russians are terribly strong and armed and they will attack. winked
  13. Altona
    Altona 24 January 2018 10: 59
    +3
    Quote: HAM
    The Baltic states appreciated the "high quality" of British technology, for Laboes it is, well, very high.

    -------------------------------
    Armored cars were sent to Ukrovermacht, these, how are they? Saxons. With which they tried in the last century with the IRA to fight. The result of exploiting the freak all over Youtube posted.
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 24 January 2018 13: 21
      +2
      Yes-ah, Saykhon et finally joke!
      It’s exactly what they are not looking for, they are ready to shove the geyropeytsev on tse!
      And they are "happy", like Bentley has not yet given, but to crawl closer to the Gayropeyskoy, advanced ... something there!
  14. Altona
    Altona 24 January 2018 11: 00
    +4
    Quote: BerBer
    For a long time there are no colonies, but the same ambitions.

    ---------------------------
    How not? And the rocks of Gibraltar? And the heaps of rubble called the Falklands?
    1. Berber
      Berber 24 January 2018 11: 46
      +3
      I forgot. What are the pains of amputated limbs called? But this is about the same. I remembered - phantom pains. laughing
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 24 January 2018 13: 22
        +3
        And we hear phantom moans!
  15. K-50
    K-50 24 January 2018 11: 20
    +3
    For some reason, in the West they always compare the defenses of one of the countries of the NATO bloc, as if they would fight us one on one. But isn’t it the same? They will attack with the whole "collective farm", so let them compare the general armed forces of the Alliance, defense budgets and other characteristics with the same Russia. Then the picture will be clearer. The truth is it will be more difficult to accuse Russia of aggression, since the difference will be many times and dozens of times and not in Russia's favor
  16. The Siberian barber
    The Siberian barber 24 January 2018 11: 24
    +2
    It is incorrect to compare the ass with the finger (sorry). (although, maybe, in the "spirit of the times", and, correctly ??)
    Population, territory .. Threats .. And, stupidly, military doctrine, different
    But, as always happens, the Aglitsk “analytes” modestly hold back the presence in the “bloc”, which has an advantage in many, many parameters.
  17. Archivist Vasya
    Archivist Vasya 24 January 2018 11: 30
    +1
    Well, what for is this comparison, what does the tank and BMP have to do with "England vs RF"? They don’t know how to swim across the seas ... And about the things that can really threaten - ships / submarines, planes and various missiles - not a word.
  18. Kent0001
    Kent0001 24 January 2018 12: 29
    +1
    Che compare something. 2-3 rockets from us in the form of greetings and living Britons above sea level will remain exactly flying time. What do they compare?
  19. Cympak
    Cympak 25 January 2018 00: 38
    +2
    It is foolish to compare the armies of Russia and Britain. Britain still needs to be reached somehow. And on this difficult path, the armies of Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and France will meet + US military units deployed in Europe.
    Well, if you compare the army, then Russia and NATO (you can even without the United States)
    And the British fleet has a definite purpose within NATO: anti-submarine defense of Atlantic transport communications along the route Norway-Faroe Islands-Iceland. Those. and it is not correct to compare it separately with the Russian fleet; you need to take the entire NATO fleet.
    And all this “crying of Yaroslavna” in the West has been caused recently by the desire, taking into account the current political situation, to redistribute the budget in favor of the defense industry and the armed forces.
  20. Cympak
    Cympak 25 January 2018 00: 45
    +2
    Here's how to compare
    1. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 25 January 2018 05: 37
      +1
      Data for the period 2013-2015 are you serious?
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 25 January 2018 09: 32
        0
        Do not compare, this is the enemy, the enemy is numerous and powerful.
        Do we need to be afraid ??? Oh, come on! They won’t take a chance, but if they take a chance, then right away and ... nobody will have to fear anything else !!!
        Inspires ??? No, of course .... we work, we develop the economy and the armed forces, we will always be ready if so immediately !!!