The state and prospects of the armed forces of Great Britain

53

MBT Challenger 2

The British Armed Forces are often referred to as "the best small army in the world." They have a limited number and experience difficulties with modern equipment, but they are highly trained and combat-ready. With all this, the British army is faced with a number of characteristic problems, for the solution of which certain measures are proposed.

General indicators


At the moment, the UK has a full-fledged armed forces with all the necessary types and types of troops. There are ground, air and sea components. Limited strategic forces, special operations forces, space troops, etc. are also serving. Full integration with NATO is envisaged, thanks to which the British army can interact with foreign formations.



In terms of numbers, the British armed forces outnumber most European armies. According to The Military Balance 2022, more than 152 people are in active service. The reserve is estimated at 75 thousand people.

To maintain such an army in FY2022. allocated 53,4 billion pounds. At the same time, over the past few years, there has been a constant increase in the military budget, which is used both to improve the conditions of service and for the gradual rearmament and re-equipment.


Ajax armored vehicle - the main novelty of the ground forces

According to various estimates, the British army as a whole has a high potential and combat capability. Thus, the Global Firepower study gives it a score of 0.1382 and assigns it 8th place in the world or 2nd place among Western European states. Within Europe, Great Britain is ahead of Italy, Germany, etc., second only to France.

For special tasks


Great Britain is a nuclear power, but the strategic nuclear forces are represented only by the maritime component. The Royal Navy has only four Vanguard-class strategic missile carriers, each carrying 16 Trident II D-5 missiles. The total number of missiles is only 48 units, which allows only three SSBNs out of four available to be fully armed. The number of warheads does not exceed 150-160 units.

The Royal Air Force has the only object of the missile warning system. This is an American-designed AN / FPS-132 radar located at Fylingdales Air Force Base.

Special operations forces of unknown numbers are assigned to solve special tasks. At the moment, they include three regiments for various purposes - SAS, SBS and intelligence, as well as auxiliary units. They have infantry at their disposal. weapon and special equipment, as well as various ground equipment and watercraft.


ACS AS-90

Land Capabilities


The most numerous type of armed forces is traditionally the ground forces - about 81-82 thousand people, not counting the reserve of about 26 thousand people. The reforms of the last decades have led to a reduction in the organizational and staffing structure, the total number and quality indicators of the troops. If necessary, it is possible to increase the number of existing units and formations, as well as create new ones.

The ground forces have only one tank division. It consists of three tank brigades, an artillery brigade and several separate regiments for various purposes. There is also one infantry division with five brigades of different composition and auxiliary units. In addition, the ground forces include two separate infantry brigades, two separate battalions and various support units.

The army has a fairly large number of armored fighting vehicles, but the potential of such a fleet is limited. So, in combat units there are only 227 Challenger 2 tanks. The number of infantry fighting vehicles of all models, including the latest ones, does not reach 400 units. There are twice as many armored personnel carriers and armored vehicles.

The total number of artillery systems is less than 600 units. There are less than 90 AS-90 self-propelled guns and more than 110 towed guns. Rocket artillery is represented by a total of 35 M270 combat vehicles. Also, the ground forces are reinforced with Exactor-2, Javelin and NLAW missile systems. Military air defense is built on Stormer, Rapier, Starstreak and Land Ceptor systems.


Early warning radar based on Fylingdales

Royal Navy


The CVMF of Great Britain is not distinguished by its large size and strength. It serves approx. 34 thousand people At the same time, there are submarine and surface forces, marines and their own aviation. It is believed that the current composition of the CVMF as a whole corresponds to the tasks set.

The submarine force has only 10 nuclear submarines. These are 4 strategic SSBNs and 6 multi-purpose ships of two types. part of it fleet goes on patrol regularly.

A second aircraft carrier has recently been accepted into the surface fleet. There are also six Type 45 destroyers in two versions with different equipment and capabilities. The most numerous are Type 23 frigates - 12 units. in two versions. To support the activities of the Marine Corps, there are two landing ships of the Albion type. Also, the CVMF has a large number of different boats, transport ships, etc.

Marine Corps numbering 6,6 thousand people. consolidated into one brigade and several auxiliary units. The Marines have a hundred BvS-10 Mk2 Viking transporters, 40 105mm towed guns, MANPADS and ATGMs.


Fighter-bomber Eurofighter Typhoon

Naval aviation includes five patrol squadrons and several training units. Combat squadrons are equipped with AW101 and AW159 helicopters with search equipment and anti-submarine weapons.

Air component


In terms of the number of personnel, the KVVS is slightly inferior to the KVMF. As part of this type of troops, there are combat and auxiliary units, equipped with a variety of aviation equipment. With all the restrictions associated with the number, the KVVS are capable of solving a wide range of tasks.

The KVVS includes two fighter and six fighter-bomber squadrons on Typhoon aircraft of various modifications and F-35. The total number of such aircraft is approx. 165 units Two more combat squadrons are armed with MQ-9A UAVs. There is also one squadron with 8 P-8A patrol aircraft. Reconnaissance, radar surveillance and control are carried out by three squadrons equipped with appropriate equipment.

In addition, the KVVS has two squadrons of A330 tankers. Transport tasks are solved by five squadrons with aircraft of different types and classes. More than a dozen squadrons with different materiel have been formed to train flight crews.


The first F-35s from the KVVS

In order to simplify the operation and use in the armed forces, the Unified Helicopter Command was previously created. The corresponding units of the KVVS, KVMF and army aviation were transferred to his subordination. At the moment, the command manages one army brigade, which has about 110 combat and transport-combat helicopters of various types, three combat and auxiliary naval squadrons and six similar units of the KVVS. The total number of helicopters is more than 250 units.

Benefits and Challenges


In recent decades, the British armed forces have repeatedly participated in various wars and operations. At the same time, it was mainly about local conflicts of low intensity with specific requirements for participants. Under such conditions, the British army coped with the assigned tasks and showed good results.

At the same time, doubts and fears arose. It was assumed that the army in its current form would not be able to operate effectively in a larger conflict. In the future, due to the deterioration of the international situation and the emergence of rhetoric about the "Russian threat", the relevance of such issues has grown.

In recent years, various measures have been proposed to increase combat capability, upgrade equipment, etc. Thus, a plan for the development of the armed forces for the twenties was developed, and the improvement of the organizational and staffing structure began. In addition, they launched the purchase of new types of weapons and began projects for the modernization of existing ones.


Frigate HMS St Albans (F83) project "Type 23"

However, to date, only a part of the desired results have been achieved, and the overall performance of the armed forces has not changed much. In addition, in recent months, the British authorities have decided to give away some of the weapons and equipment of their army to their Ukrainian partners. This became an additional negative factor.

Right now, new proposals are being made to modernize the army, increase the size and improve equipment, increase all key indicators, etc. However, so far these are only proposals that have not yet been turned into real programs. In addition, the feasibility and feasibility of implementing such programs is now in question. The UK is facing a major economic and political crisis. Whether they will find opportunities for updating the army in such a situation is a big question.

Development in question


The British Armed Forces claim to be the "best small army" in the world. In accordance with current development plans, they should have a limited number, but at the same time show high efficiency. At the same time, as practice shows, the course to reduce quantitative indicators has led to qualitative limitations. And even interaction with other NATO countries does not fundamentally change this situation.

Now London plans to correct the mistakes of the recent past and build up the army in accordance with the current situation. The most ambitious plans are proposed that can really change the situation. However, the current situation is not conducive to such planning. And even the preservation of the title of "the best small army" is no longer guaranteed.
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +14
    11 July 2022 16: 16
    For some reason, the author did not tell about military bases.

    From wiki
    British military personnel are stationed at approximately 145 overseas military installations located in 42 countries. Sixty are directly administered by the British Armed Forces, including seventeen sites in Cyprus; while sixty-nine are operated by allied countries, including Oman, which has sixteen bases, and Saudi Arabia, which has fifteen.
  2. +1
    11 July 2022 16: 20
    The prospects for Foggy Albin are very vague, rather even illusory ...
    1. -4
      11 July 2022 20: 41
      What is the basis of the author's statement - about the high combat capability of the armed forces of small Britain ??? The last time they fought, for real, 40 years ago. In the Armed Forces, problems are "above the roof", for which you do not take it - even the fleet, even the army.
  3. -3
    11 July 2022 16: 26
    In general, nothing article. Is the author aware that the tanks are all decommissioned? Have you heard about the shortage of 60% in the army? There are two aircraft carriers, but there are no planes for them - news? There is a nuclear component - yes-ah? Who, if the missiles do not belong to Britain, but to the United States and are leased by the Americans? Well tede
    1. +9
      11 July 2022 16: 41
      Quote: Cowbra
      In general, nothing article. Is the author aware that the tanks are all decommissioned? Have you heard about the shortage of 60% in the army? There are two aircraft carriers, but there are no planes for them - news? There is a nuclear component - yes-ah? Who, if the missiles do not belong to Britain, but to the United States and are leased by the Americans? Well tede

      What are you talking about?
      Are you a parallel reincarnation of RomarioAgro or what?

      What tanks are decommissioned?
      What is the shortfall of 60%?
      The fact that not a single aircraft for aircraft carriers, but where did you put the 20 F-35Bs that Britain has already received? Where are you doing them?
      The missiles are American and the codes for launching are American, since the system is American, but that doesn't mean anything, since the Americans gave the British all the equipment for communication and launch control of SLBMs ...
      Or are you an operator?
      Where do you get these from? Through and through false and all twisting?
      1. +1
        11 July 2022 16: 47
        Quote: SovAr238A
        and where did you put the 20 F-35Bs that Britain has already received?

        Firstly, they have not yet passed the acceptance of the Navy, and secondly, can you count? 20 pieces - is it two air wings for two aircraft carriers? laughing
        Quote: SovAr238A
        but that doesn't mean anything

        Of course, of course, how can this mean anything if maintenance is in the USA and where they will fly, if they fly at all - they know only in the USA and absolutely left the opportunity to turn them off in case of something - it's just logical
        Quote: SovAr238A
        Where do you get these from? Through and through false and all twisting?

        ... I didn’t manage to refute, so I’ll immediately move on to insults. Yes? Nothing new
        1. -4
          11 July 2022 16: 59
          Quote: Cowbra
          Quote: SovAr238A
          and where did you put the 20 F-35Bs that Britain has already received?

          Firstly, they have not yet passed the acceptance of the Navy, and secondly, can you count? 20 pieces - is it two air wings for two aircraft carriers? laughing
          Quote: SovAr238A
          but that doesn't mean anything

          Of course, of course, how can this mean anything if maintenance is in the USA and where they will fly, if they fly at all - they know only in the USA and absolutely left the opportunity to turn them off in case of something - it's just logical
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Where do you get these from? Through and through false and all twisting?

          ... I didn’t manage to refute, so I’ll immediately move on to insults. Yes? Nothing new

          When Lizka went to the China Sea with a full wing, then in your universe - these planes do not exist ...
          What kind of reception are you waiting for? TV show on the Star or what?
          1. +3
            11 July 2022 17: 00
            Quote: SovAr238A
            When Lizka went to the China Sea with a full air wing

            This clown doesn't even know the wing was American, but he's trying to teach...
            1. -3
              11 July 2022 17: 10
              Quote: Cowbra
              Quote: SovAr238A
              When Lizka went to the China Sea with a full air wing

              This clown doesn't even know the wing was American, but he's trying to teach...

              How do you go out of your way and dodge in your lies ....
              He invented the American wing ....
              You are a liar.
              And no one insults you.
              The facts just speak for themselves.
              You are just a fatal liar.
              1. +11
                11 July 2022 18: 35
                Quote: Cowbra
                This clown doesn't even know the wing was American.

                Quote: SovAr238A
                He invented the American wing ....

                Eghkm... If I may intervene, the wing, in fact, was mixed.
                Strictly speaking, the British received 21 aircraft in May 21, but there was no way to equip the air group with them. As a result, "Liza" left with a mixed air group - according to rumors from afar, on board HMS Queen Elizabeth there were 8 F-35Bs from the 617 squadron of the RAF, and 10-12 - American squadrons VMFA-211 USMC. One can argue about the number of Americans, but eight British "penguins" flew to AB in early May.
                1. -4
                  11 July 2022 19: 34
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  as a result, "Liza" left with a mixed air group

                  Funny remember how the Britons drowned the F-35? So that's it from this news - they drowned one of the 4 F-35s that were planned to be the first to be accepted into the Navy. But they didn’t have time to accept it, that’s the laughter that the British drowned not their own, but the American F-35, so there’s another question, but shouldn’t the Americans now put the British in a new one, instead of the drowned one? And about the mixed - I am aware that the British pilots were there, but in what status - history is silent here. Again, for the reason that the F-35s are not yet British, it is very difficult to say that there was British aviation there ...
                  1. +9
                    11 July 2022 19: 54
                    Quote: Cowbra
                    Funny remember how the Britons drowned the F-35? So that's it from this news - they drowned one of the 4 F-35s that were planned to be the first to be accepted into the Navy

                    Yes.
                    Quote: Cowbra
                    But they didn’t have time to accept it, that’s the laughter that the British drowned not their own, but the American F-35

                    no, it was the British that drowned. The fact is that the KVMF was supposed to receive the F-35 not from the Americans, but from the KVVS. That is why the British reported in their Guardian:
                    It is the first accident involving an RAF F-35B

                    There, the pilot was British, and the plane.
                    1. -1
                      11 July 2022 20: 09
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      There, the pilot was British, and the plane.

                      Something some kind of nonsense. That is, how does it turn out - the RAF receives the F-35Be, sea-based, somehow accepts it on its balance, sea, then pushes it into the royal nevi? Gives something with thimbles, twist-twist. I want to confuse everyone ... Well, you see, it’s somehow not very logical ... No, I don’t argue, it’s possible that in the end there was enough dope in the RAF for centuries, the same Auxillari in WWII, such as an analogue of our DOSAAF or Osaviokhim. rather, but in the army
                      1. +10
                        11 July 2022 20: 33
                        Quote: Cowbra
                        Something some kind of nonsense.

                        This is England :)
                        Quote: Cowbra
                        . That is, how does it turn out - the RAF receives the F-35Be, sea-based, somehow accepts it on its balance, sea, then pushes it into the royal nevi?

                        Yes, not really, the logic here, just, is present. Let's take the native VKS. How are they? A new plane appears. Yes, the same Su-35 at one time. He is sent to an elite unit, in fact - a flight test center, they learn to fly on it, work it out in all positions and write combat instructions for combat pilots on it. If the Britons have the same thing (which is logical), then the F-35V first went to the Air Force specifically for "running in" by local super-pros, and only then it should have been handed over to the fleet ... which has old counters with the RAF
      2. -3
        11 July 2022 20: 44
        And where are the catapults, for those 20 f - 35? without catapults - this is third-rate bullshit. 20 "penguins" is not even half the AG of one aircraft carrier. Why two? Are there ships to escort aircraft carriers? No. The order had to include a Dutch frigate. Ask more questions?
        1. +9
          11 July 2022 21: 35
          Quote: TermNachTER
          without catapults - this is third-rate bullshit

          Why not? VTOL aircraft take off from the springboard quite normally.
          Quote: TermNachTER
          20 "penguins" is not even half the AG of one aircraft carrier.

          In general, it was planned to base 24 VTOL aircraft on Quiny. In terms of its size and capabilities, it is just right for an air regiment with reinforcement by helicopters
          Quote: TermNachTER
          Are there ships to escort aircraft carriers? No.

          Why? And there are destroyers and frigates.
          Quote: TermNachTER
          The order had to include a Dutch frigate.

          This is politics. Escorting the Royal Navy destroyers Diamond and Defender of Project 45, the frigates Kent and Rind of Project 23, the supply vessels Fort Victoria and Tidespring, and the nuclear submarine a boat of the "Estiute" type. It turned out to be a completely normal AMG. The American destroyer DDG-68 "Sullivans" and the Dutch frigate "Evertsen" are here for extras and a declaration of the unity of Europe and the USA in the face of ... well, something laughing
          1. -2
            11 July 2022 21: 50
            Is there a trampoline? On a ship with a displacement of 70 thousand tons to base 24 "penguins"? Type 45 - 5 destroyers are now under repair and maintenance, and it is not known when they will leave there. Frigates 23 are already junk, but 26 are not yet. Are we continuing?
            1. +7
              11 July 2022 22: 01
              Quote: TermNachTER
              Is there a trampoline?

              Certainly:)))
              Quote: TermNachTER
              On a ship with a displacement of 70 thousand tons to base 24 "penguins"?

              well, we have about 60 Kuznetsov, but they can’t serve more than a regiment.
              Quote: TermNachTER
              Type 45 - 5 destroyers are now under repair and maintenance, and it is not known when they will leave there.

              One on the move + frigates. What is the problem?
              Quote: TermNachTER
              Frigates 23 - already junk

              Not older than our BOD. The last one is 20 years old. An old horse will not spoil the furrow
              1. 0
                11 July 2022 23: 00
                Displacement "Kuzi" - 55 thousand. And on it, in addition to AG, there were also "Granites". And on 70 thousand, having 24 not the best "penguins" is nonsense. That's when they get out of repair, then we will say whether there are ships to accompany the aircraft carrier or not. So far, they are not. Comparing type 23 and pr. 1155, especially the one that has undergone modernization, is not even funny.
                1. +4
                  12 July 2022 07: 06
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  Displacement "Kuzi" - 55 thousand.

                  Complete - 61.
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  And on it, in addition to AG, there were also "Granites".

                  Which generally do not hamper the operation of fighters.
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  And on 70 thousand, having 24 not the best "penguins" is nonsense.

                  Kuznetsov could simultaneously serve 18 Su-33s, while there was no room left for helicopters (in this case they were removed to the hangar). This is a matter almost exclusively of the dimensions of the flight deck. It can be assumed that for the MiG-29K there would be enough space on the deck for all 24, but there would no longer be room for helicopters. Queen, having a larger displacement, apparently can lead both takeoff and landing with 24 penguins, and AWACS / PLO helicopters. So there is no nonsense here, in general.
                  1. -2
                    12 July 2022 08: 32
                    "Granites" - took up a lot of space below deck. AG "Kuzi" is the same as that of the Englishman, who is 10 thousand tons heavier. how the British AG will function - we'll see. So far, only a theory - there are no "penguins" even for one AG. There are no AWACS helicopters (which in itself is stupidity) either. There are not enough escort ships even for one aircraft carrier, and I think the situation will be worse in the future, because the type 23 will be decommissioned much faster than the type 26 will enter service.
                    1. +2
                      12 July 2022 18: 52
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      "Granites" - took up a lot of space below deck.

                      By weight, not by volume. And Lizzie should have a lot more cellars of aviation ammunition, since he claims to be the shock AB
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      There are no AWACS helicopters (which in itself is stupidity) either.

                      Where do you share? In March 2021, the Royal Navy of Great Britain announced that the first Merlin Crowsnest (airborne early warning (AEW)) AWACS helicopter entered service with the 820th Naval Air Squadron.
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      There are not enough escort ships even for one aircraft carrier

                      Enough for both. And what about the Darings at the moment on repairs - shtosh, they will finish them, where will they go.
                      1. 0
                        12 July 2022 20: 56
                        The turntable was received, but its operational readiness was not reported. And you need at least five turntables for each. Derings for repairs and when they will be finished is not known. Then they will begin to finish the type 26)))) and so on ad infinitum, which cannot but rejoice. The British forgot how to build ships.
      3. +5
        12 July 2022 10: 06
        Quote: SovAr238A
        What are you talking about?

        Even if you are essentially right, you should not be rude and get personal. No. This lowers you to the level of "uryalok", and is fraught with a ban. Be correct and polite even with outright idiots.
  4. 0
    11 July 2022 16: 30
    All sorts of shake-ups in countries occur during crises!
    The crisis also aggravates international relations, provokes conflicts ...
    Everyone gets out in their own way, so we'll see who and how it will turn out this time.
  5. +5
    11 July 2022 16: 42
    The author would like to know that on British SSBNs, 12 SLBMs are placed, albeit 16 glasses.
    Therefore, for everyone, everything is enough and in abundance.
    1. 0
      11 July 2022 19: 40
      The patrol areas of British SSBNs are the Norwegian or North Sea, sometimes the Mediterranean.
      A pair of boats always plows the depths carrying a total of 24-26 SLBMs and almost 180-200 charges on them.
      And this is very serious for us.
      1. 0
        11 July 2022 20: 45
        In fact, it was said about 150 - 160 nuclear warheads. Where did 200 come from?
        1. +2
          12 July 2022 00: 09
          I threw in an approximate amount. But plutonium is not measured in this country, and 500 charges can be collected.
          similar in France.
          These countries have a very developed nuclear industry, and even the Americans turn to them for this or that.
          1. -2
            12 July 2022 00: 24
            Perhaps, but it all depends on the capabilities of the carrier. If you believe open sources, then 120 nuclear warheads are operational. It is not known how quickly the rest can be transferred to an operational state. However, taking into account how long the Sarmat takes to reach England, this no longer matters.
            1. +2
              12 July 2022 00: 34
              How does it not matter? Combat patrol areas, suppose they have the Norwegian Sea now.
              A pair of SSBNs is acceptable there. A flat attack on the bases of the Northern Fleet and the Plesetsk cosmodrome can easily knock out a lot of our carriers.
              And other important purposes. Only a couple of not fully loaded British SSBNs.

              And there is no exact data anywhere about the possibility of direct use on British SSBNs of the same Trident missiles that American submarines carry.
              With American charges.
              If such an opportunity is provided, then all 4 British SSBNs can be loaded "to the eyeballs" with 64 missiles and under 650-700 charges on them. No longer British charges.

              The French are different, and the M51 missiles and charges are completely their own. They are not interchangeable with British or American.
              And their own equipment on boats.
              1. 0
                12 July 2022 08: 38
                Well, the British seem to have their own warheads, although they are very similar to American ones. There seem to be only 215 of them. There are doubts about mattress warheads. There was information that everything was not very good with the service. Because how many of them are really in the ranks is a big question. Scandal about how a drunken British "cap three" led the loading of missiles - did you read it? And the reviews about "Vengard" are not so hot, in all respects it is much worse than "Ohio".
                1. 0
                  12 July 2022 13: 15
                  According to the characteristics of the Vanguard, much more recent boats than the Ohio, they just carry fewer missiles.
                  In terms of design, they are approximately the same, since it is a single-hull.

                  The multi-purpose "Astyut" is the same "Vanguard" but without a missile compartment and the equipment is fresh.
                  1. 0
                    12 July 2022 21: 00
                    Fresh doesn't mean better. My purely personal opinion, the British have forgotten how to build ships. We built "derings" that do not climb out of repairs. They built aircraft carriers that are afraid of water. About "Vengards, too, I read somewhere, not the best reviews.
                    1. -1
                      13 July 2022 00: 11
                      The French have always made their own submarines and missiles for them too. As are the charges. There, the entire industry is on a turnkey basis for this.

                      But the Americans provided assistance to the British in everything.
                      This was the case with the Resolution SSBNs, which repeated the parameters of the Lafayette and also carried American-made Pollaris missiles.
                      The United States also provided advice on the construction of these boats in the mid-60s.
                      It's the same for Wangards.
                      1. 0
                        13 July 2022 09: 29
                        England is now a US colony, so everything is logical.
                2. 0
                  17 August 2022 20: 07
                  Do you believe everything that the press writes?
                  1. 0
                    17 August 2022 20: 57
                    I worked for many years in the police, so I only believe what I see with my own eyes or hold in my hands.
  6. +5
    11 July 2022 17: 16
    The author did not add the newly created Rangers regiment to the MTR. Apparently he didn't know...
  7. +3
    11 July 2022 17: 17
    From my point of view, the UK has a high level of the Navy, however, as always ...
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. +7
    11 July 2022 18: 27
    Under such conditions, the British army coped with the assigned tasks and showed good results.

    Did it - yes. Which showed good results ... In the same Falklands, the British soldier showed that he was brave, could endure hardships, and fight with what they were given. Given the fact that a significant part of the dead and wounded got their way in bayonet battles (!) They gave the British not so much.
    The raid on Pebble Island, which is presented as a heroic victory for the SAS?
    Yes, a sabotage detachment of 45 people, supported by the artillery of the destroyer Glamorgan, managed to block a platoon (30 soldiers and an officer) of the Argentine infantry, disable all 11 aircraft, blow up the fuel depot, mine the runway and other buildings. And retreat, managing with only two lightly wounded. There can be no complaints about the SAS soldiers - they performed absolutely all the tasks of the operation perfectly. But I can’t get rid of the obsessive thought that if the Soviet special forces were in the place of the British, which, like the British, had a one and a half times superiority in numbers, surprise, and even artillery support from the ship, then ... well, the island probably would have survived. But at least something alive on it is very unlikely.
    What about the British landing in the Falklands? At the most "opportune" moment, the pumps of the Fearless landing ship-dock failed, so that the landing boats, packed with soldiers, could not leave the ship, then the landing boats safely ran aground in the dark, and then the companies "B" and "C" 3- of his paratrooper battalion, having started advancing from the bridgehead, "knowing their own" and exchanged fire with each other for an hour, even with the support of armored vehicles (one of the companies had two infantry fighting vehicles). To the credit of the British, they stoically overcame the obstacles that had arisen - the commander of the Fearless made a risky, but 100% justified decision - he opened the doors of the batoport, water poured into the dock and the boats sailed out. The paratroopers from the stranded boats, with a 50-kilogram load on their shoulders through icy water (the air temperature was +3 degrees), reached the shore on foot, and the commander of the 3rd paratrooper, after both companies requested artillery support from him, I guessed that something was going wrong and by personal intervention stopped the shootout. During the hour of war with each other, both companies did not suffer any losses ... Of course, one can only rejoice at the absence of senseless deaths. But how can you fight for an hour with two companies without killing or injuring a single enemy?
    1. +2
      11 July 2022 19: 10
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      the commander of the 3rd paratrooper, after both companies requested artillery support from him, guessed that something was going wrong and stopped the firefight by personal intervention.
      laughing Shaman, however! laughing
      1. +4
        11 July 2022 19: 42
        Quote: bk0010
        Shaman, however!

        And that's all, mind you - in the almost complete absence of resistance from the Argentines. I'm afraid to imagine what would happen if the best British army in the world had to land on a somewhat seriously defended coast ....
        However, even here the British army managed to distinguish itself.
        In total, the British landing was opposed by 62 soldiers with 2 guns and 2 mortars. 21 people with two guns in one detachment fought honestly for half an hour, then retreated, and tried to report the landing to the "main forces", but this did not work out, since the radio was broken. So the "main defense forces", that is, Lieutenant Esteban, with four dozen soldiers, received the news of the landing only at 08.30 on the morning of May 21 and immediately made the only reasonable decision - to retreat. But this decision was too late - two companies of British paratroopers were already stepping on his heels, entering Port San Carlos some 15 minutes after the Argentines left from there. In order to “resolve the issue” for sure, a helicopter assault was sent to the rear of Lieutenant Esteban and attack helicopters were called ... And, nevertheless, forty Argentines showed excellent skill, giving an exemplary battle on the way out. Despite at least a five-fold (!) superiority of the British in forces and the support of the latter by helicopters and naval artillery, the detachment under the command of Lieutenant Esteban was able not only to break away from the pursuit, but also to destroy three English helicopters from small arms (including two attack ones) .
        At the same time, one must understand that the Argentines, fearing the invasion of Chile, sent far from the best ground units to the Falkland Islands. And one can only guess what difficulties the British landing force would face if the elite of the Argentine army stood up against the British in the Falklands. Fortunately (for the British) this did not happen.
        1. -2
          11 July 2022 20: 43
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In total, the British landing was opposed by 62 soldiers with 2 guns and 2 mortars.

          Andrey, if you want to be like Hans Christian Andersen, this is your problem, why fool the kind and gullible members of the forum?
          After all, anyone who is "not banned from Google" will easily find out the truth about the "War at the End of the World", let's start with the fact that it took place 12 thousand nautical miles from the coast of Great Britain, and the Argentines had a superiority in l / s three times and prepared to meet the fifteen thousandth "Armada" .....
          As promised by M. Thatcher, the islands returned back to the Crown, and the Argentine military units are still depressed .... when remembering that war ...
          The Falklands will never be Malvinas now, no matter how hysterical you are here ....
          I don’t know why you were given the title of the best commentator, but while you are stupidly tearing your tinned throat, it is doubly regrettable that you are tearing it on a specialized, as it were, military site ....
          1. +6
            11 July 2022 21: 30
            Quote: Lara Croft
            I don't know why you were given the title of best commentator

            For knowledge of the materiel, of course.
            Quote: Lara Croft
            After all, anyone who is "not banned from Google" will easily find out the truth about the "War at World's End"

            But I'm not everyone. And I am by no means satisfied with consumer goods for those who are "not banned from Google." I prefer to work with more serious sources. For example - with Woodward's memoirs. True, he can also be accused of illiteracy - he did not read Google. On the other hand, he commanded the British fleet at the Falklands, which is why there is somehow a little more confidence in his words.
            For example, have you read a lot on Google about how the British were forced to check for minefields in the landing zone? They sent a frigate there so that it would go back and forth, and if there were mines, it would blow up on them. The Falklands did not have minesweepers in the KVMF squadron ...
            Quote: Lara Croft
            and the Argentines had superiority in l / s three times

            In fact, the forces were approximately equal. The British took about 11 troops prisoner, but they were ALL military personnel, including ground and air forces and service units. Another 000 people were killed. The British also had over 700 thousand paratroopers.
            In general, the ratio of ground forces was close to 11/9 in favor of the Argentines, they did not have any "threefold" advantage.

            Quote: Lara Croft
            The Falklands will never be Malvinas now, no matter how hysterical you are here ....

            Larochka, it's you who are hysterical here. I'm just listing the main milestones of the battle path of the British armed forces in the Falklands
      2. +2
        11 July 2022 20: 47
        Very strong shaman and very strong witchcraft)))
  10. +1
    11 July 2022 19: 47
    The most feared small British troops are the Scottish paratroopers in kilts, during a parachute jump!
  11. 0
    12 July 2022 17: 02
    ... and arrogance, arrogance, how much ... plus a bunch of "ancestral" complexes ...
  12. 0
    12 July 2022 17: 41
    I recognized Ryabov from the first third of the text.
    The submarine force has only 10 nuclear submarines
    Only 10 nuclear submarines, yeah - this is like the world's third nuclear submarine fleet.
  13. 0
    13 July 2022 15: 12
    The state and prospects of the armed forces of Great Britain

    It is time for Russia to legislate the name of this country - Britain.
    How big are they? Crap without measure?
  14. 0
    13 July 2022 15: 24
    The state is, the prospects are not!
  15. 0
    5 September 2022 19: 05
    Ajax armored vehicle - the main novelty of the ground forces

    But what, have they already solved the problem with vibration, from which the crew is sick, or even more serious health problems?
    And I've always wondered if they have full control over their nuclear weapons, which, unlike France, which produces them on its own, they buy from the United States? Or at hour X, when the British decide to use it, it will not work without additional codes from the manufacturer?))
  16. 0
    12 September 2022 15: 43
    AUTHOR!
    You should take into account that the British military budget includes the maintenance of the police, and in France the gendarmerie. In Russia, these are all separate items of expenditure. The integration of the British army is hampered by the "special vision" of the development of its weapons and TACTICS. For example, the Britons are the only ones who use a rifled gun in tanks. In the shooter, they also have their own quirks.