Redpill me on the British Armed Forces

Best military of the Islamic world

they fight for allah

I thought that was France

Practice acid attack drills

They're going to start allowing troops to stop having service weapons if they are against or afraid of guns, even troops who's jobs put them on the frontlines.

Also their recruitment ads are pozzed and they actively ask for social justice and men who cry often specifically.

The British military is one of the most professional fighting forces in the world, with a long and proud history of going around the world and fucking shit up. Currently the most capable nation in Europe in terms of force projection, as has been seen recently with exercises that got entire brigades to Norway and Poland in under 5 days with little to no prior warning, as well as being one of few nations in the world that can deploy amphibiously at brigade level. Also has a large network of bases and areas around the world from which to operate or support operations.

The Army is a small but well trained force, mostly using fairly decent (if not a bit dated) equipment. They have near constant deployment (british army is constantly training, advising, mentoring or on operations in 50-80 nations worldwide), as well as massive overseas in house exercises and joint exercises with NATO. At some point, every infantry battalion in the British Army cycled through either Afghan, Iraq or both, and many went through multiple times. This means that the vast majority of NCOs and up, even in the reserves, have operational experience.

Obviously its not all gravy; manpower is a perennial issue, as is budget. This is because the army is good at doing more with less, and politicians see it as a piggy bank to be constantly raided. Most of our equipment is somewhat outdated, some of it is good though. Retention is an issue simply because weve been in relative peace for a few years, and simply put we are an army that is used to conflict, having been involved in some sort of scrap almost every year for the past century. All that SJW recruitment stuff is bollocks though, the army is still very much white, male and right wing, and made up of blokes who are genuinely proud to fight for their country.

> going to allow troops to not carry guns
You do realise that was a troll article somebody made, right?

So whats outdated?

Imagine fighting for your country, coming home and being confined to owning manually operated rifles after a licensing period. Damn.

Still using snatch land rovers a lot despite them being basically unarmoured. Warrior is a bit long in the tooth compared to other NATO IFVs, as is the Challenger 2, however both are getting upgrades. Main issue is that we are massively reluctant to get behind acquisition and replacement as opposed to just trying to retrofit existing stuff. Obviously tornados are out of service soon and itll take a while to get Typhoons properly sorted for ground attack, and F35s are coming in in dribs and drabs and probably wont be used operationally for a while. While the navy is pretty modern there just isnt enough vessels to do everything we need or would like to do, especially if we are meant to provide a carrier support group when the QEs go fully operational.

Funny funny funny hahaha

Oi m8's! befo' we land on the beach, make sure yu got your loicense to kill the enemy! because if yu don't, yu gon' end up in there prison with the pakis who are going to shank you to death unless you join islam.

The British military has two major problems. Number one is that they coast on the reputation they gained in the 20th century. This is fine as bong performance with counter insurgency in Malaya and actual combat in the Falklands proved that they were absolute class. But modern British troops are arrogant, insufferable, and often believe that they are masters of war solely because they are British military personnel, in other words the believe their own hype (kinda like how people do 3 lessons of judo and think they are jacki Chan). In Afghanistan the bongs had proportionately the worst rates of friendly fire on themselves and against others they were that God awful. Secondly as with most western militaries bongs have a chronic shortage of manpower. This feeds into the first point as instead of having an aristocratic officer corps from russel group unis you get middle class post 91 uni student who become officers (no disrespect to any post 91 attendees as some russlegroups are acc shit and a few post 91's are really good). These are the kind of guys who like looking at battle boxes of wiki's and bragging about how they go army cadets. What's more the actual enlisted in the military are no longer hardy povos from poor families but fucking cod zoomers who have no aspersions and join because "le excitement" and COD (pic related is legit army recruitment posters).
Ultimately the British military is probably the best combined arms force in Europe (possibly even the world after the USA) but has some serious problems that will only exacerbate over time.

Attached: 92YcS7F.jpg (1280x314, 93K)

Like the American military is any different

God Save Ma Qween

They're alright. Western average grunts, they're not good but not bad.
Paras/ Royal Marines are on par with Rangers
SAS is well, i don't really know what the SAS is doing anymore, i guess usual Tier 1 shit

Attached: EnGoyz.jpg (1432x976, 116K)

>

Attached: 1550505864056.webm (192x320, 1.48M)

The Sa80 is a rattley pile of junk that jams like a cunt if you don’t look after it like a newborn, landies are actual rolling coffins and our webbing gives you a shoulder wedgie.

> t. Cadet

Sounds like youve never used an L85A2 for any period of time, and dont know how to wear webbing properly. Ive been overseas a bunch of times, put tens of thousands of rounds through A2s and I can genuinely count the number of stoppages ive had on my fingers.

They have a loicence for drinking hot tea.

fpbp

Attached: dmeu_kloirn_2_std.lang.all.jpg (634x600, 54K)

> modern british soldiers are insufferable and arrogant
Paras maybe, but definitely not the average bod. Definitely not as bad as their US counterparts.

> worst rates of blue on blue
Citation massively needed for that, considering US fratricide got so bad that brits would rather get no air support than get it from US planes.

Oi m8 you got a loicense to be that buttblasted?

Depends, I have met a bunch of Royal Engineers (who I would assume to be the smartest due to picking a job that has transferable skills) plus paras and they have all been the biggest weapons imaginable. That being said you are right in that I shouldn't judge an entire force on a select few but I can't imagine them being signifcantly diffrent to US soliders in terms of arrogance and ignorance.
Reagrding friendly fire in Afghanistan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_friendly_fire_incidents#War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–2016)
>Inb4 "Wiki lol"
All entries have cited sources
USA has killed 45 (5 Canadians/ 6 USA/ 5 Brits/ 28 Pakistanis/ 1 Agfhan) and wounded 33 (8 Canadians/ 13 Brits/ 12 Pakistanis)
>It is impotant to note that 3 of the dead brits and 2 of the wounded brits is because the British solider who called in CAS gave the wrong coordinates but it as US bombs that kill brits
Britain has killed 32 (23 Afghans/ 7 Brits/ 2 Danish/) and wounded 22 (13 Afghans/ 9 Brits)
>3 of the dead brits were caused by incorrect danish officer orders for British troops to fire a javelin but its was british troops that killed brits
That puts it at US 45 killed and 33 wounded to Britains 32 killed and 22 wounded
If you look at troops deployed (inb4 lol guardian)
theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/sep/21/afghanistan-troop-numbers-nato-data
USA deployed 90000 and the UK 9500. Any way you slice it the UK has had a disproportunate amount of freindly fire inceidents that should not of happened especially when the Uk military tries to make up its difficent numbers through exemplarly skill. The idea of US freindly fire incidents is warrented but massivly overstated for memes, its even got its own wiki
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._friendly-fire_incidents_since_1945_with_British_victims
Also I am a bong.

Attached: para.jpg (620x413, 60K)

Decent despite Britain's every attempt to not make it so

> royal engineers
> smartest
Yeah no. Fairly decent blokes but not the smartest the army has to offer. Paras by virtue of their training are pretty arrogant, especially young lads who've just passed P Coy. But most blokes arent massively arrogant, usually the opposite, especially if theyve actually been in for some time.

In relation to your claim, fair one, at least you actually found some sources, though they may not be the most reputable.

Who the smartest in bong army then? Intelligence officers? (but then why wouldn't you just go actual intelligence agency?) I ment in like common sense terms because engineers actually have transferable skills and prospects after the army, infantry plebs tend to just go on the dole. I think the US friendly fire meme comes from the first gulf and Iraq wars but looking at the list UK has a fairly large showing in that list as well.

> whose the smartest?
Probably a toss up between signals and int corps, most people who go into those are a bit on the spectrum. Sigs blokes are always a bit wierd.

You also do realise that in terms of 'transferable skills', REME or Signals is probably the best? Different engineer regiments specialise in different stuff, and I wouldnt call placing mousehole charges or building infantry assault bridges a massively required skill on civvie street.

Why are you so against the British Army if you dont mind me asking? Para fuck your brother or something?

>You do realise that was a troll article somebody made, right?
Well, you can't be too sure these days

Can well believe the blue on blue. I did Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly got slotted by my mates in Iraq and was on QRF for a contact that involved an Apache brassing up a platoon. No fatalities though.

Nah I'm not against the army they are probably our best service atm, it's just there is so much potential for our forces to be a truly world class army especially when you consider the small size to decent funding. More often than not our army comes up a bit shit (as seen with blue in blues) and our fall back is "well at least we're not the Americans/ Germans" rather than facing the fact that we are currently a bit shit and unwilling to face criticism. I constantly see people arguing that we are the best army man for man in the world, but we seldom ever display that.
Plus as I said most of the army lads I have met have been peak cunts which doesn't really help.
Yeah in the friendly fire wiki page their was several friendly fire incidents that thankfully caused no harm at all but even so should never have happened
>In Sangin Province, a RAF Harrier pilot mistakenly strafed British troops missing the enemy by 200 metres during a firefight with the Taliban on 20 August 2006. This angered British Major James Loden of 3 PARA, who in a leaked email called the RAF, "Completely incompetent and utterly, utterly useless in protecting ground troops in Afghanistan".

USAF in UK and they seem pretty chill overall. The Brits are nice people :)

>I'm not against the army they are probably our best service atm
>what is the royal navy, incl marines
mate

>using Multiscam (I don't give a fuck if they changed the name to avoid paying copyright)

Ain't worth its weight in dogshit

Attached: major-general-mgen-edward-l-trobaugh-commander-82nd-airborne-division-center-7eac01-1600.jpg (1600x1076, 1.12M)

>its true because Jow Forums said so and also they made a advert basically saying they allow people that are different then us =O
Good but a shadow of its former self, like literally every other army that matters. Still they are having a tough time competing with the french

I wasnt aware that the Navy (bar the occasional tour by 3 Commando) did much scrapping in landlocked Afghanistan.

>scrapping in landlocked Afghanistan
Does not qualify the army for being the best service, brainlet.
>I wasnt aware that the Army (bar the occasional firefight by 2 PARA) did much scrapping in the Falklands, an archipelago oversees territory of the UK.

> people on the internet say this!
Maybe dont believe everything you read on the internet, especially on here.

> man for man the best in the world
Ive never seen anyone say this. We do punch above our weight considering our numbers, and in general our training is decent, would go that far though. Fact of the matter is, unlike many nations, we thankfully have a history of winning most of the wars we go into, as well as constantly having blokes overseas doing stuff. This is what inflates peoples view of us, mainly because most other nations simply arent doing the same amount of stuff, and when you have a relatively small force constantly doing overseas it implies experience gained. Doesnt mean we're man for man the best in the world though. Id wager you could probably easily interchange a light role infantry battalion from the US, UK, France etc and you wouldnt see much difference if any at all, maybe other than slight differences due to varied SOPs.

Lies lol

Buy seriously the British army recruits from all over the old colonies so it is very diverse. They had a recruit ment programming from Fiji and a lot of SAS guys were from there

> has to bring up a conflict that was almost 4 decades ago to try and prove the RN is the best service today

So, bootneck or an andrew?

Ok? This is what I mean by unwilling to face criticism. It's mainly hype as you mention from winning historical wars rather than facts from current conflicts. If we do have such high experience for such a small number of troops why are we fucking up so bad with disproportionate friendly fire? And it's not just in Afghanistan, both gulf wars too saw our fair share of team kills.
Why you sucking army cock so hard my guy, you can be critical of things you like rather than being blindly loyal to them.