Comparing the military potential of different armies is a rather useless exercise, here it is not only a matter of the number of personnel and weapons, there are many other factors that determine the degree of combat readiness of a particular country. In addition to the economy, this is also the presence of allies and other nuances. British experts have now taken up this thankless task – they have compared their army with the Russian one. The conclusions were disappointing for London.
To take up military statistics from British analysts, in this case experts from the Global Firepower portal and the Daily Express, were prompted by two circumstances – a possible military conflict between Russia and Ukraine and events on the Polish-Belarusian border, again where the participation of Russian troops is expected.
Great Britain intends to provide military assistance to both Ukraine and Poland, which, in fact, is already doing. Kiev and London have signed a deal, according to which Ukraine can take out loans for the purchase of British warships and missiles.
Note that this is a pure business with the sale of their obsolete weapons. However, Great Britain intends to send its servicemen to the “hot spots” – 600 people to the Donbass (soldiers of the SAS Special Air Service and the 16th Airborne Assault Brigade) and 150 military sappers to the Polish-Belarusian border. Against the background of such events, British analysts decided to compare the capabilities of the British and Russian army.
As a digression, we note that the mentioned publications, to put it mildly, are not entirely competent in matters of military analytics. Global Firepower has previously undertaken a comparative analysis of the armies of the world (in 2017, according to the compiled rating, the United States went first, second to Russia, third to China), while on the English-speaking forums they write that the site of this portal cannot be trusted, since there is no specificity about the methodology in the study he doesn’t.
All sources cited by Global Firepower are the same for describing the armies of all countries and consist of vague links to the CIA websites and the CIA’s World Factbook, as well as to Wikipedia, with no direct links to research.
The Daily Express tabloid also does not shine with special military analytics, this newspaper is known for being the first in the world to publish crosswords, and back in 1962, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, one of his most famous careless phrases, saying about Express: “Damn, terrible newspaper. It’s full of lies, scandal and fiction. This is a vicious newspaper. ” However, all this is by the way – British scientists, like British experts, are great masters of all kinds of “discoveries”.
What conclusions did the British experts come to this time, undertaking to compare their own and the Russian army? The military aviation of the Russian Federation is 5.6 times superior to the Royal Air Force. The Russian arsenal has 4163 aircraft, including fighters and combat helicopters. The UK has only 733 units.
Russia, according to British bookkeepers, has 12,950 tanks (in fact, about five thousand are in service, the rest are in storage, you cannot send them into battle right away) and 27 thousand armored vehicles (it is likely that not only BMPs and armored personnel carriers were taken into account) , but also armored vehicles). The British have 227 tanks and 5,000 armored vehicles.
Experts were also wise with the number, having counted in the Russian army about 3 million servicemen, despite the fact that its composition was determined by the president Vladimir Putin in one million, but in fact there are even slightly fewer “bayonets” in the RF Armed Forces. The size of the British army is estimated at 275.66 thousand people. In what the experts were definitely not mistaken, it was the superiority of the Royal Navy over the Russian Navy in terms of the number of aircraft carriers. Great Britain has two of them, while Russia has only one, and even that one is under repair. In general, as the British authors write, Russia’s superiority is observed in all major indicators.
We will also shine with our knowledge of British Armed Forces (it is clear that not without the support of Wikipedia).
The British ground forces, which number 80 thousand people, are in service with 407 tanks, 6,245 armored vehicles for transporting infantry, 89 self-propelled artillery units, 138 towed guns and 56 MLRS (multiple launch rocket systems). The RAF has 908 aircraft, of which 84 are fighters.
Great Britain once possessed one of the most powerful navies in the world, but in recent decades it has lost its maritime power. At the moment, the British Naval Service has only 66 ships and vessels. Similar information about the Russian military potential is many times higher than the British, only in terms of ships is this a fivefold advantage, and the Russian fleet is being actively updated with new forces and means.
Here is another nuance seen in the comparisons of British experts. Recognizing the superiority of the Russian army, London focuses more on the possible Russian aggression against Ukraine and Poland. And they show their readiness to get involved in a fight, albeit with the forces of 600 special forces in the Donbass and 150 sappers on the Polish-Belarusian border. It seems that there is a banal consideration of temporary allies – not for military action, but for maintaining the global economic balance, in which Great Britain plays not the last place.
– Great Britain has never abandoned its aggressive policy towards Russia, moreover, London is the center of the formation of a negative attitude towards Moscow, – says Director of the Institute for Political Studies Sergey Markov… – And we need to be tougher to such attempts to put pressure on our country. From the standpoint of purely military strength, there is no reason, because we have no common borders, and the advantage in the seas is now on the Russian side.
It is likely that as a counterweight to the position of Great Britain, we need to hit London City, remove all monetary assets from there, remove the financial component. And oblige Russian citizens to leave all British companies within a reasonable time. It will be a blow stronger than a salvo from the nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great.
If we return to the topic of comparisons, then we can recall the message of the RA news agency (Press Association), which cited some theses from the report of the Defense Committee of the House of Commons of the British Parliament. The essence of which boiled down to the fact that a possible “artillery duel between the tank units of Great Britain and Russia will most likely end not in favor of the United Kingdom military.” “If the British army in the next few years had to fight with an equal enemy, which means Russia, our soldiers, certainly remaining one of the best in the world, to deep shame would be forced to fight using outdated and outdated armored vehicles.
Many of these machines are over 30 years old, they have low mechanical reliability, they are seriously inferior in firepower to modern artillery and missile systems and constantly do not receive sufficient air support, “the RA experts stated the sad conclusion about a possible confrontation with Russia, which could end “Not necessarily in favor of the British army.”
How can I not remember the late Baroness Margaret Thatcher, which belongs to the catchphrase: “You cannot achieve the desired results in international affairs without relying on force.”
And some more lyrics. Each country has its own national symbols in the form of fauna representatives. In China, it is a panda, in Australia – a kangaroo, in France – a rooster, in the USA – a bald eagle, but marmots are still held in high esteem, predicting the weather in hibernation in the world.
It is not by chance that the English symbol is called “a dead lion”, hinting not only that such animals, kings of animals, have never been found on the territory of the Island, but also their policy of growling without teeth. In Russia, this is, of course, a bear, which is the strongest and most powerful animal. And the inhabitants of our country, undoubtedly, are proud of their bear, and laugh at the comic image they create, saying at the same time: “Do not wake the bear!”