DEFENCE – OR THE LACK OF IT Currently NATO is at war with Russia by proxy. We are arming, training and advising the Ukrainians and supplying them with intelligence. Only Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which says that an attack on one is an attack on all, prevents Putin from launching a missile attack on a British convoy trundling through Poland laden with ammunition for Ukraine – a legitimate military target. That could change if Putin was on the back foot and thought the polity of Russia was at stake, which could happen if a Ukrainian offensive drove deep into territory indisputably Russian. This is unlikely, but cannot be entirely discounted, as nor can the possible deployment and use of tactical nuclear weapons. The most powerful NATO member is of course the USA, which has supplied the largest quantity of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine (Britain is the second largest contributor). As long as American support for Ukraine remains firm then NATO will remain united, but continued US support is by no means guaranteed. 2024 is a presidential election year. The two possibles for the Republican nomination are Trump and De Santis. Trump is at best lukewarm on NATO and is in any case unpredictable, and De Santis has stated openly that he regards the war in Ukraine as a mere territorial dispute. Should either win then the alliance would be less resolute. The withdrawal of wholehearted American support would expose the weaknesses in NATO resolve that are already present. France is ambivalent and Macron is in any case anxious to promote a European identity separate from the United States. So far this has only been publicly expressed in regard to relations with China, but successive French governments have been resentful of ‘
Been a big fan since first introduced to MUD, BLOOD, AND POPPYCOCK about 18 years ago by a British Army officer friend of mine (Brigadier (Ret'd) Simon Banton). Love your work on YouTube also at the Western Front Association.
Having said all that, I strongly agree with the tone of this post, but I must retort against some of your assertions.
1) The Wehrmacht/Heer and the Waffen SS hit their tactical apogee in late 1942, early 1943 and then began a precipitous tumble until total defeat in May 1945. The defeats in North Africa, Sicily, and Stalingrad bled out most of their tactical skill base and their defeat in January 1945 during the Battle of the Bulge finished them off. By early 1945, the U.S. and British armies in the ETO were as good as the Germans ever were at the tactical level (1940-1942) and even better at the operational art (and clearly/always superior in logistics and strategic warfare). That the Germans were able to still inflict tremendous casualties on the Soviets up until early May 1945 are due to them 1) being on the defensive with all the advantages that affords and 2) fighting a tactically inept, but operationally superior, force. The Russians have never been particularly good at the division and below level, but their superb skill at the operational art, along with superior manpower and material numbers, allowed them to mitigate that.
2) "While the British army is probably the most professional in NATO, well led, well trained and reasonably well equipped, it is pitifully small." While the use of 'probably' gives you some wiggle room, the British Army of today (last eight or so years) is not the British Army of the BAOR or even the 1991 Gulf War. Senior officer bloat, officer and NCO careerism, gong-chasing---these are critiques from friends of mine in HM Armed Forces and a number of candid critiques such as in THE CHANGING OF THE GUARD and LOSING SMALL WARS. Quality can offset some level of quantity, but not as much as some would believe--and frankly, the quality is not there as it once was.
3) "Now, we could, just, put one division in the field." Maybe, and barely if so, and then only for a few weeks at best with the entire Regular Army and Army Reserve committed to supporting it. At current levels of manning and equipping, I think the British would be hard pressed to indefinitely (6 months or longer) sustain a three battlegroup Brigade. The British were stressed getting to Basra in 2003 with a two-brigade division.
4) I think you are optimistic on your appraisal of the Royal Navy, but fortunately, no one but the Chinese have a capable hostile navy, so they can get away with their troubles for a bit more time (but not much longer as the USN is in dreadful turmoil too).
5) "Canada, Australia and New Zealand would probably step up, but their armies are even smaller than ours." And unfortunately, their contributions would be marginal. The regular forces strength of the entire HM Armed Forces, ADF, Canadian Defence Forces, and the RNZ Armed Forces equals about 70% of just the active U.S. Army. I have been in bigger American brigades than the entire NZ Army. Quantity counts and while niche, boutique capabilities are useful, the ability to absorb enemy blows, cover and control large swaths of terrain and populace, and quickly reinforce and reconstitute units and regenerate forces quickly matters in large wars, as you well know. American military officers weep at and lament what we have seen our most reliable allies withered down to.
Thank you for that, and while I still think the German Army was the most professional player in WW2, we can agree to differ. As regards your subsequent paras we are basically ad idem, although you may be even more pessimistic than I! We are certainly in a parlours state and nobody in government except perhaps Wallace seems to care. I’m not sure about careerists and gong hunters but most of my contact with the modern armed forces is with Gurkha units, of which I see a lot, but there not too much has changed. But that may not be the case elsewhere - I hope not. I worry that Putin will turn his rants against the West unto action and that we will go down in defeat, despite as a collective being richer and bigger in population terms and more efficient industrially. I sincerely hope I’m wrong. I’m currently lecturing on a cruise ship at sea so this may not get to you soon, but in any case thank you for writing.
If Germany had not invaded the Soviets, history might have turned out quite differently. Britain was hanging in by the slenderest of threads and the USA cares more about the pacific theater than to chaos in Europe
I think that if the Weimar Republic had survived, as it might have had the Great Depression not collapsed the Austrian and then banking system, there would still have been a WW2, but the line up would have been the UK, France and Germany versus the USSR. Only a thought!
Gordon,
Been a big fan since first introduced to MUD, BLOOD, AND POPPYCOCK about 18 years ago by a British Army officer friend of mine (Brigadier (Ret'd) Simon Banton). Love your work on YouTube also at the Western Front Association.
Having said all that, I strongly agree with the tone of this post, but I must retort against some of your assertions.
1) The Wehrmacht/Heer and the Waffen SS hit their tactical apogee in late 1942, early 1943 and then began a precipitous tumble until total defeat in May 1945. The defeats in North Africa, Sicily, and Stalingrad bled out most of their tactical skill base and their defeat in January 1945 during the Battle of the Bulge finished them off. By early 1945, the U.S. and British armies in the ETO were as good as the Germans ever were at the tactical level (1940-1942) and even better at the operational art (and clearly/always superior in logistics and strategic warfare). That the Germans were able to still inflict tremendous casualties on the Soviets up until early May 1945 are due to them 1) being on the defensive with all the advantages that affords and 2) fighting a tactically inept, but operationally superior, force. The Russians have never been particularly good at the division and below level, but their superb skill at the operational art, along with superior manpower and material numbers, allowed them to mitigate that.
2) "While the British army is probably the most professional in NATO, well led, well trained and reasonably well equipped, it is pitifully small." While the use of 'probably' gives you some wiggle room, the British Army of today (last eight or so years) is not the British Army of the BAOR or even the 1991 Gulf War. Senior officer bloat, officer and NCO careerism, gong-chasing---these are critiques from friends of mine in HM Armed Forces and a number of candid critiques such as in THE CHANGING OF THE GUARD and LOSING SMALL WARS. Quality can offset some level of quantity, but not as much as some would believe--and frankly, the quality is not there as it once was.
3) "Now, we could, just, put one division in the field." Maybe, and barely if so, and then only for a few weeks at best with the entire Regular Army and Army Reserve committed to supporting it. At current levels of manning and equipping, I think the British would be hard pressed to indefinitely (6 months or longer) sustain a three battlegroup Brigade. The British were stressed getting to Basra in 2003 with a two-brigade division.
4) I think you are optimistic on your appraisal of the Royal Navy, but fortunately, no one but the Chinese have a capable hostile navy, so they can get away with their troubles for a bit more time (but not much longer as the USN is in dreadful turmoil too).
5) "Canada, Australia and New Zealand would probably step up, but their armies are even smaller than ours." And unfortunately, their contributions would be marginal. The regular forces strength of the entire HM Armed Forces, ADF, Canadian Defence Forces, and the RNZ Armed Forces equals about 70% of just the active U.S. Army. I have been in bigger American brigades than the entire NZ Army. Quantity counts and while niche, boutique capabilities are useful, the ability to absorb enemy blows, cover and control large swaths of terrain and populace, and quickly reinforce and reconstitute units and regenerate forces quickly matters in large wars, as you well know. American military officers weep at and lament what we have seen our most reliable allies withered down to.
Dear Chris,
Thank you for that, and while I still think the German Army was the most professional player in WW2, we can agree to differ. As regards your subsequent paras we are basically ad idem, although you may be even more pessimistic than I! We are certainly in a parlours state and nobody in government except perhaps Wallace seems to care. I’m not sure about careerists and gong hunters but most of my contact with the modern armed forces is with Gurkha units, of which I see a lot, but there not too much has changed. But that may not be the case elsewhere - I hope not. I worry that Putin will turn his rants against the West unto action and that we will go down in defeat, despite as a collective being richer and bigger in population terms and more efficient industrially. I sincerely hope I’m wrong. I’m currently lecturing on a cruise ship at sea so this may not get to you soon, but in any case thank you for writing.
As ever,
Gordon
If Germany had not invaded the Soviets, history might have turned out quite differently. Britain was hanging in by the slenderest of threads and the USA cares more about the pacific theater than to chaos in Europe
I think that if the Weimar Republic had survived, as it might have had the Great Depression not collapsed the Austrian and then banking system, there would still have been a WW2, but the line up would have been the UK, France and Germany versus the USSR. Only a thought!