British Army

Why was the British army always so small despite having access to huge amounts of manpower?

Attached: Screenshot_20180304-105506.jpg (720x986, 116K)

Quality > Quantity

Costs too much when that money can go into a navy

It would be dumb to view the British army like any normal land army when the British have gone to war the same way they have for over a millennia- like sea raiders. They've always relied on their navies for quick and tactical assaults on the coast, get as much control as possible, then send the ships back to get more men and supplies. Things never really changed from their history as Saxon marauders and Angle pirates

They never really needed one due to being protected by a navy. Most of their colonial expeditions were against people outmatched in firepower such as the Zulus, Indians or Afghans which necessitated less soldiers to gain the same outcomes. Wasn't until WW1 that they really needed a mass army to defeat the Germans and protect France. Another thing to keep in mind is that they were content with arming others to do most of the leg work to maintain dominance, such as the aid given to the White army during the Russian Civil War.

>Most of their colonial expeditions were against people outmatched in firepower such as the Zulus, Indians or Afghans which necessitated less soldiers
>Indians or Afghans
>outmatched in firepower
Do you not see the size of the EIC?

no borders

What if they wanted to take more territory or make like every other European great power and take land in Europe?

Because of the events of the civil war, England believed a large standing army was more trouble than it was worth

>Another thing to keep in mind is that they were content with arming others to do most of the leg work to maintain dominance

A tried and tested Anglo Method, used today by all 5 eye nations.

In all seriousness then, when Britain had to Britain did pull through with massive amounts of manpower.

This.
Massive fleet and small elite army for channel protection and power projection. Then when shtf they mobilise massive manpower.

With India alone their army should've eclipsed European armies

It would be a terrible idea.

They would need to be under constant surveillance and direct order by Anglo officers(although there was an exception in the ME for the Turkish front). During the 19th century and early 20th, the EIC and later BC still had military rebellions from sepoys and later regular militia. They couldn't risk training a large capable army.

That's not to say there wasn't recruitments, most notably in the Second World War from 'warrior races' i.e Jatts, Sikhs, Pashtuns, Rajputs etc.

I'd like to call them cucks but there was propaganda from the British about Japanese atrocities in Asia. A lot of them fell for it and joined to protect their families because they thought if they didn't stop them there, they'd invade India and eventually their own homes.

To be fair, it is quite possible that the Japanese may commit the same atrocities in India.
Also i didn't think there was much unity amongst Indians so it would be easy for Britain to recruit them as they wouldn't exactly see Britain as a common enemy

It depends on what era I guess, by the 20th century there was unity for the Bongs to leave but there was never really a unity for India itself. Quite a few states had to be forcefully annexed by the national army after.

>Muh small elite army.
>Its because of the navy.

No, its because after the English Civil War, and following the rise of Jacobinism in England, the Brits were absolutely paranoid of large standing armies being used to crush >muh freedoms.

So they
1) Gave parliament the sole control of the army and
2) Made that army small, with a core of professional soldiers, and a cadre of officers that can train ad hoc raised regiments in emergencies.

It was a system that lasted up until the BEIC was dissolved in India.

Attached: British_old_infantry_uniforms.jpg (2704x1832, 549K)

To be fair, Cromwell put England under military occupation so they had right to be paranoid

You don't need a big army to shoot up unarmed pajeets, witchdoctors and tribalist savages, or to starve Boer children in concentration camps. Problem comes when the other guy has some cold steel and is willing to use it on your poorly equipped and trained colonial constables and aristocratic incompetents.

t. Yamasuhiro

The Navy was always a higher priority. Also, the colonies were (mostly) self-policing because British were very good at recruiting local strongmen to keep everybody in check.

>What if they wanted to take more territory or make like every other European great power and take land in Europe?
The tried and mostly failed, in North America and places close to home.

>During the 19th century and early 20th, the EIC and later BC still had military rebellions from sepoys and later regular militia.
They had mutinies during WW2 as well. It never ended 'til they left.

>why does an island have a small land army and a large navy?

Beats me.

>in North America and places close to home.
Tbf they planned to give up temporarily and reclaim America later but Napoleon coming through a wrench in it.

The Royal Navy

The British Army is a projectile, to be fired by the Royal Navy.

>barely uses the royal navy in both world wars and instead throws millions of young soldiers into the meat grinder
What did they mean by this?

I hope you don't actually believe the British blockade during WW1 was "barely" anything.

Fuck, meant to reply to

They had to suck their navy back into home waters, which set the table for the coming collapse of muh empire over the coming few decades

Napoleon had already been defeated when the bongs sought peace in North America, and trundled off to shoot up pajeets.

>Primary naval threat is only 600 km away
>Move most of your large ships home to reflect this
Britain BTFO?

Attached: df9.png (680x332, 385K)

The British never needed a large army to defend their island, or to create a vast empire, just a big ass navy. As this guy said: The fact is the Royal Navy was extremely important in both World Wars.

Because they always relied on their allies. They started to get their shit together after their crimean war embarrassing display.

Well they obviously needed a larger army then

Napoleon was defeated in 1815 and the America's was given up on a few years before in 1812. It's the other way around.

Also the EIC was already making gains during the Napoleonic wars, although it's commanders fought in both battlefields. It largely was its own thing.

The EIC could literally invade Britain lmao

The purveyors of the "Bongistan rules the waves" meme claimed muh world empire, but as we saw they were humiliated when they attempted to exercise that meme in real life.

No, the bongs were told by Wellington himself that they'd been comprehensively defeated in the War of 1812, in every way, and that they should seek terms from the Americans, which they proceeded to do, signing an agreement and slinking off to Pajeetistan to gun down streetshitters, as North America would now be ungarrisoned by the feeble bong military.

They used mercenaries/private armies and armies from other nations (they conquered)

Attached: main-qimg-5bf2f6718266fc22fc21ea28de9a989a.png (539x796, 68K)

Do you not understand the difference between the British Army and the East India company? The British army itself never invaded Asia.
>told by Wellington himself that they'd been comprehensively defeated in the War of 1812, in every way, and that they should seek terms from the Americans, which they proceeded to do, signing an agreement and slinking off to Pajeetistan to gun down streetshitters
Wellington himself led troops in India to defeat the Mysorean forces BEFORE leading troops in Europe to defeat the Frogs.

>still replying to this wewuzzing yank

>>barely uses the royal navy in both world wars
The Battle of the Atlantic amounted to literally the second largest naval war in history after the Pacific, and mostly carried by the British. The British and their allies lost 3 battleships, 3 escort carriers, 7 cruisers, and 160 destroyers, frigates, sloops, chasers, and corvettes. The Germans lost 4 battleships, 9 cruisers, 7 auxiliary cruisers, 27 destroyers, and 783 submarines. Meanwhile the Germans lost several million tons of shipping (either sunk or seized) while the Allies lost 14 million tons sunk. It was massive and a huge resource drain for the Germans.

Then there's the Med. 124 warships and submarines lost by the Allies vs 235 warships and submarines lost by the Italians and Germans, and 11 more for the Vichy French. Plus millions of tons of shipping on both sides.

Attached: germanarmamentsproduction.jpg (901x985, 195K)

For a similar comparison, the US had an army 98,000 in 1914, a fraction of even Serbia. Only 43,000 were even in the US.

It had the third largest navy though.

Putting men into the military is counter productive in peace time. It's cheaper to use sea and later air forces to defend the homeland.

If the US could stop itself from getting into wars all the time I'd honestly say we should cut our numbers even more, but as is we probably actually need more.

This argument doesn't really explain why the US kept such a tiny military though.

Democracies have a harder time justifying taking money and pissing it away on the military.

If you can conquer the world with a small army, why pay forna big one?

>This argument doesn't really explain why the US kept such a tiny military though.
What country is above the USA? Fucking Canada. What country is below the USA? Fucking Mexico. These are not countries which inspire fear. It wasn't until the cold war when America became committed to maintaining huge numbers of overseas military bases that America actually developed a need for a large standing army.

The biggest effect was probably pic related

Attached: 1521591460856.png (660x512, 52K)

Who gives a fuck about the incompetent bong military shooting up pajeets? Muh glorious empire got run out of North America, is the entire point, and the beworshipped Wellington told them they had to run.

Well yes, the incompetent bong navy took many losses, against a heavily outnumbered enemy, which was the exact reason the USA had to get into a shooting war in the North Atlantic long before Pearl Harbor. The bongs were getting bled white by that outnumbered enemy. Just because the retarded bongs engaged in Somme on the water doesn't mean they did anything productive, it just means they ran into the maxims again and got slaughtered.

>hundreds of thousands of burgers dogpile on a small force mainly held up by leafs
>still end up losing more soldiers
>think this is impressive and something to brag about

The full British Army or the EIC would have both raped America badly by the looks of it.

Attached: 1521246371779.jpg (640x480, 37K)