The four Types of Armies… And Why Most Would Lose a War

About this video

• Video Title: The four Types of Armies… And Why Most Would Lose a War
• Channel: Ryan McBeth
• Speakers: Ryan McBeth
• Duration: 00:11:52

Overview

This video explains the four distinct types of armies: expeditionary, defensive, internal security, and palace guard. It highlights that most countries possess armies designed for specific, limited roles rather than large-scale power projection. The speaker emphasizes the immense logistical challenges and costs associated with deploying and sustaining forces abroad, arguing that without this capability, an army is merely a symbol.

Key takeaways

• Four Army Types: The video categorizes armies into expeditionary, defensive, internal security, and palace guard, each with distinct primary functions.
• Logistics are Paramount: Moving and sustaining an army, even a small one, is incredibly complex and expensive, often more so than combat itself. This is a critical factor that limits most nations' ability to wage war beyond their borders.
• Rarity of Expeditionary Armies: Only a few countries, such as the US, UK, and France, possess true expeditionary capabilities, meaning they can deploy and sustain forces globally. Russia is mentioned as having lost this capability recently, and China is developing it.
• Limitations of Other Army Types: Defensive armies focus on border protection, internal security forces are for domestic order, and palace guards are primarily for regime protection, making them ill-suited for conventional warfare or power projection.
• Cost of Deployment: The analogy of a family vacation to Disney World illustrates the significant daily cost of deploying and sustaining a military unit, with a single brigade costing over a million dollars per day.

About this video

• Video Title: The four Types of Armies… And Why Most Would Lose a War
• Channel: Ryan McBeth
• Speakers: Ryan McBeth
• Duration: 00:11:52

Overview

This video breaks down the four distinct types of armies: expeditionary, defensive, internal security, and palace guard. It emphasizes that most nations lack the capability for large-scale power projection and explains why the logistical and financial demands of deploying and sustaining forces abroad are so immense, rendering many national militaries symbolic rather than functional for extended conflicts.

Key takeaways

• Four Army Types Explained: The video details expeditionary, defensive, internal security, and palace guard armies, outlining their primary roles and limitations.
• Logistics as a Bottleneck: The immense difficulty and cost of deploying and sustaining military forces are highlighted as the main reasons most countries cannot engage in significant overseas conflicts.
• Expeditionary Capability is Rare: True expeditionary forces, capable of global deployment and sustainment, are possessed by very few nations, with the US, UK, and France being prime examples.
• Role of Non-Expeditionary Armies: Defensive armies focus on homeland security, internal security forces maintain domestic order, and palace guards protect regimes, none of which are designed for large-scale offensive operations abroad.
• The Disney World Analogy: The significant daily expense and complexity of deploying a military brigade are illustrated by comparing it to the costs and planning required for a family trip to Disney World.

Ask me anything about this video

1. Besides the US, UK, and France, which other country was mentioned as having had expeditionary capabilities but recently lost them?
2. What is the core function of an "internal security army"?
3. What is the main purpose of a "palace guard" type of army?
4. How does the video illustrate the rarity of expeditionary armies?
5. Give me topics and tags to explore this video in detail.

About this video

• Video Title: The four Types of Armies… And Why Most Would Lose a War
• Channel: Ryan McBeth
• Speakers: Ryan McBeth
• Duration: 00:11:52

Overview

This video categorizes armies into four types: expeditionary, defensive, internal security, and palace guard. It argues that most nations lack the true capability to project power abroad due to overwhelming logistical and financial challenges, suggesting their military forces are often symbolic rather than functional for sustained, large-scale warfare.

Key takeaways

• Expeditionary Armies: These are rare and capable of deploying and sustaining forces far from their borders. They require extensive logistics for transportation, food, medical care, and equipment. The cost is extremely high, estimated at over a million dollars per day to sustain a brigade. Only a few nations like the US, UK, and France possess this capability.
• Defensive Armies: Built around the concept of protecting their own territory ("you're not coming here"). Many European and African nations have defensive armies. While they may have some limited ability to deploy troops abroad (e.g., Canada contributing to NATO missions), they cannot do so at scale. Israel is mentioned as having a defensive army but a capable air force for deep strikes, though limited ground logistics prevent large-scale invasions beyond its immediate borders.
• Internal Security Armies: Primarily focused on maintaining order within their own country, often supplementing state security forces. They may conduct some cross-border operations but are not built for large-scale power projection. Examples include militaries in South America, Africa, and Asia, often fighting insurgencies or cartels (e.g., Colombia, Mexico, Peru).
• Palace Guard Armies: Their main role is to protect the ruling party or family and maintain the regime in power. They do not typically project power externally or quell major internal insurgencies. Many Middle Eastern armies fall into this category, often with strong parallel security forces or secret police. These armies are intentionally kept weak, and their combat effectiveness in external conflicts can be very low, as seen in the Saudi-led coalition's stalemate against Houthi rebels.

Ask me anything about this video

1. What is the estimated daily cost to move and sustain one brigade, according to the video's analogy?
2. Which country's military is highlighted as an example of an "internal security army" that primarily fights non-state actors like the FARC?
3. What characteristic makes a "palace guard" army different from the other types in terms of its primary mission?
4. How does the video describe the expeditionary capabilities of Russia and China?
5. Give me topics and tags to explore this video in detail.