the british military

In some of the other threads i started i recieved a lot of heated replies from the brits that the british military was better than the US. So is it really? I believe it is capable but to think that it is better than the US, no way.

In shear size and Power it cant really compare Navy,Air Force,number of tanks and Nukes ETC... You have to expect that when you send many times more on your military though.

That US black budget is about as much as the whole of the UK military budget.

You could argue quality over quanity in training but thats really not something easily gauged like who has the better bomber. It comes down to opinion alot.



[edit on 30-1-2005 by ShadowXIX]

Individual British troops I'd say are just as good as American troops. Britain has always had a fine military. Not always the best, but a pretty good one, and they have always been brave fighters.

British Royal Marines are very tough, and the U.S.'s Delta Force, which is completely classified, I think was based off of the British SAS (which is also totally classified too). Some guy back in the 70s of the United States who worked with the SAS I believe thought it would be a great idea if the U.S. had a similar special-operations force.

In terms of sheer size and funding, U.S. is superior, but in terms of individual troops, British troops are amongst the best in the world from what I've heard.

I thought Benedict Arnold loved the British seriously though in qualitative terms the british serviceman is superior IMO to the American grunt.

In terms of power projection no-one can beat the US.

thanks,
drfunk

Show of hands feel that this is simply a effort at points trolling?

*raises hands*

walks away.

Originally posted by benedict arnold
In some of the other threads i started i recieved a lot of heated replies from the brits that the british military was better than the US. So is it really? I believe it is capable but to think that it is better than the US, no way.

Your beginning to appear very trollish

Why don't you start with the facts to prove your point, that would be a good start rather than:

no way

Originally posted by FredT
Show of hands feel that this is simply a effort at points trolling?

*raises hands*

walks away.

***Raises hand!***

But i feel the need to let off some steam , sorry about this like...

Firstly benedict arnold we area better trained in every area, mabye not airforce but we are close to the top.
Our forces have been in many conflicts home and abroad and infact have had more exsperience in winning the "hearts and minds" of the people in NI than the US has in the last 10 years.
The RN is very well trained and very well armed and equipped.
The RM is the best marine force in the world; best equipped , best trained and most mobile force in the world also holds the record for the first air boarding and sinking of a ship.
The army: Best trained, near best exsperience but the isrealis have that, best armoured tanks.
Anymore questions?

Some links for the benefit of benedict arnold and some pretty pictures

british army



royal navy



royal airforce

Originally posted by UK Wizard
Some links for the benefit of benedict arnold and some pretty pictures

Bah. Couldn't you have got a pretty picture of a Type 22 setting off a few Sea Darts?

And HERESY! The Eurofighter doesn't exist, it's a trick conjured up by the stonecutters

Originally posted by UK Wizard

british army

First; raises hand like those others.

Now my points:

Is that an underbarrel grenade launcher on that guys SA80?

Both the British and US armies are very effective, but knowing people in the UK services who have worked with the US ones I have heard that the philosophy of training the US army is different.
For example; in the British army, every man is a fully trained Rifleman first, and then just happens to also learn to drive a tank, fire artillery etc.; whereas the US army trains you as a tank driver first, and the infantry training is minimal.
Also, for a military unit, the UK have the best, the royal marines. Their basic training is the longest of any unit in the world.

But once its cut to such a small level its barely a defence force, the UK forces won't be that effective. It appears the old idea that the Uk should be able to independantly mount 2 major operations simultaneously isn't around any more.

Originally posted by minimi
Is that an underbarrel grenade launcher on that guys SA80?

That it is, their fairly new i believe.

They must have decided the barrel end bullet launched grenades weren't good enough.

I have always believed the measure of how good your Armed Forces are should be measured in how quickly and effectively a mission is completed and with as little loss of life on any side.

The US will always have more assets because they are a bigger country with a bigger military budget, so in terms of mass they will be bigger, but that doesnt always mean the best.

Each country tries to train for every eventuallity but until the situation arises where the Armed Forces are needed nonone will now how good they were until the end of the conflict.

Originally posted by minimi
They must have decided the barrel end bullet launched grenades weren't good enough.

www.army.mod.uk...

One new Under slung Grenade Launcher (UGL), designed to be mounted beneath the barrel of the IW, will be issued to each fire team, replacing the Rifle Grenade General Service (RGGS) and 51mm mortar – significantly reducing the ammunition load the infantry section carries, while enhancing its capabilities. The UGL will be able to fire 40mm High Explosive (HE), smoke and illuminating rounds out to a range of 350 m to destroy, obscure or indicate enemy positions.

Looks like its a simple upgrade to give our troops some much needed firepower

Originally posted by Mindwalker
I have always believed the measure of how good your Armed Forces are should be measured in how quickly and effectively a mission is completed and with as little loss of life on any side.

i know a few people in the army and royal air force americans (i hate to generalise) are not too good at peace keeping thats why they send a lot of us brits in now b4 our armys etc get trashed each countries are better at different things so america is good on sheer force

Originally posted by Cjwinnit


Bah. Couldn't you have got a pretty picture of a Type 22 setting off a few Sea Darts?

And HERESY! The Eurofighter doesn't exist, it's a trick conjured up by the stonecutters

type 42s for the sea wolf matey and by the way american friends, the Royal Navy hasnt lost a major engagement in about 300 years. yes i was in RN so im biast but the facts stand.

Well in responce to the original question every country is gonna claim that they have the best troops/army etc its a morale thing, could you imagine signing up for the us army under the slogan ''uncle sam wants you! come join the second best army in the world!'' its not gonna happen.
America IS bigger and has more money flowing, but that dosent make it better, even though this might be a troll post we need to decide what makes an army good, personally i think the toughness and knowledge of the troops is the biggest factor.
btw im British and im trying to reamin neutral.

matlo noss

the US navy has not lost either in the history of its existence, about the same time span.

hmm... pearl harbour is springing to mind

what about pearl harbour? not the proudest moment surely!?