View of Brits
Doppleganger
Active member
haha
I'm not *that* old!
Well I only brought it up to illustrate a point. Just as well we didn't get the 3rd Shock Army rumbling through there or we'd all be eating cabbages and drinking cheap vodka in the UK. Mind you some of us do that already
I don't think NATO forces could have withstood a Soviet invasion of West Germany without using tactical nuclear strikes..
Doppleganger
Active member
Guess that should come as no surprise as it's exactly what they did in WW2. i.e. massive artillery bombardments proceeding any offensive.
Actually I think there's more danger of nukes being set off today by terrorists or a 'rogue' state than ever there was during the Cold War.
TacticalEdge
Active member
i have read an interesting book (the name is HOW TO MAKE WAR, byJames F. Dunnigan) it shows how militaries of the world match up and who has the best one based on quality(training,equipment,experience,etc.) and quantity. The countries were then assigned a numeric grade on military strength(this was written in 2003)and here is a list of the top guns
USA-2,488pts
China-827pts
Israel-617pts
Russia-369pts
South Korea-289pts
North Korea-274pts
UK-259pts
Turkey-240pts
Pakistan-235pts
i dont mean to say anything bad about Britian(they did make the list after all) it is just they have the quality just not the quantity.... and when it comes to Marines and Army you guys are good..... but i believe the USA is the best..... we just have better training and equipment.... but i guess that is why we are allies :rambo: :sniper: :tank: :2guns: :drill:
another interesting thing(a little off topic) is how much power russia still has even after the Cold War
USA-2,488pts
China-827pts
Israel-617pts
Russia-369pts
South Korea-289pts
North Korea-274pts
UK-259pts
Turkey-240pts
Pakistan-235pts
i dont mean to say anything bad about Britian(they did make the list after all) it is just they have the quality just not the quantity.... and when it comes to Marines and Army you guys are good..... but i believe the USA is the best..... we just have better training and equipment.... but i guess that is why we are allies :rambo: :sniper: :tank: :2guns: :drill:
another interesting thing(a little off topic) is how much power russia still has even after the Cold War
I'd say you have MORE equipment. Most of our (army's) equipment is on a par with yours with a few new aquirements of ours being slightly better, and a couple of older pieces of kit being slightly (bordering on much) worse.
As for the training remark I would seriously have to disagree. I don't mean this maliciously, but the American soldiers are not held in high regard over here. It's not their fault, the American mentality seems to be that they can win a conflict by throwing more man power and money at it than the enemy can. This is reflected in the style and level of training that Americans recieve. As was quoted before, they can't "think outside the box" (I hate that phrase, it's too much like management jargon). A British soldier however HAS to be able to, as they have to be capable of many jobs without relying on a specialist unit to do it for them.
I don't mean to offend anyone by highlighting the following, but if you look at the recent conflicts we have fought together the differences become apparent.
In Afghanistan four Brittish SBS soldiers were awarded the highest American decoration for rescuing a company of rangers who were pinned down by the taliban. I'm not sure of the exact details of this, such as the lay of the ground etc. but four British special forces soldiers rescuing a company of American special forces is a big deal no matter how you look at it.
Looking at Iraq, how much trouble have you heard of in Basra when compare to the American AoR? (I am aware that the Americen AoR is considerably bigger)
Also the American's reputation for friendly fire is apalling, even with their gucci FFI equipment.
I really don't mean to sound aggressive or like I'm gloating, it's not the soldier's fault, it's the mentality of their forces which is left over from the cold war era.
As for this, I know that at least the top 3 have well over a million in their forces, our army is 100,000 strong, what else gives us the points to be in the top 7?
TacticalEdge said:
I agree to JEA
there are many of really well trained and equipped guys
but the US just have the money to hav lots of them.
OK maybe Im a bit patriotic, but i think that our army is as good trained as the US......
and we proved that in not few manouvers...
TacticalEdge said:
i dont if its accurate but according to http://www.aneki.com/nuclear.html
Rank Country Number of warheads
1 Russia 28,240
2 United States 12,070
3 France 510
4 China 425
5 United Kingdom 400
6 Israel uncertain
7 India uncertain
8 Pakistan uncertain
USMC Johnny
Active member
I think that the Brits are the best military in the world. I mean you cannot place the USA and other countries in the same catg. The USA is massive, you cannot fairly compare it to anyone.
So I say the Brits are the best military in the world, hands down! Great Airforce, Great Armor, Great SAS!!!
Brits you rock!!!!
So this is the World Powers(with USA left out)
1. UK
2. Germany
3. Isreal
So I say the Brits are the best military in the world, hands down! Great Airforce, Great Armor, Great SAS!!!
Brits you rock!!!!
So this is the World Powers(with USA left out)
1. UK
2. Germany
3. Isreal
USMC Johnny
Active member
Don't you just love the partial information that people give??
I can't stand that, or people coming up with like "Yeah I was in the military, I won the Silver Star and the Bronze Star, and 4 purple hearts" and then you check out the info on them and it turns out like they are 13.
I can't stand that, or people coming up with like "Yeah I was in the military, I won the Silver Star and the Bronze Star, and 4 purple hearts" and then you check out the info on them and it turns out like they are 13.
It was made quite a big deal over here when that story came out. I tried to illustrate the fact that it wasn't first hand information by saying "I'm not sure of the exact details", but it was I think briefly published in "Soldier" magazine (the offial magazine of the British Army), any Brits feel free to correct me on that though.
I'm not going to rise to the bait any further.
So what if you don't believe one of my points (despite having no evidence to the contrary), the rest of them still stand.
RnderSafe
Active member
There is no bait, lad .. you are using an argument that you have no factual backing on to attempt and prove a point that you obviously have no first hand experience with (the event you mention). I'm not sure what your military experience is, but I have worked closely with British forces in the past, SOF and conventional, and attended many Brit schools, we have a good working rapport with them in the SOF community. Some things we're better at, some things they are better at. That is one reason we often train with each other.
The award was the medal of honour to ONE SBS commando for his role in the Qala-i-Jangi Prision outbreak involving the CIA. One CIA operative was killed, and the other survived. The unit [SBS] returned to the area from their patrol after hearing shots. The 75th Ranger Regiment was not even present, not to mention a "whole company."
As for your points still standing .. they didn't have a leg to begin with.
I know about the prison breakout incident and I thjought I was refering to a different event.
But OK, I concede on that point. I did make clear I wasn't sure on the details of that perticular one though.
But my other points still do stand.
I don't want you to missinterpret my tone. I'm not trying to be derogatory about your forces, they are the most powerful in the world, just possibly not the most profesional.
RnderSafe
Active member
Quite the contrary, US forces are quite professional in carrying out their duties. That says a lot considering some of the training of our forces is lacking, at best.
I've seen some piss poor units within the British Military, ones that I would not dare want to serve beside nor in the same AO. I have also served with some outstanding units and men, and would glady (even with the Irish/Brit rivarly) have them watching my fourth point before certain US units.
There is some training Brits get that isn't fit for a US supply clerk, and some that even the best US operators recieve to add to their already above standard skill set. The same goes for some of the US schools we allow Brits to attend.
However, one cannot compare the professionalism of the two forces on a generality. Attempting to do so, shows a lack of said virtue.
American forces are crap. They can't tell the difference between an Iraqi soldier and a British soldier. In Gulf War I they killed more Brits than Iraqis. Surely they must notice that the Brits are the ones with the light skin (some of them) and the technologically advanced weapons. In Gulf War II, the British soldiers had to put Union Flags up in their camps and big signs saying "WE ARE BRITISH. DO NOT SHOOT US" so that the Americans won't shoot at them.