LOL read this for a laugh!

darkman2

http://www.nationmaster.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=394&highlight=ireland


Actually how does the UK military measure up to the US?. Not good I would imagine lol!

Manic Moran

Where on Earth did he get those numbers? 10,000+ UK tanks? There are only 394 Challenger 2s, all the CR1s are in muesea or in Jordan. The American figure of about 8,000 is about right though.

The 1740 US ships probably is including 20' coast guard RIBs, ditto the 180 UK ones.

NTM

Flying

The British Army is a far better trained and disciplined army to the US.

They have firepower, we have skill

darkman2

Flying wrote:

The British Army is a far better trained and disciplined army to the US.

They have firepower, we have skill

I doubt it tbh. I dont think there is any evidence to suggest that US forces (who have the most elite special forces in the world) are less better trained then UK troops. If anything American military training is the toughest in the World, especially the Marine Corps:eek:

Is Carlingford on the Northern side of the border??:rolleyes: (just put that in as an aside considering you said 'our' army;) )

Maskhadov

Lol

TerrorFirmer

haha....good stuff

muletide

darkman2 wrote:

I doubt it tbh. I dont think there is any evidence to suggest that US forces (who have the most elite special forces in the world) are less better trained then UK troops. If anything American military training is the toughest in the World, especially the Marine Corps:eek:

QUOTE]

US Marine Corps Toughest? Theywould not hold a candle to the UK paras or Royal Marine Commandos. It is a common mistake people make in thinking that USMC is a special force. The british are alot better trained than the Americans and anyone I have ever spoken to about the qualities of various armies would consider the Brits the best trained in the world.

Equipment is a different story

Manic Moran

I also would be highly reluctant to claim that US troops (even the Marines) are any better trained than their British counterparts.

I don't think the scales go too far in the other direction, however. Part of the problem of comparing the root training regimens is that the two militaries have different philosophies on how to do things. Americans prize the 'Subject Matter Expert'. He may be the best person on the planet at SINCGARS radio, and horrible at riflery, but that's not much of a concern for them when they have so many troops that they can afford to specialise to that extent. The British have to make do with someone who's "Good enough" at radios, but also retains decent skill at arms.

If you can wade through the nationalist claptrap (from both sides) which is really thick and heavy from about pages 5-15, see this thread on ARRSE.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=10098.html

NTM

darkman2

Manic Moran wrote:

I also would be highly reluctant to claim that US troops (even the Marines) are any better trained than their British counterparts.

I don't think the scales go too far in the other direction, however. Part of the problem of comparing the root training regimens is that the two militaries have different philosophies on how to do things. Americans prize the 'Subject Matter Expert'. He may be the best person on the planet at SINCGARS radio, and horrible at riflery, but that's not much of a concern for them when they have so many troops that they can afford to specialise to that extent. The British have to make do with someone who's "Good enough" at radios, but also retains decent skill at arms.

If you can wade through the nationalist claptrap (from both sides) which is really thick and heavy from about pages 5-15, see this thread on ARRSE.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=10098.html

NTM

'were going to become the world's super-power again' - lol - LOL!!!!!! The thing is the American miltary is so big and exists on so many different levels that I dont really think you actually can judge the American military against anyone else, if you know what I mean.:rolleyes:

pucan

My god, ALL the posts aare idiotic. That forum must be full of inbreds or something

Flying

darkman2 wrote:

I doubt it tbh. I dont think there is any evidence to suggest that US forces (who have the most elite special forces in the world) are less better trained then UK troops. If anything American military training is the toughest in the World, especially the Marine Corps:eek:

Is Carlingford on the Northern side of the border??:rolleyes: (just put that in as an aside considering you said 'our' army;) )

The US Marines are infantry, nothing great there as for special forces, yes the yanks are good but the SAS would be very hard to match in Skill and Experience.

Aparently Israel did not enter the first gulf war when they were told that the SAS were destroying SCUD MSR's in Iraq, that say's a lot about the Yanks ;-)

ScottishDanny

I would suggest that the reason the BA are better trained is because there is less of them and they have to work on a budget so you can't have just one skill. There is a 'make do and mend' mentality that wouldn't exist in the US armed forces because they have such a huge budget. Yanks admire the Brits resourcefulness (scrounging cababilities )and the Brits always have to borrow American kit (since the '40's).

ScottishDanny

Just read the other forum - makes us look like MENSA!

Flying

Also a Royal Marine Commando is what it says a Commando and it takes 30 Weeks Training to become a Marine, roughly the same for the Maroon Mob as I found out to my determint and the Lovely "P" Company delightful:rolleyes:

Now the US Marines, takes 8 Weeks and Paratroopers roughly the same.

So in Conclusion the Craphats of the RM and the Mob are in comparison to the US Forces (Special Forces).

The Likes of Army Delta, Green Berets and Naval Seals they are a different kettle of fish.

The US Marine Force Recon would be on par with the Pathfinders of the Para's although

IrishAirCorps

darkman2 wrote:

who have the most elite special forces in the world

FYI recently there was a Spec Forces Competition ran in Germany where the Majority of Special Forces teams took part to see who was the best of the best and AFAIK the results were
1. UK SAS
2. German GSG9
3. Irish Army ARW
4. French GIGN

Manic Moran

Flying wrote:

Also a Royal Marine Commando is what it says a Commando and it takes 30 Weeks Training to become a Marine, roughly the same for the Maroon Mob as I found out to my determint and the Lovely "P" Company delightful:rolleyes:

Now the US Marines, takes 8 Weeks and Paratroopers roughly the same.

Where did you get those figures from? Even US Army Basic Training isn't 8 weeks short. Army infantry is a 16 week course, plus additional courses. (So to become a Ranger is 29 weeks)

To be a US Marine Rifleman, takes 13 weeks of boot camp, 6 weeks of Basic Infantry course, and then you go onto whatever your job skill training is (armour, aviation etc...) and if your job skill is Infantry, you then have to go on the regular Marine Infantryman course, which will take another batch of weeks.

US Marines receive the title Marine much earlier in their process than their British counterparts, but the time spent in training before being qualified Infantrymen is very similar.

NTM

darkman2

IrishAirCorps wrote:

3. Irish Army ARW

IAC I see your point but is this a joke!?

Seriously I dont think anyone here has any evidence to suggest that US special forces are any less well trained then their European counterparts. That smacks of begrudgery tbh....:rolleyes:

Jim_No.6

Well, here's something for you to look at; there was an article in An Cosantoir about jungle training that they went on with the SAS a few months ago, where the Rangers came top of the class, ambushing the Gurkhas who were supposed to be chasing/tracking them.

Army Rangers among best elite forces
The Irish Independent
23-Aug-2003
Michael Lavery

*******************************
ARMY Rangers out-shot, out-ran and out-maneuvered dozens of special forces teams from around the world in a gruelling contest.

The elite Irish soldiers picked up a bronze medal in the Combat Team Conference this week which tests the skills of special police and military units. Forty-one teams from 22 countries had battled it out.

Austria's COBRA police team came first, with Italy's NOCS police second and the Army Ranger Wing (ARW) third. The Irish came in ahead of such highly skilled units as the Royal Dutch Marines, the Special Task Force from South Africa, Germany's GSG9, Sweden's Special Police Unit and GOE from Portugal.

The competition, held every four years, was organised by Germany's GSG9 at their base near Bonn.

Rangers had to deal with hostage situations, evade attack dogs, swim long distances in the Rhine and hit targets with their H&K MP5 sub-machine guns and 9mm SiG pistols.

The first event involved a 2.5km run down a steep incline. "At the end of the run, the runner picked up his team of four who were roped together and they made their way back up the hill," said the Ranger team manager. "The team were stopped during the first 1km to identify five 'tangos' (hostage takers) from mug sheets that had been shown previously." Getting it wrong meant having to carry a 20kg sandbag for the rest of the run.

"The events tested the skills that a specialist unit would need in an actual intervention, including shooting, climbing, driving, swimming, leadership and making decisions under pressure," he said.

Manic Moran

IrishAirCorps wrote:

FYI recently there was a Spec Forces Competition ran in Germany where the Majority of Special Forces teams took part to see who was the best of the best and AFAIK the results were
1. UK SAS
2. German GSG9
3. Irish Army ARW
4. French GIGN

Doesn't prove anything in relation to the US special forces units. They didn't enter that competition, presumably being a tad busy doing live-fire-exercises elsewhere.

NTM

thesweeney

His on crack.

On the special forces front, arent Sweden and Austraila up there? I thought Sweden have the best army unit special forces in Europe.

bk

All special forces units are trained to a vary high standard and to tell the truth no two special force units would ever like to have to face off for real. It would usually lead to a great deal of death on both sides.

One important point is that the most priceless thing in special forces training is real live experience. You can bet that the US and UK special forces units are getting lots of experience in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places. You really wouldn't want to go up against them at the moment.

Flying

IrishAirCorps wrote:

FYI recently there was a Spec Forces Competition ran in Germany where the Majority of Special Forces teams took part to see who was the best of the best and AFAIK the results were
1. UK SAS
2. German GSG9
3. Irish Army ARW
4. French GIGN

Irish Army ranger are not in that league at all they are merely on par with say the pathfinders at most of the Parachute regiment

Manic Moran

And your rationale for that statement is...?

NTM

darkman2

Manic Moran wrote:

And your rationale for that statement is...?

NTM

He does have a point in fairness. The Ranger wing can parachute but we dont have medium lift heli's yet for them to use. As a ground force though im sure they are excellent. P.S check out some of the kit on www.specialforces.com :rolleyes:

Dub13

The special forces augment is pointless IMO,its like when you were at school..."my da is better than your da..."*.There is no way to come to a consensus.


*My da was in fact the best.

Philistine

Regardless of how the brittish army measures up to the us army, neither fair well compared with the foriegn legion. According to a report by a legionaire several years ago (I'll post the article later if I can find it) while on a NATO exercise in Canada, he claimed that the brittish and american armies were only as good as their logistics. ie. without their hi-tech equipment (laser rangefinders, gps, ground radars etc...) and their large mobile kitchen facilities serving 3 square meals a day, that they could not last and fight on the ground for any lenght of time. This is where he claimed that the legion, who only used and ate what they could carry, surpassed all others as a fighting force.

Bam Bam

Of course him being in the legion himself, at the time, wouldn't have made him biased at all.

Philistine

Bam Bam wrote:

Of course him being in the legion himself, at the time, wouldn't have made him biased at all.

Agreed he's biased...but he makes a good point !

Dub13

Philistine wrote:

Agreed he's biased...but he makes a good point !

Its a good point but I believe the legion is hyped up a good bit.

the locust

I'd still say the UK's SAS/SBS all the way! Most of the yanks learnt their stuff from these guys... i.e. Delta Force was set up by SAS. And 60-70% percent if not more of SAS is made up from Royal marines / Paras

Can't remember the name of the SF encylopedia but there was a US navy Seal who worked with the British in Iraq and he said of the Royal Marines that "one of these guys are worth 6 of ours - they are gold."

All the US has is technology - but i still give respect to all elite SF units. Respect and honour were its due...

the locust

I agree with Philistine - most special units are only as good as thier logistics

Remember Andy McNab's story B20?
I talked to a british officer who worked nearby at the time...

He said they didn't have enough aircraft in 1991. But the US of course where flying planes all over Iraq every day - had the Brits just asked the Yanks they could have extracted McNab's team no probs... too much pride perhaps?

Bam Bam

But the higher ups thought that B20 was heading south towards Saudi, as per there plans. In fact they headed towarsa Syria,

The higher ups could have sent as many planes and helis as they wanted they would never have found them.

Also B20 radios were ****ed so they couldn't really contact a plane of heli if they wanted to.

bk

Philistine wrote:

Regardless of how the brittish army measures up to the us army, neither fair well compared with the foriegn legion. According to a report by a legionaire several years ago (I'll post the article later if I can find it) while on a NATO exercise in Canada, he claimed that the brittish and american armies were only as good as their logistics. ie. without their hi-tech equipment (laser rangefinders, gps, ground radars etc...) and their large mobile kitchen facilities serving 3 square meals a day, that they could not last and fight on the ground for any lenght of time. This is where he claimed that the legion, who only used and ate what they could carry, surpassed all others as a fighting force.

In that article he was comparing regular US and British forces to the Legion, not to British and US SF units. British and US SF units would be just as self sufficient, if not more so then the Legion * and while they do get to play with all the latest toys, they pride themselves on being able to fight in any condition, without support.

You are right the regular US army (the British far less) are very reliant on their technology and logistics, but then it has always been said that it is logistics that win and lose wars. It was that logistics and technology that allowed them to so quickly and soundly defeat the Iraqi army.

It is all fine and good saying that without their technology that they would be lost, but the point is that they do have excellent technology and logistics and in reality the Legionare himself pointed out that if it had been a real war instead of an exercise, that the US Marines would simply have called in air support which would have made quick work of the Legionares.

However The US has come to realise that while all the technology is great for winning big wars, you still need good basic soldering in order to fight guerilla warfare in urban areas, etc. That is why the US is significantly expanding their SF units.

* BTW The Legion actually has it's own commando and SF units. The Legion itself isn't really a SF force, rather it is a very well trained army.

elvis jaffacake

Flying wrote:

Irish Army ranger are not in that league at all they are merely on par with say the pathfinders at most of the Parachute regiment

the main difference between the pathfinders and the SAS is that the pathfinders don't do the "black role" side of things, virtually everything else is identical, down to using the same weapons...the wing do both roles and would be the equivelent of the SAS, and very good they are at it too, this country is damn lucky some smart people back when the wing was being formed, put the effort in to give us a top quality SF unit, there are more then a few nations around that would give their eye teeth to have a unit of that quality.


btw, you should read up on the rescue mission they did in Liberia, in 1 they extracted 40 people with out firing a round....if thats not top notch, I don't know what is


apologies for the necropost.:o

Manic Moran

One good comment I read...

"Americans cheat. They insist on calling in an airstrike when any right-thinking fighting man would use a hand-grenade"

Well, if it works...

NTM

elvis jaffacake

Manic Moran wrote:

One good comment I read...

"Americans cheat. They insist on calling in an airstrike when any right-thinking fighting man would use a hand-grenade"

Well, if it works...

NTM

LOL, true

AbusesToilets

I think (always a dubious statement) that if you're talking about the best unit etc. then you have to look at who is the most capable resource-wise,and who is the most active, generally speaking. So taking that into consideration IMO it would have to be CAG/Delta.No individual unit in SOF,in any country, gets more funding than them and they are on near constant deployment downrange.
And i had to chuckle at a comment in the above mentioned forum about the Brits always cleaning up US's mess.Eh,wasn't it the Brits who went in and messed up Iraq in the first place? :rolleyes:

elvis jaffacake

I certainly did not mean to get in to the whole whos number 1 thing, far far from it, just trying to correct a factual mistake on hs part;)