Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Ground troop warfare between the US and UK - Who wins? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobertPires)
    I don't see how raising a point about whether one can actually win a war is "playing dumb", I'm merely making a point. I obviously understand what is generally accepted as "winning" a war, perhaps I'm just a bit too Socratean for TSR...
    It's playing dumb because you pretended to not understand what was defined as winning:

    "Nobody... How on earth does anyone "win" in this scenario?"

    Yup :P

    And nah we're up for philosophical stuff but that's not what this topic is for and we have enough manners here to not hijack people's threads lol
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Like when our pilots accidentally fire on British forces? Well I don't know. You can judge that when the RAF starts providing air support for American ground troops. Until that day, you can't use that as an example either.
    Do you have any operational evidence to support your claim that the RAF has never provided air support for American ground troops?

    A poorly written blog (hardly a substantial source) which is brimming with anachronistic evidence. Most of it is relating to naval friendly fire.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2321845.ece

    A pretty disastrous record (compared to the UK). I doubt your numbers had anything to do with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BumperBo)
    It's playing dumb because you pretended to not understand what was defined as winning:

    "Nobody... How on earth does anyone "win" in this scenario?"

    Yup :P

    And nah we're up for philosophical stuff but that's not what this topic is for and we have enough manners here to not hijack people's threads lol
    One could argue (and I would) that I was actually discussing an aspect of the topic, for if one poses a question, then apsects of the question are up for debate, for me to decide who wins, we need to define victory, and if I indeed don't believe that it is possible for anyone to win, then my answer of nobody was satisfactory.

    I'm a philosopher, you can't turn that off, philosophy is never off topic!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobertPires)
    Oh and that consititutes "winning" does it? People senselessly killing each other?
    Yes, that's what war is.

    And it's simple, the whole of UK vs the whole of USA we would get pwned.

    One soldier vs one soldier and I think we'd fare better, what with the SAS, Marine Commandos and Paras on our side, but still they have Navy SEALs etc, it can't really be answered.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diamond Diva)
    Do you have any operational evidence to support your claim that the RAF has never provided air support for American ground troops?
    After spending about a half hour probing the Googlenets, I have found no stories or evidence that the RAF provides air support for American ground troops.

    A poorly written blog (hardly a substantial source) which is brimming with anachronistic evidence. Most of it is relating to naval friendly fire.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2321845.ece

    A pretty disastrous record (compared to the UK). I doubt your numbers had anything to do with it.
    The blog I cited actually mentions that Times article...

    Anyway, let's look at this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#Afghanistan

    According to this Wiki article the break down goes like this.

    Iraq
    American-caused: 6 incidents.
    British-caused: 2 incidents.
    Other: 1 incident.

    Afghanistan
    American-caused: 5 incidents.
    British-caused: 4 incidents.
    Other: 6 incidents (3 of them being by Canadians)

    So let's see. In Iraq, British forces made up 15% of the personnel (45,000 out of 300,000), yet were responsible for 22% of reported friendly fire incidents. In Afghanistan, British forces again making up about 15% of the personnel (9,200 out of 58,000), were responsible for 26% of all friendly fire incidents.

    And interestingly enough, even though there are three times as many American personnel in Afghanistan as there are British, the British have caused only one less incident than Americans!

    Looks like we're not the only ones with a disastrous record.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This reminds me of a thread someone made on an old BF2 forum:

    'Who would win, 100 SAS or 10,000 marines in the Burmese jungle'.

    Needless to say it descended into a flame/troll fest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diamond Diva)
    Do you have any operational evidence to support your claim that the RAF has never provided air support for American ground troops?



    A poorly written blog (hardly a substantial source) which is brimming with anachronistic evidence. Most of it is relating to naval friendly fire.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2321845.ece

    A pretty disastrous record (compared to the UK). I doubt your numbers had anything to do with it.
    Sorry Diamond, your point leads to nowhere.

    They may have a lot of friendly fire incidents, however there is reason for this, this is simply due to them providing more air support and the fact being that there is a lot of them. Simple as that. Without the US air support, our troops on the ground would be even more worse-off.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    robert pires no one cares about your hippie views on wars.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Well, our troops are trained to roughly the same standard, share techniques and strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment and would be funded with roughly the same equipment.

    Ultimately, the US would win, since they have like 10x as many troops.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Well the UK has the "elite" troops but a smaller general army so it depends on the terrain really.

    There's two deserts in Afghanistan but I don't know if they are big enough, maybe if there was a jungle or something... :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Roughly equal training, but we have a numerical advantage, so probably us.

    But it depends a lot on who's attacking and who's defending. Could you clarify?
    Afraid not.

    Forgetting continuation training after basic:

    US Army infantry do 10 weeks of basic training, British Army infantry do 26 (28 if Parachute Regiment or Guards).

    US Marines do 13 weeks of basic training, the Royal Marine Commandos do 32.

    British forces are much better trained than the Americans are, however the Americans are better equipped than our lads.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The UK due to their training. It's always the UK how offers help to other forces when it comes to training so:

    Training > Numbers

    p.s. we should account for the numerous friendly fire between US troops, that's gotta take out about 1/3 of their force?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by onlinebacon)
    Afraid not.

    Forgetting continuation training after basic:

    US Army infantry do 10 weeks of basic training, British Army infantry do 26 (28 if Parachute Regiment or Guards).

    US Marines do 13 weeks of basic training, the Royal Marine Commandos do 32.

    British forces are much better trained than the Americans are, however the Americans are better equipped than our lads.
    Since when does length of training indicate the quality? And you can't rule out all training after basic, because that training is extremely important.

    Anyhow, the 26 week basic training for British Army Infantry is all the basic infantry training they will get, including combat training. Phase 1 basic training in the U.S. army, which lasts 11 weeks, isn't even all of the basic training they will receive. If one chooses to pursue an infantry MOS, then basic training will total 17 weeks. As for the Marine Corps, the 13 weeks you mentioned doesn't even include combat training. Combat training for infantry in the Marine Corps is another 6 weeks, making that all total 19 weeks.

    So the amount of time spent in basic training isn't that different between British and American militaries, and of course, we can't measure the quality of training by time alone.

    (Original post by Redefined)
    The UK due to their training. It's always the UK how offers help to other forces when it comes to training so:

    Training > Numbers

    p.s. we should account for the numerous friendly fire between US troops, that's gotta take out about 1/3 of their force?
    Please refer to my above post towards Diamond Diva regarding friendly fire.

    And even if your training was better (which I doubt it is), slightly superior training isn't going to change the fact that we outnumber you about 6 to 1.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Man for man the UK are significantly better trained, but US forces are better equipped and there's 5 times as many, so not much of a competition.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It depends (I guessing by "ground troop" you mean all infantry). If it was a big open area then the numbers of the Americans would win out I would think but if in a narrow, chokepoint like situation then the Brits would win.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pocket Calculator)
    US marines are ***** compared to Royal Marines, however.

    [/patriotism]
    Look we can agree on something :awesome:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If by "Ground Troops" you mean infantry without tank or artillery support then, depending on the terrain either could win. I'm fairly certain the SAS, given the right terrain, could knock out the majority of the US army (even with their FN SCARS, stupid US army Rangers). Although tank vs. tank the Challenger II > Abrams
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    According to this Wiki article the break down goes like this.

    Iraq
    American-caused: 6 incidents.
    British-caused: 2 incidents.
    Other: 1 incident.

    Afghanistan
    American-caused: 5 incidents.
    British-caused: 4 incidents.
    Other: 6 incidents (3 of them being by Canadians)

    So let's see. In Iraq, British forces made up 15% of the personnel (45,000 out of 300,000), yet were responsible for 22% of reported friendly fire incidents. In Afghanistan, British forces again making up about 15% of the personnel (9,200 out of 58,000), were responsible for 26% of all friendly fire incidents.

    And interestingly enough, even though there are three times as many American personnel in Afghanistan as there are British, the British have caused only one less incident than Americans!
    Did you just add up the incidents listed, because that's quite a dodgy way of compiling statistics given that I doubt the list is exhaustive.

    Two things that suggest that UK forces are better trained on an individual level is that

    1. they receive longer training periods.
    2. In inter-service competitions there's a consistent pattern of US trained troops losing. Take for example the Sandhurst Competition, despite there being at least 34 US teams versus two British and one Canadian, the US haven't won yet.

    This isn't a kind of nah-nah we're better than you, just a reflection that the UK has traditionally placed a lot of emphasis on infantry training. No doubt the US choose to focus on other things.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MancStudent098)
    Did you just add up the incidents listed, because that's quite a dodgy way of compiling statistics given that I doubt the list is exhaustive.

    Two things that suggest that UK forces are better trained on an individual level is that

    1. they receive longer training periods.
    2. In inter-service competitions there's a consistent pattern of US trained troops losing. Take for example the Sandhurst Competition, despite there being at least 34 US teams versus two British and one Canadian, the US haven't won yet.

    This isn't a kind of nah-nah we're better than you, just a reflection that the UK has traditionally placed a lot of emphasis on infantry training. No doubt the US choose to focus on other things.
    I added up the incidents, yes, because those are the major friendly fire incidents that have been reported. Probably not exhaustive, there are probably incidents of single people shooting other individuals that can't be measured (meaning you can't pin it on Americans), but those are all the notable incidents.

    As for your other two:

    1. Longer training doesn't mean better quality training.
    2. Sandhurst is a competition between military academy cadets. They're not members of the armed services.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Well we don't have any helicopters so there is no change in scenario for us.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.