Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    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.
    But I would imagine that the majority of friendly fire incidents will be individual one on one shootings. I therefore think comparing big headline incidents just doesn't tell you much.

    As for 1. Longer training doesn't have to mean better, but the difference clearly implies where the priorities of the two countries lies. We do simply put more care and attention into training individual soldiers.

    2. Sure, but if our officer cadets are better trained than your officer cadets that implies that our officers would be better trained than your officer cadets no?

    There are just historical reasons why the UK puts such a lot of emphasis on troop (and in particular officer) training. I have no idea how much difference it would make in the field, probably not much.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MancStudent098)
    But I would imagine that the majority of friendly fire incidents will be individual one on one shootings. I therefore think comparing big headline incidents just doesn't tell you much.
    Well, I'm fine with that. Reason being, it's those events that everyone uses as some kind of evidence that American soldiers are walking balls of incompetence. If we rule them out as an adequate sample, there is no case against Americans either.

    As for 1. Longer training doesn't have to mean better, but the difference clearly implies where the priorities of the two countries lies. We do simply put more care and attention into training individual soldiers.
    Do you have a link that provides a breakdown on the types of training British recruits get, and what the average day looks like in basic?

    2. Sure, but if our officer cadets are better trained than your officer cadets that implies that our officers would be better trained than your officer cadets no?

    There are just historical reasons why the UK puts such a lot of emphasis on troop (and in particular officer) training. I have no idea how much difference it would make in the field, probably not much.
    The competition measures their ability as soldiers though, not as officers. Our ROTC programs and military schools don't put nearly as much emphasis on those kinds of tasks, as they will be trained further in basic training. I'm not sure how officer training works in the British military, so I can't make a comparison.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If ones goes just by numbers, the UK would be beaten by Eritrea, Morocco, Sri Lanka and Mexico, amongst others. Then everyone gets beaten by China.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    "In the game of banging testicles, nobody wins."
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    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.


    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.
    Even if the length of training is what you said, which, it probably is as I only checked wikipedia for the US figures then our guys still get significantly longer. I only said rule out continuation as it is bound to be pretty much the same, driving, signals, their specialisation and pre deployment.

    The length of training is indicative of how well trained these guys are, there's a reason that the Royal Marines are seen as some of the best soldiers in NATO.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by onlinebacon)
    Even if the length of training is what you said, which, it probably is as I only checked wikipedia for the US figures then our guys still get significantly longer. I only said rule out continuation as it is bound to be pretty much the same, driving, signals, their specialisation and pre deployment.

    The length of training is indicative of how well trained these guys are, there's a reason that the Royal Marines are seen as some of the best soldiers in NATO.
    The problem with ruling out continuation though is because U.S. training after basic covers things that British training covers within basic. So by ruling that out, you're giving your side the advantage because you're considering all training possible for the British, but only half of the training for Americans.

    Yours is several weeks longer yes, but you also have to consider the activities that take place, how much of the day is spent in training, how rigorous the challenges are, etc.

    Also, U.S. Marines are also considered some of te best soldiers in NATO. ;D Our Marines aren't special forces though, so they can't compare. The Seals would be a better comparison.


    PS: Check your wall. :P
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobertPires)
    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!
    You do understand the idea of a hypothetical scenario right?

    If we were saying "who would win, the power rangers or all the gym leaders from pokemon put together?", you wouldn't come out with "how can anyone win? war is wrong."

    Way to spoil a harmless light hearted debate with philosophical drivel.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diamond Diva)
    UK troops are arguably better trained. This can be objectively measured with the number of UK friendly fire incidents compared with US friendly fire incidents.
    Proportions?

    The US have many more troops in combat operations.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Enter chinese army. Chinese army wins by attrition.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    SAS > lame Marines
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    This is a silly thread

    Also Britain would be absolutely destroyed, stop living in denial.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    The problem with ruling out continuation though is because U.S. training after basic covers things that British training covers within basic. So by ruling that out, you're giving your side the advantage because you're considering all training possible for the British, but only half of the training for Americans.

    Yours is several weeks longer yes, but you also have to consider the activities that take place, how much of the day is spent in training, how rigorous the challenges are, etc.

    Also, U.S. Marines are also considered some of te best soldiers in NATO. ;D Our Marines aren't special forces though, so they can't compare. The Seals would be a better comparison.


    PS: Check your wall. :P
    Haha saw it :P

    You're still coming Reading right ?

    The Royal Marine Commandos aren't special forces, they are just amphibious infantry, although they are considered elite if you were to bring out the Navy Seals then I'm sure the SBS would easily beat them.

    There has been quotes from US Army guys saying that The Yorkshire Regiment were better trained and could "walk the Rangers into the ground," said by your guys not ours :P

    Overall, including continuation and everything our guys are better trained, the Royal Marine commando tests include yomping 30 miles in 8 hours, a 9 mile speed march in under an hour, the Tarzan assault course and the endurance course.

    Marine vs Marine, our guys would win.

    6:1 would be erm.... interesting haha.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fixesin)
    SAS > lame Marines
    If you're going to make a comparison like that, at least compare the SAS to something like the Army Rangers or Green Berets. The Marines are standard infantry.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by onlinebacon)
    Haha saw it :P

    You're still coming Reading right ?

    The Royal Marine Commandos aren't special forces, they are just amphibious infantry, although they are considered elite if you were to bring out the Navy Seals then I'm sure the SBS would easily beat them.

    There has been quotes from US Army guys saying that The Yorkshire Regiment were better trained and could "walk the Rangers into the ground," said by your guys not ours :P

    Overall, including continuation and everything our guys are better trained, the Royal Marine commando tests include yomping 30 miles in 8 hours, a 9 mile speed march in under an hour, the Tarzan assault course and the endurance course.

    Marine vs Marine, our guys would win.

    6:1 would be erm.... interesting haha.
    Still coming, yes! Looking forward to that water fight! (prove my American military prowess :p:)

    Anywho!

    The Royal Marine Commandos are special forces because they're Commandos. It's pretty much in the definition. They are elite, and that's what makes them special forces. The U.S. Marines aren't considered elite, they're just like the Army only smarter and with bigger muscles really.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Still coming, yes! Looking forward to that water fight! (prove my American military prowess :p:)

    Anywho!

    The Royal Marine Commandos are special forces because they're Commandos. It's pretty much in the definition. They are elite, and that's what makes them special forces. The U.S. Marines aren't considered elite, they're just like the Army only smarter and with bigger muscles really.

    The Royal Marine Commandos are not special forces.

    The Special Boat Service (SBS), Special Air Service (SAS) and Special Reconaissance Regiment (SRR) are special forces. The Royal Marines are just more specialised. It's like saying the Parachute Regiment are special forces when they aren't.

    They're just elite infantry, like the Rangers and Marine 1st Recon are... But better :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hahaha, the americans have more marines than we have soldiers in our entire army, let's stop pretending we'd stand a chance
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    f22 raptor or eurofighter
    Who would win, dog fight styleeeeee?!?!?!?!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by onlinebacon)
    The Royal Marine Commandos are not special forces.

    The Special Boat Service (SBS), Special Air Service (SAS) and Special Reconaissance Regiment (SRR) are special forces. The Royal Marines are just more specialised. It's like saying the Parachute Regiment are special forces when they aren't.

    They're just elite infantry, like the Rangers and Marine 1st Recon are... But better :p:
    Well, according to Wikipedia, "The term commando, in English, means a specific kind of individual soldier or military unit. In contemporary usage, commando usually means élite light infantry and/or special forces units, specialised in amphibious landings, parachuting, rappelling and similar techniques, to conduct and effect attacks."

    So while they may not be considered "special forces" on paper, they're definitely forces that are special. But the fact is, they're elite. U.S. Marines aren't elite - they're an entire branch of the military, which makes them standard infantry. So obviously the Royal Marines could beat them. That's why it's really not a very good comparison.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elementric)
    You do understand the idea of a hypothetical scenario right?

    If we were saying "who would win, the power rangers or all the gym leaders from pokemon put together?", you wouldn't come out with "how can anyone win? war is wrong."

    Way to spoil a harmless light hearted debate with philosophical drivel.
    I've hardly spoilt it have I? It's still gone on...

    And in the aforementioned scenario, no I wouldn't, seeing as they are fictional characters...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Americans will be too busy bombing each other - the word "FRIENDLY" fire comes to mind :mmm:
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,704

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

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

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