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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This debate is a little silly, the UK wouldn't stand a chance. US troops are far more numerous and have far better equipment.

    Furthurmore in this hypothetical war I'm guessing both countries would be in total war and perhaps use conscription since it's such a threat to their land, at which point the US army would get even bigger proportionally.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    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.
    Mmm fair point, but surely that proves that our equivalent forces are superior?

    Who needs numbers when you have training ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr FiX-iT)
    The Americans will be too busy bombing each other - the word "FRIENDLY" fire comes to mind :mmm:
    Read the thread, it's been proven numerous times that the British track record for friendly fire is no better.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by onlinebacon)
    Mmm fair point, but surely that proves that our equivalent forces are superior?

    Who needs numbers when you have training ?
    They're not equivalent though! :P

    The Marines are just like your standard infantry. Your Marines are a special division, ours are a whole branch. Compare something like the Rangers for something more accurate.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    They're not equivalent though! :P

    The Marines are just like your standard infantry. Your Marines are a special division, ours are a whole branch. Compare something like the Rangers for something more accurate.
    I did earlier :P
    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...
    too much of a pretentious twerp more like it.

    USA would win due to pure numbers

    ofc us brits are better trained and more handsome.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In that terrain US would win on pure numbers.

    However if it was an invasion of the UK or US by the other, it would be alot closer. The UK is very hard to land a mass invasion on to due to the type of coastline and would be very hard to even get any significant number onto the ground.
    However, the US is so big the UK dont have the numbers to invade properly so would end up in a stale mate.

    If it was equal numbers, UK would win hands down. Much better training for both normal and special forces, probably the best and most accurate tank in the world, best special forces in the world. The US have a slightly better rifle but with the new A2 version of the rifle 5.56 for the UK forces, the difference wouldnt be noticable with the better training.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    They're not equivalent though! :P

    The Marines are just like your standard infantry. Your Marines are a special division, ours are a whole branch. Compare something like the Rangers for something more accurate.
    This is the comparison I was going to make, but it isn't quite true. The Rangers are probably closer to the Parachute Regiment. I think the simple fact is that we have chosen to equip ourselves with a more elite amphibious light infantry. We don't have major force projection, and so we don't just pick up our marines like a sledgehammer and drop them on whatever country/region needs fixing/needs supressing. However for the most part they are reasonably equal in role - both provide support for special forces units, both are the "first boots on the ground" in the regular armed forces (i.e. not special forces).

    Also Delta, come on - your additions of weeks to the training calenders to compare hardly did - "Oh 11 weeks? Well we have another 8 weeks of combat training so that's clearly the same as the 32 weeks of marine training". Sorry buddy, 19 is only a little over HALF the time.

    How long does it take to go through army + ranger school?

    Anyway, back to the problem at hand.

    The British forces would get RICK ROLLED. 10-1 advantage? Sorry friends, there's nothing our training could do to outweigh that.

    However, to OP, I have another suggestion for a thread.

    US vs Greater Europe. No Nukes. Temperate warzone (say, one side of russia vs the other).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Since when does length of training indicate the quality?
    Sorry, but lol.
    I think it's fair to say that a 20-week difference would change things somehow.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobertPires)
    Oh and that consititutes "winning" does it? People senselessly killing each other?
    Winning is hereby defined as the state of having effected conditions that have been established prior to the onset of war as a requisite for the campaign to be successful.

    And it's hardly "senseless" if there's a rationale, is it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oogamy)
    Winning is hereby defined as the state of having effected conditions that have been established prior to the onset of war as a requisite for the campaign to be successful.

    And it's hardly "senseless" if there's a rationale, is it?
    See, now if the first reply to me had said that I'd have been happy... It seems people don't like my philosophical thinking...

    And there wasn't a rationale laid out for this hypothetical war was there? However your revised definition of winning makes that somewhat irrelevant. Well played sir *doffs cap*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have no first hand experience of the military system yet, so speaking from speculation and my limited cadet experience, I do believe the US would easily win. The ratios of troops are stupidly imbalanced. The British Army operates on the principle of ******** bad guys up 3:1, so even they recognise that there is safety in numbers. So hence the training aspect is irrelevant.
    The US M16A4 rifle is not the best assault rifle on the planet, cause my ex SF OC says so. The AK-47 + variants are. And they're really cool tbf. Subjectively, i do believe the UK recieve a greater depth of training, definately from tradition and lore, I really mean, how many units in the US army have as great a following as the British SAS? They practically invented SF. We even have a special forces reserve lol. And as for the point of the UK soldier only recieving training in basic, s/he recieves concurrent operational training etc, right? So.... you decide.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Read the thread, it's been proven numerous times that the British track record for friendly fire is no better.
    At the end of WWII the Soviet assault on Berlin the casualties from russian friendly fire were actually greater than the number the germans managed to inflict - quite an achievement.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I think the US would win....eventually, but we would probbably destroy a very large part of their forces, simply due to our better training, abundance of competant officers and our unnatural (to the US) ability to use our brains...
    EU vs. US.....US dont stand a chance, EU special forces alone could probbably take on the US (French foriegn legion, SAS etc)

    Who would win China vs. EU, no nukes, not missiles etc. just ground forces....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    superman would totally win! Batman doesnt even have any powers!!111


    oops
    wrong one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infernalcradle)
    Who would win China vs. EU, no nukes, not missiles etc. just ground forces....
    Forget EU, Uk could beat China if you take out nukes and missiles. Depends on the terrain of course but the tanks they use would hardly make a dent in the Challenger and bearing in mind RPG's etc are useless against it (there are cases of Challengers taking over a dozen RPG + antitank hits and still not be penitrated) they would just get rolled over.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    usa > uk
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobertPires)
    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...
    So are American and British armies that would have a ground forces fight to the death against each other.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vokes)
    Forget EU, Uk could beat China if you take out nukes and missiles. Depends on the terrain of course but the tanks they use would hardly make a dent in the Challenger and bearing in mind RPG's etc are useless against it (there are cases of Challengers taking over a dozen RPG + antitank hits and still not be penitrated) they would just get rolled over.
    What a load of nationalistic nonsense. China has a numerical advantage of 20:1 against the UK forces, and it isn't just equipped with RPG's it has a veritable host of antitank weaponry. The UK forces would probably run out of rations and bullets before the end of day one anyway knowing the incompetence of the government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    if they had equal numbers the uk troops would win with their superior training. But obviously in reality the us would win with their sheer numerical advantage.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    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

    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.