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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Misogynist)
    Enough.

    No, i want to know their names. (I already know them, but i want you to find out for yourself).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bateman)
    No, i want to know their names. (I already know them, but i want you to find out for yourself).
    I can't be bothered. I just know the US cannot fight against the whole world and anyone who suggests they can is ridiculously infatuated with 'American soil' or is heavily deluded.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Misogynist)
    I can't be bothered. I just know the US cannot fight against the whole world and anyone who suggests they can is ridiculously infatuated with 'American soil' or is heavily deluded.

    And your reasons are? The fact of the matter is, not a lot of countries can attack America whereas America can attack any country anywhere in the world.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redemption)
    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?
    Army boot camp + Ranger school is a total of 28 weeks.

    You do have better (though much smaller) amphibious infantry, yes - but again, I'd rather compare to the Rangers (similar in size and training). Royal Marine training is still longer, but the type of training that takes place in these two schools is very different. The Royal Marines do things like go to museums, and the last week spent in training is all marching and paperwork. Also, Rangers have to carry between 65 and 90 pounds of gear at all times, whereas Royal Marines carry around 30. Also in Ranger school, they are given a scenario at the beginning and must accomplish the scenario's goals by the end of their training.And overall, the kind of training that goes on at Ranger School is more specialized, because they've already completed basic training.

    Not saying they're better than the Royal Marines obviously, just that deciding which is better based completely off the length of time spent in training doesn't work.

    (Original post by beatletaxman)
    Sorry, but lol.
    I think it's fair to say that a 20-week difference would change things somehow.
    Uhhmmmm.... the Royal Marines don't get 20 weeks more than any U.S. infantry.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Army boot camp + Ranger school is a total of 28 weeks.

    You do have better (though much smaller) amphibious infantry, yes - but again, I'd rather compare to the Rangers (similar in size and training). Royal Marine training is still longer, but the type of training that takes place in these two schools is very different. The Royal Marines do things like go to museums, and the last week spent in training is all marching and paperwork. Also, Rangers have to carry between 65 and 90 pounds of gear at all times, whereas Royal Marines carry around 30. Also in Ranger school, they are given a scenario at the beginning and must accomplish the scenario's goals by the end of their training.And overall, the kind of training that goes on at Ranger School is more specialized, because they've already completed basic training.

    Not saying they're better than the Royal Marines obviously, just that deciding which is better based completely off the length of time spent in training doesn't work.
    A friend of my cousin is a Ranger in the Iranian Army. America set up the Infrastructure for the Iranian Rangers during the time of the shah and it is still there today. They are identical to the American one in their training and doctrine.

    They are very well trained.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Misogynist)
    Changing the scenario on the other thread, say each country was only allowed to use ground troops and nothing else. The terrain is that of Afghanistan.

    Bonus round: Afghanistan vs. USA/UK on their own soil, ground troops only. Who'd win?
    another one of these stupid threads? you're clearly just REALLY bored, get off the computer and get some girls .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    another one of these stupid threads? you're clearly just REALLY bored, get off the computer and get some girls .
    This thread was made ages ago and before all the others.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Misogynist)
    This thread was made ages ago and before all the others.
    10th of July was all I read date wise.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobertPires)
    Oh and that consititutes "winning" does it? People senselessly killing each other?
    :rofl:, negged for completely missing the point of the thread.

    The US would win.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Misogynist)
    This thread was made ages ago and before all the others.
    Actually it was the second.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    :rofl:, negged for completely missing the point of the thread.

    The US would win.
    I'd agree with who you quoted, not because I don't see the point, but because I think that they make a better point.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Actually it was the second.
    Obviously, as it's mentioned in the O.P. that it is based on burninginme's thread. I just couldn't be bothered mentioning an unnecessary detail.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Army boot camp + Ranger school is a total of 28 weeks.

    You do have better (though much smaller) amphibious infantry, yes - but again, I'd rather compare to the Rangers (similar in size and training). Royal Marine training is still longer, but the type of training that takes place in these two schools is very different. The Royal Marines do things like go to museums, and the last week spent in training is all marching and paperwork. Also, Rangers have to carry between 65 and 90 pounds of gear at all times, whereas Royal Marines carry around 30. Also in Ranger school, they are given a scenario at the beginning and must accomplish the scenario's goals by the end of their training.And overall, the kind of training that goes on at Ranger School is more specialized, because they've already completed basic training.

    Not saying they're better than the Royal Marines obviously, just that deciding which is better based completely off the length of time spent in training doesn't work.


    Uhhmmmm.... the Royal Marines don't get 20 weeks more than any U.S. infantry.
    l85a2 is significantly heavier than the m16 family.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redemption)
    l85a2 is significantly heavier than the m16 family.
    What's your point there exactly?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    What's your point there exactly?
    You were making a comment on the additional load given units had to carry.

    Anyway whatever.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redemption)
    You were making a comment on the additional load given units had to carry.

    Anyway whatever.
    Well the difference between the two rifles is only like 4 pounds. There's a lot of other gear that they have to carry.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Does ground forces include arty?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Couldn't possibly compare, it's like asking "If my cat was the size of a horse, who would win a race between a horse and a cat sized horse".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pocket Calculator)
    US marines are ***** compared to Royal Marines, however.

    [/patriotism]
    Royal marines are special/elite forces US Marines are not. They aren't comparable, they only share a vaguely similar name.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As for the question we would be destroyed by the Yanks.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    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.