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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    IMO, Canada, Australia and France are in the top three.

    I say this because France and Canada train soldiers for other countires and Australia has 1 instructure per 3 soldiers compared to Russias 1 per 1000 and Americas 1 per 100.

    Israel has a very good training programme too, definitely better than the british one.

    A better question would be Israel vs the UK.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well, Israel vs UK would basically be American technology (in addition to uzis and desert eagles instead of glock 17s and mp5s) + banned weapons (eg white phosphorus) + Israeli training vs all that's already been mentioned.

    Israel would lose because a) the enemy wouldn't be Arabs and b) no civilians to slaughter

    :borat:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bateman)
    IMO, Canada, Australia and France are in the top three.

    I say this because France and Canada train soldiers for other countires and Australia has 1 instructure per 3 soldiers compared to Russias 1 per 1000 and Americas 1 per 100.

    Israel has a very good training programme too, definitely better than the british one.

    A better question would be Israel vs the UK.

    Excellent post, the IDF and the FFL are some of the best troops in the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I can't believe this is even a thread. The glory of the empire days is a thing of the past. British troops are good, but lack of numbers, cost cutting in training and equipment.

    US and sadly Russia are the best IMO.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJeebs)
    Well, Israel vs UK would basically be American technology (in addition to uzis and desert eagles instead of glock 17s and mp5s) + banned weapons (eg white phosphorus) + Israeli training vs all that's already been mentioned.

    Israel would lose because a) the enemy wouldn't be Arabs and b) no civilians to slaughter

    :borat:

    What a well informed post :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'll make a serious post later.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bateman)
    Blind nationalism is not good for anyone. British soldiers are not the best trained soldiers in the world and i would argue that they don't come into the top 5.
    Firstly, I'm not in the slightest a blind patriot. I know pretty well some differences between the culture and training of British and American armies.

    British army training is more intensive, that's the truth. Soldiers are trained in a way that has been pretty much perfected since the British army has had alot of historical experience. No nonsense and down to business operations. American troops are definitely very well trained, but take in mind that both forces have different strategies, too.
    I'd say Britain, America, Australia, Germany, and Canada have the very best trained of all armies. Of course Britain comes into the top ten, what a load of nonsense you were saying there.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bateman)
    IMO, Canada, Australia and France are in the top three.

    I say this because France and Canada train soldiers for other countires and Australia has 1 instructure per 3 soldiers compared to Russias 1 per 1000 and Americas 1 per 100.

    Israel has a very good training programme too, definitely better than the british one.

    A better question would be Israel vs the UK.
    no, your clueless

    just stop pls
    Offline

    10
    On a purely one to one basis, a US soldier by far.

    The Royal Army is equipped with a flawed and badly designed bullpup rifle that has the same ROF as an AK and is not ambidextrous. It has a nonstandard SUVAT scope (whereas the Americans use the NATO issue ACOG i think), and the thing is extremely uncomfortable to fire (in my experience). The weapon isn't modular by any means and i think it only fits the SUVAT anyway, but i'm pretty sure the l85 mounts grenade launchers.

    The US Army's soldiers are equipped with modular m16s (and soon enough the M4), which has proven combat experience (most of it in Vietnam) (unlike the early generation l85s that were dumped in Africa and proved to be pretty useless). Modular means that you can fit any scope or any attachment onto them (including grenade launchers) thanks to their special mounts (i forget the name ..) with ease and i'm pretty sure that they replaced the Picatinny rails a while back!

    On the scale of armour, i think the Challenger is superior to the Abrams in deflection capability, but a RPG round to the back of either would seriously damage it and risk taking it out (but this is more likely for the Abrams i believe).

    Then again, the US army has far more in anti tank aerial assets than the British army could ever hope to have, but that's not the subject of this flawed discussion (combined arms is the only way things are done!).

    Aside from these two main points, the US has far more in terms of sniper equipment, from the various sniper rifles to the awesome 50 calibre barett anti armour sniper rifle, unlike the UK which i think has just the l96?

    My knowledge is pretty outdated :rolleyes:

    Oh and training doesn't really come into it when comparing western nations. Suffice to say that all of them have excellent training. Even the Americans :rolleyes: .

    [prepares to be destroyed]
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    British army training is more intensive, that's the truth. Soldiers are trained in a way that has been pretty much perfected since the British army has had alot of historical experience.
    Well, you could argue though that the U.S. has done the same, given we have the same, if not a little more more, experience in modern warfare.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bateman)
    Blind nationalism is not good for anyone. British soldiers are not the best trained soldiers in the world and i would argue that they don't come into the top 5.
    I doubt anyone will take seriously the view of someone who probably thinks a Palestinian waving around a pitchfork is in the 'top 5'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi there. This is coming from both an American, and the spouse of a member of the Blackwatch.

    In terms of equipment and resources, the Americans seem to have it better. After all, about 30% of our entire gross national spending goes to the military budget. :rolleyes: My partner tells me that whenever he went on exercise with American soldiers, the Yanks used to be shocked when he and his OTC buddies used to wander around the firing range picking up all the spent ammunition so it could be melted down and re-used. He and his mates used to have to buy their own equipment (including rucksacks, Sealskin socks, and camo face paint) with their own money so they could be properly outfitted. Granted, the US Army has gotten into flaps about not providing proper flak jackets, IUD-proof tanks, etc...but really, now that I've seen the sort of dross the British army has to make do with, I at least can't fault the US Army for the gear they provide.

    On the other hand, you have to keep in mind that there are far more American enlistees who are in the armed forces solely because it is their only path towards a career or higher education. Whereas (at least according to my partner) members of the British armed forces tend to be "in it for life" - at least in a greater proportion to their American counterparts. The reason for this IMO is because US ROTC offer incredibly attractive and competitive tuition and training packages to high school graduates, largely from poor, rural and underprivileged school districts in the Midwest and South. It's pretty much the only deal in the States where you'll get your entire university tuition paid for (keeping in mind this tuition could run you up to £15,000 per year even for "public" universities) plus health insurance and the possibility of vocational training after you get out. It is quite simply - for a great number of American 16-19 year olds - the only option. However, this does not necessarily make for a highly-motivated infantry base.

    As far as specialty training goes (i.e. Army Rangers, Navy Seals, Delta Force, etc.) I truly believe the Americans are on par with all the other pre-eminent military forces in the world.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Firstly, I'm not in the slightest a blind patriot. I know pretty well some differences between the culture and training of British and American armies.

    British army training is more intensive, that's the truth. Soldiers are trained in a way that has been pretty much perfected since the British army has had alot of historical experience. No nonsense and down to business operations. American troops are definitely very well trained, but take in mind that both forces have different strategies, too.
    I'd say Britain, America, Australia, Germany, and Canada have the very best trained of all armies. Of course Britain comes into the top ten, what a load of nonsense you were saying there.

    Lmao, you said "Of course Britain comes in the top ten" I mever said they don't! I said they don't come in the top 5!

    You are obviously a blind patriot. Instead of saying the "training" is better etc. look at the training and compare it with other coiuntries.

    Canada, Australia and France have better trained soldiers than the UK. FACT.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diamond Diva)
    I doubt anyone will take seriously the view of someone who probably thinks a Palestinian waving around a pitchfork is in the 'top 5'.
    Actually the IDF does give some of the best training in the world. They're not Palestinians waving pitchforks - they fight Palestinians waving pitchforks. There's a good reason why they haven't lost a war in spite of being invaded numerous times by larger countries.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diamond Diva)
    Like how you accidentally shot British military personnel?
    Hon, blue on blue incidents exist in EVERY military campaign, going back to like, cavemen beating each other with sticks. Are we debating the efficiacy of the ground troops (who are merely carrying out orders) or are we debating the skill, intelligence and moral fibre - or lack thereof - of their commanding officers and the command hierarchy?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Society :awesome:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Actually the IDF does give some of the best training in the world. They're not Palestinians waving pitchforks - they fight Palestinians waving pitchforks. There's a good reason why they haven't lost a war in spite of being invaded numerous times by larger countries.
    Fixed
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Actually, I know a better way to solve this.

    Put twenty hungry American soldiers and twenty hungry British soldiers in an aircraft hanger, on opposite ends. Place a pile of Twinkies in the Brit corner, and a tower of pork pies in the Yank corner. Whoever gets to the food first, wins.

    YANKS: ALL UR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
    BRITS: NO ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG...SLURP...TO...
    YANKS: ...NOM NOM ARE BELONG TO...
    BRITS: MNOM...MMM...PORK...
    YANKS: MMM...TRANS-FATS...

    [Contented silence, followed by world peace.]
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    SAS

    enough said
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Actually the IDF does give some of the best training in the world. They're not Palestinians waving pitchforks - they fight Palestinians waving pitchforks. There's a good reason why they've lost a war in spite of being invaded numerous times by larger countries.
    Who said I was referring to the IDF? It was more an analysis of Batefail's mentality.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.