Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

in a war; American troops vs. English troops ?

Tough call really, there are lots of factors to look at. The US basically throw money at their military. They have the best of the best, but also the worst of the worst, they lack ingenuity and the ability to problem solve - what other nation has a construction company that rolls with them? er none! Plus everyone is the US military reckons they're some sort of 'special' forces, most are nothing more than foot soldiers. Also the US have a terrible reputation when it comes to friendly fire accidents, they're all a bit trigger happy.

The British have far more experience in combat situations, use their brains much more and are capable in problem solving and getting themselves out of nasty situations. Sadly the MOD has made so many cuts, that our forces are forced to run with second rate equipment and they don't get the support that they need, but again that's where the ability to work with what you've got comes in.

My other half is in the military and he hates the Yanks, he says they're disorganised,ego maniacs, who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.

History speaks for itself, how many conflicts have the US been in without allied help and come out victorious? errrrr hmmmmm

The Brits however used to rule half the known world.

Chocoholic wrote:Tough call really, there are lots of factors to look at. The US basically throw money at their military. They have the best of the best, but also the worst of the worst, they lack ingenuity and the ability to problem solve - what other nation has a construction company that rolls with them? er none! Plus everyone is the US military reckons they're some sort of 'special' forces, most are nothing more than foot soldiers. Also the US have a terrible reputation when it comes to friendly fire accidents, they're all a bit trigger happy.

The British have far more experience in combat situations, use their brains much more and are capable in problem solving and getting themselves out of nasty situations. Sadly the MOD has made so many cuts, that our forces are forced to run with second rate equipment and they don't get the support that they need, but again that's where the ability to work with what you've got comes in.

My other half is in the military and he hates the Yanks, he says they're disorganised,ego maniacs, who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.

You start with "tough call" but proceed to essentially say that the American soldier are rubish. I would say there is no doubt that you think the British would win.

I'm not sure what you are basing your conclusory statement on but...
I wonder what others think...

Well of course I am going to be biased lol. But knowing so many people in the military, the general opinion of the Americans is standard across the board. In a couple of companies I know, virtually all the Yanks have been replaced in favour of Europeans, Aussies, SA's etc why? Better strategists, better trainers who actually know what they're doing and get the job done.

Chocoholic wrote:Well of course I am going to be biased lol. But knowing so many people in the military, the general opinion of the Americans is standard across the board. In a couple of companies I know, virtually all the Yanks have been replaced in favour of Europeans, Aussies, SA's etc why? Better strategists, better trainers who actually know what they're doing and get the job done.

Thanks for the clarification = your opinion is based on bias (which makes sense as clearly you don't know about the military).

Ambassador wrote:

Chocoholic wrote:Well of course I am going to be biased lol. But knowing so many people in the military, the general opinion of the Americans is standard across the board. In a couple of companies I know, virtually all the Yanks have been replaced in favour of Europeans, Aussies, SA's etc why? Better strategists, better trainers who actually know what they're doing and get the job done.

Thanks for the clarification = your opinion is based on bias (which makes sense as clearly you don't know about the military).

Actually I do, considering my other half works in the military, so do many friends of mine. Plus as I said, you only have to look at history.

Hey, at least I've given an opinion and the reasoning behind my opinion. what have you offered up apart from the question? ZIP!

Chocoholic wrote:

Ambassador wrote:

Chocoholic wrote:Well of course I am going to be biased lol. But knowing so many people in the military, the general opinion of the Americans is standard across the board. In a couple of companies I know, virtually all the Yanks have been replaced in favour of Europeans, Aussies, SA's etc why? Better strategists, better trainers who actually know what they're doing and get the job done.

Thanks for the clarification = your opinion is based on bias (which makes sense as clearly you don't know about the military).

Actually I do, considering my other half works in the military, so do many friends of mine. Plus as I said, you only have to look at history.

Hey, at least I've given an opinion and the reasoning behind my opinion. what have you offered up apart from the question? ZIP!

I have a very close relationship with a brain surgeon and two of my siblings are cardiologists. However, neither makes me a brain surgeon or cardiologist.

Well, I don't know who would win...If I knew the answer I would not have posed the question.

No it doesn't, but you can only really know what goes on if you work in a certain sector. Until that point all you can do is go on the experiences of those that do. In all honesty, I would never want to, but I have full respect for those that do.

In all likelyhood, you're only going to get responses from Brits and Yanks to this thread, who will probably all vouch for their own sides.

Chocoholic wrote:In all likelyhood, you're only going to get responses from Brits and Yanks to this thread, who will probably all vouch for their own sides.

Or they might say they don't know...

For whatever it is worth here is what I found elsewhere:


The Top ten "best" Armies at this time in terms of expenditure and man power, training and equipment.

1. United States
2. China
3. United Kingdom
4. France
5. Russia
6. Japan
7. Germany
8. Italy
9. India
10.Saudi Arabia

Ambassador wrote:

Chocoholic wrote:In all likelyhood, you're only going to get responses from Brits and Yanks to this thread, who will probably all vouch for their own sides.

Or they might say they don't know...

For whatever it is worth here is what I found elsewhere:


The Top ten "best" Armies at this time in terms of expenditure and man power, training and equipment.

1. United States
2. China
3. United Kingdom
4. France
5. Russia
6. Japan
7. Germany
8. Italy
9. India
10.Saudi Arabia

LOL well all you did with that was back up my original comment that the US throw money at their military.

Chocoholic wrote:

Ambassador wrote:

Chocoholic wrote:In all likelyhood, you're only going to get responses from Brits and Yanks to this thread, who will probably all vouch for their own sides.

Or they might say they don't know...

For whatever it is worth here is what I found elsewhere:


The Top ten "best" Armies at this time in terms of expenditure and man power, training and equipment.

1. United States
2. China
3. United Kingdom
4. France
5. Russia
6. Japan
7. Germany
8. Italy
9. India
10.Saudi Arabia

LOL well all you did with that was back up my original comment that the US throw money at their military.

And you're taking your info from Wikianswers - ar you kidding me!!!!!!

I noticed you didn't scroll down to this bit:

British Army

The British Army is without a doubt is the best army in the world. It may not always have the best equipment and technology, but the British army has definitely got the best trained, most skilled and professional soldiers in all the world.

The British Army are without question the finest soldiers. They are the standard all others aim to and Sandhurst is were the rest of the world comes to train their armies.

It hasn't lost a major conflict in its five hundred year history and it was the back bone to the largest Empire on the earth ever. The British are too modest when it comes to its armed forces as it likes to keep a low profile.
The best army in the world be a combination of the US, British, Australian and Canadian forces. The UK/Australian SAS and SBS special forces are simply the best. When it comes to the best regular troops, I would have to say it is the Gurkha regiments from Nepal who are part of the British army. I have heard that during the Falklands War that the Gurkhas fought the heavily armed Argentinian invaders with their knives and beat them hands down.

If you had a level playing field combat situation (same amount of soldiers) between any army in the world and the British the British would win full stop.

Chocoholic wrote:And you're taking your info from Wikianswers - ar you kidding me!!!!!!

Funny how you were so confident about it but yoou had to look it up (and obviously just some other fool's opinion). You will note that I specifically said that I found the list elsewhere....

I have your opinion already...

I think the Americans have more combat experience than the British do - Iraq certainly, not sure about Afghanistan.

What kind of war are you talking about? If it's a massive land/air/sea campaign, then how could the British beat the Americans? The US military is too technologically advanced and has the hardware that the underfunded British military doesn't.

But, if you're talking about land forces engaging in small scale combat sans any air power and MBTs, then we're back to which military's ground forces has more experience fighting.

The Brits however used to rule half the known world.

Well, in all fairness, the people the British military conquered were technologically backwards. Taking swathes of Africa from tribesmen armed with spears isn't an impressive feat to boast about.

Yes and it's one I'm entitled to and will stick with. FYI, you never stated your 'source' for that info. As I said being the 'best' based on the amount of money you have to throw at something, does not necessarily mean you're automatically going to win.

So far, you haven't given any credible opinion to the question and have merely pulled up some poll created by Joe Public on an answer forum.

Lists like the one you posted are purely subjective with many interpretations. If you base the outcome merely on spend, resources, technology and numbers then obviously it favours a US outcome. But if you even the playing field and give the same to the UK, I think you'd find the outcome very different.

event horizon wrote:I think the Americans have more combat experience than the British do - Iraq certainly, not sure about Afghanistan.

What kind of war are you talking about? If it's a massive land/air/sea campaign, then how could the British beat the Americans? The US military is too technologically advanced and has the hardware that the underfunded British military doesn't.

But, if you're talking about land forces engaging in small scale combat sans any air power and MBTs, then we're back to which military's ground forces has more experience fighting.

The Brits however used to rule half the known world.

Well, in all fairness, the people the British military conquered were technologically backwards. Taking swathes of Africa from tribesmen armed with spears isn't an impressive feat to boast about.

Good points and perhaps there is no real objective "answer" (unless there is a war )

Ambassador wrote:

Chocoholic wrote:In all likelyhood, you're only going to get responses from Brits and Yanks to this thread, who will probably all vouch for their own sides.

Or they might say they don't know...

For whatever it is worth here is what I found elsewhere:


The Top ten "best" Armies at this time in terms of expenditure and man power, training and equipment.

1. United States
2. China
3. United Kingdom
4. France
5. Russia
6. Japan
7. Germany
8. Italy
9. India
10.Saudi Arabia

Wow,
Chinese, Brits and even Frenches are higher than Russians in your rating. Could you support me with the link please? Where is the UAE? I used to think that they spend the most money per soldier for ammunition, aircrafts etc.

I only wonder why all those "wariors" (number 1,3, 4,7,8) have had so limited results in the real war in Afghanistan for almost 10 years.

Errr, actually the first 5 or so years in Afghanistan had gone by uneventfully. The attrition ratio was (and still is) one of the highest in any modern conflict.

But perhaps you'll care to recall how the Soviets did there?

Red Chief wrote:
Chinese, Brits and even Frenches are higher than Russians in your rating. Could you support me with the link please?

Seriously RC, do you always require proofs for everything =P
However, atleast I agree with you on Rassia's rank. Even Japan, not sure if I heard my lecturer properly at class when he said that the Japanese don't spend much on military, specially after the world war.

Chocoholic wrote:Tough call really, there are lots of factors to look at. The US basically throw money at their military. They have the best of the best, but also the worst of the worst, they lack ingenuity and the ability to problem solve - what other nation has a construction company that rolls with them? er none! Plus everyone is the US military reckons they're some sort of 'special' forces, most are nothing more than foot soldiers. Also the US have a terrible reputation when it comes to friendly fire accidents, they're all a bit trigger happy.

The British have far more experience in combat situations, use their brains much more and are capable in problem solving and getting themselves out of nasty situations. Sadly the MOD has made so many cuts, that our forces are forced to run with second rate equipment and they don't get the support that they need, but again that's where the ability to work with what you've got comes in.

My other half is in the military and he hates the Yanks, he says they're disorganised,ego maniacs, who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.

History speaks for itself, how many conflicts have the US been in without allied help and come out victorious? errrrr hmmmmm

The Brits however used to rule half the known world.

From one side of your mouth you defend ALL military (in another thread) and here you speak from the other side of you mouth slagging the US military - or at least the soldiers. There are different branches of military, so you would have to take all of them into consideration - not single out one group as you did, the US Army.

The "opinion" of your other half doesn't speak for everyone. Possibly opinions such as that are merely to make one feel superior, stemming from feeling inferior? Nor does your statement that US soldiers are "ALL a bit trigger happy".

You want to compare the US, a nation that is a little more than 200 years old, to one that has been around since when?? 927??? It would make sense that the Brits hold the record for wars, wouldn't it?

Are you incapable of giving an opinion that has any substance, rather than personal opinions and those of your other half?

As I said in a previous post, if you're merely going to base it on military spend, size of forces and technology, then it's a no brainer. But even it all up and the outcomes are very different.

EH, where exactly are you getting your evidence from with regard to combat experience?

BB, actually I am looking at evidence and looking at relevant sites with regards to the original question.

The question itself is extremely vague, as there are so many factors to take into consideration. And yes you are correct,a re we talking simply Army, or Navy? Special forces? etc etc. As I said far too many factors.

Belittling my OH does you no favours when he's worked in combat zones, alongside all nationalities and continues to do so here. FYI, I was out with a load of them last week, Yanks included, sad to say they weren't exactly complimentary about their own!

Also could you possibly make a single post without the language and personal attacks. Really no need for it.

Chocs lol !!

symmetric wrote:Chocs lol !!

Just saying it how it is. Agree on the Ruskis, what's up with that?

Chocoholic wrote:As I said in a previous post, if you're merely going to base it on military spend, size of forces and technology, then it's a no brainer. But even it all up and the outcomes are very different.

EH, where exactly are you getting your evidence from with regard to combat experience?

BB, actually I am looking at evidence and looking at relevant sites with regards to the original question.

The question itself is extremely vague, as there are so many factors to take into consideration. And yes you are correct,a re we talking simply Army, or Navy? Special forces? etc etc. As I said far too many factors.

Also could you possibly make a single post without the language and personal attacks. Really no need for it.

No personal attacks Chocs, just pointing out the error of your ways, or were you expecting some yank to say "you couldn't be more right, thank you". Stop thinking that every post is about YOU. It's not.

Maybe you should have done your research before you posted??? and withheld the personal opinions on US military?? The "opinions" you provided were totally unncessary.

Original question was Who would win if the US and UK went to war. Is there really evidence as to who would win?? I'd be interested in seeing that - without opinions.

As I have said like how many times already!!!!???? Depends on the factors doesn't it? Are you talking things as they stand now? Or an even playing field? Which sectors specifically?

If you take things as they are now - as I have already said 4 times - then obviously the Americans would win. But even it up and I think it would be very different - as I have said 4 times already!

Here's a site with the stats for each country:

www.globalfirepower.com

Red Chief wrote:

Ambassador wrote:

Chocoholic wrote:In all likelyhood, you're only going to get responses from Brits and Yanks to this thread, who will probably all vouch for their own sides.

Or they might say they don't know...

For whatever it is worth here is what I found elsewhere:


The Top ten "best" Armies at this time in terms of expenditure and man power, training and equipment.

1. United States
2. China
3. United Kingdom
4. France
5. Russia
6. Japan
7. Germany
8. Italy
9. India
10.Saudi Arabia

Wow,
Chinese, Brits and even Frenches are higher than Russians in your rating. Could you support me with the link please? Where is the UAE? I used to think that they spend the most money per soldier for ammunition, aircrafts etc.

I only wonder why all those "wariors" (number 1,3, 4,7,8) have had so limited results in the real war in Afghanistan for almost 10 years.

I just typed "who has the best army" on google and voila that list came up!

Yeah on Wikianswers! Have a look at the site I posted which has lists, based on the resources, spend etc of each country.

On reflection and after reading all the above posts I must admit; Chocs is absolutely right. The Yanks have no chance.

Ambassador wrote: I just typed "who has the best army" on google and voila that list came up!

It's slightly strange way to collect inf. I guess. The Chock's link is quite opposite.

Red Chief wrote:

Ambassador wrote: I just typed "who has the best army" on google and voila that list came up!

It's slightly strange way to collect inf. I guess. The Chock's link is quite opposite.

Hence the question and 2 pages of "opinions" as there is no real answer....