Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Are the British the best trained army in the world?
Britain_patriot    4/13/2005 2:03:23 PM
your views please cheers
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21   NEXT
flamingknives    RE:How about relative sizes.   5/25/2005 3:11:18 PM
Technically, as it may change how you count them. As the Regiment in question is permanently attached to 3 Commando Bde, it might get counted in the Commandos strength.
 
Quote    Reply

12345    RE:Are the British the best trained army in the world?   8/2/2005 8:08:44 PM
over all yes, I like the the breaks-ho-ho, better supplied, than others
 
Quote    Reply

topman83       10/20/2006 3:40:07 PM
I cant beleive how stupid some of these replies sound.  For people who seem to think the size of a military is a reflection of how well trained they are please do your research.  Almost universally amongst security and military analysts it is accepted that the British Armed Forces are the most highly trained combat troops in the world.  Without wanting to sound like another anti-american european (im avidly pro-american), the US armed forces, despite having good morale and the best hardware in the world, probably dont even get into the top ten in terms of professionalism and training.  During NATO excercises, countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands routinely beat the Americans when in equal numbers (unless US air power is let lose).  This again is the truth, ask any NATO soldier, these are facts available through many military websites.  The US military is without a doubt the most powerful in the world.  However, take into account the strategic nessesaties of a nations military and things look a bit different.  The United States has tens of thousands of miles of coastline and airspace to defend.  If the US military was 4 times the size it is today, they would have major difficulties defending against an invasions launched by a force aproximately a quarter its size.  Its just too big to defend against.  Luckily the only two armies that could mount such an invasion are the British and French.  And before people carry on about how small the UK's military is to be classed as a major force please remember the following.  These are facts recognised by US and UK strategists alike:
 
The British Army is the worlds most hard hitting aggressive force for its size in the world.  All 107,000 soldiers of the British Army can go anywhere in the world at no notice.  Compare this to the Chinese Army, with nearly 3 million soldiers However, it could barely send a planeload of soldiers to invade a country out of it sphere of influence, its troops are poorly equipped with bad training and almost all of its soldiers are concripts with no combat experience.
 
The Royal Air Force is the worlds second biggest air force in terms of operational combat aircraft.  They have around 700 strike aircraft.  Yes this doesnt seem that much compared to countries like China with 5,000 planes.  Now some people on this forum might think that means the Chinese Air Force is 7 times more powerful than the RAF. WRONG.  What use and are 5,000 combat aircraft if only 500 of them actually work?  and out of these 500, 400 of them are that old and the pilots that badly trained that 20 of them wouldnt last a minute against a single eurofighter?  Of the 100 or so remaining aircraft put this is comparison to the size of China and they would find it almost impossible to defend their country even against a military such as that of Spain. 
 
The Royal Navy is the oldest navy in the world.  Even today, in terms of gross tonnage, it is the second largest navy in the world.  Again, many countries have more vessels,  but none (bar the US and France) come near to matching the RN in power.  Also, the RN has 2 supercarriers on the way.  This will increase capabilities further. 
 
To get back to the point, the size of a nations forces, although a factor in a militaries strength, are less important than factors such as equipment, training, morale, humility and air lift capabilities when it comes to determining 'power projection'.  Even when size is taken into account, the UK armed forces are the second most powerful forces in the world.  The British army 10 years ago, although much bigger, would struggle to cope as well as our much smaller army is doing today with the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.  Above all, what the British have mastered that makes them special is their attitude.  They know that blowing everything up in front of them might kill todays enemy but make tomorows stronger.  However they have achieved the perfect balance.  The British squaddie is still feared by the enemy (reports from the taliban confirm this).  In the last 4 months in Afganistan, the British have lost 26 soldiers in combat (40 in total if included all causes of death) and have killed 1,500 taliban.  With all due respect to America, this is why we lose less soldiers per 1,000 troops than them. 
 
God Save the Queen.  God Bless America.
 
Quote    Reply

GOP       10/22/2006 1:22:01 PM

I cant beleive how stupid some of these replies sound.  For people who seem to think the size of a military is a reflection of how well trained they are please do your research.  Almost universally amongst security and military analysts it is accepted that the British Armed Forces are the most highly trained combat troops in the world.  Without wanting to sound like another anti-american european (im avidly pro-american), the US armed forces, despite having good morale and the best hardware in the world, probably dont even get into the top ten in terms of professionalism and training.  During NATO excercises, countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands routinely beat the Americans when in equal numbers (unless US air power is let lose).  This again is the truth, ask any NATO soldier, these are facts available through many military websites.  The US military is without a doubt the most powerful in the world.  However, take into account the strategic nessesaties of a nations military and things look a bit different.  The United States has tens of thousands of miles of coastline and airspace to defend.  If the US military was 4 times the size it is today, they would have major difficulties defending against an invasions launched by a force aproximately a quarter its size.  Its just too big to defend against.  Luckily the only two armies that could mount such an invasion are the British and French.  And before people carry on about how small the UK's military is to be classed as a major force please remember the following.  These are facts recognised by US and UK strategists alike:

 

The British Army is the worlds most hard hitting aggressive force for its size in the world.  All 107,000 soldiers of the British Army can go anywhere in the world at no notice.  Compare this to the Chinese Army, with nearly 3 million soldiers However, it could barely send a planeload of soldiers to invade a country out of it sphere of influence, its troops are poorly equipped with bad training and almost all of its soldiers are concripts with no combat experience.

 

The Royal Air Force is the worlds second biggest air force in terms of operational combat aircraft.  They have around 700 strike aircraft.  Yes this doesnt seem that much compared to countries like China with 5,000 planes.  Now some people on this forum might think that means the Chinese Air Force is 7 times more powerful than the RAF. WRONG.  What use and are 5,000 combat aircraft if only 500 of them actually work?  and out of these 500, 400 of them are that old and the pilots that badly trained that 20 of them wouldnt last a minute against a single eurofighter?  Of the 100 or so remaining aircraft put this is comparison to the size of China and they would find it almost impossible to defend their country even against a military such as that of Spain. 

 

The Royal Navy is the oldest navy in the world.  Even today, in terms of gross tonnage, it is the second largest navy in the world.  Again, many countries have more vessels,  but none (bar the US and France) come near to matching the RN in power.  Also, the RN has 2 supercarriers on the way.  This will increase capabilities further. 

 

To get back to the point, the size of a nations forces, although a factor in a militaries strength, are less important than factors such as equipment, training, morale, humility and air lift capabilities when it comes to determining 'power projection'.  Even when size is taken into account, the UK armed forces are the second most powerful forces in the world.  The British army 10 years ago, although much bigger, would struggle to cope as well as our much smaller army is doing today with the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.  Above all, what the British have mastered that makes them special is their attitude.  They know that blowing everything up in front of them might kill todays enemy but make tomorows stronger.  However they have achieved the perfect balance.  The British squaddie is still feared by the enemy (reports from the taliban confirm this).  In the last 4 months in Afganistan, the British have lost 26 soldiers in combat (40 in total if included all causes of death) and have killed 1,500 taliban.  With all due respect to America, this is why we lose less soldiers per 1,000 troops than them. 

 

 
Quote    Reply

ambush       10/22/2006 6:10:28 PM
Quantity is related to quantity but the UK has a samller populatin base to draw form than the US to maintian that relatively small  quality force. 
 There are some concerns that even in the Royal Marines that training standards may be slipping when faced by the need to maintain the numbers to sustain the force.
 
Quote    Reply

fear2anger2hate2what       10/23/2006 10:02:46 AM
GOP,
you said
8) Most importantly: The US military is an integrated machine, our infantry  may not be the best trained at pure infantry tactics, but when you consider that they spend alot of their time training with tanks, aircraft, helicopters, UAV's, Humvees, and other things...they quickly become the most DEADLY Army in the world. Ok, so maybe the Brits (or whomever) can shoot better than we can and can clear a house better than we can...but when the US Army Soldiers simply call in an airstrike on the house and hit the bad guy with a TOW, then what does it really matter? You train how you fight, and our troops spend alot of time training in Combine Arms operations, not just pure infantry training.

    It matters that your troops are seen to make individual on the spot deicions to kill or not. Rather than the more indiscriminate wholesale destruction of an area and all life on it. Humanity and hearts and minds. It gave the British an edge in Iraq until recently.

    It would help if the young and very scared US troops, kept it in mind .

F2A2H2W

 
Quote    Reply

fear2anger2hate2what       10/23/2006 10:06:16 AM
GOP,
you said
8) Most importantly: The US military is an integrated machine, our infantry  may not be the best trained at pure infantry tactics, but when you consider that they spend alot of their time training with tanks, aircraft, helicopters, UAV's, Humvees, and other things...they quickly become the most DEADLY Army in the world. Ok, so maybe the Brits (or whomever) can shoot better than we can and can clear a house better than we can...but when the US Army Soldiers simply call in an airstrike on the house and hit the bad guy with a TOW, then what does it really matter? You train how you fight, and our troops spend alot of time training in Combine Arms operations, not just pure infantry training.

    It matters that your troops are seen to make individual on the spot deicions to kill or not. Rather than the more indiscriminate wholesale destruction of an area and all life on it. Humanity and hearts and minds. It gave the British an edge in Iraq until recently.

    It would help if the young and very scared US troops, kept it in mind .

F2A2H2W

 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       10/23/2006 12:43:47 PM

All the people who are comparing the RM with the USMC, you are aware that the US is many times larger than the UK? The British Army has some 36 infantry battalions, of which 4 (10%) are from the Parachute regiment, plus 3 RM commandos (7% of the infantry total) Compare the top 17-20% of the US army with the Paras and the RM and you'd be about right.

There's been a fair amount of
"Well, the UK army is so much smaller, they can be more selective"
That only works if the British army is smaller, relative to the population.


even after the reorganization of the us army is complete in a year or two there are only going to be 42 brigades each with 4 btns for about 160 btns and you need to remove the armour btns from that number which would drop you to about 120 btns.  that makes it a wee bit over 3x the strength of the royal army and a comparator of 30% not 17-20.
 
also why only compare the best chunk of the us army to the average of the british army?  that's not going to really tell you the tale of who's army is better trained now is it.
 
Quote    Reply

GOP       10/23/2006 2:21:27 PM

GOP,
you said
8) Most importantly: The
US military is an integrated machine, our infantry  may not be the best
trained at pure infantry tactics, but when you consider that they spend
alot of their time training with tanks, aircraft, helicopters, UAV's,
Humvees, and other things...they quickly become the most DEADLY Army in
the world. Ok, so maybe the Brits (or whomever) can shoot better than
we can and can clear a house better than we can...but when the US Army
Soldiers simply call in an airstrike on the house and hit the bad guy
with a TOW, then what does it really matter?
You train how you fight,
and our troops spend alot of time training in Combine Arms operations,
not just pure infantry training.

    It matters that your troops are seen to make individual on the spot deicions to kill or not. Rather than the more indiscriminate wholesale destruction of an area and all life on it. Humanity and hearts and minds. It gave the British an edge in Iraq until recently.

    It would help if the young and very scared US troops, kept it in mind .

F2A2H2W

I agree with you, but the thing to remember is that the US military was designed to kill, destroy, and win wars...not win hearts and minds. This has caused us ALOT of problems in Iraq, and it will in any kind of guerrilla war. That is why our pre-deployment training has emphasized alot of  H&M kind of things (for example, at 29 palms, the US Marines now have a mock middle eastern village with role players, etc to teach the Marines how to act and deal with situations in that enviroment).

I personally think that it is impossible to compare one nations army to another nations army (in particular, infantry). Because the US emphasizes combined arms operations and the British army is more about actual infantry tactics (basically pure light infantry). The British Army is extremely good (have been for 300 or so years), and the US Army is also extremely good (have been for 85 or so years). Also, somebody above mentioned kill ratio's in Afghanistan...that is obsolete and useless. There are alot more US troops in Afghanistan, and they are in alot more dangerous areas throughout the country, so they are more likely for accidents, casualties, etc. This is a ridiculous post, anyway. The Europeans and British are going to say the British are the best, and the Americans are going to say the Americans are the best...and they are all going to point to facts that prove their point (when in fact, there isn't anyway to prove it)   
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       10/23/2006 5:19:34 PM


I personally think that it is impossible to compare one nations army to another nations army (in particular, infantry). Because the US emphasizes combined arms operations and the British army is more about actual infantry tactics (basically pure light infantry). The British Army is extremely good (have been for 300 or so years), and the US Army is also extremely good (have been for 85 or so years). Also, somebody above mentioned kill ratio's in Afghanistan...that is obsolete and useless. There are alot more US troops in Afghanistan, and they are in alot more dangerous areas throughout the country, so they are more likely for accidents, casualties, etc. This is a ridiculous post, anyway. The Europeans and British are going to say the British are the best, and the Americans are going to say the Americans are the best...and they are all going to point to facts that prove their point (when in fact, there isn't anyway to prove it)   
I don't really agree with much of that GOP.
I don't see what is so wrong about comparing different nations infantry for a start. Perhaps not in a "who is better than who" sense, however you can always compare how many men to a section, how many MG's to a platoon, what kind of organic fire support they have etc etc.
 
It would be wrong to think the British infantry are more about "infantry tactics" than the American infantry. They are both infantry after all, and they will be trained to do said role as well as possible in giving with what the establishment believe is needed for the role. British infantry are not all light role, we also have Airborne (para's), Mechanised (Saxon) and Armoured (Warrior). Combined arms warfighting is nothing new to the British army.

I also strongly disagree that American forces are in more dangerous areas of A'stan than British forces at the moment.
 
That said, some elements of the British army are highly professional and very competent as a whole, but then other areas are not. As well as good, and less good units, you also get good, and less good individuals in those units. For instance, when I joined our reserves in 3rd line logistics, I would argue my squadron was the best of the regiment (eg we beat 4 para at a march and shoot competition), however the regiment at a whole was nothing special, and there were some right muppets in addition to good soldiers. When I moved to the infantry, I noticed sraight away an increase in profesionalism and effectiveness, although now I live in a different area of the country and am with a new infantry regiment, again I have noticed a large increase in standards.
 
As a whole, if the British army is the best trained army in the world (and I think we may well be), I feel sorry for all the other armies out there who must be complete cannon fodda.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics