Foreign opinion of the British army??

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Foreign opinion of the British army??
JTR~~ 2/24/2010 2:56:50 PM

people always talk of how their countries armed force is the best. some provide facts to back their claims some are just plain bias. being a British myself i would like to know what people from other countries think of our armed forces without all of the competition of "which country has the best army" etc. i will not voice my own opinion until others have had their say (in order to prevent bias views on my part, no ones perfect) so yeah i would like to know what other people genuinly think of our military, especially what America has to say on it, seeing as Britain and America are so often compared. thanks

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

smitty237 2/25/2010 1:03:45 AM

The common American perception is that the Brits are a tough, well disciplined lot. In fact, although it pains us to admit that anyone is better than us at anything, there are a lot of Americans that would concede that the British Army and Royal Marines are the most disciplined fighting force in the world right now.

When I was in the National Guard back in the 90's I had the opportunity to serve with some Brits who went on annual training with us as part of an exchange program. I found both of them to be crack troops that had lots of knowledge and tactical expertise, but I was most impressed with how they viewed us. One of them asked, "Why do you guys make a plan and then at the last second change it?" but later he remarked that although our planning and execution seemed to be chaotic at times, American troops seemed to have the ability to bring it all together and accomplish the mission. I found it to be high praise.

Quote Reply

french stratege 2/25/2010 7:39:28 AM

On the men themselves, British army is top quality.

On the structure of British armed force, they are less and less autonomous being more and more dependant of US support.

Since they do not spend enough on national tools like deterrent or space assets, or autonomous projection power (lacking a real carrier for example)

At the end, British army is becoming a suppletive force which depends on NATO so USA.

Quote Reply

Mikko My 15 cents 2/25/2010 8:27:53 AM

I've received training from British officers and trained alongside British troops for couple of weeks in '98-'99 (so way before modern conflicts). My main comparison points are naturally the Finns, but also the Norwegian, Swedish and Dutch troops.

As for the Brits...

Pro's:

- superbly professional and friendly officers and NCO's. Quite many had relevant experience under their belts and it showed. Leader/Killer/Gentleman in one neat package.

- professionalism in the field overall

Con's:

- the average British private seemed to be a bit... confused in life in general. It was as if they had outsourced their deeper brain activity to their NCO's. Individually kind people but somewhat harsh when in group.

- ridiculous discipline in garrison-environment. I mean, discipline is necessary but not on the expense of autonomous initiative and thought. They shouted and ran around and did all sorts of disciplinary stuff we found a bit funny and unnecessary in the business of killing

- officers seemed far more distant from their troops than is the case with Scandinavian troops

- privates violently out-of-hand when drunk, and drunk when allowed

Conclusion on my experience concerning British troops:

Sharp discipline and top quality leadership is understandable when a country has a history of fighting abroad and in circumstances where their own independence is not threatened (you can't rely on internal motivators for too long). Officers and NCO's form a backbone I wouldn't want to mess with, but men seemed to be led through blind obedience rather than through empowerment. The privates were often quite clueless when off-duty and without leadership.

I have nothing first-hand to say about British weapons systems or doctrines.. other than that they trained their troops to be far more trigger-happy than we did. But that is neither a pro or a con, just a feature.

Mikko

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 2/28/2010 7:41:12 AM

Over the years, i have come across british blogs and message boards concerning the greatness and professionalism of the British Army. I believe most of the participants of these blogs and boards are Brits; therfore, their is hyper-bias--which is somewhat natural in all humans to do. However, most Brits have to understand that your views concerning your army are from reality and sometimes close to fantasy. Even the SAS (who is without a doubt top notch) has been exagerated. No offenses.

I dont think any body any where would dispute this.

I'm not saying that the British Army is bad. It is not, and it doesn have some quality people. But the army, as a whole, is have not distinguished itself on the battlefield for quite sometime.

Really my impression was that the performance of the british units was at least on a par with the other allied forces serving in Afghanistan.

It may be there the British Army isn't as fierce and whose training isn't as great as others. I do think American armed forces overall surpasses the Brits--especially in training and officer competance,

I dont think theres a force out there that can match the US at division and above - small unit tactics are a little more subjective. It was held at one time that by virtue of experience the Brits held the edge, i would be suprised if there was mch in it either way.

but there are armys like the Russians who, although they've been hurting financially and sufferred from severe cutbacks, are fierce. Their training as a whole is perhaps the most brutal of all armed forces.

The British army has looked bad for some of its actions:

1) Surrendering Falklands without firing one shot - I think as no one was within a 1000 miles of it in 1700 and dot when the spanish claimed it . I think youre being a tad harsh.

If on the other hand you are refering to events in 1982 you are demonstrating considerable ignorance firstly the falklands was defended by a 45 Booties and about 100 local volunteers. Against the might of an argentine invasion force, they were never going to offer more than token resistance. Resist they did. incidently go look up south georgia the marines resisted there yo.

2) Taking a long time to retake the falklands

sorry is this a serious criticism - it took nearly a bloody month to get to the falklands, I would say that retaking the Falklands was a magnificent feat of arms (and a godly amount of luck). The attacking forces landed on the island were out numbered and had to march through some of the worst terrain possible as most ov the transport assets had been lost.

Many of Britains contempories did not think Britain could retake the falklands, and many felt there troops couldnt have done the Yomp to Stanley. fitness levels having been eroded becuase most units were mechanised - this was some thing that would raise its ugly head a few years later for the Soviets in Afghanistan.

The landings couldnt be conducted till the british had air superiority that also took time.

3) Most recently, surrendering to the Iranian navy. that is an embarrasment - on the other hand as we are not at war with Iran and as shooting at the Iranians would have caused a major incident perhaps the decision was the best one. the conduct of some individuals afterwards however.

American commanders have complained about the British Army not being able to accomlish their key objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

British Army was purposely put in areas of Iraq and Afghanistan where the fighting is less intensive and hostile than where the Americans are fighting.

Bollox the hellmand province is one of the worst areas of afghanistan, Bsara was no picnic either - i seem to recall american posters on these boards pointing that out in the past.

Even then, their have been criticisms that the Brits could not maintain control, take key objectives, quell the insurgency on their ow

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 2/28/2010 7:41:18 AM

I dont think any body any where would dispute this.

I'm not saying that the British Army is bad. It is not, and it doesn have some quality people. But the army, as a whole, is have not distinguished itself on the battlefield for quite sometime.

Really my impression was that the performance of the british units was at least on a par with the other allied forces serving in Afghanistan.

The British army has looked bad for some of its actions:

1) Surrendering Falklands without firing one shot - I think as no one was within a 1000 miles of it in 1700 and dot when the spanish claimed it . I think youre being a tad harsh.

2) Taking a long time to retake the falklands

The landings couldnt be conducted till the british had air superiority that also took time.

American commanders have complained about the British Army not being able to accomlish their key objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

British Army was purposely put in areas of Iraq and Afghanistan where the fighting is less intensive and hostile than where the Americans are fighting.

Bollox the hellmand province is one of the worst areas of afghanistan, Bsara was no picnic either - i seem to recall american posters on these boards pointing that out in the past.

Even then, their have been criticisms that the Brits could not maintain control, take key objectives, quell the insurgency on their ow

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 2/28/2010 1:16:35 PM

A TROLL it is Mate, lets drink to it. Now, now don't be testy.

mines a cider

Quote Reply

JTR~~ RE:falklands 3/8/2010 2:53:07 PM

The British army has looked bad for some of its actions: 1) Surrendering Falklands without firing one shot 2) Taking a long time to retake the falklands 3) Most recently, surrendering to the Iranian navy.

thanks for your view but i will have to dissagree with you especially on point 1.

22 royal marine commandos made the falklands garrison, these brave men shot down tow argentinia helicopters and put a destroyer (may be wrong on class of ship) out of action. they killed or wounded many argentinian men and lost none themselves.

points 2. it only took 100 or so days to retake the falklands, but that is fair enough seeing as they were over 8000 miles away from home

3 as for surrendering to the iranians well yes they did, but is you only have your rifle when heavy machie guns are being pointed at you, i think you would surrender too, and besides a firefight may have sparked and international incident

anyway cheers for your input :)

Quote Reply

Nichevo Oh well, fish is hungry 3/9/2010 12:19:04 AM

Let him rise to the bait.

JTR -

1) See everybody telling you the Brits are UNDERFUNDED, JTR? This is their way of saying that I was right and you were wrong. But let's move on.

2) Basra was rather a pity. Brits all proud of rocking the town in their berets and sneering - Brits always sneering for some reason - at the US troops in helmets, armor, sunglasses, etc. Oh, you can't get to know people that way!

Well, it looks like we can, but more to the point...the big British plan in Basra was apparently to suss out the locals and find out who to outsource their authority to. Plan was followed. Despite being bad plan, leading to empowerment of the wrong people and degeneration of the scene. But the Brits don't like when people change plans, so... Of course that can be laid on the politicos, not the troops themselves. Lions led by donkeys.

3) The buggery with the Iranian Navy- no, I'm sorry, England is going to the dogs. You had all the horses, you could have done any number of things. Up to a point. Maybe the captain was indecisive or lacked authority and had to phone up the chain to 10 Downing to get the word on what to do with his thumb? But there was plenty of time to engage had that been well understood.

Listen, nobody actually expects anything of the Royal Arny except "two, and two more later." The Royal NAVY, on the other hand, is not supposed to SUCK! Winning or losing is one thing, but you don't give up without a fight!

You are just going to have to live with it till the next time, then you sink the ruddy woggish pigboat, and everybody's happy again. See, lowered expectations. Not like you will have to do anything difficult.

Mikko: remarkable about the shouting, harrassment. Have you dealt with US Marines? Were the Brits worse?

And trigger-happy? Really?

(JTR, did you hear that? That's coming from a Finn. Finns are warriors punching well above their weight. Finland messed up the Soviets back before that was popular. Finland still designs and makes their own smallarms, as they did in the WWII era and who knows how long before, no small feat for a country their size. You don't want Finns shooting at you (or stabbing; ask Mikko what is a pukoh and where he keeps his). If you are shooting too much for a Finn's taste, you are indeed trigger-happy.)

FS: Somebody whack him, his needle's skipping in the groove. Happily for you, Fifi, the French are nowhere anybody can see them. Haven't you got a cocoa plantation to rob or something?

Quote Reply

Nichevo BTW JTR 3/9/2010 12:20:48 AM

Are you a Paki? You are NOT a native English speaker or if you are, your education is sub-chav.

Quote Reply

Mikko @Nichevo 3/9/2010 2:21:45 AM

Mikko: remarkable about the shouting, harrassment. Have you dealt with US Marines? Were the Brits worse?

My only contact with US Marines is through movies and documentaries. So I have only a very very filtered knowledge on them. Based on what I've seen in documentaries, no-one shouts as much as a US Marine drill sergeant. Brits were nowhere near but I mentioned it since I experienced it first hand. I quite never understood the point in the shouting thing; it's like the NCO is publically celebrating his inability to form trusting relationships with subordinates. Maybe it builds team spirit and tests mental endurance..

And trigger-happy? Really?

Well I suppose I have to explain that a little. See, the training we did with the Brits concerned all sorts of peace-keeping and peace-forcing duties. In a real shooting war there hardly is such a thing as a "trigger happy doctrine" (just bad aim). The Brits were trained to use their rifles and solve all sorts of situations either with force or through demonstrating force. We always used such means as the last effort, trying to keep situations cooler.

Nice to hear you think that way. I wish the Russians did too:) However, as all myths, this is a dangerous one. Whoever goes to a shooting war assuming some inherent upper hand will bleed for it. I always hope our motivation for national defence lies in the love for the country, not in thinking we are good at it.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT