Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

socio economics of geography...

   

The Royal Navy is the 2nd most powerful navy in the world.


Top 5 navies in the world

%of world naval power
1) US - 53.46%
2) UK - 8.11%
3) Russia - 8.02%
4) Japan - 4.65%
5) China - 2.75%
(The UK has Europe's most powerful navy. France, W.Europe's 2nd most powerful, has only 2.43% of the world's naval power, about 4 times weaker than the Royal Navy)

Largest navies (tonnage)
1) US - 3024
2) Russia - 908
3) UK - 510
4) China - 346
5) Japan - 310


http://strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakew ... eworld.asp

--------------------

The British army is a lot more better trained than the Americans. Even our Territorials (our part-time soldiers) are better trained than American FULL TIME soldiers. Also, unlike the Americans, we don't have a habit of shooting at allies.

The British military is the best in the world, and if America's military was the same size as Britain's, the US would stand no chance if you went to war with us.

   

Problem is, the British military ISN'T as big as the US military. What American full-time soldiers are you referring to also? The Navy Seals? The Rangers? The normal groundtroops? You don't have a habit of shooting at allies because you are barely around to shoot any, given the size of your military. Really man, the British navy is second to the US, and I don't see how you can claim you have the best military when you look at how dinky your military is.

You spend:
$42,836.5 million on your military.

The US spends:
$370.7 billion

You said "The British military is the best in the world, and if America's military was the same size as Britain's, the US would stand no chance if you went to war with us."....Thing about it is, that WONT happen. You don't have the money to spend on it, so your hypothetical falls short. Your population is only less than 1/4 of the US's(and growing at slower rates, plus having a higher median age -- your population has more old people -- who would last better in a military, and old person, or a younger one?), meaning our people are more despensible. The manpower availability for the UK is only: 14,943,016 while the US's is 73,597,731. It's not like the US soldiers aren't trained at all, and are on third world standards. The US still has people who are highly trained soldiers. I don't understand your logic of training here. Are you telling me that a Navy Seal would not stand a chance against your part-time soldiers? Your soldiers are still human. Britain doesn't have the abilities the US does, because they lack the manpower and their military isn't funded as much. We are talking about who is the best military, not "who could be the best military if they had the same numbers." The US's military budget, which is 370 billion, is only 3.3% of their GDP, while the British budget, which is $42,836.5 million, is 2.4% of their GDP. To match the US, you would have to give up almost a 1/4 of your GDP for military budget. Hey, I'm not knocking the British military, just speaking facts. While you do probably have some highly trained military people who could be better than the US soldier, you lack the funding and people-power to go up against the US. Take the Korean War for example. The Chinese military was less trained, but had the numbers, so they were able to do some damage. Having highly trained troops doesn't make you the best military in the world. A military has more faces than some highly trained troops.

   

Size is no indication of quality. Our military has proved itself, time and time again, to be the best in the world. What has the US got to match the SAS or the Gurkhas? The American soldiers are so brainless that they can't tell the difference between a British soldier and an Iraqi soldier. The other week, your soldiers even fired at a group of Italians.

Our soldiers use their brains and tactics when fighting wars.

Your soldiers have no brains and tactics. You just amass a giant arsenal of weapons and just shoot everything in sight, even your allies. And that is NOT good fighting.

If the American military was the same size as Britain's, it would be the laughing stock of the world.




You have to remember that the US economy is ten times bigger than the British economy.

You spend all that money, and still are no good at fighting.

The British spend far less, but are far superior to you on the battlefield.



Are you saying that because you have a bigger manpower, you are better at fighting wars? What if all our soldiers were top-class fighting men, but all yours were overpaid cowards? Bigger manpower, but not a more effective fighting machine.

If manpower is a sign of the quality of a military, then the Chinese must have a better military than the US. China has the largest manpower of any country on Earth.



To match the US in numbers, not quality.

Numbers and quality are 2 different things.

   

This little exchange reminds of a story I heard once.

It was during WW2. An American ship passes a British ship and the Us ship signals "Greeting to the second-largest navy in the world." To which the British ship replied "Greetings to the second-best navy in the world."

   

If America is number 1, may I ask WTF you think you're doing at a site called "Canada Kicks Ass"?

   

Yeah, whatever, I don't feel like arguing with someone who thinks Americans are below them, but I suppose I will, even though you probably will judge me the same as you judge all people in the US military, considering I'm an American.

There's plenty of US soldiers who have brains and go to even go to military colleges. Sure, there's some knuckleheads in the US military, but when has the British military, in the past 50 years, attacked a country on a massive scale like Vietnam or even Iraq? You have what, an 6th of the amount of the troops the US does in Iraq, and was in the British troops who went into Falluja? Nope....What battles have the British fought on a large scale to prove themselves to be so much better than the US? Manpower counts a shitload. We have 150,000 soldiers in Iraq, or somewhere close to that number, and a group of some soldiers shoot on your soldiers, and suddenly our whole military sucks and they are all brainless and inferior to british. What battlefields have the British proved themselves on? What, you guys have engaged in serious jungle warfare in Vietnam? We might have lost that war, but the US killed a huge amount of Viet cong, to the point that the only reason they left was because it wasn't supported at home, not because we were being knocked out of the country.

My cousin is in the US military right now, serving in South Korea. He signed up for 8 years, even though he could have gone to probably any college he wanted to. He is going to be an aeronautical engineer, yet if we all listened to you, we would think every single person in the US military is dumb. That is not the case, there are alot of intelligent people, it's just there's alot of morons who the recruits sign up which give the military a bad name/face. I don't want to go into a huge shouting match, my basic point was that the US is heavily funded, has more manpower than Britain, and these are both advanced militarys, it's just one has more stuff to use. What we need to look into is what makes a good soldier. Are you telling me that a Navy Seal, who devotes all his time and energy to being a soldier, who goes through advanced training, who got a college degree at a military school, can't match someone who is a part-time british soldier? Are you telling me that being American automatically means you are dumb? I suppose I will never get you to see my point of view because you automatically think I am not your equal and don't deserve to have my opinion respected.

As far as China goes, there's a good chance that they could take on the US military given the manpower they have(they did it in the Korean War)it's just they don't have the same abilities technology wise as the US. I don't really know what to say to you. Not everyone in the US military is an "overpaid coward".....although, since you have met my cousin, I suppose you are so correct in your opinion

What conflicts has your military proved itself in, in which are on the same level as the battles the US has had to fight? The most recent Iraq war is mainly a US effort with mainly US forces in what are considered the worst areas of Iraq. Where's the UKs Vietnam, in which they were in the jungles against booby traps and guerillas? I'm not saying that the UK doesn't have some strong soldiers who could take people on, but I find it insulting that you label all American soldiers as dumb "overpaid cowards" when there are some truly intelligent people in the US military and who have received high level training(such as the navy seals). This is not to say there isn't some freaking morons in the US military(given it's size and where they recruit people sometimes, it's a given)but to generalize them all as dumb, when you in face haven't meet a good deal of them, and to say how terrible of soldiers they are, when in fact you obviously aren't in Iraq, and you haven't even probably seen or done their training programs, doesn't give you any place to talk.

It just doesn't make sense to me that someone can think "oh yes, Britain can destroy the US military, they have the quality, the US military sucks compared".....

   

It all amounts to arrogance. I will agree, the British military is an advanced, modern military, BUT people are people you know. Everyone wants to be better than each other, whether they are the US or the UK. I think the US navy proved themselves in the Pacific. All I'm going off of is numbers. I just don't agree with the line that even the best US soldiers are only as good as the part-time UK soldiers. It's like saying being British makes you better. I personally don't know all US soldiers or UK soldiers, so I can't judge who is better. While there might be war games in which the UK wins or what not, I would think that a real life battle, between a country who's navy far outnumbers the others, wouldn't be that easy of a battle. Of course, from what I gather, Great Briton thinks Americans are dumb. Yes, it's true, we are all stupid, even my cousin who was the top of his class....I'm sure it's easy when everyones stupid. Sucks being American, because we will never be as smart as anyone else...

   

Sucks being American, because we will never be as smart as anyone else...
-----------------------------------------------------------

Hey man, I thought you said in the other forum that you had changed and basically were not so paranoid anymore

   

Enough bickering boys, I have served with both British and US soldiers, good and bad soldiers EVERYWHERE. (This does not include France though, JUNK)

   

All I'm trying to say man. It's just like when people let one bad black person label all black people. That last line was just out of frustration(this isn't the first time I've dealt with someone that I feel I couldn't win with, so I threw some frustrated sarcasm in -- it was meant towards Great Briton, but in the response towards Xerxes). No one wants to be made to feel inferior, and I just get frustated when people have the point of view that they are better just because they are of a certain nationality. I fully acknowledge the British military as being a modern, capable force, but the whole point I was trying to make is that being British does not mean you can take down a military that is heavily funded and supplied, and has more manpower, while Great Briton is trying to tell me that Americans are dumb cowards who are second to a military that isn't funded only a small percentage of the US. I agree with your point of view: there are good and bad soldiers everywhere.

Notice, I didn't say that all British or whatever are alike. The line you had posted in which I said above was mainly heavy sarcasm.

   

^^^ Typist Giv' em hell John!

   

I think both countries turn out fine troops but a few points,
The British have fought the only successful counterinsurgency war in recent history which a major power won in Malaya. The russians got thier ass kicked out of afghanistan and the Americans did not get the result they wanted in Vietnam.
The Americans have great fire and manouveur forces as do the british but the Americans have more. The Americans have much less succesful records in dealing with CI then the British as thier doctrine calls for massive amounts of firepower to minimise caualities. This does not work well when trying to root out guerrilas hiding amongst civilians. Indiscriminate firepower can be very conterpoductive for example bombing us or using a C-130 gunship on an afghan wedding. I would hasten to add the use of American air assets in Afghanistan and SF was brilliant(initial invasion phase_. The SAS were probably in on that little show as well.
General Shinseki who headed up the army was forced to rsign when he said a much larger force would be needed in Iraq for the aftermath. Je was right.nSchwarchkopf was even more correct when he was asked why they did not take bagdad in 91 was they would still be there ten years later.
The charge Americans are trigger happy cowboys has some truth but then again a british Challenger took out another british challenger during the iraq invasion. Airpower contary to it's proponents claims is still a mixed blessing. A british warrior MICV was taken out by an A-10 in the Iraq invasion. Inspite of large orange panels and a huge flag it was shot up but then the A-10 made another pass to kill the medical types. This is upsetting. The Americans also shot down a pair of british tornadoes during the invasion. Given the bullshit handed out by the Americans about how every bomb they fire is dead accurate LGB they sort of set themselves up when the inevitable blue on blue occurs. In actual fact on major combat operations every military has done it.
Cheers
fred

   

Ok, here goes. I just finished up my military career serving with the US Army Special Forces. I had the pleasure of attending an international military school with the likes of the 21/22 SAS, Royal Marine Commandos, and the equivilant Special Forces from several other nations. I think Great Briton is simply trying to be inflamatory, but I will say that out of all the armies that I've seen in action I am impressed with the British Army. (Never got to work directly with the Canadian Army. Ran into a few of them in the Balkans but honestly they were overweight rear echelon types, so I won't presume to judge the CF off of those guys) Of the armies that I've worked with the 2 that I've been most impressed with were the Brits, and the Polish Airborne. Yes that's right, the Polish. (Not sure if Polack jokes are big in Canada) Those Poles were really squared away though. The notion that the US military is a bunch of brain dead robots or whatever the claim was is ridiculous. Need I mention that smaller forces can afford to be more selective in their recruiting process, and therefore are somewhat more "elite?" Within the US military smaller units such as the "Green Berets," Navy SEALS, Army Rangers, Delta Force etc etc are world renowned as professional soldiers. Every army from the beginning of time has had some form of friendly fire. It isn't an American invention. I do wonder what is up with our flyboys myself. The US military is great for a combination of reasons from numbers, to technology, to professionalism. Does that mean that other countries do not have fine armies? Of course not. I'm glad that many of the best armies in the world are all on the same side. Anyway I guess that's enough for now.

P.S.

That's not really true fred22. Gen Shinseki's term as Army Chief of Staff was up, and his retirement date was announced well before President Bush even took office. He was known to butt heads with SecDef Rumsfeld, so there was a disagreement about the size force that was required for Iraq, but it wasn't a reason for his resignation.

   

Let's see what else the United States is #1 at:

Highest number of murders per capita.

Highest number of privately owned firearms.

Highest number of gang related violent acts.

Come on folks. Let's all join in. America is number 1!

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next