Who has the best army in the world?
- Thread starter Dark_Angel
- Start date
I don't know why, but the film, the Rock always seemed to make me feel proud. 
Having the only person ever to break out of Alcatraz being British, I just think it's awesome. And yes, I know it's a fictional story. The best bit though, "Name and rank soldier."
"Captain John Patrick Mason, of Her Majesty's SAS."
That part just makes me feel "yeah, he's ours. Muahahaha." Great film as well.
Having the only person ever to break out of Alcatraz being British, I just think it's awesome. And yes, I know it's a fictional story. The best bit though, "Name and rank soldier.""Captain John Patrick Mason, of Her Majesty's SAS."
That part just makes me feel "yeah, he's ours. Muahahaha." Great film as well.
Absolutely nothing to base that on other than because every one whose british seems to think so.
Unless you have any evidence that proves we have more experience?
People seem to get caught up in the whole mystique of the SAS and blow it right out of proportion. You can no more tell me that they are better than an american special forces unit than I can prove the other way.
The fact britain has been involved in wars/peace keeping around the world pretty much constantly since the second world war generates a lot of experience.
Also our training has been adapted to help troops in their new roles which are closer to police men than soldiers, which helps them in Iraq.
That combined with about 30 years of anti terror experience and policing gained from northern Ireland, which the Americans don't have.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 3,354
- Location
- South North West
There are a hundred different answers to this, depending on the circumstances. If we were talking about a sort of 'five-a-side' army competition, then there are probably ex-KGB private security teams in Russia who could take anyone on. Those oligarchs can afford the best.... and probably need it, given the state of Russia's wild west style 'democracy'.
If it came to a full-on, us v them war then I'd have to put my money on the USA against anyone, simply because they spend as much on their armed forces as the rest of the world put together. That has to help make up for any lack of natural talent.
Andrew McP
If it came to a full-on, us v them war then I'd have to put my money on the USA against anyone, simply because they spend as much on their armed forces as the rest of the world put together. That has to help make up for any lack of natural talent.
Andrew McP
This is a man who talks sense.
Royal Marines? You could deploy them anywhere on the planet at anytime. I'd like to see the americans do it.
The americans have more resources doesnt make them better, and you think if the US didnt have NATO or European allies they could be in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Last edited:
the American marines can do that and quicker and in greater numbers and with better assault carriers etc:/
Yeah, them and the Austrians make me sick.
US has best equipment, but we have best soldiers. I would have said Germans, but what on earth do they do. Also you have to mention the Canadians and the guys from down under, but they are on par with us I would have thought. Wasn't Malaysia a UK version of Vietnam, except we did it properly?
they weren't invaded they where annexed totally different.
Do the Germans make you sick?
So they could deploy in the arctic faster and more prepared than a British/Scandinavian force? Doubt it.
Yes. When they take my bloody sunbed.
Last edited:
Yep I understand that, by the same token we haven't had an experience like vietnam to learn from.
My point really is how can any one here judge that the SAS are better or our troops are better etc without any real knowledge of american and training and units other than watch GI jane and Under seige
No one here is placed to judge what the americans can or cannot do. The same goes for the SAS really. I only know what I know about them from my old man who failed the training and drove for them for a period of time in training excercises non combat times.
Theres a really good book called the thunder run on how the americans took bagdad with next to no casualties through sheer weight of equipment, creating a wall of fire all the way to bagdad. Naturally we dont have that luxary of heavy equipment and if we did we couldn't get it there.
Lets deploy the marines to the middle of australia, how are they getting there in time? Quantas
The yanks would be in iraq regardless of whether we or any other allie is present. It just makes it look like they have support in this war.
Lots of wars will be fought in the Arctic. How are we landing our equipment and marines in the arctic then?
Indeed but we still have jungle experience, and at the moment urban terror tactics are probbably of more use than jungle ones.
My point really is how can any one here judge that the SAS are better or our troops are better etc without any real knowledge of american and training and units other than watch GI jane and Under seige
No one here is placed to judge what the americans can or cannot do. The same goes for the SAS really. I only know what I know about them from my old man who failed the training and drove for them for a period of time in training excercises non combat times.
Theres a really good book called the thunder run on how the americans took bagdad with next to no casualties through sheer weight of equipment, creating a wall of fire all the way to bagdad. Naturally we dont have that luxary of heavy equipment and if we did we couldn't get it there.
Indeed
So now it's a Scandinavian force too?
Then yes a US/Canadian force could do it quicker, heck even just the us could do it quicker.
After all we're not that much closer to the pole than the USA...
I dont mean to be down on our forces. I genuinely feel sorry for how badly equipped the poor guys are to get the job done.
While in the mean time they spend billions on an aged fleet of tristars and c130's. Spending millions fitting foam to c130 fuel tanks to reduce the risk of explosion if hit by small arms fire.
Some MP must have shares in the company doing it. If you can't shoot a C130 down with a black widow catapult your a poor shot.
I once was at Lyneham before they closed it, middle of winter. All hangers had the doors open and heating on full blast. When I asked why I was told that they had to make sure they used the budget or it would be cut. Better to go over than be under etc.
Thats the kind of bull that needs to be sorted in our armed forces and funds correctly spent. We have a huge defense budget but none of it going on the right equipment.
Instead of buying the right equipment we buy from whoever is giving the most kickbacks for MPs or for other political reasons. Like the A400m or Airbus getting the tanker contract.
While in the mean time they spend billions on an aged fleet of tristars and c130's. Spending millions fitting foam to c130 fuel tanks to reduce the risk of explosion if hit by small arms fire.
Some MP must have shares in the company doing it. If you can't shoot a C130 down with a black widow catapult your a poor shot.
I once was at Lyneham before they closed it, middle of winter. All hangers had the doors open and heating on full blast. When I asked why I was told that they had to make sure they used the budget or it would be cut. Better to go over than be under etc.
Thats the kind of bull that needs to be sorted in our armed forces and funds correctly spent. We have a huge defense budget but none of it going on the right equipment.
Instead of buying the right equipment we buy from whoever is giving the most kickbacks for MPs or for other political reasons. Like the A400m or Airbus getting the tanker contract.