I about spilled my coffee all over myself when I read the following line.



Why would the Brits have an advantage over some 20 year old who obviously understands human rights and diplomacy?



So the Brits are better because they have Northern Ireland to kick around and learn the virtues of patience and graduated response. How do the Americans act and what causes their problems?



Scotsman.com
Questions for debate:

1.)Did the Americans just happen to take over the tougher occupied zones?

2.)Would a seasoned Brtish soldier who has been stationed in Londonderry or Belfast be a better soldier than a 20 year old American??

3.)Are the Brits jealous? If so, please explain why using facts and URLs.

Coincidentally I was watching CSPAN last night at about 3:00 AM CT. The program was a taping of a session in the British House of Commons. The session was debating the recent US request for 650 British soldiers from the "Black Watch" (a Scottish infantry Unit) to Northern Iraq where they would temporarily replace American soldiers slated for an offensive probably in Fallujah. Something that was a recurring theme was the tendency of Labour members (Blair's party) to level this exact accusation at Geoff Hoon ( Blair's defense secretary) who was hosting the session. Numerous members of labour basically insinuated and said that American troops were trigger happy and ill-trained. Gerald Kaufman, Robin Cook and Joan Ruddock being some of the biggest verbal supporters of this position. They were rewarded with plenty of "Here!, Here!'s". This is a long standing position with alot of Brits and is something that their political leaders openly declare...political leaders within the very same party US republicans think they are aligned with. The consensus amongst the Britiah labour is that the US and more specifically Bush was making this troop request to impact the US election. In fact a Labour member named Dennis Skinner stood up and stated that Bush and the "Pentagin" were trying to stea thel election in the US just like they did in 2000.

This as far as I can tell is a popular British view point. That we bomb from afar and shoot first and ask questions later and that they on the other hand wear soft hats and are beloved by the people.

My opinion? This is rhetoric. The only thing Northern Iraq and South Eastern Iraq have in common is that they are both in Iraq. The level of hostility and violence in both regions I would assume much like Hoon is not really comparable. To hold American forces to the same level of engagement that is necessary in the south in my estimation is balderdash. The two regions are not comparable and I havent seen anything or heard anything from comrades who served with the British in 1991 or who are over there now that suggests that in a tense situation American soldiers act any differently then British soldiers.

Brits are more experience at urban insurgency warfare because of dealings in Ulster but Ulster is not even comparable to the hostility and continual action that American and coalition forces experience in the Sunni strongholds in the north where Iranian and Syrian insurgents also add to the combat.

I simply disagree and think the scale and reasons for the comparison and assertions are simply unfounded.

All I know about this is what I read in the papers, as the Will Roger's quote goes.

Some common sense can be applied to form opinion though.




Maybe so. Let's just say there are more Americans in Iraq than any other troops. The chances of getting into tight situations are greater.



Any veteran is a better soldier than a newcomer. What's the slang for that these days? I don't know. The Brits who have experienced urban warfare, or whatever you like to call it, would behave differently than the Americans who have been trained but not experienced.

That situation is changing. Hopefully, a large measure of learning is going on. I'm hopeful that US forces and the commanders are getting better at this big job and its rapidly changing missions.

I refuse to wallow in remorse that this all should have been done before liberation. Young lives are at stake, and so we need to finish this as well as can be done and get the heck out.

Maybe next time we'll be more proactive and invite some of these seasoned urban warriors to help train the 20-year-olds heading into harm's way.



Jealous? Of what? I'd say openly critical, very possibly disdainful, but jealous?

It strikes me as a classic example of the stiff upper lip versus the gung ho who haw of Brits vrs. Yanks. Seems like the old rivalry renewed, a competative thing rather than a jealous thing.

But then all I know is what I read in the papers. They've gone virtual, so I get to read more of them, but they all seem to be saying the same thing: Our troops are getting better at this. Better training is happening. The missions have changed, and so are we, but the changing missions and required training are out of phase.

It's easy for me to imagine ham-handed Americans tromping into town and shooting the place up. Think these reports try to appeal to that image, so for now, due to a fundamental disbelief in half of what I read, I'll assume the Brits are looking at US actions in Iraq with prejudiced eyes, not jaundiced.

Guess it's to be expected. It's easy to criticize.

1.)Did the Americans just happen to take over the tougher occupied zones?

Its my understanding that US high command allocated which troops would be assigned where in Iraq. As such, the US military chose to occupy and control Baghdad and the north.

I think holding the capital plays a role in why the US troops have seen so much action, but also the very fact that they are Americans makes them prime targets as well.

Its a very easy for the British to be complacent about their relative success when compared to the US troops, but I could equally say that Danish troops are the very best in Iraq since they are even more diplomatic and experienced in peace keeping than the British troops, and Danish soldiers have actually been called into teach British soldiers how to act and how to avoid uneeded confrontation.

That this fact is neglected by the labour peers in the commons does not surprise me in the least.

To date, the Danish battalion has only lost one soldier.


2.)Would a seasoned Brtish soldier who has been stationed in Londonderry or Belfast be a better soldier than a 20 year old American??

Perhaps. I've trained with British squaddies who had served in Northern Ireland, and I'd say they were very professional for the most part. They had a very different attitude than we had, and we learned a lot from them about conservation and focus of firepower.

If I had to say whether or not I think the British make better soldiers than the Americans, then generally speaking I would say yes. American soldiers seem overly dramatic to me. Much given to demonstrations of power as opposed to the British tradition of making every shot count.

Of course this is a mere generalisation and both sides have their fair share of excellent, mediocre and poor troops.


3.)Are the Brits jealous? If so, please explain why using facts and URLs.

...jealous of what?

Okay, I'm from Scotland, I know a lot of guys in the UK military, so the views expressed are mostly their views, (I personally am still waiting to hear whether I got in or not (selection is tough)) so don't jump all over me if you don't like what I'm saying, because I do not know if their views are accurate! I have never been in a position to compare the performance of UK or US troops, so this is what the general opinion is.
You probably won't like it, but hey! - thats AD right? These views are broadly the views of the populace as a whole (so you know how accurate that will be) and of my friends who are soldiers. If those two views diverge than I will mention it.

The general view in Britain is that British troops are much better. Primarily better at peacekeeping due to 30 years in Northern Ireland, but there is also a belief that the centuries of training that has gone into the British Army is better than American training (where there is believed to be a reliance on high tech weaponry)

I know it may look like misguided British arrogance, but try and remember that the British Army is over 400 years old - (older than some countries I could name ) , has fought in almost every country in the world and (with notable exceptions) has normally won.

There is a difference of attitude - the US soldier is trained to be a warrior (check out the warrior credo on the website) whereas the British Army is supposed to be regular guys just doing a necessary job - the difference being one of attitude - Americans are aggressive and so more apt to act out of anger - whereas the Brit is more professional. Actually looking at the two websites does tend to support this view - although I'm probably biased...

But this is probably hard to judge...Brits in Iraq monitor Basra, which is more peaceful than Fallujah or wherever. 850 British troops (see link below) are being sent off to support US troops in the Baghdad area, so we will have an opportunity to compare the two on even ground over the next few months.

1.)Did the Americans just happen to take over the tougher occupied zones?

No. The two armies have very different command and operating structures. You can't easily mix the two forces together without significantly upping the friendly fire rate, for various technical reasons. So the Brits handle Southern Iraq, the Americans handle Eastern or whatever. As they larger force, the US takes the nastier area (until recently - UK troops replace US troops ) with the UK in the easier area. That makes sense based purely on the resepctive sizes of the armies.

2.)Would a seasoned Brtish soldier who has been stationed in Londonderry or Belfast be a better soldier than a 20 year old American??

Of course, but then a seasoned soldier of any nation would be a better soldier than a 20 yr old of any nation.

3.)Are the Brits jealous? If so, please explain why using facts and URLs.

Of Americans? Purlease.....

You obviously haven't met too many Brits....we pretty much define 'arrogance' (although we can, cause we're great).

I'm not joking too much. There is a genuine belief in Britain that UK troops are better trained. I am sure much of this is probably unfair - but, hey, its not like you guys don't hold unfair stereotypes of the British!

(My teeth are perfect)

1.)Did the Americans just happen to take over the tougher occupied zones?

It goes without saying that since the start of the war, the Brits have been in the stable, more peaceful portion of Iraq. That portion that was most glad to be rid of Saddam. This is not any slight on the Brits whatsoever, they just came out better in the land draw lottery.

2.)Would a seasoned British soldier who has been stationed in Londonderry or Belfast be a better soldier than a 20 year old American??

Of course, if that is the analogy you're using. I agree that the British, by virtue of presiding over colonies and commonwealth, have far more experience in peacekeeping operations that we in the US Army do.
But let's not discount the fact that our Army contains a large amount of veterans of Urgent Fury, Just Cause, Desert Storm, Mogadishu and Afghanistan. I just want to make sure that we're not stereotyping the US Army as all pimple faced 20 yr olds and the British Army as all grizzled, salty veterans.

I've trained with Brits and other former commonwealth units over the years, and I've found all of them to be highly professional. I've drank with them, 'traded gear' with them and generally met some blokes that I would be proud to fight alongside.

Sure, we're more aggressive, and I like that in most instances. But I disagree on the overwhelming reliance on superior firepower by the US Army. This is only coming from my perspective as an infantryman (so I'm sure an Apache pilot has a different POV), but I think our strength lies in our ability to think creatively and out of the box to overcome obstacles on the battlefield. Of course.......I'm HIGHLY biased.

3.)Are the Brits jealous? If so, please explain why using facts and URLs.

Well.....sure.......have you ever eaten in British Army chow hall??

1. The Americans are undoubtedly in higher-risk portions of Iraq. This is predominantly evident by the number of casualties taken in comparison to number of troops deployed. At the same time, British troops secure the southern portion of Iraq, seemingly intentionally to avoid more dangerous assignments. This article touches on the subject:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=169777

2. A British soldier that has seen combat is not necessarily better prepared or a better soldier than an American. The reality is that training, equipment, leadership, and firepower all play into the equation of combat preparedness. I am a Marine Reservist and spent time in Afghanistan. To the defense of the British, I can say that the first few live fire experiences can be overwhelming. In defense of our troops, specifically Marines, we have some of the best trained, most disciplined, best equipped troops in the world. The reality is that the British troops deployed in Iraq are some of their best. We have a wide array of troops serving in the middle east, from 18 year olds that are barely high school educated, to highly trained and specialized Special Forces troops or Navy Seals. Regardless of deployment, regardless of time period, and regardless of generation, the British have always claimed to have a better soldier. It's an interesting claim, seeing how on more than one occasion we've come to their rescue.

3. The British are far from jealous. A better word would be arrogant. They truly believe that their years of military experience and their history of expertise makes them the cream of the crop. My argument is always that our military background began fighting the British and we won. I also believe that the battlefield changes rapidly and there is no room for an ego. In terms of fighting terrorists and urban warfare, of course people serving in Ireland have more experience. My question is that if they were so effective, why did they struggle with the IRA for so long?

Another quick point in terms of combat effectiveness. Whenever there is a need for strong and quick military action, the world calls upon the US. The USMC/Army Rangers serve first in nearly every UN action. Think of Haiti, to make a recent reference. A small French UN force was deployed, but in the toughest areas, US Marines were sent. Somalia is another good example. If the British are the best and the brightest, why does the world continually call us?

1. If the idea that having an older Army makes you more qualified, how does China or Japan fare?
This doesn't even mention the fact that our military training was spawned by conflict with the British (lest we not forget how we got here).

2. The British obviously have not always won. How did America get here? hahaha... seriously, you have one good point in terms of "high tech weaponry". The US military has always attempted to be on the cutting edge of firepower. Think about the history of the gun and how the US has influenced it all. That doesn't even broach the topic of missle technology, etc. A stronger and better arsenal should never be seen as a downfall Mr. UK.

True - but we had most of our best troops in other parts of the world at the time...we weren't expecting you lot to actually go and rebel! No fair....



No, the British Army was not effective because in fighting the IRA. It was not sent to Ireland to fight the IRA - it was sent to Ireland to prevent the Catholics and Protestants from killing each other. It did that quite well...

And as for taking a long time struggling with terrorists - have you beaten yours yet? Has Israel beaten the Palestinians? Domestic terrorism isn't something you can easily fight......(and I might add that the IRA was getting an awful lot of funding from Boston....) - Britain is so far the only country to have succesfully dealt with domestic terrorism - so don't go saying we did it badly until you've tried it....Iraq doesn't look like a nicer place to me...



Sorry, I'm quoting out of order here - umm...when have you ever come to our rescue (don't say WW2, you did that for yourselves)? Not to be rude, or deny that you have - but the British media never ever mention the US bailing us out in recent wars! Could I get some references? (I really do not doubt what you say - it is just I haven't ever heard of such a thing before...)



And the UK military went to Sierra Leone - where were you?
(You really think Somalia is a good example of the US operating abroad?)

You have a larger army - much larger. You have the capability to help, the UK doesn't have the manpower. The US has a greater quanitity or troops sure, but this debate is about quality...

I don't know if that the UK military is better, but I have seen no evidence to suggest its any worse at all. It is a lot poorer though.

Well, I really meant 'unbroken' - in that the Chinese have had a lot of different armies - and the Japanese army is technically very young, as it's command structures etc were all destroyed and the army was disbanded and reformed as a defensive force. The British Army has an unbroken command structure since the end of the English civil war. Thats a lot of experience there.




Yes yes, okay kudos to America - you won... (we're just biding our time )

I agree with you on the weapon front though. But it isn't a substitute for well trained troops...

actually there is a big spending review, as currently all the UK tax money earmarked for the military seems to get spent on a sophisticated air force that is probably too large, given that it is primarily used to defend the UK itself.

I always remember joining the Territorial Army (Brit reservists) and being given a lot of second hand kit from the 1960s. That was great. I felt safe. I even had to buy my own boots...sheesh.

1.)Did the Americans just happen to take over the tougher occupied zones?
Despite any nationalistic points, I'd have to say that, on balance, yes, the Brits have had a somewhat easier time than the Americans This is partly because of the regions where troops are stationed, but also the Americans are going to draw more fire because they are American. Whatever the British might think, America has led this action from day one (and well before), so they are more identified with the struggle, and more likely to be targets.

But, as several Brit politicians have been at pains to point out, it's not like the whole American-controlled area is in utter chaos, and the British area is an oasis of calm. We shouldn't get too hung up on ideas that the Yanks are clumsy and trigger happy, or that the Brits are having an easy time or are too timid to draw any fire.

2.)Would a seasoned Brtish soldier who has been stationed in Londonderry or Belfast be a better soldier than a 20 year old American??
I do share with most other Brits the generalised assumption that, man-for-man, the Brits have the best army in the world.

Even the most grizzled US veteran would certainly acknowledge the SAS to be one of, if not the, best special forces regiments anywhere (and it's an SAS man making these claims, not some (17-year-old fresh from basic training). And I'm as arrogant about the British army's superiority, man-for-man, over any armed unit in the world.

If, God forbid, we ever went up against the USA, I'd put good money on the facts that:
1. we would lose hands down (we're just too small these days)
2. we would take down two or more US soldiers for every Brit that fell).
(Where's the Union Jack smiley when you need it? )

So, to answer this qustion, I'd have to say that the chances would be that a seasoned Brit soldier would be better than a seasoned US solider, and that a 20-year-old Brit would be better than a 20-year-old American.

But, national pride aside, ANY seasoned soldier is pretty likely to be better than a fresh recruit. A US veteran of several campaigns is going to be a better soldier than a fresh recruit - there's no real reason to suppose the flag on his sleeve (provided it comes from a country with a professional army) will have much to do with it.

3.)Are the Brits jealous? If so, please explain why using facts and URLs.
Like the other Brits posting here - jealous? Of what?


To address the wider point being made by the British soldier in question, I'd say that overall, maybe the US army in Iraq is a little less professional, for several reasons in addition to those that have already been mentioned.

Firstly, reservists and national guardsmen, while they no longer fit the layman's charicature that they are boy scouts with guns (and never really did), cannot be expected to be quite as experienced or committed as full-time professionals. And the US Army in Iraq currently consists of a somewhat greater proportion of reservists than the British (our Territorial Army is there, but the proportion is lower). At least, that's my perception.

Secondly, several US posters with military experience on here have said that they, or people they know, joined up not just to serve their country, but also because it's the easiest way for them to fund their college studies or other qualifications. Indeed, I've read many times that people join up as full time professional soldiers primarily to fund their studies - soldiery is a side-benefit or even an afterthought.
This is much rarer in the British Army, mainly because our education system is funded differently (though in recent years is has moved towards the American model, so we may find more of our soldiers are joining up for the training more than the service).
For these reasons, and those already stated, I can see why a senior British soldier might believe that the average US infantryman was less committed than a British counterpart, even if the reasons are more subjective than the Brits might admit.

(It's worth noting that the same subjectivity is likely to give Americans reason to think that the motivation behind such statements must be something other than American army standards actually being lower than British ones, even if objectively that were true.)

And lastly, since today the UK government has confirmed that the Black Watch regiment will be moving into the Sunni Triangle to free up US troops for an assault on Fallujah, we won't have to wait very much longer to see whether British troops can keep their (comparatively) clean sheet on territory that is supposedly more dangerous.

First of all, the European campaign in WWII began long before sending troops. We helped fund the war, sent arms and ammunition, and aided in supply distribution. Had it not been for American involvement it would be safe to say that the war would've gone on far longer and who knows what the outcome would've been. Hitler stated in no uncertain terms that he did not plan to invade American shores. It's interesting how our generation chooses to view the American sacrifice made. I'm positive our Grandparents see it differently. What about WWI???.....

In terms of UN incursions, Sierra Leone is a good example of UK involvement. However, in terms of US involvement in recent years a list could insue. What about East Timor, Bosnia, Haiti, etc, etc... ?? Central American/South American deployments such as Nicaragua, Belize... etc.

In summation, all I'm saying is that British arrogance in terms or military prowess is a farce. In a military as large as ours, there is a need for a certain amount of support provided by less trained/educated soldiers. This doesn't take away from the fact that we also possess highly motivated and trained soldiers such as Army Special Forces, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, and (of course... ) the Marine Corps.

Edited to remove personal attack

I would venture to say that even if the US military had to invade British shores, it wouldn't be driven by a ground invasion. Our naval superiority, air superiority, and tactical advantage in terms of size would be overwhelming to any nation (except maybe China). 2 for 1? You are talking about the SAS, not a normal UK Army regiment I suppose. What about Navy Seals or Army Rangers? I agree that in the military community, the SAS is highly respected, but I wouldn't say that they're the BEST.... 2 for 1? really, not a chance.

Hey, I think that the US did a fantastic thing in WW2 - but the British generally don't view it as 'saving our butts' - we held our own in that one. Well, we think we did. My grandfather fought in Asia in WW2 and had nothing but respect for Americans. But we don't think that you saved us. We think that you stood by our side as an ally. Its not quite the same thing.

And if Japan had taken over Asia, would the US really be secure? Hitler might not have wanted to invade, but can you say the same for the Japanese?



Well, the UK was in Bosnia and Kosovo - and to be honest, South America has always been 'your patch' (Belize aside). The US is richer than the UK, it has more troops, it can send more people to more places. I think it is fantastic that you go - but Britain makes a contribution to policing the world that reflects its smaller size.



Fair enough! We're proud of our guys, you're proud of yours. Just so long as we're better than who we're fighting against - it probably doesn't matter.

I knew this was going to be who has the bigger and better stick competition.

Just some observations.

The American Revolution. The United States didnt beat up on Britain. That is a myth. Britain sent over its B army commanded by its pompous B generals. If Britain wanted to destroy the colonies they could have. They could have sent over their full force and smashed us. The only problem was it wasnt cost effective. It became apparent that the money needed to keep the colonies wasnt worth it. The reason? The US wasnt near the cash crop that the caribbean and other portions of the world were. It is impressive that a renegade force in which only a 1/3 of our country fought for was able to compete with a Britiah army (even if that was a second tier army) but lets not get into this belief that the colonists somehow beat Britain. Beating would entail capturing London. Beating is what happened in World War II. Britain quit just like we did in Vietnam we didnt beat them.

I know a few special forces soldiers. One an army ranger who served in Iraq said that the British SAS was the greatest special forces fighting unit in the world. I have read numerous things that would confirm this. I would say that the US Delta Force and Navy Seals etc etc are close but none have the prestige of the SAS or the SAS Navy special force I cannot remember the name.

On a secondary note my drill sergeant in basic training was in desert storm. He was in the 4rth infantry (which of course is the most advanced mechanized force in the world) He said the British mechanized forces were garbage. He said they were so awful that Centcom couldnt even use them. He said that the Egyptians had a pretty solid mechanized unit though.

My conclusion is that on a man for man scale a regular British soldier is equivalent to a regular American soldier. A regular British special forces unit is comparable to a typical American unit but the British SAS and the British Navy SAS are the best in the world. Just like the Czech's have the best Chemical warfare units in the world.

I would also say that the gloating about the accomplishments in the south by the British is of course deserved but not ripe for comparisons when talking about what American troops do in the north. Something that Geoff Hoon believes as well. I do remember at the onset where the British on a media level seemed to struggle taking Basra. In fact SNL made note of the news about how the news kept suggesting Basra was taken and then said it wasnt and then said it was and then said it wasnt etc etc etc. It took a while for the British to secure Basra...yet I didnt see American's make the assertion that the British were poor soldiers. I didnt see it at all.

It is natural to expect that the soldiers and people from a nation are going to tout their military forces and tactics as superior to any others. I feel that is rhetoric. The forces are comparable and in fact in WWII in missions against the Germans the two proved to be equals. Statistics have shown this in WWII.

Who is better on a whole? Neither, but I do not see American politicians or American civilians taking swipes at the British military but I have seen it the other way around.

As much as I agree with your SAS comments, I have to disagree on your comment in reference to the forces being comparable. Our military is far larger, far better funded, and as well equipped or better. Our soldiers are often similarly trained and deployed in simliar manners... but if it came down to a true test of strength, the Royal Army is only a fraction of the size of ours... and wouldn't have a chance.

I think you got confused Aevens. Yes if the Brits and Americans fought in an all out war now the US would beat them soundly. That of course isnt because we are better but because our economy is 10 times larger and our population is 5 times bigger and we have a great deal more weopenry. We would beat them simply because we have more of everything not because we are better. In addition I think I have read that Britain cannot fire their Nukes on their own that only we can fire them? (Please someone British correct me here) but I have read that Britain doesnt have primary access to their own nukes. Anyway what I am saying is that on a man on man comparison (excluding the superior SAS units) the British and American army are equal. We simply have more men and euipment that is the only difference.

The Germans pound for pound had a better army then we did (anyone did) in WWII but they had to much on their plate and their superiority failed in the scope of pure numbers. The same happened in the American civil War. This is why the north was ble to win. The north had more man-power even though they had inferior commanders.

**Note, even though this is about British soldiers- the civil war was lost by the south due to their lack of financial backing and lack of sufficient industry. The south could not sustain the financial strain of such a conflict coupled with the quandry of the vast majority of industrial power being North of the Mason Dixon line. The south did have battle tested leadership and strong conviction, but man power really wasn't the downfall of the Rebel Army.**

Hmm .I really didnt expect you to respond to the civil war portion which is why I kept it intentionally brief. Yes the lack of industry and lack of monetary coupled with inflation brought on my the printing of worthless money and coinage did aid in the south's demise. I was speaking more of the tactics of Grant. Grant understood the absolute man power advantage. If I remember correctly the north had 27 million and the south 9 million people. This is why Grant didnt care about sending frontal charge after frontal charge at places like Cold Harbour. This is why Lee felt the necessity to send in Pickett at Gettysburgh. The population and supply differences doomed the south in the long run and I think Lee I know Lee was aware of that. Grant understood the superiorty of men as did Sherman which is why as Sherman marched to Atlanta he refused to stop and fight the confederates (under Quantrill?) who kept hitting them in the rear. Unlike the hesitant and fearful Maclellan (whose downfall was always believing that the Confederated had more men then he) who was so ineffective as were his Corp commanders Grant and Sherman understood that the south could not stop the quantatative mass of the north. The south would have been doomed earlier if mac would have attacked the Shenadoah but they would have been enevitably doomed because of their lack of men. I am sorry I didnt know you would be that big of a fan of the civil war so I pawned off a partial answer but my assesment from Grant's perspective was certainly in the equation.

I think Kalabus is right with his assessment on the British Army - generally technologically we're useless, but the training is pretty good (and in all honesty I can't really imagine that it is better than the US army...I don't think training can differ that much between armies).



SBS (SAS is Special Air Service - a deliberate misnomer to confuse people, SBS is Special Boat Service). That's generally what I've heard as well - although again, I can't actually think of a reason why the SAS should be better than anyone else - or indeed how they are compared. It may just be a more rigorous selection procedure - or just by virtue of having been around a bit longer...

Much of the 'horror stories' about American troops come from UK media - which to a certain extent happens because the British public like to read about how good their troops are....so the media will look for examples of an American soldier doing something stupid (which in any large force is going to happen) and does not mention the soldiers that do their job well - and vice versa for British soldiers.

Politically, it is also convenient for the UK government to (quietly) blame the Bush government for the current state of Iraq - and so evade blame themselves. This includes portraying the American military as somewhat incompetent.



Half true. Britain's nuclear deterrent consists of 4 Vanguard class Trident submarines, with about 200 nuclear warheads. These warheads need to be fitted on US supplied Trident 2 SLBMs (sea launched ballistic missiles). We share a pool of these missiles with the US, which are stored and serviced at Kings Bay, Georgia. The Royal Navy collect the missiles from the US submarine base, then we fit the warheads and load them on our submarines. In other words, the US owns the delivery system (i.e the missiles) and the UK owns the actual nuclear warheads and the submarines that fire the missiles.
It would, in theory, be possible for the UK to design and build its own SLBMs and remove the US from the equation. The pay off for the UK is that we share very high level nuclear research with the US - essentially keeping the UK at the forefront of nuclear technology.

I think the initial observation is interesting. Coincidentally I am re-reading D-Day by Ambrose. The Brits at that time had a very similar view of the Yanks.

The Brits were much more disiplined and 'by the book', a procedure for every situation, so to speak. We were much more loose and independant in our actions on an individual level. The upside of this trait is we were more adaptable to changing battle conditions.

By the way I don't think 20 is the average age over there, especially for command.

I came across an interesting article posted today that paints an odd picture of some British forces. From my personal experience and opinion, I'm not sure I believe the validity of the report. It just doesn't make any sense to me, but maybe our British friends can shed some light on it.

For your consumption:


Link

Dontreadonme

touché

I read this earlier today and although the numbers differed I had a sneaking suspicion that it might crop up here.

I think the problem here lies in a lack of understanding on behalf of a good many people in Britain, and even it seems in Britains armed forces, at just how much their military power has been diluted in the years since the cold war. There still seems to be a feeling that the British army is one of the worlds leading military forces, but in truth it is now the smallest and weakest its ever been since the Napoleonic wars.

Still, when all is said and done, the bottom line is the US forces in Iraq have turned to the UK because as Robin Cook points out...



... and not because the US needs better peace keepers or better soldiers. That he then goes on to say...



...seems to indicate however that Cook himself is prone to the illusion of the magnificent ability of the British soldiers to 'keep the peace'.

Unfortunately he is correct in his assessment that UK troops will suffer guilt by association. In fact it is already happening. Danish army command, (which has a battalion with the British) has reported a marked increase in attacks during the last 72 hours, resulting in three Danish soldiers being wounded in two separate attacks.

1. The American sectro is clearly much tougher. Of course, that didn't just 'happen' - the US were keen to be in charge of Baghdad, and the British don't have the manpower to police the Sunni areas, so it's probably a sensible way of doing things.


2. In all likelihood, yes, as he has experience. The more interesting question is whether an experienced British soldier is better than a similarly experienced American, to which my counter-question would be: 'better at what?' In terms of fighting then I doubt it. If we're talking about peace-keeping then the answer is probably yes, I suspect. That view is based both on the British experience of handling terrorism in Northern Ireland and on the different military cultures. That isn't to say that the Americans are inexperienced or have it all totally wrong. Pride in our army is repeated so often here in Britain that it becomes far exaggerated, to the extent that some people seem to believe that American soldiers are all miserable, frightened and utterly lacking in empathy.

Nevertheless, that grotesquely unfair stereotype shouldn't obscure the differences, or that fact that some American military attitudes do seem to be inappropriate for peacekeeping. One American soldier wrote in a letter that he had been told by his superior to shoot any Iraqi that looked threatening, on the grounds that the superior would rather fill in forms than have one of his men nailed by a 'raghead.' This is an attitude that seems to me to be officially condoned by the ill-named doctrine of 'force protection.' It's roughly what the British were trying out on Bloody Sunday: they knew there was an armed threat but they couldn't distinguish it from the crowds, so they 'played it safe.' That attitude undoubtedly worsened and prolonged the war in Northern Ireland, and resulted in more deaths. To British eyes it seems that to some extent the Americans are now making the same mistakes that we made in Northern Ireland. 'Force protection' at the expense of civilians is no protection at all, because you constantly increase the threat that you have to protect against.

Of course, 'peace-keeping' might be said to include the war-fighting that is clearly still necessary in Iraq. The Americans seem to be clearly better at that.


3. I'm jealous of the funding and equipment that your army has, and also that you haven't actually had to deal with something as miserable and soul-destroying as Northern Ireland. But I think that if the British are less able to rely on technology and firepower then perhaps they are forced to use alternative methods more often.

We also allow devil worshippers in our military. Beat that!

Satanist in Royal Navy

Sorry, this story was so bizarre I thought I'd share it........it doesn't really contribute to the debate.




Well, the number is inaccurate, but the story is true otherwise. Obviously this isn't policy, so it seems to have been an administrative mistake. Much as I have heard the US forces seem to be, the UK force in Iraq is said to have neither enough men or equipment.

The troops themselves were reservists, who made up logistical support. They would be unlikely to ever have to fire on anyone in Basra, given its relative peacefulness.

The Economist recently printed an article that stated that the difference in training between UK and US troops essentially boiled down to one being trained for peacekeeping and the other for waging a war. US troops are better in a pitched firefight, UK troops are better at fighting in a situation with a lot of civilians present. Both clearly have their uses.

That's probably a very realistic statement. During Marine training, to include officer training (OCS), troops are generally trained to overrun opposing forces and take ground. This is probably the root of people's opinions of US Marines in terms of aggresiveness. I would venture to make the same assumption of US Army Infantry units. American forces have little or no peacekeeping experience or training, and to the UK's credit, they have extensive experience in such operations.

To be fair though, since the early 90's, the Army has seriously ramped up training in OOTW (Operations Other Than War). When an Army infantry battalion rotates to the Joint Operations Training Center, they have been alternating between combat oriented rotations and peacekeeping rotations. And civilian role players are an integral part of even the combat focused rotations.

It's very true we don't have the tradition of peacekeeping ops that the British do, but we are making great strides in training for them, and only recently are we able to put doctrine to practice.

1.)Did the Americans just happen to take over the tougher occupied zones?

2.)Would a seasoned Brtish soldier who has been stationed in Londonderry or Belfast be a better soldier than a 20 year old American??

3.)Are the Brits jealous? If so, please explain why using facts and URLs.


1) Yes I dont see how anyone can deny this.

2) Of course

3) You mean jealous that the US has more advanced technology and an overwhelmingly larger force and could kick the pants off the Brit military? I'd say probably.

Man for man I dont think either side has the advantage given they have the same amount of experience. Anything else is just national pride bias talking and that is what this article is about.

We Brits view our military as an unpleasant necessity. Obviously we would rather live in a world without one, an overwhelming military force is not something to be proud (or jealous) of in itself...we take pride in the way our soldiers behave, how they respond to dangerous situations and that they fight for what they believe to be right.
We may wish that our own troops were better equipped for their own safety, but there is no reason to be jealous of someone simply because they can destroy more....we are not jealous of American soldiers, because we do not think that their conduct is in anyway better than our own. That is not to say that we think it is any worse....

'Covet not thy neighbours advanced weaponry'


(Yeah, sure there are people who would like Britain to be the most powerful nation in the world again - but they are the minority these days. Most of us have actually accepted that our empire is over.... )

Here's an interesting article on the general subject of "national characteristics" as they're being revealed in Iraq currently. I'll leave it up to you to make your own assessment, but this is especially relevant:

The recently returned vet describes how a senior British officer explained his army's philosophy: "We stay back until they become very bold and over-extend themselves. Then we jump out, counterattack and drive them back."

"That's how the Brits lost the American Revolution," the vet observed. "The Iraqi insurgents avoid direct contact until they're ready to engage on their terms at their time."

Just before he came home, one Brit battalion was moved to the mean killing field of Baghdad – where he notes that "they better seriously change their style of doing things if they want to stay alive."

An alternative viewpoint on the British approach would be:

Wary British Soldiers Take Different Apporach in Iraq



The argument here being that British troops are less confrontational, yet their methods result in fewer casualties and achieved a truce anyway. (Although I am not sure how directly comparable Basra and Najaf are).

I don't really know what the best approach to take is....

(although I do like the implication that we're still making the same mistakes that caused us to lose the War of Independence! Doh, we just never learn..... )

Maybe it's just me but I thought the Brit's lost the American revolution because they stood in a line wearing bright red coats.

Im not a history major so I could be wrong on this.