Best Special Forces Branch (of any country)

[CurtSibling]

The fact is that British troops are superior to their American counterparts.

Numbers and equipement aside, it is a matter of materiel, morale and training.

We Brits have a centuries long tradition of foot-slogging and war.

And it shows.

.

 

[Fifty]

I'm just curiuos about what the measure of comparison people are using is, other than the "my country is the best" or "arbitrarily picking some unit because of its reputation" techniques?

I mean how could anybody compare these forces unless they went head to head? Someone call the networks, we have the next great reality tv show!!!

 

[storealex]

Bottom line, friendly fire incidents are a fact of war and mistakes happen across all forces.

Of course, but from the people I know who have served in Iraq, American troops are too quick to pull the trigger. That's all Im saying.

We teach our soldiers about leadership from their basic training onward and when someone should take charge and lead when they need to. Leadership and initiative are very much ingrained into the American Soldier.

It's not WWII anymore. Back then you were ahead, and the rest of the world copied you. Now, many countries have surpased you.

Before any force is deployed to a foreign area, they are briefed several times and customs and curtesies of the area they are going to. This is usually repeated three or more times to emphasize the point.

So maybe the briefing isn't good enough? Maybe they don't listen to what is said? Something is wrong.

Not all the units have the fancy optic sites for the M16s, that is based upon the table of equipment for the unit. Everyone is taught to use the iron sights that a basic m-16 has for marksmanship and every M-16 has those sights for use.

But why not the optics? They're not that expensive, but they greatly increase the ability to hit your enemy, and not the innocent guy standing next to him.

As for the mixed uniforms that is not because there is not enough desert camo, its because the Army is in the midst of adopting a new uniform and color scheme.

Ok, my mistake.

American troops have historically always carried more weapons and generally better equipment than their counterparts. Nothing has changed there.

That really depends which counterparts you are talking about. Im sure you have better stuff than the Iraqis, or the rest of your enemies. Even most of your allies (Poland etc.) But the time when the American soldiers was ahead of all armies in equipment belongs in history classes.

 

[MobBoss]

The fact is that British troops are superior to their American counterparts.

Numbers and equipement aside, it is a matter of materiel, morale and training.

We Brits have a centuries long tradition of foot-slogging and war.

And it shows.

.

meh......your record vs the United States isnt very good.

As for them being superior....well, personally I dont see it. Also, isnt materiel the same as equipment? Morale? Ever hear of Hooorah? And training? As I linked earlier, I can find international competitions won by American troops...cant seem to find any won by brits.

 

[MobBoss]

It's not WWII anymore. Back then you were ahead, and the rest of the world copied you. Now, many countries have surpased you.

Uhm...at the start of WWII the United States Army was in a shambles. It basically had to be re-organized to meet the demands of WWII. We were not ahead of anyone at the start of the war and no one copied us. I am thinking you have no clue what you are talking about.

But why not the optics? They're not that expensive, but they greatly increase the ability to hit your enemy, and not the innocent guy standing next to him.

We teach our men and women to shoot a weapon without any fancy gadgets and to shoot it well.

That really depends which counterparts you are talking about. Im sure you have better stuff than the Iraqis, or the rest of your enemies. Even most of your allies (Poland etc.) But the time when the American soldiers was ahead of all armies in equipment belongs in history classes.

Ok, first of all what is inferior? Bear in mind that the next generation of small arms is in testing to be fielded to the US Army, so the life of the M16 is about over. But most of our other weapons are state of the art. So what exactly are you talking about?

 

[xyourxmomxcorex]

The fact is that British troops are superior to their American counterparts.

Numbers and equipement aside, it is a matter of materiel, morale and training.

We Brits have a centuries long tradition of foot-slogging and war.

And it shows.

.

Hmm. The brits have SAS, which is the best non-black SF unit in the world, but they really dont have anything else beside the royal marines..
And the US is much better armed than Britaish Speacial forces.
The brits are using the L86, which is a pretty unrealiable wepon...US and German wepons are more common in more elite units, but youll find older models...
The US has the cutting edge m4/STOPMOD...

 

[storealex]

How do you prove such an assertion?

No one can prove anything. We are on an internet forum, remember? There is only arguments, and if you wont listen to those, we will get no where.

The US Army has dedicated Military Police Units that deploy to Iraq and function in that exact capacity. To allege that the American troops are not as good as the Brits and Danes because they cant direct traffic or some such is nonsense.

Everyone has Military Police Units. That's not what Im talking about. And you know damn well that "directing traffic" is not what Im talking about when I say law enforcement. Nice try to ridicule what I say.

Btw, seems the Danish MPs put out some abuse too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4606350.stm Is this the "special training" you are talking about?

You are a grown man discussing like an ignorant teenager. You just found something completely irrellevant to this discussion, that could cast a bad light on the Danes in Iraq. But we're not talking about prisoner abuse, I didn't mention that at all, and I don't understand why you as a nationalistic American wanna go there. Abu Graib, Guantanamo and all... much worse than "verbally abusing" a prisoner.
You asked why I don't hold the standard American soldier in high esteem, and when I answer you turn this into a "Your nation is worse than my nation" competetion. That's not what Im up to. Im not one of the guys who only come here to defend the reputation of my country, and I completely admit that what Anette Hommel did was wrong, and her punishment was just.

A significant percentage of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have been Guard and Reserve troops. They certainly perform professionally and do not "drag" down the image of the rest of the "guys" over there. Need I start listing accolades and awards won by "part time" troops?

Awards dosn't matter. I don't care whether they top score in random tests, if they shoot the hell out of their allies. That these troops are part time soldiers, who can't perform on the same level as the rest of the American troops was not something I brought up. I was a guy from Ohio who did that.

You are nutty.

And you're a stupid bigot. Ok, shall we forget the namecalling?

I can hit a man sized target 20 out of 20 times at 100 meters with an M16. 100 meters is nothing. On the M16 qualification range, the 50 meter and 100 meter target are the two easiest targets to hit. Course then again I can hit a man sized target 8 out of 10 times at 300 meters too, just using iron sights.

Yes, but you have been a soldier for 20 years. Try giving an M16 to the 19 year old kid in Iraq, and you'll see something different.

 

[CurtSibling]

meh......your record vs the United States isnt very good.

Sure, you got the better of us in one war. 1812 didn't go to well, though, eh?

And we have the only army that has ever burned the White House to the ground.

As for them being superior....well, personally I dont see it. Also, isnt materiel the same as equipment? Morale? Ever hear of Hooorah? And training? As I linked earlier, I can find international competitions won by American troops...cant seem to find any won by brits.

Our army is probably too busy actually doing their duty to take part in games.

You can talk as much baloney as you want, but our troops are proven in war
to be among the best. Not to say the US army is incapable, but they do call
on the Brits to break the toucher nuts that need broken.

Our SAS can wipe the floor with any US or foreign spec-ops, because we trained most of them.

You obviously are high on indoctrination, but I expect that from an American.

.

 

[CurtSibling]

Hmm. The brits have SAS, which is the best non-black SF unit in the world, but they really dont have anything else beside the royal marines..
And the US is much better armed than Britaish Speacial forces.
The brits are using the L86, which is a pretty unrealiable wepon...US and German wepons are more common in more elite units, but youll find older models...
The US has the cutting edge m4/STOPMOD...

It is not the guns, but the fighting attitude of the men.

You won't find our men running away or whining to a CNN crew.

.

 

[storealex]

Uhm...at the start of WWII the United States Army was in a shambles. It basically had to be re-organized to meet the demands of WWII. We were not ahead of anyone at the start of the war and no one copied us.

Yes and Im talking about later parts of the war, you know, the parts when American soldiers actually became heavily involved. From the point when American troops entered the battlefield on a large scale, they had at least decent equipment, and during the most of the fighting they participated in during the war, they had superior equipment and were well supplied. After the war, everyone copied America.

Ok, first of all what is inferior?

1. The M16 you use is slightly inferior to the Canadian produced one we use.
2. The M16 is inferior to the Carbine. Yes, it is more acurate, but it is too large and cumbersome.
3. The lack of optic sights.
4. The lack of proper camo. The pattern I see your troops wearing on TV has too large patterns. And I don't care why it is mixed actually, it shouldn't be.

Bear in mind that the next generation of small arms is in testing to be fielded to the US Army, so the life of the M16 is about over.

Until they're implemented, they're irrellevant to this discussion.

I am thinking you have no clue what you are talking about.

That's it. Im going to do something more interesting than talking to you. Im on weekend leave and my time is precious.

 

[Verbose]

How do you prove such an assertion? The US Army has dedicated Military Police Units that deploy to Iraq and function in that exact capacity. To allege that the American troops are not as good as the Brits and Danes because they cant direct traffic or some such is nonsense.

It's common knowledge, freely admitted by US military analysts, that the US "way of warfare" focuses on overwhelming fire power, massive logistics and battles of annihilation.

That's what the US army does and does best. That's also what a lot of the senior commanders think it should be doing exclusively.
(There are fears in Europe that the US might develop a mindset where it goes in and breaks heads, and then European troops have to clean up their mess.)

But this is not what the US army is exclusively asked to do, and when it becomes a matter of prioritising resources for training troops for what the army thinks they should be doing (killing the enemy) and what it's asked to do (policing) then the resources tend to go to maintaining the fighting skills.

Which is when US troops in general start to suffer in comparison with the Brits, the Danes etc. (The Italian Carabinieri perhaps being the world's best police troops here.)

The scale of the US deployment in Iraq of course matters as well. Danes and even Brits have the privilege of sending those troops they think up to snuff. The US is carrying the operation regardless.

That this is the state of affairs is completely uncontroversial. It's a matter of priorities and the US army has placed a low (no) priority on this compared to its allies.

Linky:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=sv&lr=&q=cache:eHSetRq9I0IJ:www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF218/

 

[MobBoss]

Sure, you got the better of us in one war. 1812 didn't go to well, though, eh?

Oh I think it went ok, for us. "one of the forgotten wars of the United States. The war lasted for over two years, and while it ended much like it started; in stalemate; it was in fact a war that once and for all confirmed American Independence. The offensive actions of the United States failed in every attempt to capture Canada. On the other hand, the British army was successfully stopped when it attempted to capture Baltimore and New Orleans. There were a number of American naval victories in which American vessels proved themselves superior to similarly sized British vessels. These victories coming after victories in the Quasi War (an even more forgotten war) launched American naval traditions. " From this website: http://www.multied.com/1812/

And we have the only army that has ever burned the White House to the ground.

True enough. But then again, at that point, the United States was the only nation on earth to beat the British on land and at sea.

Our army is probably too busy actually doing their duty to take part in games.

Funny. Doing what? Protecting the Queen?

You can talk as much baloney as you want, but our troops are proven in war
to be among the best. Not to say the US army is incapable, but they do call
on the Brits to break the toucher nuts that need broken.

This from the man who thinks Jingoism is evil. ROFL. Yeah, if we ever need to beat up on the Falklands we will give you a call.

Our SAS can wipe the floor with any US or foreign spec-ops, because we trained most of them.

Now you are really losing it. The SAS doesnt train the US Special Forces. Please cease your un-educated mumblings. Read up some information and stop hiding in jingoistic lies.

 

[MobBoss]

After the war, everyone copied America.

Well, I am fairly certain the Soviet Bloc countries didnt. Not sure about the other EU countries either.

1. The M16 you use is slightly inferior to the Canadian produced one we use.

Whats the difference?

2. The M16 is inferior to the Carbine. Yes, it is more acurate, but it is too large and cumbersome.

Most of our infantry units do use the Carbine, especially those involved in MOUT operations.

3. The lack of optic sights.

A good majority do use the optic sights and this is not as important as you make it out to be.

4. The lack of proper camo. The pattern I see your troops wearing on TV has too large patterns. And I don't care why it is mixed actually, it shouldn't be.

So you dont like our camo, therefor it is inferior?

That's it. Im going to do something more interesting than talking to you. Im on weekend leave and my time is precious.

Thats it? Thats all? You are kidding me.

 

[MobBoss]

It is not the guns, but the fighting attitude of the men.

You won't find our men running away or whining to a CNN crew.

.

Or beating kids with sticks?

 

[MobBoss]

It's common knowledge, freely admitted by US military analysts, that the US "way of warfare" focuses on overwhelming fire power, massive logistics and battles of annihilation.

That's what the US army does and does best. That's also what a lot of the senior commanders think it should be doing exclusively.
(There are fears in Europe that the US might develop a mindset where it goes in and breaks heads, and then European troops have to clean up their mess.)

But this is not what the US army is exclusively asked to do, and when it becomes a matter of prioritising resources for training troops for what the army thinks they should be doing (killing the enemy) and what it's asked to do (policing) then the resources tend to go to maintaining the fighting skills.

Which is when US troops in general start to suffer in comparison with the Brits, the Danes etc. (The Italian Carabinieri perhaps being the world's best police troops here.)

The scale of the US deployment in Iraq of course matters as well. Danes and even Brits have the privilege of sending those troops they think up to snuff. The US is carrying the operation regardless.

That this is the state of affairs is completely uncontroversial. It's a matter of priorities and the US army has placed a low (no) priority on this compared to its allies.

Linky:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=sv&lr=&q=cache:eHSetRq9I0IJ:www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF218/

Well put and I cant fault the logic behind the paper.

 

[Sidhe]

Sure, you got the better of us in one war. 1812 didn't go to well, though, eh?

And we have the only army that has ever burned the White House to the ground.

.

Don't forget we were at war with France and Spain and the Dutch and later Napoleon as well, try fighting a huge army in Europe and another thousands of miles away and see how you do, if we weren't sorely pressed in Europe later then the Americans would still be singing the English National anthem well not actually the natural progression of colonies is to become independant countries unless they are tiny and rely on the founders to exist, you just happened to time your rebellion at the right moment. And England won the last war with the US alot of people forget that.

Or beating kids with sticks?

Cheap shot

At least we don't simulate sexual acts deny rights in breach of the Geneva convention and use torture also in breach of such acts

 

[Lozzy_Ozzy]

Don't forget we were at war with France and Spain and the Dutch and later Napoleon as well, try fighting a huge army in Europe and another thousands of miles away and see how you do, if we weren't sorely pressed in Europe later then the Americans would still be singing the English National anthem well not actually the natural progression of colonies is to become independant countries unless they are tiny and rely on the founders to exist, you just happened to time your rebellion at the right moment. And England won the last war with the US alot of people forget that.

Aye, I was going to mention that.

 

[Lotus49]

Specifically, the USAF Red Berets (CTTs). More hardcore than anyone else out there, believe it or not.

 

[GenMarshall]

I realy cant decide on this one. Most certanly fictional special forces are out of the question in this thread .

 

[Sidhe]

I realy cant decide on this one. Most certanly fictional special forces are out of the question in this thread .

Yeah that's a shame. I'd have to go with the one man special force known as ACE Rimmer otherwise

Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...