UK Military

Originally posted by stumason
Only 3 vanguards are active, last time I checked.

www.royal-navy.mod.uk...
?

Each missile is believed to have 12 warheads (this is a best guess scenario by "experts" as the UK won't confirm it)

The warheads are variable too, so can be amended to give varying yields. Do not be surprised to find we could pack a punch if we had to.

Yeah we could pack a punch, my point has been totally blown outa the water anyhow...

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by stumason
Only 3 vanguards are active, last time I checked.

www.royal-navy.mod.uk...
?

Each missile is believed to have 12 warheads (this is a best guess scenario by "experts" as the UK won't confirm it)

The warheads are variable too, so can be amended to give varying yields. Do not be surprised to find we could pack a punch if we had to.

Yeah we could pack a punch, my point has been totally blown outa the water anyhow...

Ooooh....when was the last Vanguard launched? i knew that 4 where on the cards, just wasn't aware that 4 had been brought into service. Groovy....

Originally posted by stumason
Ooooh....when was the last Vanguard launched? i knew that 4 where on the cards, just wasn't aware that 4 had been brought into service. Groovy....

I remember seeing it in service for atleast a year.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by stumason
Ooooh....when was the last Vanguard launched? i knew that 4 where on the cards, just wasn't aware that 4 had been brought into service. Groovy....

I remember seeing it in service for atleast a year.

Seems the last was launched in 1999. Maybe it was undergoing Sea Trials or something, but I swear the RN website said only 3 in service last year...but then again, maybe they didn't update it!!

Cool that all 4 are inservice now, means we can have 2 on patrol and 2 in port as planned.... so at any given time, we can have up to 384 warheads bobbing about at sea.

Probably not that many, as I doubt all the tridents are fitted with 12 warheads, that is just the technical maximum.

Not as many as the Yanks either, but more than enough to deter any fool stupid enough to lob one at us.

Being a British teenager who plans to join the Royal Marines, we do have a very small military (compared to the US) but we're practically the best in the world due to our training. I heard that the US Delta Force training is what our regular grunts receive for training. Americans seem to train more physically and as a team whereas I think in the UK we include some more tactics.

We need to re-introduce National Service I reckon. Tony Blair is getting rid of some regiments and joining them to others as they're quite small. In Operation: Telic we had 40,000 personnel with about 9,000 being TA reserves. The SA80 rifle is also more efficient compared to the US standard M16. We also have different rules of engagement: shoot anyone who looks threatening whereas America is: fire when fired upon.

Hey mash,

What do you plan on doing in the corp?
GD?
Driver?

I plan on being an officer. After I've been to university and got a degree in something, I'll try for the Royal Marines, hopefully be accepted and become a 2nd Lieutenant. Then a Lieutenant, captain, commanding a platoon in Iran (maybe) and then a major in charge of a company.
If I still want to stay, I will. Otherwise I'll move to New York.

I might do the Arctic warfare and mountain leader cadre, but I'm not sure at the moment. I deffitnately want to be a combat officer though.

The Brits man for man have the best army, marines and special forces in the world. But as far as Delta training I've heard they regularly train with the SAS.

Originally posted by danwild6
The Brits man for man have the best army, marines and special forces in the world. But as far as Delta training I've heard they regularly train with the SAS.

Thanks but look at the size, the Royal marines alone are like what tiny in comparasion and lack much of the kit marines in the USMC get standard.

Well thats true the USMC gets as much funding as the British army gets. But I'd cut back on some of the kit in favor of the quality of training you Brits get. But with our military budget we should really be doing both.

Originally posted by danwild6
Well thats true the USMC gets as much funding as the British army gets. But I'd cut back on some of the kit in favor of the quality of training you Brits get. But with our military budget we should really be doing both.

Its not the money, its the standards...the USMC standards are lower than the RMC but thats mainly because they do diffrent roles..

Thats true the Royal Marines are more like a special forces branch aren't they.

Even the Territorial Army are better than the USMC and the TA are only vlounteer reserves. The American armed forces have great missiles and such things because they have so much money (like the stealth fighter and bomber) but the Brits have the Challenger tank and that jet which can hover. Some things are the same though like the chinnok helicoptor. But really, we shouldn't argue over who has the better army as we fight and stand together.

Anyway, isn't the USMC practically it's own army as it's much bigger than a regiment?

Originally posted by mashup
Even the Territorial Army are better than the USMC and the TA are only vlounteer reserves. The American armed forces have great missiles and such things because they have so much money (like the stealth fighter and bomber) but the Brits have the Challenger tank and that jet which can hover. Some things are the same though like the chinnok helicoptor. But really, we shouldn't argue over who has the better army as we fight and stand together.

Anyway, isn't the USMC practically it's own army as it's much bigger than a regiment?

Last I checked the American Army also have access to Jump Jets...

Originally posted by mashup
Even the Territorial Army are better than the USMC and the TA are only vlounteer reserves. The American armed forces have great missiles and such things because they have so much money (like the stealth fighter and bomber) but the Brits have the Challenger tank and that jet which can hover. Some things are the same though like the chinnok helicoptor. But really, we shouldn't argue over who has the better army as we fight and stand together.

Anyway, isn't the USMC practically it's own army as it's much bigger than a regiment?

Huh?
This thread wasnt about that mate and I dont think anyone postsed saying which was better or not..
This thread was about what you think of the UK military and what could improve it..

Originally posted by Odium
Last I checked the American Army also have access to Jump Jets...

Sorry mate they dont have harriers...only the USMC and the RN use em...I think..
Even the US army site says they dont.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

O right.

Apologies all around.



I suppose something which would improve the military is more people and money, but that's unlikely.

Originally posted by Odium
Last I checked the American Army also have access to Jump Jets...

Originally posted by devilwasp
Sorry mate they dont have harriers...only the USMC and the RN use em...I think..
Even the US army site says they dont.

AV-8B Harrier II is used by the USMC. Which is what I meant by them having access to jump jets. Not that every group uses them but that they are there and they own some of them.

Also I do believe the JSF will replace the H2?

So the will have access to lot more "Jump Jets" in a few years than we do.

What we need to do is to improve the funding and expand our armed forces so we can deal effectivly with tasks that are presented to us. Judging by the current climate in the Middle East we are there for the long haul and we need to be more effective with the deployment of our troops.
Also the supply infastructure needs to be improved so we dont have another situation where we have soldiers in theatre with out the right tools for the job, ie correct boot, uniforms, flack jackets etc. These problems seem to have been resolved now but when the conflict started we had supply problems that simply should not have happened.
Also we need a new rifle, the SA series of weapons have been problamatic from the out set. I remember using the the first run of that rifle and the magazine falling off as i was getting on a Puma in Armah because the magazine release catch was towards the body with no cover and it had a habit of banging on your kit and making the mag fall off.
We need to bring the standard of our equipment up to the standard of the US, the Government can spend billions on shiny new carriers and aircraft then its time for the Army to get some lovin too, im sure theres money for it somewhere, god knows i pay enough tax.
Appart from that the quality of the individual soldier is as good as it ever was, we just need to spend more money on them.

Originally posted by Odium
AV-8B Harrier II is used by the USMC. Which is what I meant by them having access to jump jets. Not that every group uses them but that they are there and they own some of them.

Not to start an arguement mate but who is "they"?

Also I do believe the JSF will replace the H2?

Yup..

So the will have access to lot more "Jump Jets" in a few years than we do.

Well not really, the US army doesnt use the harrier and doesnt need to..they have an entire service dedicated to doing that for them.

Under Armed Forces regulations the Army cannot operate fixed wing aircraft. Thats the USAF's job. They can't even operate the A-10 and that is entirely a ground support aircraft. And Janus is right the Royal Army needs a new rifle. So does the US Army for that matter. It would be great if we both opted for the M-468.

[edit on 27-9-2005 by danwild6]

[edit on 27-9-2005 by danwild6]