It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


total man power uk+new type 45

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Harlequin
and you are not a moderator so stop pretending to be one ok.

Never said I was, you don't have to be one to call people out though.

Originally posted by Harlequin
one of the reasons for the massive difference in casualites is relevant experience for handling populations that are hostile to you

Probably, but it is not one of the major reasons, it's down there with "training and discipline".

Originally posted by Harlequin
here we are 4 years on and the south is much more passified than the north. hmmm i wonder why.

How so? The British force is several times smaller than the US force and mainly focused around a more cooperative Shiite city. The US on the other hand has to deal with the rest of the country with more hostile Sunni factions etc... Not to mention the scale of our operations compared to the British, not even close. Point being you cannot use such figures, without putting them into context, to draw your own conclusions.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by WestPoint23]

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:50 AM
I think the British haven't had such a rough go of it as the Americans in Iraq for two primary reasons:

1. There is not nearly as many of them

2. They are primarily working with the ethnically homogeneous Basra area, which is almost 100% Shia, compared with the mixed-ethnic sectors near Baghdad that the Americans are dealing with.

It may be true that the British armed forces are better trained than their American counterparts, but Iraq is not proof positive of that thesis.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 09:05 AM
Iraq is effectively broken down into 3 parts , north , middle and south , with the us forces in the north , the brits in the south and just about everyone else in the middle - the situation in the north was nothing like as volatile 4 years ago as it is now - and that is not to do with mixed ethnic populations but the initial handling of the situation ; and that handling was that poor here we are in 2007 with hourly bombings and open warfare.

you can only make a `first impression` once - and that is where the experience that the british has in ireland (and ignored by the usa over israelie experience) comes into play - sadly the us messed up and here we are (all imo of course) with the mess now.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Harlequin
Iraq is effectively broken down into 3 parts , north , middle and south , with the us forces in the north , the brits in the south and just about everyone else in the middle - the situation in the north was nothing like as volatile 4 years ago as it is now - and that is not to do with mixed ethnic populations but the initial handling of the situation ; and that handling was that poor here we are in 2007 with hourly bombings and open warfare.

you can only make a `first impression` once - and that is where the experience that the british has in ireland (and ignored by the usa over israelie experience) comes into play - sadly the us messed up and here we are (all imo of course) with the mess now.

If you believe the British could do a better job against the Sunni factions that have been pushed out of power and wants to retake that power while the Shiites don't need an excuse to do such a thing, I'll gladly oblige to let the Brits do the job.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 09:53 AM
its too late now the `first impression` has allready been made and thats why we are here in 2007 with the daily body count - so swapping forces wouldn`t actually make any difference at this time 4 years later.Its too late for that , and thats why the US will still be in Iraq for another 4 years at least - as the saying goes `you made your bed now lie in it`

but this isn`t related to the OP and for that i apologise.

[edit on 9/8/07 by Harlequin]

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 10:52 AM
Let me just start by saying that I am actualy a dual-citizen, my father is from England and my Mother is from here in America, and I have a couple of years before I have to please dont call me biased.

British casualties are much lower in Iraq because the British force is much smaller than the US. The US has a much more volatile region, not to mention that the insurgents hate the US alot more than they hate the British. Not to mention that the US has control over the Sunni Triangle, as well as Baghdad, Ramadi, and everything else in that whole region that probably has more insurgency than the rest of Iraq combined.

But let me get back on topic and I urge the rest of you to end the Iraq discussion soon. No I am not a moderator, however I hate to see discussions like this break down.

In a US Navy vs Royal Navy encounter, the only thing that I am sure of is that the Royal surface fleet would be overwhelmed. In my personal opinion, the Royal Navy posesses some extremely effective submarines, but remember that each CVBG patrols with two Virginia or Los Angales class attack submarines. Those, especially the Virginias, could give the Astute class a run for its money. Its like pitting an F-86 against a MiG-15. The Astutes have the edge, however they dont when up against two Virginias, and the US has enough ships to assign two virginias to every Astute.

Once the Astutes are out of the way or at least somewhat checked, the LAs can move in and guard the CVBG without too much worry. Of course than there is the threat from the RAF, which IMHO is just a smaller version of the USAF, they are just as good and if were talking navy here, they have much better aircraft. Except MAYBE the NEWEST NEWEST NEWEST superbug.

The RAF could probably hold the US Navy back due to the lack of USAF bases in the area, but lets assume for a second that the RAF is defeated (which is highly unlikely under the circumstances), the US goes ahead and invades. The British land forces are again, just a smaller, similarly equipped and trained force with good tanks, artillery, etc. To match anything the US can throw. Notice that I say MATCH.

Assuming the US somehow gets a sizable invasion force on the land, and through a difficult fight defeats the UK in a war, now that Iraq has happened everyone knows how to fight the US now and there would be a massive insurgency the US would never be able to contain.

The US would have a hard fight against the UK and they might win, but they couldnt stay there long.

Now that THAT is done I can say this:

It makes me SICK TO MY STOMACH when I think about going to war with the UK. That would just be the end of it for me - I'd probably get out of Chicago and go live with my counsins in London...Its like going to war with your best friend.

The UK armed forces are just as well trained and as well equipped as the US if not better in some areas, the only difference is that they are smaller. They are not some small third world country you can just walk over in one month and THEY DESERVE RESPECT.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:52 AM
I stand by my assertion of the ill discipline of US forces:

Abu Ghraib ring any bells? or this? or this?

originally posted by speakeroftruth
The United States has gotten itself into a position where the military is accepting quantity over quality. While I was still in the Army, the government lowered the ASVAB score requirement from a 31 to a 27.... Now, I scored a 78 on the ASVAB test, which, at least according to my recruiter, was in the top 20 percentile... Anyone that can't score a 31 or above on the ASVAB shouldn't,in all honesty, be allowed to joining any branch of the military.

The point I am making is that there are many immature and, yes, ignorant people that are allowed to join our military forces.

If these are not examples of ill disciplined troops then I don't know what is.

Compare to UK troops in Iraq - one clip found of a few soldiers giving some teenagers a bit of a beasting for throwing rocks at them.

I rest my case.

[edit on 9/8/2007 by budski]

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:41 PM
Harlequin, saying you are not in a position to make claims regarding the status of United States troops it a perfectly legitimate reply. Yours, in the meanwhile, was childish and off-handed.

Further, I fail to recall any mass-deployment of our troops to Israel to learn 'how to deal with prisoners'. Further, we have had quite a few conflicts in which to study how to deal with enemy combatants, much as you're own armed forces have.

First, it is spelled 'pacified'.
Which, I think might say something about your age, and erego ability to intelligently continue this debate.
Second, Southern Iraq:

i. The insurgents are not after 'Britain'. 'Jihad' nonsense aside, Iraq is a political war, not a religious one.

ii. The South has had resurgences of Iranian-backed militias, something the North has been dealing with the entire time.

iii. Baghdad.

iv. Sunni Triangle.

v. Where are the Major Mosque's located?

vi. The reason the UK has Southern Iraq is that it is less of a chore. Your forces brought to bear less resources and harsher restrictions than the United States. It is a matter of logistics.

Please, research topics before debating them.

Edit: The U.K. does deserve respect -- though, 'we' are not the ones who began this childish mud-slinging contest.
In all likely-hood, the United Kingdom would lose.
And your citizens should be happy about that.
While the United States continues to spend billions in military assets it will most likely not need for another twenty, thirty years, the United Kingdom's funds are being put into domestic programs which increase the living quality of its citizens.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Iblis]

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Iblis
Edit: The U.K. does deserve respect -- though, 'we' are not the ones who began this childish mud-slinging contest.
In all likely-hood, the United Kingdom would lose.
And your citizens should be happy about that.
While the United States continues to spend billions in military assets it will most likely not need for another twenty, thirty years, the United Kingdom's funds are being put into domestic programs which increase the living quality of its citizens.

I have to say I did agree with the majority of your post. I couldn't help notice the contradictions in your last paragraph.

You accuse Harlequin of 'mud-slinging' but you hardly help ease the problem by adding your own input, blatently saying the US would win- which I might add is completely off topic of the thread.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:58 PM
Look, the British have a much smaller contingent in Iraq than the Yanks. Fact. Comparitively there are approximately the same percentage losses between both forces. Both are highly disciplined military powers that are able to enforce a level of strength in an extremely hostile environment.

The South of Iraq is a different type of conflict. The enemy is much harder to spot and the type of attack is more subversive than the north. Therefore the numbers of casualties per attack is high. On the other hand the sheer number of attacks and aggressiveness of the insurgents in the North more than makes up for their lack of subtlety. End result - roughly equivilent casualty numbers by both forces. If the Brits were in the North the military approach would be taking a more stand-off approach. If we took the same tact in the south the tempo of attacks (and in turn the number of casualties) would rise. It's a trade off, but one that keeps the casualty numbers fairly low.

As for comments about the 'trigger happy' attitude of US troops, don't believe everything you see in the movies. I have worked and trained with these soldiers and marines many times. Apart from a select few who will remain nameless, their skills and attitudes were highly professional. Their approach seemed slightly heavy handed, but in essence the US is at the shallow end of a VERY steep learning curve in internal security operations. It took the UK forces over 30 years to get these skills down to the art that we did, and the US has had no where near this amount of time. None the less they are doing a fantastic job and their IS knowledge is increasing exponentially.

in short, we are all allies on the same side of a sh1tty situation, and I take personal offence at people slagging off my mates.


Lets put our d1cks away and get back on topic.

Approx UK force size is in the 250'000 region, with 100'000 being Army. I don't know the exact break down of the RN/RAF.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 06:56 PM
No offense meant but I've worked with a number of different branches of "Royal" forces and their discipline was hardly better than the US forces.

I'm dead certain there were plenty of other breakdowns of the UK' fabled military discipline that have gone unreported as there are unreported ones for the US forces.

There wasn't a breakdown in military discipline at Abu Graib Prison, there was a breakdown in civilized behavior encouraged by intelligence operatives there. This breakdown comes from the top down, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:11 PM
Here is a breakdown of the manpower of the entire UK Armed Forces:

The United Kingdom fields one of the most powerful, technologically advanced, and comprehensive armed forces in the world. The UK has the second highest military expenditure in the world[41] despite only having the 28th highest number of troops. It is also the second largest spender on military science, engineering and technology[42] Despite Britain's wide ranging capabilities, recent defence policy has a stated assumption that any large operation would be undertaken as part of a coalition. Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq (Granby, Desert Fox and Telic) may all be taken as precedent - indeed the last large scale military action in which the British armed forces fought alone was the Falklands War of 1982.

The Royal Navy is the second largest navy in the world in terms of gross tonnage, with 91 commissioned ships. The Naval Service (which comprises the Royal Navy and Royal Marines) had a strength of 35,470 in July 2006[43] and is charged with custody of the United Kingdom's independent strategic nuclear deterrent consisting of four Trident missile submarines, while the Royal Marines provide commando units for amphibious assault and for specialist reinforcement forces in and beyond the NATO area. According to the same source, the British Army had a strength of 100,010, while the Royal Air Force had a strength of 45,210. This puts the total number of regular Armed Forces personnel at 180,690 (not including civilians), nine percent of whom were women. This number is supported by reserve forces, including over 35,000 from the Territorial Army. The total number of serving personnel, including reserve forces, is therefore in the region of 225,000 (taking into account Navy, Marines and Air Force reserves).


[edit on 9/8/07 by stumason]

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:32 AM
Come on guys. I know instinct dictates that you automatically defend/support your own guys but you have to sometimes put aside national prejudice if you want to have a good discussion.

As a Brit I've got every respect for US troopers in Iraq. They're doing a really #ty job that I wouldn't want to do. Nor do they have full public backing in what they're doing, which must make it even more difficult for them. Same goes for the Brits in the South. So all credit to our guys for what they're doing, even if we can't agree on the whys and wherefores.

I can't see there being any major difference between Brit & US troopers. In the main they're just young guys doing their bit, they'll have all come through the public education system with the same cultural influences as each other, same interests etc. It's how each army moulds them into shape where the differences arise. And the differences aren't that vast. The Brits might perhaps have a slight advantage with their regimental system, where guys from the same geographic area are brought together and where the bonds of loyalty and historic traditions are perhaps that much greater. The Brit system though just isn't perhaps as efficient as the US divisional system. So it's swings & roundabouts there.

The US certainly has the advantage where it comes to kit, whether it be the numbers of tanks, aircraft or ships. That's never going to change. But there is very little between them nowadays in technological terms. The US defence industry probably has a greater economy of scale whereas the Brits try to make up for that with new innovation. It'd be a great day if over the years ahead the two governments could come closer when it comes to cooperation with weapons development & procurement. And I would say to my US friends that there's no shame in buying British, or European for that matter, if the weapons system is better than the US equivalent. Or vice versa. How some Brits over here cringe when we think what could've been bought with the money allocated to the shambles that was Nimrod.

Anyway I'm off topic.

What do you guys think the RN & RAF will be doing as this American battle group slowly gets assembled ? You can't just conjure ships for a battle group out of thin air. Sailors & airmen will have to be recalled from leave, ships & aircraft will have to move station and get assembled, fuelled & armed. All these signals can't be hidden. That in itself would give the British armed forces time enough to get their submarines & ships into best position and to disperse their aircraft to any number of civilian airfields. The Brits could also recall troopers & equipment from all over the world to defend their country. And what of the Commonwealth countries ? Do you honestly think they would sit idly by while this was going on ? If the Falklands War is anything to go by, Commonwealth naval vessels would at least relieve British ships from their worldwide duties to help maximise the size of the RN. And depending on the nature of the conflict they might actually participate with the Brits against the Americans.

And no offence to my American friends. But it only takes one lucky submarine or aircraft and you've got the centrepiece of your battle group burning in mid atlantic (that's why I'm rather against large aircraft carriers) - and you'll have the rest of your battle group suddenly trying to cope with 5000 survivors while the RN submarines are making merry havoc. I'm not being nationalistic when I say this. Or going with national prejudice. But I can't even see the American fleet getting midway across the Atlantic before it gets severely mauled.

And even if it did get into neighbouring waters, the RAF would not be shy in making it's presence known.

The idea that the US could ever invade the UK is just such a non starter.

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 04:29 PM
The US keeps its strike groups pre-assembled. They are already formed, the US keeps ten deployed from the US and one in Japan, the US requires that six of these eleven strike groups be ready to deploy within 30 days at any given time, while a further two must be ready in 90 days. There are also at least three out and about basically at all times, three could probably keep the UK busy while the others deploy.

You seem to think that the US doesnt have equivalent submarines and more of them, not to mention some very effective aircraft. I think that two Virignias can probably keep the Astute or something else completely on the defensive, so while the surface fleet is dealing with the survivors, the Virginias would probably be playing marry hob with the enemy subs.

Here is what I AM sure of: There is NEXT TO NOTHING on the planet that can penetrate the ultra-thickly woven AAW net of a CVBG. You are talking ten or more platforms all with SM-6 missiles, (basically an S-400) carrying hundreds of missiles. Than if it gets anywhere near close enough to drop a bomb or launch a small missile that the SM-6s cant take out, its got ESSMs to deal with and you simply CANT evade an ESSM. They can pull so many more Gs than ANYTHING. If an aircraft miraculously gets through THAT, RAMs are basically SAM Sidewinders which I can safely say is one of the most agile, accurate, and effective missiles ever built. You have a better chance with subs.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by BlackWidow23]

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 05:20 PM
That'll be the same invincible AAW system that nearly led to the battleship USS Missouri being struck by an Iraqi Silkworm during the first Gulf War (it finally got shot down by a Sea Dart from a British warship HMS Gloucester).

Or the same invincible AAW system which led to USS Missouri launching chaff off as an AA countermeasure, only for the battleship to be engaged by the Phalanx gun from USS Jarrett, leading to a Missouri crew member getting injured.

And what about the Chinese sub which popped up undetected in the midst of a Pacific CBG last year (was it last year or the year before ?)

Come on, BlackWidow23, nothing is 100% perfect. Even more so in the confusion of battle.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Niall197]

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 07:42 PM
Lower UK casualties in Iraq also have to do with the fact that the UK forces are concentrated in the Shia south, where opposition to the occupation has generally been less violent, wheras US forces have been responsible for most Sunni areas of Iraq. Initially the insurgency was concentrated in the Sunni areas, although this is less true now.

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:15 PM

Originally posted Niall197
That'll be the same invincible AAW system that nearly led to the battleship USS Missouri being struck by an Iraqi Silkworm during the first Gulf War (it finally got shot down by a Sea Dart from a British warship HMS Gloucester).

Actually no it's not, this topic has already been covered before. I recommend you read the link below. Although I agree with you that nothing is perfect and not everything always works.


Originally posted Niall197
And what about the Chinese sub which popped up undetected in the midst of a Pacific CBG last year...

"Undetected" according to whom? The media? Don't be so naive, just because the US did not do something sensational in international waters does not mean it was undetected or un-escorted. Remembered cold war procedures?

posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 01:27 AM
Hmm... the invasion of the United Kingdom by the United States is highly unlikely but actually very interesting to think about.

On one hand the United States has an unparalled ability to place mass amounts of soldiers and hardware anywhere in the world. Although China or Russia (when counting reserves) can more rapidly deploy an army in their region, they can't deploy nearly as many as the US can on a global scale. However the British Army is large enough, well trained enough, and well equipped enough where whatever we could deploy to Britain would be very evenly matched if not in Britain's favor.

In a USN vs. RN battle it really depends on where it takes place. Out in the middle of the Atlantic it's no contest, it goes to the USN. Even though I have no doubt in my mind that the Royal Navy is extremely skilled, so is the USN. But it just so happens that the USN is much larger than the Royal Navy in all aspects, so the Royal Navy has little chance of taking on the USN in a battle out in the middle of the Atlantic.

But I strongly doubt that the UK would actually attempt a battle in the Atlantic. More likely is that the RN would be recalled from around the world and ordered to defend the home islands. This is where the Royal Navy would have a huge advantage. Refueling, rearming, resupplying, friendly anti-ship missile batteries on the shore, support from the Royal Air Force, it just goes on. I can actually envision the Royal Navy coming out victorious in this situation. It'd probably be close, but the Royal Navy would have a definite shot at victory over the USN when defending the home islands. And when one considers that the United Kingdom is a series of islands, a defeat for the USN would spell out almost certain defeat for an invasion of the UK.

But let's assume that for the purpose of speculation that the Royal Navy is somehow defeated. The next phase almost certainly dependent on the survival of the USN's aircraft carriers. Because of an almost complete lack of support from the USAF, we'd be looking at carrier borne aircraft doing most of the fighting in the skies above Britain. This is where we'll see another advantage for Britain. They'll still have most of the Royal Air Force (at least what's left from after the naval battle) which I think could easily go toe to toe with the USN's aircraft fleet, and more than likely would prove too much for the USN's fleet. From there when you start adding in the threat of advanced SAM and AAA systems it becomes clear that the Battle of Britain isn't anymore winnable than it was for Germany in WWII.

The idea of a land invasion depends completely on the US getting any sort of foothold. Which pretty much depends on the US being able to transport troops via ship. That of course depends on the destruction of the Royal Navy and pacification of the Royal Air Force. If those two things happen then the US has a chance of victory, but it'd still be an immensley difficult and expensive battle to wage. It'd essentially come down to the US being able to outman and out produce the British war machine, thus leading to a very long and drawn out war which tends to sap morale.

So in the end it's entirely possible to invade the United Kingdom, but it'd be immensley difficult. Personally I wouldn't even try such a thing without being able to use France, Norway, Sweeden or Denmark as a base to launch the USAF from. Without a very close base in Europe to strike from we'd find that almost all the naval and air battles would be conducted entirely by the USN with no support from the USAF while the Brits could use both their RN and RAF.

If I absolutely had to invade Britain I'd take my chances by taking France first and then trying to beat Britain by a war of attrition. But in a straight up invasion going directly from the US to UK, the United Kingdom would easily prove to be the greatest challenge we've ever faced. When you consider all those factors it's really not surprising that the United Kingdom hasn't been invaded by an outside force in about a thousand years.

Despite how unlikely such a scenario is, this has been very thought provoking.

posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 07:03 AM
Cheers for the link, Westpoint, interesting reading. I'm still a relative newcomer to ATS & really need to master the way this forum operates in order not to go over old ground.

Conflict seldom arises from a single act or miscalculation. I'd assume that US/British relations had deteriorated over a long period before hostilities commenced. During the run up to such hostilities, if I were a US planner, I'd have been taking advantage of anti-British sentiment from whatever source although such sentiment would be unlikely to be found in Sweden, Denmark or Norway. An despite an historic rivalry between France and the UK, I'd reckon French anti-American sentiment would bring them down on side with the Brits. Although anything is possible in this parallel world we're creating

I can't see any great virtue in taking out France first in an attempt to invade the UK. Despite what some might think about the French armed forces, French resolve will be strong. They will not surrender. I suppose for the purposes of this discussion we're discounting the use of nuclear weapons. In reality, though, the French would use them even if they were targetted on their own soil & against advancing US forces.

There is, of course, one country geographically close to the UK with fierce anti-British feeling in some quarters. The Irish Republic. If they were compliant with USA wishes I could see that country being reinforced by the USA "for their own protection" before hostilities commence. With a large Atlantic coast, with harbours capable of accomodating incoming supply ships, good airports & infrastructure, Ireland could be a perfect staging post for an invasion of the British mainland.

If the Americans could command the Irish Sea & the airspace above it they could launch a D-Day type invasion of the British mainland wherever they choose, anywhere from the Firth of Clyde (location of the UK's Trident submarine base) right down to the English south west coast.

Hopefully (for the Americans at least) hostilities wouldn't commence before the reinforcement of Ireland had been completed. Of course the US would have to invade Northern Ireland to cover it's own rear. And jolly good luck to them in that endeavour - their reception on the Shankill Road in Belfast will make downtown Baghdad look like a cakewalk.

Nevertheless, this scenario would place the UK in a very vulnerable position. Interesting stuff.

posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 07:18 AM

Originally posted by BlackWidow23

I have to disagree about 2 things.
1/ US wouldn't be able to conduct a ground offensive in the UK, unless the RAF and Royal Navy were completely annihalated.
2/ While UK and US forces are similary equiped, the average UK soldier gets x2 as much training than the US soldier. It's a known "fact" the British armed forces are the "best" in the world followed by the Australians.

<< 1    3 >>

log in