It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Austraila - and their Militry

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Just bigger, not better. They have equal (if not better) training. I know what you are getting at, but the fact is that they are our allies, they fight along side our guys, and have much of the same equipment and capabillity.

All you are going to do is piss off a bunch of Aussi's and show once again that Americans are much too arrogant with this kind of talk.

Edit: I noticed that you are from England. So I guess I'll let you know how much better the US is then the UK because we have so much more money and so many more men. With your line of logic, please never again put the US and UK millitary in the same sentance, as we are vastly superior defined by your own words.


[edit on 24-8-2004 by American Mad Man]


Can I just say, we have better trained troops than the US army, US army is only better because you have more men and more money. And be carful about slagging Britain off...




posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
And we have a better Army, a better Navy, and a better Air Force. Your point?

The fact is, i'm just reversing your own logic on you. Personally, I feel the UK and Australia to be our closest allies, so i think it stupid to compare our forces (if not our equipment) and to belittle the worth of either. BTW, you UK guys keep talking about training this, training that - especially with your SAS. My buddy was training with them (he is a SEAL) and said that everything is basically the same as far as training goes, though the SEALs are better in the water (in his opinion). It seems to me that our training can't be that inferior, considering we have the most advanced millitary in the world, BY FAR. Just my opinion.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
SAS is the best special force in the world, it is no comparison to SEAL's.

Hmm.. yes the US army is the best, that's why they bomb hundreds of innocent people in Iraq...

British army is the best trained army in my opinion...

[edit on 24-8-2004 by Minime]



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Unless you were in either the SAS or SEALs and worked with the other, then I choose to believe someone who is actually in the SEALs and who trains WITH the SAS, rather then some guy on the internet - sorry.

Also, don't bring politics into this, we are talking millitary here. And I have a question for you - if your boys are so well trained, how come they repeatedly wonder into A-10 zones of fire, then complain when they are shot up? It seems to me that a well trained soldier would know to stay out of A-10 anti tank zones.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
How come they repeatedly wonder into A-10 zones of fire, then complain when they are shot up? It seems to me that a well trained soldier would know to stay out of A-10 anti tank zones.


I need source for that piece of information, please.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Surely you have heard of those unfortunate UK soldiers that were attacked by an A-10 thunderbolt II? It was a big deal in the UK, what with you guys always accusing the US fighter pilots of being cowboys. What was not said was the reason they were shot was because they had wondered into a "no tank zone" so naturally when 4 UK tanks/AVs went into the area, he lit them up.

You can find numerous hits if you search for UK troops shot by A-10, but naturally, most do not mention the no tank zone. I am looking for the link that mentions it.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 05:33 PM
link   
also i would say that your mate is right about the SAS not being as good as the seals at water warfare. because they aint water warfare troops thier ground and air troops. the SBS is far more superior than anyforce. they are the very elite. so secret they are barely known. hell your seals are no where near ready to take them on.
also that bit about american bomber yeah they are crap u know why cause they firebombed a british position during the korean war even when the ground troops put the right smoke pots in the right positions, hell we lost more men to u than we did to enemy fire that day.
also dont call england the UK its like me calling u texan.
also the ASAS is the ausrtalian SAS they are respected as being very good in the SF world.

[edit on 24-8-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 09:36 AM
link   
ahh you gotta love nationalism and pride in one's nations military force!


I'd have to say american mad man has got a point here and by using your logic has proved it's faults. You say that the UK has better training than US troops however US troops have so much more money to burn than the UK does? yet you say that Aussie troops are worse than UK troops because we don't spend as much money as you do on the military? how odd.

Aussie troops are generally pretty good and while I am sure that they don't compare to what the US and UK have in resources i'm pretty sure that our training is pretty top notch.

All nations believe that their military is the best at a certain thing over all others.

Our airforce pilots are pretty good at what they do so is our navy and our army. They do their job to protect the people and we are proud of them for doing so.

I think we just all gotta accept that our boys and girls in uniform all are doing their best with what they've got and we should be proud of them but also acknowledge their shortcomings. You can't just really say that the military on the whole is better than anothers military because you have to accept that their will be enemies that are more talented than you and are better at their job. Same with allies. We are all human and some people are better at some stuff than others. Simple as that.

We also must acknowledge british history and attitudes because this is most likely where these attitudes come from. Britain, our former colonial masters have always felt superior to us and that we were are of basically lower "stock" than them. Same thing with them and the canadians. Our troops have fought many wars in Britains name and have died valiantly protecting her colonial interests and from the Germans. Throughout all conflicts we have been involved with britain until 1945 Australian troops have always been considered and treated inferior to the British troops by the British soldiers and Officers. Australian troops were dictated to by the British high command and we obeyed.

This was the way things were until our PM during WWII stood up to Churchill and the HC and withdrew our troops back to home from the Middle East to protect the mainland from the Japanese. Of course the Brits interfered anyway with the troop ships
. Basically after this we begged the Americans to come and save us in exchange for a base of operations. They saved our butts and came to our need when Britain did not and could not.

The rest is history,
drfunk

hope that made sense,
drfunk

[edit on 25-8-2004 by drfunk]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   
and can I ask why you have your avatar as that inept butcher Lord Kitchner?? That arrogant aristocrat sent many good men to their deaths.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
also i would say that your mate is right about the SAS not being as good as the seals at water warfare. because they aint water warfare troops thier ground and air troops. the SBS is far more superior than anyforce.


British Special Forces are so hyped up, maybe its because they write so many books telling the world how good they are.
When it comes to SF, all the training and equipment is basically the same. What makes the difference is the quality of men that are drafted into these units. You will find they are the same around the world.
The American's are the most effective because they are able to draw on a vast military machine.

As for British SAS, highly overrrated, they are no better than any other elite units. There was a book published last year called Ultimate Risk : First contact with Al-Qaeda. It took 200 SAS to assault an AQ position of about 100 men. This book also states that a 4 man SBS patrol was ambushed and they ran away leaving their top secret radio and codes behind. Very Professional


[edit on 25-8-2004 by mad scientist]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist


British Special Forces are so hyped up, maybe its because they write so many books telling the world how good they are.
When it comes to SF, all the training and equipment is basically the same. What makes the difference is the quality of men that are drafted into these units. You will find they are the same around the world.
The American's are the most effective because they are able to draw on a vast military machine.

i wouldnt your vast military regimine is made up of poorly trained troops.
where as the SBS and SAS are far better because they have to spend at least 8 years in before they even look at u.


Originally posted by mad scientist
As for British SAS, highly overrrated, they are no better than any other elite units. There was a book published last year called Ultimate Risk : First contact with Al-Qaeda. It took 200 SAS to assault an AQ position of about 100 men. This book also states that a 4 man SBS patrol was ambushed and they ran away leaving their top secret radio and codes behind. Very Professional

[edit on 25-8-2004 by mad scientist]

yes of course and was this book written by the supposed SAS guys? even though the SAS guys never tell any one they where in the SAS
also which other unit trains as long or as hard as the SAS/SBS?
lets c ethier u lose your men or the radio ? i would rather lose a radio than 4 lads. codes can be changed and radio's replaced a person cant.
whats more profesional losing a radio or losing 4 men? i would say loseing the radio.
also a 4 man SBS patrol? thats impossible unless half thier section was wiped out. they never send them out in fire teams always sections.
dont believe everything u read.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I believe almost nothing I read especially books by British SAS people. Ultimate Risk was written with the full knowlege of the SAS, the mission is documented. The US didn't want them there and didn't give them anything to do, so the command started whining for some action. The US said well yeah attack this opium factory, it'll save us a bomb.
It's interesting because the AUS SAS saw a fair bit of action with the US.

Also, my sisters husband is ex AUS SAS, he says the Brits are nothing special, mostly hype since Queensgate. As a matter of fact AUS SAS taught the British how to jungle fight in Malaya.

It's very presumptuous to spout the line the Brits are the best, WHY ? There is no logical reason, they've seen less action than the US and AUS in the last 5 years. Combat experience counts for everything.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   
They left the radio because they forgot it and yes it was a big deal, their jeep was stolen as well. It wasn't a heavy firefight, very amateurish.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
I believe almost nothing I read especially books by British SAS people. Ultimate Risk was written with the full knowlege of the SAS, the mission is documented. The US didn't want them there and didn't give them anything to do, so the command started whining for some action. The US said well yeah attack this opium factory, it'll save us a bomb.
It's interesting because the AUS SAS saw a fair bit of action with the US.

shows u how much the US wanted us there, should of just stayed at home.

Originally posted by mad scientist

Also, my sisters husband is ex AUS SAS, he says the Brits are nothing special, mostly hype since Queensgate. As a matter of fact AUS SAS taught the British how to jungle fight in Malaya.

nothing special? thats a bit arogant to say.also i would exspect them to train the SAS the ASAS has the exsperience and the terrain, unlike the SAS who dont.

Originally posted by mad scientist

It's very presumptuous to spout the line the Brits are the best, WHY ? There is no logical reason, they've seen less action than the US and AUS in the last 5 years. Combat experience counts for everything.

ok why
for the SAS u gota pass selection
SAS selction source 1
source 2
and to get into the SBS u gota pas that and the RMC course and serve for at least 3 years and the uk sf course then pass the SBS selection.
now u ask why they are the best beacuse they spend so so long training also they do get exsperience u just never hear of it, both of these forces are very secerative.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
They left the radio because they forgot it and yes it was a big deal, their jeep was stolen as well. It wasn't a heavy firefight, very amateurish.

really?
can u give me a source or atleast tell me how many enemy where there and why there was only 4 of them?



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by mad scientist
They left the radio because they forgot it and yes it was a big deal, their jeep was stolen as well. It wasn't a heavy firefight, very amateurish.

really?
can u give me a source or atleast tell me how many enemy where there and why there was only 4 of them?


IT'S IN THE BOOK



www.amazon.co.uk...

Personally I found the book very tedious, 1 chapter of combat and 9 chapters of BS.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   


ok why
for the SAS u gota pass selection
SAS selction source 1
source 2
and to get into the SBS u gota pas that and the RMC course and serve for at least 3 years and the uk sf course then pass the SBS selection.
now u ask why they are the best beacuse they spend so so long training also they do get exsperience u just never hear of it, both of these forces are very secerative.


All special forces have to do a selection, which are generally the same. I have seen the Spetsnaz running around with 15kg vests, they have to do everything in them.
The SAS is the most public out of all the SF in the world. How many books seem to come out every year from some ex-SAS soldier.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist


IT'S IN THE BOOK



www.amazon.co.uk...

Personally I found the book very tedious, 1 chapter of combat and 9 chapters of BS.

yes and one review said

This is the worst military book I have ever read. The constant swearing in the dialogue was tedious after the first couple of chapters. If you want an intelligent book about the British Military and the British Special Forces then read the books by Michael Asher or the excellent The Operators: Inside 14 Intelligence Company - The Army's Top Secret Elite by James Rennie. Lucky it was a Xmas present, I wouldn't have bought it

i personally have read books by micheal asher which are very good i wouldnt be suprised if this guy is some self proclaimed exspert.

now can u tell me why there was only 4 people out there?

[edit on 25-8-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist


All special forces have to do a selection, which are generally the same. I have seen the Spetsnaz running around with 15kg vests, they have to do everything in them.
The SAS is the most public out of all the SF in the world. How many books seem to come out every year from some ex-SAS soldier.

yes but none are as tough as the SAS or SBS now spetnaz are very physically tough and very good at warfare but are not of the same class as the SAS or SBS they are designed to kill everything and survive the SAS and SBS are designed to do that and recon. but recon is one of their main roles especially the SBS.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   
[edit on 25-8-2004 by mad scientist]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join