NationStates Jolt Archive

A purely subjective question I suppose, but which Marines would you rather call in to get you out of a hot spot?

(As always, poll up in a minute)

The Royal Marines

A purely subjective question I suppose, but which Marines would you rather call in to get you out of a hot spot?

(As always, poll up in a minute)
I'll save you some time. You only need to list the U.S. Marines. No other country has the versatility in their Marine Corps that we do.

Dutch Marines? How do they fight in wooden shoes?

no marines. the 82nd airborne!

I'll save you some time. You only need to list the U.S. Marines. No other country has the versatility in their Marine Corps that we do.
Plus I feel more comfortable getting help from a fellow American as opposed to a fellow from France or China.

USMC
Semper Fi
OOORAH!!!

Long Live the Devil Dogs

The USMC can get anywhere in the world because of their 12 LHDs and LHAs. Of course that is because MARINE means:
My
Ass
Rides
In
Navy
Equipment

Plus I feel more comfortable getting help from a fellow American as opposed to a fellow from France or China.


French units refused to fight with the USMC in The First Gulf War, and now the British refuse to fight with them. It won't be to long before the US army refuse to fight with them;)

I'd think it would depend on what you mean by 'hot spot.'

Also, I think I detect bias. =O

Plus I feel more comfortable getting help from a fellow American as opposed to a fellow from France or China.
Well, I'd feel more comfortable getting help from a fellow Brit as opposed to a fellow from the US, France or China :p

So I suppose the answer probably depends on where you're from.

French units refused to fight with the USMC in The First Gulf War, and now the British refuse to fight with them. It won't be to long before the US army refuse to fight with them;)
I know why too. If you fight with the Marines, they just make you look like shit.

French units refused to fight with the USMC in The First Gulf War, and now the British refuse to fight with them. It won't be to long before the US army refuse to fight with them;)

Probably becuase the French Marines didn't want to end up getting shot at by wayward USMC bullets :p

Is it true that more British troops died because of 'friendly fire' (a fucked up term if ever I've heard one) then by Iraqi fire in the Second Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm and Shield)? :confused:

I'm one of those people who oppose Washington's NeoImperalist policies but I'd admit in terms of amphibious Marine forces the United States Marine Corp is among the best if not THE BEST. Purely because they have so much experience as an service.

it'd be a close tie, but USMC takes the cake, the only other 'real' choice is HMRMC but while they would give the USMC a run for their money inside a combat zone, they really don't have the resources to get there as fast or in as much force as the USMC

From what i've heard, the royal marines are better trained, but yeah, the US' equipment and support would make them the favourable choice.

Blood Angels.

They would pwn your sorry earth-bound arses. :D

http://www.blacklibrary.com/ltded/posters/bloodangels.jpg

ERRR KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!USMC all the way

Probably becuase the French Marines didn't want to end up getting shot at by wayward USMC bullets :p

Is it true that more British troops died because of 'friendly fire' (a fucked up term if ever I've heard one) then by Iraqi fire in the Second Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm and Shield)? :confused:

A wonderful reason to leave the Marines somewhere you don't give a damn about PR, and completely cut off support. They'll do enough on their own.

Or maybe there's a serious need for target recognition in the US forces. First Brit to die in Iraq this time around was when that Patriot battery mistook a jet for a missile, wasn't it?

Pudite Orthae!!

Really though, I love the Royal Marines. Apparently I am only one of five.

Blood Angels.

They would pwn your sorry earth-bound arses. :D

http://www.blacklibrary.com/ltded/posters/bloodangels.jpg

Then they'd eat my sorry earth-bound ass. I don't like being cannibalized.

it'd be a close tie, but USMC takes the cake, the only other 'real' choice is HMRMC but while they would give the USMC a run for their money inside a combat zone, they really don't have the resources to get there as fast or in as much force as the USMC

Mostly coz the USMC hitches rides from the Navy. Until they get tough enough to swim across the ocean anyways. :p

Ummmm SAS

I want the SAS....then The Royal Marines...and yes it is true, the Americans killed more British troops with 'friendly fire' gee thanks guys...your training must be awesome.

Marines win battles,
Armies win wars

USMC
Semper Fi
OOORAH!!!

Long Live the Devil Dogs

The USMC can get anywhere in the world because of their 12 LHDs and LHAs. Of course that is because MARINE means:
My
Ass
Rides
In
Navy
Equipment

No, No, No, My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment, SIR!

As a US Navy Man (Master-At-Arms 3rd Class), I have to say, Send in them USMC boys. But don't let 'em near the Bars. I'm tired of pickin' 'em up after the fights...

Is it true that more British troops died because of 'friendly fire' (a fucked up term if ever I've heard one) then by Iraqi fire in the Second Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm and Shield)? :confused:
According to icasualties.org, there were six British deaths from 'friendly fire 'during the official war part (that's the entirety of British casualties from friendly fire, and it includes the Tornado crew) and four deaths from hostile fire (until the first of May 2003). So yes, during the 'war' part, as opposed to the 'counterinsurgency' part.
When I first read that, I thought "No way." And I was wrong... Wow.

According to icasualties.org, there were six British deaths from 'friendly fire 'during the official war part (that's the entirety of British casualties from friendly fire, and it includes the Tornado crew) and four deaths from hostile fire (until the first of May 2003). So yes, during the 'war' part, as opposed to the 'counterinsurgency' part.
When I first read that, I thought "No way." And I was wrong... Wow.

What were the figures for the first war against Iraq? I know that we lost about 10 men when an American plane blew up one of our APCs...

According to icasualties.org, there were six British deaths from 'friendly fire 'during the official war part (that's the entirety of British casualties from friendly fire, and it includes the Tornado crew) and four deaths from hostile fire (until the first of May 2003). So yes, during the 'war' part, as opposed to the 'counterinsurgency' part.
When I first read that, I thought "No way." And I was wrong... Wow.

Of course, i'm sure that the nationalists here will find a way to blame this on the "Stupid damn limeys who got in the way of our bullets". To some people it is inconcievable that an American military member can make mistakes and maybe it be at least partially their fault - Americans are superiour beings after all, and American soilders are the master race.

From what i've heard, the royal marines are better trained, but yeah, the US' equipment and support would make them the favourable choice.


Depending on the scale of the operation: For a small-scale mission, where the USMC's equipment & support would be less relevant, I'd definitely say the Royal Marines...

By the way, how many non-Britons here have heard of the SBS?

Yes the USMC equipment is better than the Royal Marines, but the Royal Marines training is second to none, and the RM's equipment is still very good.

Royals Marines.

By the way, how many non-Britons here have heard of the SBS?
Oh! Oh! Here! I have. :)

Spacemarines.(Not that i know of them)
http://70.85.81.229/3630/189/emo/beater.gif

I'd say Royal Marines if i had to pick a 'Marine' force.
Me Boyos had many a battle with em arrgh

Looks like the USMC got the early lead in the poll but has more or less lost steam, but the Royal marines have almost caught up with them.

In case your wondering, I'm a US Soldier(army) but I picked Royal marines.

Good idea for a thread, but I must say, I LOVE the bias coming out here :)

I'm far too lazy, but I would be interested in a special forces poll. I'm not sure on the requirements to fit into this category (as in size, etc) , but I'm thinking along the lines, of Brit/Aus SAS, SEALS, etc etc etc (sorry, its late and I can't be bothered to think even slightly hard about all the names I could come up with.)

anyone agree?

By the way, how many non-Britons here have heard of the SBS?

would that be Special Boat Service? I have!! if not them ummmm no.....

The SBS make the USMC look like a bunch of big pansies. They're the kind of people who could cut right through you in one blow of a combat knife, but would just as happily rip your head off with their bare hands.

Who needs to be rescued by marines anyway? I make my own exit :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :headbang:

:D

Who needs to be rescued by marines anyway? I make my own exit :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :headbang:

:D

You make your exit by banging your head against a wall for all eternity?

Blood Angels.
But the blood rage that they have is a fault, dude. They can't pwn as much as the [insert random chapter]! Rawr! /inner geek

Anyhow, seeing as to how the US was first and have to most expirence, its US.

"From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli...."
Tack on pretty much any other place on the planet now.

But the blood rage that they have is a fault, dude. They can't pwn as much as the [insert random chapter]! Rawr! /inner geek

Anyhow, seeing as to how the US was first and have to most expirence, its US.

"From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli...."
Tack on pretty much any other place on the planet now.

royal marines were around before US marines.

I'm far too lazy, but I would be interested in a special forces poll.
Like all these polls though, all it comes out as is nationalistic dickwaving.

The best special forces are those that don't get any attention, that are not very well-known and who don't look like they ever do anything. And then it also depends of course on what sort of mission you're asking them to do.

All that being said, I say the German KSK. :D

Unless the USMC secretly existed before the Royal navy...
<_<

>_>

Woo the RM are in the lead now. Aus/NZ have SBS as well don't they? But SBS are special forces and aren't the kind of troops this poll is looking at I think.

The SBS are special forces but their incredibly secrative, litterally only 1 or 2 pictures have ever been taken of them. No idea what they do.

SBS pwned Argentinian noobs.

Haha the SAS get all the press. Basically the SBS are like the SAS but mainly dealing with water scenarios, such as diving.
From the RN website:

SPECIAL BOAT SERVICE (SBS)



This organisation is the Naval equivalent of the Army's SAS (Special Air Service). Personnel are all volunteers from the mainstream Royal Marines and vacancies are few with competition for entry fierce.



Generally speaking only about 30 per cent of volunteers manage to complete the entry course and qualify. The SBS specialises in mounting clandestine operations against targets at sea, in rivers or harbours and against occupied coastlines.

royal marines were around before US marines.
Yup, your right. My bads.
However, ours were more sucessful and respected until recent history, according to Wikimedia here.
Then again, I'm biased.

As a fighting force for sheer balls it has to be La Legion Etrange.A group of criminals forged into the hardest force on earth.

Pffft. Everyone knows that in terms of training, Her Majesty provides a lot better for her troops then Congress :)

The Foreign Legion are fucking nuts.

SBS pwned Argentinian noobs.
Yep. Their only losses were due to friendly fire. From the SAS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Boat_Service

But yeah, they are special forces, and so not really on the same level as the USMC.

So are the SBS the 'special' secret bit of the Marines or the RN? And are the SAS the secret scary tough bit of the RAF? I really don't know and am interested, please inform and educate me....

The SAS has never had an affiliation with the RAF. they were formed in WWII for special missions in the Africa campaign, but did so fucking well that they did all the special ops from then on. The SBS are an offshoot.

Pffft. Everyone knows that in terms of training, Her Majesty provides a lot better for her troops then Congress :)

The Foreign Legion are fucking nuts.


I tend to agree as well. It's one of the advantages of keeping a smaller force


But some British soldiers i've met don't view it the same way. some of them actually think that we're trained better on better equipment. Hell they think the M-16 is better than the Bullpup they fire, my jaw literally dropped when they said this, i was just dumbfounded.

Oh and they loved american women because american women love their accent. Thats why half of them ended up with crabs from the barracks whores in the barracks they were staying at. I got a good long laugh at that one, I know better than to mess around with those chicks(female soldiers)

lol.

The SA-80 is no good for anything. It doesn't like the cold, it doesn't like the heat, it has to be cleaned like clockwork, and insect repellant melts the stock.

Probably becuase the French Marines didn't want to end up getting shot at by wayward USMC bullets :p

Is it true that more British troops died because of 'friendly fire' (a fucked up term if ever I've heard one) then by Iraqi fire in the Second Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm and Shield)? :confused:

I heard that some British aircraft were shot down by the US Army in Iraq, but I guess when you're in the heat of battle you're too busy saving your own ass to care who you're shooting at.

The Foreign Legion are fucking nuts.
Ain't that the truth.

Hehehe, speaking of the US military, it reminds me of something my granddad told me:

When the Germans come in, the British duck. When the British come in, the Italians duck. When the Americans come in, everyone ducks!

I heard that some British aircraft were shot down by the US Army in Iraq, but I guess when you're in the heat of battle you're too busy saving your own ass to care who you're shooting at.
Well, a group of British troops was bombed to hell in the First Gulf War by US. The only surviving member was an officer.

When the Germans come in, the British duck. When the British come in, the Italians duck. When the Americans come in, everyone ducks!
And then the Russians win. :p

And then the Russians win. :p

XD

I have been reading the link posted by Neu Leonstein (thank you)

So I am now informed and educated...isn't the internet a wonderful thing?

Once upon a time, I went to see the Royal Tournament (before the silly people who do that kind of thing stopped it) and 42 Commando were selling tshirts from a stand, I went to buy one as my Dad was a marine (at the battle of trafalgar, he is very old) and the guys said I could have mine for free if I went and tried it on 'round the back' hmmmm I did not take them up on the kind offer

lol.

The SA-80 is no good for anything. It doesn't like the cold, it doesn't like the heat, it has to be cleaned like clockwork, and insect repellant melts the stock.

You are thinking of the SA-80 A1, the SA-80 A2 which is currently replacing the A1 is considerbly better. Its produced by a different compant that has managed to reduce all the working parts so it doesnt get a blocked by 1 spec of dust like the old version so its not required to be cleaned twice a day and it ok in the cold. The A1 as an actual gun was very good, its one of the most accurate assult rifles available and the A2 still is.

However I think only special forces and the air force have access to it so far, and your right the SA-80 A1 is rubbish, its just stupid having to clean a gun that has over a 100 working parts.

According to wiki the A2 is one of the best rifles available.

And then the Russians win. :p
Actually, the Russians duck when the Finns show up.

Actually, the Russians duck when the Finns show up.

Ahh, yes. the mighty Finns. Why are the uber-Finn Doom Squads not on this list?

Well the US win hands down on equipment but I'd say the RMC have far better training. This seems to balance out but as one of my cousins was in the marines and I'm British I'll let blind patriotism make the descision for me.

Ahh, yes. the mighty Finns. Why are the uber-Finn Doom Squads not on this list?
I checked. They don't have marines. Not enough people is my guess. Most of the damage Finns against the Russians was on skiis, too.

Anyhow, time to learn some Finnish:

Sisu = brave, and loads of other stuff, like "stick-to-itivness" and such

So, its not the "über-Finn Doom Squads", its the "Finn Sisu Squads". Actually, don't listen to me. I speak Swedish.

The SAS has never had an affiliation with the RAF. they were formed in WWII for special missions in the Africa campaign, but did so fucking well that they did all the special ops from then on. The SBS are an offshoot.


They where an experiment in africa, after which they where disbanded, only to get reinstated a bit later, then later they where disbanded two times more and after which they've been a standing force I don't have any years to post since I'm currently at work, but so far they have been disbanded and put back in 3 times, and they HAVE HAD at least joint ops with the RAF.

They still sweep the SBS of their feet tough, The SBS isn't the SAS-equivalent in RN, the SAS has their own sea-capabilities, those are however trained by SBS, mainly raftboats and oxygentanks...The SBS doesn't have any other cetgorisations except for sea/land.

As for which is better, I have no idea, however the USMC probably has the most resources/support-assets to back the troops up, and they use proven technology instead of just new, which is an intelligent choice.

And since everyone leaves biased opinions I might as well vote for Sweden...and runner-up (just to earn some points with our neighbours) I say Denmark :D

I checked. They don't have marines. Not enough people is my guess. Most of the damage Finns against the Russians was on skiis, too.

Anyhow, time to learn some Finnish:

Sisu = brave, and loads of other stuff, like "stick-to-itivness" and such

So, its not the "über-Finn Doom Squads", its the "Finn Sisu Squads". Actually, don't listen to me. I speak Swedish.
Are you from Aland?

I voted Royal Marines, although like said previously the USMC wins the equipment side, the RM wins the training as their basic training puts them equal to US Navy S.E.A.L.S and is why they do a fair amount of joint training excercises.

But out of all the US services the USMC wins.

If they're coming in to save my ass, give me the Royal Marines any time. They're a bona fide elite force, which the USMC isn't, and are trained for hostage rescue, which by and large the USMC aren't.

Of course, the Royals have significantly less than half the manpower, and not as good a support system (thank you, US Navy!).

And I'll take the SBS over Force Recon any time. Hell, I'll take SBS over ANYBODY!

SBS doesn't count. Sorry Brits. If you want to talk about the SBS, then you have to put them against the Navy SEALs, not the USMC.

combat force: Marine Expeditionary Unit

special forces: Marine Force Recon

SBS beat SEALS everytime as well anyway. Your special forces were created under the guidance of ours.

USA, with the UK a close second. Or cripes, call it a tie... my bias makes me vote for the US.

some cool US Marine forces:

Marine Expeditionary Unit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_expeditionary_unit

Marine Force Recon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Force_Recon

Hehehe, speaking of the US military, it reminds me of something my granddad told me:

When the Germans come in, the British duck. When the British come in, the Italians duck. When the Americans come in, everyone ducks!

The version of this that I'd seen before was
"When the Germans fire, the British duck, and when the British fire, the Germans duck, but when the Americans fire everyone ducks!"

and that was allegedly said by both the British and the Germans...

I heard that some British aircraft were shot down by the US Army in Iraq, but I guess when you're in the heat of battle you're too busy saving your own ass to care who you're shooting at.

American 'friendly fire' casulaties at British hands during the same conflicts? None?

Ever hear of vehicle-recognition training?

American 'friendly fire' casulaties at British hands during the same conflicts? None?

Ever hear of vehicle-recognition training?

If you brits just wore red coats like you did before, we wouldn't have any FF problems!

SBS doesn't count. Sorry Brits. If you want to talk about the SBS, then you have to put them against the Navy SEALs, not the USMC.
But if they're part of the Royal marines, why not? It's already fairly precarious to compare the two due to differences in role and training etc., why set a further arbitrary condition?

The royal marines have the longest basic training of any NATO regular troops. Which definitely puts them as contenders for the best.

The downside is they tend to get drunk, dress up as nurses and beat the hell out of naked recruits; in muddy fields. Why, I don't know. Depending upon your view of how an efficient millitary and corp d'esprit works, this is either a good thing, or a bad thing.

They are also short of manpower and heavy equipment.

It's more a horses for courses thing really.

Obviously, anything german is no good. They are conscripts and pacifists these days. WWII, was a historical aberation, and should be disregarded.

The version of this that I'd seen before was
"When the Germans fire, the British duck, and when the British fire, the Germans duck, but when the Americans fire everyone ducks!"

and that was allegedly said by both the British and the Germans...
My Grandfather always claimed to have heard several variations on that phrase from both German and Italian POWs duirng his time in Italy.


As to best marine forces a lot of them are actually different forces with different roles.
The USMC for example is to a large extent more "naval infantry" than marines and are geared to fighting more or less conventional battles after being deployed from naval vessels. Hence they are almost as heavily equipped as a conventional mechanised infantry with thier own organic APCs, tanks, helicopter gunships, strike aircraft and heavy artillery.
The Royal MArine Commandos on the other hand are a very light infantry force intended primarily for raiding and limited conventional battles and as such are limited to very light organic support (a few 105mm guns, light weight all terrain tracked vehicles, the odd landrover and a small recon/attack helicopter squadron.

Other marine forces tend to fall somewhere in the middle appart from the Soviet/Russian forces who are entirely Naval infantry.

SBS beat SEALS everytime as well anyway. Your special forces were created under the guidance of ours.
hahaha:p , not really but if you think so. the SEALS are vastly superior to the sas and the USMC could kick your "royal queens" or whatever you call them, any day fo the week. Ive heard a brits whining about friendly fire issues. Heres an idea, when our guys are shootin, takin care of business, get of our way.

hahaha:p , not really but if you think so. the SEALS are vastly superior to the sas and the USMC could kick your "royal queens" or whatever you call them, any day fo the week. Ive heard a brits whining about friendly fire issues. Heres an idea, when our guys are shootin, takin care of business, get of our way.

You're so ignorant it isn't even funny anymore. :(

American 'friendly fire' casulaties at British hands during the same conflicts? None?

Ever hear of vehicle-recognition training?

Its OK apparently a group of civilian cars and a special forces FAC look just like the platoon of Iraqi tanks 2 miles away... (just the American's dumb luck that John Simpson was with the FAC crew, so we got a nice hour long documentary about it).

hahaha:p , not really but if you think so. the SEALS are vastly superior to the sas and the USMC could kick your "royal queens" or whatever you call them, any day fo the week. Ive heard a brits whining about friendly fire issues. Heres an idea, when our guys are shootin, takin care of business, get of our way.

Or the US military could just teach fire dicipline.

Just from looking at his name you can tell he's stupid. The US Special Forces were created under the guidance of the SAS.

the cream of the crop of US Special Forces are (so I've heard) these two groups:

- Delta Force (made up of elite Army Rangers and Army Special Forces AKA Green Berets)

- Navy DEVGRU force (made up of specially trained -- more specially trained? -- SEALs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEVGRU


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Force

The cream of the World's special forces:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Special_Forces

Or the US military could just teach fire dicipline.
So you want the US to stop opening up a can o' whoop ass on the enemy because the brits werent trained to keep their heads down when the shootin starts?

You're so ignorant it isn't even funny anymore. :(
Ok, sorry if I offended your army.

The cream of the World's special forces:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Special_Forces
I hadn't actually heard about the SRR before, but that's one kick-ass cap badge. Cool idea too.

So you want the US to stop opening up a can o' whoop ass on the enemy because the brits werent trained to keep their heads down when the shootin starts?
You're a fucking genius. How is a Tornado pilot supposed to keep his head down when the US Patriot System locks on to it? How are British troops supposed to keep their head down when some yankee cowboy is above in a Warthog?

Ok, sorry if I offended your army.

I was refering to the fact that you seem to think that the British troops were running into the American's field of fire when this was not the case. One incident was when a patriot battery mistook an RAF plane for a missile, another was when two US planes (which were in British army territory despite being ordered to keep out) attacked a British tank squadron despite their flags and other indentifying symbols.

As far as I know nobody in the US millitary has yet been brought to trial for the attacks.

The dutch, cause they´re closest by and probably most equipped to handle what will befall us over here. Prbably massive dykebreaks or flooding if you other people don´t stop heating up the ozon layer :p

hehe Dyke breaks. That sounds so wrong.

So you want the US to stop opening up a can o' whoop ass on the enemy because the brits werent trained to keep their heads down when the shootin starts?

You go on about how our soldiers/marines should keep their heads down when they shouldn't have to, the US military isnt retarded and should be able to tell the difference between a friendly and hostile target.

You're a fucking genius.
Thank you, I know

How is a Tornado pilot supposed to keep his head down when the US Patriot System locks on to it?
What the hell is a tornado? Maybe he was flying where he shouldnt have, he could have broke protco.
How are British troops supposed to keep their head down when some yankee cowboy is above in a Warthog?
They aint cowboys, they are highly skilled pilots, perhaps the brits didnt do something right.

The Adeptus Astartes.

Thank you, I know
I was being sarcastic.


What the hell is a tornado? Maybe he was flying where he shouldnt have, he could have broke protco.
It's a damn good plane, and the pilot was doing nothing wrong.
They aint cowboys, they are highly skilled pilots, perhaps the brits didnt do something right.
The plane in question as previously mentioned was in a UK controlled zone despite being told to get out.

hehe Dyke breaks. That sounds so wrong.

How english speaking people have somehow confused large water-countering heaps of sand and dirt with lesbian women will always remain a mystery to me...

And the little boy who stuck his finger in a dyke has nothing to do with this, so leave him alone :p

What the hell is a tornado? Maybe he was flying where he shouldnt have, he could have broke protco.

A tornado is a British warplane. He wasn't 'flying where he shouldn't have' and nobody has ever suggested a breaking of protocol. The gunner who fired on the plane was in the wrong.

A tornado is a British warplane. He wasn't 'flying where he shouldn't have' and nobody has ever suggested a breaking of protocol. The gunner who fired on the plane was in the wrong.
The gunner was doing what he thought was best for his country, and you want him on trail? never.

Thank you, I know


What the hell is a tornado? Maybe he was flying where he shouldnt have, he could have broke protco.

They aint cowboys, they are highly skilled pilots, perhaps the brits didnt do something right.

The Tornado is the worlds best low level pentration fighter bomber, in one form, one of the worlds best air to air fighters in another and the world's best SEAD fighter in another, basically its a multirole joint european fighter. the patriot incident came down to an error in the IFF loop they aren't exactly sure where wether it was a gltich in the aircraft's system or the missile's.

Nope the Brits did everythign right, they had even painted big union jacks on top of thier vehicles, the US pilots still managed to carry out too low level attacks agaisnt them, mind you A-10 pilots also shot up a few US tank crews too during GW1.

The gunner was doing what he thought was best for his country, and you want him on trail? never.

The gunner was inexperienced and wasnt supposed to be manning the patriot alone in the first place.

They aint cowboys, they are highly skilled pilots, perhaps the brits didnt do something right.


"He [the pilot] had absolutely no regard for human life. I believe he was a cowboy. He'd just gone out on a jolly."

.

The gunner was doing what he thought was best for his country, and you want him on trail? never.

He was grossly negligent and because of his negligence a man died, he must be held responsible.

If I shoot a child in the street and claim that I thought they were about to attack me should I escape prosecution?

It's a damn good plane, and the pilot was doing nothing wrong.
Most likely not as good as ours but Im glad your happy with it. How do you know he wasnt doing anything wrong?

The plane in question as previously mentioned was in a UK controlled zone despite being told to get out.
He was mostly likely just making sure the brits were doing there job right.

Man for man I'd take the Royal Marines over any marines/naval infantry around the world. On the other hand, if we're talking the whole force, I'd say USMC, cos they're bigger than some countries entire military force.:p

Most likely not as good as ours but Im glad your happy with it. How do you know he wasnt doing anything wrong?

He was mostly likely just making sure the brits were doing there job right.

You can't accept that anyone from America can do anything wrong can you? A pair of fighter pilots fly into British territory, make two attack runs on a clearly identified British group and escape any form of justice and you still can't accept that they were in the wrong!

We know the tornado pilot wasn't doing anything wrong because if they were then the US army would have used that to excuse the shooting down, they have never claimed anything of the kind.

Just a couple things to add here. Fist of all, one of the best Marine forces in the world was left off the list. The South Korean Marines have been involved in Vietnam and the Korean war, and have NEVER lost a fight.

Second, I am of the impression that all who chose British Marines did so either out of nationalistic pride, or because they hate Americans.

The USMC has been through more battles, with more decisive victories, and has earned the fear of more enemies (Devil Dogs) than any other Marine Corp ever in existence. I simply point you to the term "Devil Dogs" and how they earned that name in WWII.

But hey, if someone wants to give me real reasons the Brits deserve the honor, lay it on me.

OOH RAH!

Just a couple things to add here. Fist of all, one of the best Marine forces in the world was left off the list. The South Korean Marines have been involved in Vietnam and the Korean war, and have NEVER lost a fight.

Second, I am of the impression that all who chose British Marines did so either out of nationalistic pride, or because they hate Americans.

The USMC has been through more battles, with more decisive victories, and has earned the fear of more enemies (Devil Dogs) than any other Marine Corp ever in existence. I simply point you to the term "Devil Dogs" and how they earned that name in WWII.

But hey, if someone wants to give me real reasons the Brits deserve the honor, lay it on me.

OOH RAH!

The irony of this post is delicious.

Just a couple things to add here. Fist of all, one of the best Marine forces in the world was left off the list. The South Korean Marines have been involved in Vietnam and the Korean war, and have NEVER lost a fight.

Second, I am of the impression that all who chose British Marines did so either out of nationalistic pride, or because they hate Americans.

The USMC has been through more battles, with more decisive victories, and has earned the fear of more enemies (Devil Dogs) than any other Marine Corp ever in existence. I simply point you to the term "Devil Dogs" and how they earned that name in WWII.

But hey, if someone wants to give me real reasons the Brits deserve the honor, lay it on me.

OOH RAH!

The actual question in the OP was which MC would we want to get us out of a tight spot. It was generally agreed that the superior training and discipline of the Royal Marines would, in these circumstances, be more valuable then the superior equipment, numbers and swift deployment of the US marines.

You can't accept that anyone from America can do anything wrong can you? A pair of fighter pilots fly into British territory, make two attack runs on a clearly identified British group and escape any form of justice and you still can't accept that they were in the wrong!

We know the tornado pilot wasn't doing anything wrong because if they were then the US army would have used that to excuse the shooting down, they have never claimed anything of the kind.
"they were in the wrong" do you mean "they were wrong"? Why do you keep making excuses for british incompetence? The US is only saying those things for a pr move, I know what really happened

The irony of this post is delicious.
The lack of anything other than a 2nd grade barb in THIS post is rancid. ;)

The UN abassadorship is clearly 'challenged' by the situation.

He demonstrably lacks any knowledge of either the situation to which he is referring or to millitary and judicial matters in general and hence is not worth being given any attention, or even being addressed, by those that do.

The best thing to do with people like him is to ignore them. I would suspect they take a sick pleasure in the deaths of others and enjoy hurting/annoying those who do condemn the unnecessary loss of human life.

I imagine that he finds himself powerless in his life, constantly picked upon and with few, if any friends. He relishes other's suffering because it means that he is not alone in his misery.

We should pity his pathetic existence and his desperate calls for attention.

In a forum situation I would recommend just ignoring him and he will go away.

I imagine nothing would annoy him more.

The lack of anything other than a 2nd grade barb in THIS post is rancid. ;)
Damn, must be smart 2nd grader to know what 'irony' is. :p

The actual question in the OP was which MC would we want to get us out of a tight spot. It was generally agreed that the superior training and discipline of the Royal Marines would, in these circumstances, be more valuable then the superior equipment, numbers and swift deployment of the US marines.
I would really like someone to explain to me this "superior training" that the Brits recieve.

I have personal knowledge of the Royal Marines, knowing past, present and future members. They have _always_ impressed with their knowledge, their professionalism, and the level of commitment.

I freely admit that I've never met a US Marine. But the USMC is too big to truly be an elite force. Royal Marines are quasi-Special Forces, with all that implies in terms of individual quality. US Marines are not.

"they were in the wrong" do you mean "they were wrong"? Why do you keep making excuses for british incompetence? The US is only saying those things for a pr move, I know what really happened

How did 'British incompetance' cause American planes to make two attack runs on a clearly marked British convoy in British territory?

How did 'British incompetance' cause a plane which was clearly marked and following protocol to be shot down by a trigger happy yank with a patriot battery?

You are a blind, nationalistic bigot. You cannot accept the idea that an American can make a mistake and so you simply dismiss any evidence which doesn't fit with your small minded world view.

Second, I am of the impression that all who chose British Marines did so either out of nationalistic pride, or because they hate Americans.

The USMC has been through more battles, ... than any other Marine Corp ever in existence.

Considering that Royal Marines were a regular feature on Royal Navy vessels almost from inception and hence fought in every corner of the world, I find that statement highly dubious.
to quote wikipedia:

The Royal Marines have a proud history and unique traditions; they have so many battle honours that the "globe itself" has become the symbol of the Corps.

Also, as to why people might pick Royal Marines, other than out of national pride, again from wikipedia:
The Royal Marines are lightly equipped, able to operate independently in all terrains, and highly trained as commando forces. Their exceptional levels of training and unique capabilities are comparable to those normally only found in special forces, and as commandos they are often actually considered to be a special forces unit.
AND
Marines undergo the longest basic training regime of any infantry force in the world, at the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines (CTCRM) at Lympstone, Devon.

I would really like someone to explain to me this "superior training" that the Brits recieve.

Her Majesty's Royal Marines, usually just known as the Royal Marines (RM) or sometimes colloquially as the Green Berets[1], is the United Kingdom's amphibious force and a core component of the country's Rapid Deployment Force. The Royal Marines are lightly equipped, able to operate independently in all terrains, and highly trained as commando forces. Their exceptional levels of training and unique capabilities are comparable to those normally only found in special forces, and as commandos they are often actually considered to be a special forces unit.

The Royal Marines are a component part of the Royal Navy (formally the Naval Service).
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marine_Corps)

While the US marines are exceptional soldiers they are not up to special forces levels and are too large to be a true 'elite force'.

Snip
Once again, I'm not disputing what you claim, but to post, yet again, "they are the best trained" without telling me what the so called training entails, leaves me uninformed of your meaning of the term "best trained"

And as for having the longest basic training, the USMC basic training may be shorter, but even after basic training, more training is required of them throughout their career. I'm not sure if it's more or less than the Brits, but if they took all their training and called it "basic" I'm sure the numbers would even out quite quickly.

BTW, did you know the Brits get a weekend leave after only 3 weeks of basic training? That doesn't speak of discipline to me.

I'm so glad wikipedia agrees with me :D

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marine_Corps)

While the US marines are exceptional soldiers they are not up to special forces levels and are too large to be a true 'elite force'.
Again, just a Wikipedia article with no explanation, and no details.

Please rest assured, I AM NOT trying to denograte the Royal Marines, or to argue for the sake of it, I just want to know what this training is that makes it so much better than the USMC's.

BTW, did you know the Brits get a weekend leave after only 3 weeks of basic training? That doesn't speak of discipline to me.

:rolleyes:

Your right.
Weekend leave after only 3 weeks.....

vs.

Not being able to tell the difference between a T-72 and a Challenger 2 from strafing range without holding your finger off of the trigger
http://www.soviet-empire.com/arsenal/army/tanks/t72/t72_003.jpg

http://www.baesystems.com/gallery/land/images/CHALLENGER-2-OMANI_hi.jpg

Again, just a Wikipedia article with no explanation, and no details.

Please rest assured, I AM NOT trying to denograte the Royal Marines, or to argue for the sake of it, I just want to know what this training is that makes it so much better than the USMC's.


The Royal Marines are trained not to shoot their own soldiers:D

I really don't think that the Americans know what a poor reputation the USMC has.

Again, just a Wikipedia article with no explanation, and no details.

Please rest assured, I AM NOT trying to denograte the Royal Marines, or to argue for the sake of it, I just want to know what this training is that makes it so much better than the USMC's.
To be honest I don't know precisely what you want. The wikipedia articles detail the training the Royal Marines get.
There's a further breakdown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marines_recruit_training
As far as comparing the training goes, i don't know where you'd come by that information. Wikipedia seems to be a likely source for unbiased information like this.

There's a bit of extra detail in the FAQ's on the RM site
Question: How much free time do recruits get in training?
Answer: Recruits are free most weekends in training although time off will very much depend on what stage of training he is in. In Phase 1 Training (Weeks 1-15) a recruit will be expected to work from 0755hrs – 1655hrs, Mon-Fri, and may also have additional personal administration to complete during the evenings. He may also be required to work on Saturday morning from 0755hrs – 1230hrs if the syllabus dictates. During Phase 2 Training (Weeks 16-26) a Recruit will keep the same hours Mon-Fri, but will have much of the weekend off and the level of personal administration is reduced as he is now considered to be a trained soldier (but not a Commando soldier). Additionally throughout training Recruits are given ‘Shore Leave’ which permits them to leave the Camp on the Friday and not have to sign back in until Sunday evening allowing him to go away to visit friends and family. Also there are several holiday leaves including Christmas (2 Weeks), Easter (2 Weeks) and Summer (3 Weeks). At whatever stage of training a recruit is in he will be permitted to take these annual holiday leaves along with the other members of the camp. These leaves are fixed throughout the year and may not be taken at leisure.

Again, just a Wikipedia article with no explanation, and no details.

Please rest assured, I AM NOT trying to denograte the Royal Marines, or to argue for the sake of it, I just want to know what this training is that makes it so much better than the USMC's.

I think the main point is that RM training is more akin to commando training whereas USMC training is fairly standard. In a hostage situation the RM's more specialised training would give them the edge.

That said I think the question of 'which is the best marine corps' is a fairly silly one if it isn't made clear which catergories are being judged because they are trained with different purposes in mind. From what I've read the US marines could probably beat the Royal Marines in a standard fight (although it would be close) because the Royal Marines are intended for more covert operations. It's like asking which is better: infantry or aircraft. As both infantry and aircraft are equally important cogs in a larger machine it is hard to answer.

hey, where does a general keep his armys...?



In his sleevies!!!

XD

Snipped stupidity
Oh, quit the crap. For fucks sake, when a military is the largest part of a force, they will invariably have the most to brag about AND the most to answer for.

If some other countries had put more of their troops into play, I'm sure you would have seen similar numbers, but, of course, since the US has the burden of always sending the most troops to any unilateral mission (by far) it is easy for anyone with a fucking brain to see the law of odds will come into play.

Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and either get some new talking points or just keep quiet while the adults talk.

Oh, quit the crap. For fucks sake, when a military is the largest part of a force, they will invariably have the most to brag about AND the most to answer for.

If some other countries had put more of their troops into play, I'm sure you would have seen similar numbers, but, of course, since the US has the burden of always sending the most troops to any unilateral mission (by far) it is easy for anyone with a fucking brain to see the law of odds will come into play.

Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and either get some new talking points or just keep quiet while the adults talk.

Ahem.
*whispers*
This happened in Desert Storm.

Its okay, I forgive you.:)

<snip>

Ooh, that touched a nerve.

"they were in the wrong" do you mean "they were wrong"? Why do you keep making excuses for british incompetence? The US is only saying those things for a pr move, I know what really happened
You, Sir, are my favourite WUM in NS at the moment. Keep up the good work.

Priceless...

On a lighter note, there are more UKites in general.

Ooh, that touched a nerve.

Evidently.

On a lighter note, there are more UKites in general.

Um, on the 2 weeks iv been on NS iv found there are more americans than us.

Um, on the 2 weeks iv been on NS iv found there are more americans than us.
Poll. *points*

Based on nationist fervor. Its a forum fire, put it out man, put it out!
*bails water*

Just ignores mies.

Ahem.
*whispers*
This happened in Desert Storm.

Its okay, I forgive you.:)
No shit, Sherlock. Just what were the troop numbers in Desert Storm?

No shit, Sherlock. Just what were the troop numbers in Desert Storm?

...to any unilateral mission...

The 1991 Gulf War was a conflict between Iraq and a coalition force of approximately 30 nations

Dictionary:
uni·lat·er·al
Pronunciation: "yü-ni-'la-t&-r&l, -'la-tr&l
Function: adjective
1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party


Now now. Name calling only makes you seem immature.
Edit: You do seem.. wound up... this evening. Lets stop the off topic stuff and let the others wave their dicks in the wind about the Marines ;)

Russian naval infantry, hands down. For the sheer fact they are not a regular brach of the force, but a brach of the special forces. ;)

Dictionary:
uni·lat·er·al
Pronunciation: "yü-ni-'la-t&-r&l, -'la-tr&l
Function: adjective
1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party


Now now. Name calling only makes you seem immature.
Edit: You do seem.. wound up... this evening. Lets stop the off topic stuff and let the others wave their dicks in the wind about the Marines ;)
I meant bilateral, and it would have solved alot of grief if you would have just said so, you big meany! :(


Besides, I called you Sherlock, a very intelligent man by any account. You should be proud! :p

I meant multi- lateral, and it would have solved alot of grief if you would have just said so, you big meany! :(

:fluffle: :fluffle: :D

Who cares anyway? Its not like they'll ever be on opposite sides! :p

Russian naval infantry, hands down. For the sheer fact they are not a regular brach of the force, but a brach of the special forces. ;)
Although tis debatable as to weither they can truely be considered marines seeing they are basically mechanised infantry who simply drive thier tanks, APCs and IFVs off boats and onto the beach and had an effective deployment radius that extended as far as italy and denmark...
The russians eventually learned that attempting to train huge numbers of troops as special forces (spetznaz) wasn't really working as well as hoped.

Mind you i wouldn't dismiss the Naval infantry out of hand as easily as this post suggests.

The thread, the thread, the thread is on fire, we don't need no water...

On a lighter note, there are more UKites in general.

Not necessarily. I'm American, but I voted UK in the poll.

I think the main point is that RM training is more akin to commando training whereas USMC training is fairly standard. In a hostage situation the RM's more specialised training would give them the edge.

That said I think the question of 'which is the best marine corps' is a fairly silly one if it isn't made clear which catergories are being judged because they are trained with different purposes in mind. From what I've read the US marines could probably beat the Royal Marines in a standard fight (although it would be close) because the Royal Marines are intended for more covert operations. It's like asking which is better: infantry or aircraft. As both infantry and aircraft are equally important cogs in a larger machine it is hard to answer.

...yeah, apples-and-oranges arguments suck.

sounds like the Royal Marines are sort of like our Rangers.. or trained at that level anyway.

Maybe not quite as highly trained as SEALs, SAS, Army Special Ops, Marine Force Recon (etc.) but more trained in special operations than the standard US Marine.

Okay, just because two forces have similar names doesn't mean they do similar things.

The USMC is a pretty large force, usually used for large operations. The UK Marines are a smaller force, used for smaller operations. Therefore, they receive longer training and are generally a little more elite.

So man for man, the Royal Marines are probably better, but as an overall force, the USMC is better.

And as for friendly fire incidents, I don't think US Investigations have actually gone far enough, and I'm not sure anyone has ever been punished for any of these events.
But then, the US is not alone with that. As I said before, even the very elite SAS is guilty of shooting SBS soldiers during the Falklands War by mistake.

Okay, just because two forces have similar names doesn't mean they do similar things.
You know what... you might have that right.

The USMC is a pretty large force, usually used for large operations. The UK Marines are a smaller force, used for smaller operations. Therefore, they receive longer training and are generally a little more elite.x is large and is used for y. x-1 is large and is used for y-1. Therefore y receives longer training and are generally a little more elite. Makes sense.

So man for man, the Royal Marines are probably better, but as an overall force, the USMC is better. Man for man Royal Marines are better, but there are more of USMC, so they are better..?


But then, the US is not alone with that. As I said before, even the very elite SAS is guilty of shooting SBS soldiers during the Falklands War by mistake. That's just rivalry...

Man for man Royal Marines are better, but there are more of USMC, so they are better..?
Well yeah. If you put the whole Royal Marines against the whole USMC, the USMC would win because there's more of them (and because they've probably got better support equipment-wise).

Well yeah. If you put the whole Royal Marines against the whole USMC, the USMC would win because there's more of them (and because they've probably got better support equipment-wise).
Right. Read the OP again. Sure, USMC would be the one I'd call from the lair of dirty cut-throat terrists...

if I wanted to get out alive... I'd call anyone else but.

I chose the Russian Naval Infantry, since from the choices available, the Russians would in my mind be the toughest, scariest bunch to run into. However, if I had to choose a formation, it'd be the British SAS, since they trained everyone else's special forces. And plus in their training they go through those long marches that guys die on.

But I think the Russians would still be the scariest, if not the most professional.

Right. Read the OP again.
A purely subjective question I suppose, but which Marines would you rather call in to get you out of a hot spot?
Hmm, doesn't say what sort of hot spot it is, does it. So the choice would be mission-dependent.

A puerile and subjective question I suppose, but which Marines would you rather call in to get you out of a hot spot?
Fixed.
Hmm, doesn't say what sort of hot spot it is, does it. So the choice would be mission-dependent.
I don't care really. You won.

Dutch Marines? How do they fight in wooden shoes?

Pound for pound, they have the best training, best gear and best record.

How did 'British incompetance' cause American planes to make two attack runs on a clearly marked British convoy in British territory?

How did 'British incompetance' cause a plane which was clearly marked and following protocol to be shot down by a trigger happy yank with a patriot battery?

You are a blind, nationalistic bigot. You cannot accept the idea that an American can make a mistake and so you simply dismiss any evidence which doesn't fit with your small minded world view.
Oh, Im a bigot now? before I was a nazi*sigh* America makes mistakes, no one has a bigger world view than me, and if the Brits werent there, they wouldnt get shot at.

You, Sir, are my favourite WUM in NS at the moment. Keep up the good work.

Priceless...
Im guessing thats a compliment, but whats a WUM? I have know idea what that it.

The UN abassadorship is clearly 'challenged' by the situation.

He demonstrably lacks any knowledge of either the situation to which he is referring or to millitary and judicial matters in general and hence is not worth being given any attention, or even being addressed, by those that do.

The best thing to do with people like him is to ignore them. I would suspect they take a sick pleasure in the deaths of others and enjoy hurting/annoying those who do condemn the unnecessary loss of human life.

I imagine that he finds himself powerless in his life, constantly picked upon and with few, if any friends. He relishes other's suffering because it means that he is not alone in his misery.

We should pity his pathetic existence and his desperate calls for attention.

In a forum situation I would recommend just ignoring him and he will go away.

I imagine nothing would annoy him more.
This just screams flaming, isn't that against the rules? btw I dont know if I take "pleasure" in the death of others.

if the Brits werent there, they wouldnt get shot at.


So, you don't want any help in war then? You want to do it all on your lonesome?
Or do you just want lickspittles?

Oh, Im a bigot now? before I was a nazi*sigh* America makes mistakes, no one has a bigger world view than me, and if the Brits werent there, they wouldnt get shot at.

The British were there because your government wanted war and your country asked for our support in the invasion.

...yeah, apples-and-oranges arguments suck.

sounds like the Royal Marines are sort of like our Rangers.. or trained at that level anyway.

Maybe not quite as highly trained as SEALs, SAS, Army Special Ops, Marine Force Recon (etc.) but more trained in special operations than the standard US Marine.

Sounds about right.

...yeah, apples-and-oranges arguments suck.

sounds like the Royal Marines are sort of like our Rangers.. or trained at that level anyway.

Maybe not quite as highly trained as SEALs, SAS, Army Special Ops, Marine Force Recon (etc.) but more trained in special operations than the standard US Marine.

Sounds about right.

The UN ambassadorship is clearly having a laugh - no one is seriously THAT blinded by nationalism, and if they are they don't have the cognitive power to work a PC.

I also found his posts hilarious - keep it up! :D

Oh, Im a bigot now? before I was a nazi*sigh* America makes mistakes, no one has a bigger world view than me, and if the Brits werent there, they wouldnt get shot at.

So, according to you, our "mistake" was in allying with the USA in the first place?

The UN ambassadorship is clearly having a laugh - no one is seriously THAT blinded by nationalism, and if they are they don't have the cognitive power to work a PC.

I also found his posts hilarious - keep it up! :D

Sadly I think he's serious.:(

USMC - Great guys, no education most of the time. Strong fighters

Russian Naval Inf - Strong and large force, good fighters.

Royal Marines - Out of 100 only 3 made it. Harse training amazing fighters. Thats harder then the USMC...

Im guessing thats a compliment, but whats a WUM? I have know idea what that it.
wum (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wum)

(pick either one of the first two definitions...)

Royal Marines - Out of 100 only 3 made it. Harse training amazing fighters. Thats harder then the USMC...

Eh? How's that bonny lad?

Sadly I think he's serious.:(

Come on, who honestly says 'Uh...well...they shouldn't have being standing there!' to justify their countries soilders shooting at allies who were in their own controlled zone?

If he is being serious then he obviously has some kind of mental problem and I feel sorry for him, but I highly doubt it. He seems to switch between an ignorant flag waving moron in one thread to a moderate and fairly normal poster in others. I also recall him advocating things like universal health care - if he was genuinely nationalist to the extent he portrays himself as here, then he'd say "Well in America we don't have it so obviously universal health care is wrong!"

wum (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wum)

(pick either one of the first two definitions...)

Exactly. In another forum I used to go to they were known as 'Aliases' - people who deliberately create an account and say extreme things they don't really mean, in order to either provoke a reaction or to discredit the position they are supposedly advocating.

sounds like the Royal Marines are sort of like our Rangers.. or trained at that level anyway.

Maybe not quite as highly trained as SEALs, SAS, Army Special Ops, Marine Force Recon (etc.) but more trained in special operations than the standard US Marine.

Yeah, the US marines are more geared towards, well, making naval assualts (from what I know, having never served with anyones marines I am not 100% sure) whereas the Royal marines are more of a Special Forces thing.

So, If the "hot spot" was being held hostage by a bunch of terrorists, and the SAS are unavailable. The Royal Marines.

If the "hot spot" is an enemy armoured division charging towards me with the intention of leaving me laminated across the scenery. The US marines :P

And I know even less about other nations marine services. But I expect they are good too.


Although most people are probably voting for their own service, so this is more of a "where are you from" poll....

EDIT:

The SAS is a small and secretive organisation, but attracts a disproportionate amount of media coverage

Hahah, anyone who doubts how good the SAS are need only think of this.

If they spend most of their lives hiding from tabloid journalists, what chance do the enemy have? :D

Come on, who honestly says 'Uh...well...they shouldn't have being standing there!' to justify their countries soilders shooting at allies who were in their own controlled zone?

If he is being serious then he obviously has some kind of mental problem and I feel sorry for him, but I highly doubt it. He seems to switch between an ignorant flag waving moron in one thread to a moderate and fairly normal poster in others. I also recall him advocating things like universal health care - if he was genuinely nationalist to the extent he portrays himself as here, then he'd say "Well in America we don't have it so obviously universal health care is wrong!"

You have a point, my faith in humanity has moved up a notch.

- snip -

Nah, the Royal Marines are still the UKs amphibious assualt arm.

They are also probably the best in the world at cliff assaults. Something to do with them not caring about killing people in training.

And if you want a bunch of guys to get drunk, and beat the hell out of each other while naked, or dressed as nurses, in a muddy field, well they're your boys.

Actually, my choice would be the French Foreign Legion.

Goesingthall

Nah, the Royal Marines are still the UKs amphibious assualt arm.

They are also probably the best in the world at cliff assaults. Something to do with them not caring about killing people in training.

And if you want a bunch of guys to get drunk, and beat the hell out of each other while naked, or dressed as nurses, in a muddy field, well they're your boys.

No they are not, we dont have enough ships to do a proper amphibious assualt :P Good ol' MoD


And as for getting drunk and dressing as a Nurse, I dont need OTHER people to do that for me, I will pass on the beatings though.

I cannot believe anyone voted for the USMC:confused:

Actually, my choice would be the French Foreign Legion.

Goesingthall
I chose them earlier.Those guys are insane.There up there with the Spetsnaz.
I have met some leagionaires on Reunion who too me for a hike in the mountains.125km later I swore never to get involved with these guys again.Insane.

I chose them earlier.Those guys are insane.There up there with the Spetsnaz.
I have met some leagionaires on Reunion who too me for a hike in the mountains.125km later I swore never to get involved with these guys again.Insane.

The Spanish Foreign Legion is claimed to be even worse...

The Spanish Foreign Legion is claimed to be even worse...
Their considered worse now days because unlike the legion they don't have a through background check.The french legion allow little criminals in ,the spanish would accept Bin Laden.They don't take non spainards any more though.

As others have said as well, HMRMC are better trained, but the USMC are better overall.

No they are not, we dont have enough ships to do a proper amphibious assualt :P Good ol' MoD


Logistics aside, that is still what the RMC trains for. They even have a whole school for it at Poole Harbour. Plus there is a whole amphibious ready group based around ocean.

While I doubt that they'll be repeating D-day anytime soon, they can still perform amphibious ops, like in Sierra Leone.

Logistics aside, that is still what the RMC trains for. They even have a whole school for it at Poole Harbour. Plus there is a whole amphibious ready group based around ocean.

While I doubt that they'll be repeating D-day anytime soon, they can still perform amphibious ops, like in Sierra Leone.

Haha, yeah, everyones marines are "Amphibious Assault" troops at heart, otherwise they would be called something else. The difference is that the RM get more training in the non "stand up fight" parts of war.

Eh? How's that bonny lad?

Beat up tired, and miserable. But hes happy also, cause considering what he went threw... Hes now a ROYAL MARINE

No question the Brits are amazing, but as its been said before it is hard to compare them with the USMC in terms of capabilities. The USMC is larger than the entire British Military.

Your standard US Marine has roughly the same level of training as an Army Ranger. That is why the marines were so reluctant to classify Force Recon as "Special Forces" because every Marine is special.

i chose HMRMC. partially because fo the whole frendly fire thingy, partially because, well, if it moves on foot, the brits are the best. Everyone goes to them for any sort of infantry training, and marines are, ultimatly, amphibious infantry, whatever other roles they preform.

on issues of frendly fire: ww2: the US, especially their airforce, especially in europe, were so bad, when an american plane flew over american lines, the american infantry AUTOMATICALY FIRED ON IT! they got bombed by their own guys so often. the other allies were only slightly mroe reluctant to do the same. on the other hand, they all blithly ignored passing british planes.

interestingly: officaly, NZ has an SAS as it's "elete" troops. the fact of the matter is they're incapable of performing their role because the airforce consists of transport planes and... that's it. they'd be dead befor they got there. the only combat planes we have were some obsolete ones leased from teh usa they they wouldn't take back, if we even still have those.

our Truley elete troops would actually be our engineers... now, if the "tight spot" or whatever involved natural disasters, digging, construction, demolition, etc, THESE are the guys you want. if not the best, they some of.

the fun bit is, anyone else sends in military engineers into another country [especially the middle east and so on] the locals see "soldier" ... NZ sends military enginers into such an enviroment, most of the locals see "engineer" .. it's kinda funny.

but yeah. unless the tight spot were "we need boddys for a mass amphibious assult" i doub't i'd want the USMC. i have no clue about hte rest of them.

Got to go with Her Majesty's Royal Marines.:D

I have to say, Dutch Marines are actually the most versatile, I can't remember where I read it, but they are trained to the standards of the UK and US varients of the marines and are very versatile in what type of situation the fight in (sea, snow, sand)... They just haven't had the PR and stuff that everybody else has had because they are of minor political influence and are very neutral towards most countries.

Being a United States Marine (of which there seems to be a lack in this thread), i must say...

ROK Marines (South Korea) or HMRMC. Frankly, the idea that the USMC has better equipment/training is ludicrous. Most of our equipment is 30 years old or more. Our training isn't much different from the regular US Army infantry, although it is better over all (from a whole-force perspective).

"SAS," in my experience, is a bit of a misnomer, most of what they do with planes is limited to jumping out of them or blowing them up. Or both.

Force Recon is not considered a "special forces" unit because... it's not. At all. They're perhaps a specialized reconnaisance unit, but they do not receive much more training than a normal Marine, just some advanced training in a few certain areas. Many of the Force Recon qualified Marines are in fact distributed amongst the regular Marine Infantry rather than in the actual FR Battalions.

In the US, "Special Forces" are usually misused by someone higher up in the government, Congress being the prime example. You can't really compare, say, Navy SEALs and Army Rangers, because they have completely different functions. Which is why all the SEALs died in that Panamanian airport.

"Delta Force" is merely a small part of the Green Berets, and is not the penultimate Special Forces unit in the US Army.

i guess that's all for the moment, more when i can remember what i was going to respond to.

--dunerat

Come on, who honestly says 'Uh...well...they shouldn't have being standing there!' to justify their countries soilders shooting at allies who were in their own controlled zone?

If he is being serious then he obviously has some kind of mental problem and I feel sorry for him, but I highly doubt it. He seems to switch between an ignorant flag waving moron in one thread to a moderate and fairly normal poster in others. I also recall him advocating things like universal health care - if he was genuinely nationalist to the extent he portrays himself as here, then he'd say "Well in America we don't have it so obviously universal health care is wrong!"
Just cause I like healthcare, doesnt mean i dont like America! Get out of the way Brits, devildogs coming through:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: *waves flag*

wum (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wum)

(pick either one of the first two definitions...)
So Im female discharge?

"SAS," in my experience, is a bit of a misnomer, most of what they do with planes is limited to jumping out of them or blowing them up. Or both.


It is supposed to be, Sterling named them the Special Air Service in the hope of making the Germans think we were training an elite paratrooper unit.

It is supposed to be, Sterling named them the Special Air Service in the hope of making the Germans think we were training an elite paratrooper unit.
It's similar to the SBS and the tank. Both were given innocuous sounding names for operational security. It seems a characteristic difference between the Uk and US militaries and seems to extend to mission naming as well, cf. Operation Iraqi Freedom vs Operation Telic.

So Im female discharge?

Unless you're claiming your mother to be something other than female, it covers you.

[EDIT]P.S. That actually makes you sound really dense.

"The man who will go where his colors go without asking, who will fight a phantom foe in a jungle or a mountain range, and who will suffer and die; in the midst of incredible hardship, without complaint, is still what he has always been, from Imperial Rome to sceptered Britain to democratic America. He is the stuff of which legends are made. His pride is his colors and his regiment, his training hard and thorough and coldly realistic, to fit him for what he must face, and his obedience is to his orders. As a legionnaire, he held the gates of civilization for the classical world...today he is called United States Marine."
LTCOL FEHRENBACH, USA, in "This Kind of War"

It seems a characteristic difference between the Uk and US militaries and seems to extend to mission naming as well, cf. Operation Iraqi Freedom vs Operation Telic.

Hahaha, good one.

See, they never saw THAT one coming :P