Who is the best war experienced country America or Britain?

Question

modern war at least as 1066 was a long time ago. lol

Answer 1

American modern technology is better. American troops have been involved in a lot more combat in the past 100 years. Americans have nuclear weaponry, better missile technology, better aircraft, and better ground vehicles. Not to mention, the American made M-16 is one of the best if not the best fully automatic assault rifle.

Scubabob needs to read the question more closely, it refers to MODERN war.

America: 1890's-Pres: Hawaiian Revolution, Spanish American War, Samoan Civil War, US-Philipine War, Boxer Rebellion/China Intervention, Moro Wars, Panamanian Revolution/Columbian Intervention, Banana Wars/many Central American countries, Vera Cruz Operation/Mexico, Russian Civil War/Allied Intervention, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Lebanon Intervention, Dominican Intervention, Cambodian Intervention, Libyan Conflict, Second Lebanon Intervention, Grenada Conflict, Iran Operation, Panama Invasion, First Iraq Intervention, Somalia Conflict, Bosnian Conflict, Haiti Operations, Second Iraq Intervention, Kosovo War, Afghanistan War, Third Iraq Intervention/Occupation, Second Haiti Intervention.

Britain 1890's-Pres: Boxer Rebellion/China Intervention, World War I, Russian Civil War, Turkish War, World War II, Greek Civil War, Korean War, Suez Crisis, Brunei Uprising, Indonesia/Malaysia Conflict, Falklands Conflict/Argentia, First Iraq Intervention, Bosnian War, Kosovo War, Afghanistan War, Third Iraq Intervention/Occupation. Ongoing conflicts with Northern Ireland insurgents.

Most of the recent conflicts have been lead by America with Britain playing a much smaller role.



Poor Scubabob. He read the question wrong, erroneously tells someone to read up on their history, gets a modern day history lesson thrown in his face which proves him wrong. Then he brings in another issue that he's still wrong on, and he still needs to read more closely. "One of the best fully automatic assault rifles".

The UK variant of the FN FAL, and many others, is semi-automatic only.

The South African military use a "lightweight" variant fabricated locally under the designation R2, and a model designed for police use not capable of automatic fire.

The Royal New Zealand Air Force uses the FN FAL 7.62mm SLR which are equipped with lightweight barrels, and have the automatic selector deactivated so that it can only fire semi-automatically.

The Israeli Defence Forces ordered FN FALs were mostly semi-automatic and chambered for 7.62 mm NATO ammo.
Because the rifle was sensitive to fine dust and sand, and as a result performed poorly, often malfunctioning, it was just starting to be replaced with the 5.56 x 45mm IMI Galil. Israeli soldiers frequently substituted their FALs with American emergency-aid M16A1s and captured AK-47/AKM assault rifles that were taken from dead and captured Arab soldiers. The FN FAL was officially superseded in 1975, and was replaced by the IMI Galil.

The Australian Army used the British variant L1A1 SLR (Imperial), a semi automatic, until it was replaced by the Steyr AUG in the 1990s.

Most of the FN FAL's out there are not fully automatic. On top of that if the FN FAL was so great, it wouldn't have been replaced by almost every country out there.

Scubakid, would you like to try for strike 3?

And there's you're Strike 3, Scubaboy.

You're right you never said the FN was fully automatic, but it was a response to my statement: "Not to mention, the American made M-16 is one of the best if not the best FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifle."

You really DO have problems reading. Try reading carefully next time BEFORE you respond, it will save you from looking foolish.
What part of FULLY AUTOMATIC do you not understand? And based on the response from the capitolkoi guy below, it appears that opinion is yours and only yours, not anyone elses.

Yes, as for modern experience, it says

"modern war at least as 1066 was a long time ago. lol"

That doesn't say 1066 is modern. Its asking for modern war at least, as 1066 WAS A LONG TIME AGO. The sentence just isn't punctuated properly. Again, TAKE THE TIME TO READ CAREFULLY.

I never denied you saying the FN was heavier so what's your point? As for the Falklands Conflict (Not Fauklands, like you spelled it) and the ongoing coflicts with Norther Ireland insurgents, I already pointed those out above. Again, what's your point? That still doesn't compare with U.S. activity over the past 100 years.

Just look at the response from capitolkoi,

"As for the assault rifle issue, I think its Scubabob that needs to do his research. As a member of the 36th Infantry, I had an opportunity to fire just about everything."

"If you're talking about the FN FAL (the scuba guy didn't specify which FN rifle he was talking about), its heavier, longer, has a smaller stock clip (only 20), a heavy recoil, and IT DOES jam."

"The M-16A4 is lighter, shorter, has a bigger stock clip (30). The older A1 and A2 versions did jam a bit, but not anymore than what an FN FAL does. The A4 version almost never jams."

"Lighter, smaller, faster rate of fire, less jamming, and a lot less recoil versus more power and a little more range? I think most people would take the M-16. I know I would."

Next time scubakid, don't call anybody out. Just state your opinion and leave it at that. You don't read and comprehend efficiently or effectively. You definitely don't do your research. You're ill equiped to engage in a debate with anyone.

EDIT: Ok scubakid, maybe you've learned a lesson here, boy. You call someone out on here and tell them they need to study history, and you're not the troll? You make me laugh, kid. Its your fault not mine that you continually read things wrong. Its your fault not mine that you don't do your research.

Like I said before boy, stick to just providing your answer. Don't call other people out on theirs. Because most likely, they're going to be more intelligent than you, their reading comprehension is going to be better than yours, and they're going to outdebate you with facts and knowledge. Don't step up to the plate, if all you've got is a toothpick.

Answer 2

Angling Cyclist needs to hit the books harder, especially history.Also he needs to know of what he speaks when offering opinions regarding weaponry. The M16 is most certainly NOT the best out there. Having actually fired them in training during the latter part of my stint in the Navy and able to compare it to what we had before ( The FN) I'd go with the FN in a flash. It may be heavier, but I know it's gonna work ,not jam and it hits like a Train on steroids.You aint getting back up again when one half of you is lying 5 feet away. Not like that 556 crap. The AUG is a better weapon as well.
The answer by the way is Britain.

Poor Angling cryer: I've had the experience, you haven't. I never said the FN was a fully automatic. The FNC!A! was a semi. The opinion was mine. I liked the FN better. I never once had a jam, yet with my first clip off an M16 I did.As for modern experience?, lol...look at the question. anything after 1066 is considered modern and a thousand years newer is modern. Many will agree that the switch to 556 was perpetrated by America to standardize NATO . The Americans simply didn't want to switch and made the money in arms deals to re equip countries that went to the M16..
Note, I did say the FN was heavier, didn't I?
I forgot, only America has ever picked up a weapon and fired it in anger in the last 1000 years. I suppose they fought in the Fauklands as well. Not to mention ohhh...what 60 years of fighting in Northern Ireland?
Edit: Ok cyclist, be a good little troll and get back under the bridge, I'm done feeding you kid.

Answer 3

If you believed the American hype, you'd think that America won the second world war, singlehanded They even make films claiming to have won battles they weren't even involved in!! Yes they did eventually join up and become allies with all the other countries that were already in, but it took them long enough. In America the Native peoples had many battles over territory and food, but I think these were always fairly small, and of course they fought the overseas invaders. Britain has been involved in battles in Europe for centuries. And the British have been invaded by most of the countries of Europe. Now the invasions have extended and it's most of the countries of the middle east, and eastern Europe. I'm not sure they will be able to cope with it all this time. All accounts I've received say that the place is being destroyed.

Answer 4

I think angling_cyclist pretty much nailed this one. For entire history it would be Britain, but the question is for recent history. . . the obvious answer is America.

As for the assault rifle issue, I think its Scubabob that needs to do his research. As a member of the 36th Infantry, I had an opportunity to fire just about everything.

If you're talking about the FN FAL (the scuba guy didn't specify which FN rifle he was talking about), its heavier, longer, has a smaller stock clip (only 20), a heavy recoil, and IT DOES jam. Effective Range 650 yards. 650 rounds per minute. Handheld, its pretty much uncontrollable, fully automatic. America, Britain, and Canada use it as a semi. The heavier barrelled version used to compensate for the kick, jams frequently. Yes, its a 7.62x51. Once you get up to 5.56 and above, how much overkill do you really need?

The M-16A4 is lighter, shorter, has a bigger stock clip (30). The older A1 and A2 versions did jam a bit, but not anymore than what an FN FAL does. The A4 version almost never jams. Effective Range 600 yards. 900 rounds per minute. It also has a lot less recoil. My own observation is that it jams a lot less often than the FN FAL. Yes, its only a 5.56 compared to a 7.62.

Lighter, smaller, faster rate of fire, less jamming, and a lot less recoil versus more power and a little more range? I think most people would take the M-16. I know I would.

Aside from all of that in the time that I spent in Kosovo, the British presence was negligible. Aside from over 1200 American troops, we were alongside a Greek Battalion, and Polish and Ukrainian Battalion. Where was Britain?

Answer 5

Just wanted to say that I think Britain is the most experienced when looking over my little knowledge of history before 1975 (shortly before I was born). But I know that since then the U.S. has been the frontrunner when it comes to military technology, as well as spending 54% of the world's total money spent on military and defence. This is not experience per say, of course, but with iraq, a-stan and abroad they will soon surpass britain's experience with modern-day warfare; which is much more useful experience today then having more experience with a type of warfare that will soon be extinct. And I just wanted to add that TemP has smoked entirely to much reefer or something!! Lawyers in America are subject to the British Crown? That is complete madness! What was the war of independence for? Anyway, to make it short, Britain has more overall experience obviously, but soon america will pass them in having the much more useful knowledge of modern-day warfare, something they learned the hard way in vietnam!!

Answer 6

I see a lot of people talking about 'experience' from centuries ago. That experience is worthless when the people that 'experienced' it are no longer around for one. Those old war generals are dead. There's no benefit from their experience. Any tactics they may have been published are most likely accesible by everyone.

Second, men on horses with swords or lances, archers, catapults, etc. are worthless when talking about modern war which this question is asking. War tactics from centuries ago are hardly relevent to modern war experience.

Several posts above cite that America has much more modern war experience than Britain. That would be true.

Answer 7

Britain has fought more wars, to be sure, but, it seems to me that we gained our independence from them somehow...oh yeah, 'cause we kicked their butts. In the short time that America has been around, we have become the world's only superpower left. I would submit that means that we know a thing or two about fighting, at least our Military does. As for our citizens, they are too weak minded and never seem to want to stay the course and let the Military do it's job. Score, Britain=1 (Resolve of their people), Score USA=1 Technological Advancements and Best trained Military anywhere. I would submit that both the USA and GB could learn a thing or two from the Israelis. I believe that they are the best fighters on the planet.

Answer 8

If Great Britain is more experienced in War, Why are Americans called Warmongers instead of the British?

The answer would have to be Britain since it has been around much longer than America if we are talking about total experience in a history sense for each country. Hell, they had a 100 years war...

Answer 9

Britain because we have a history for fighting wars,the British even give america some of its technology so thats why America is powerful.We DID own a 1/3 of the world but we gave freedom to most of them but we still have a big empire and if you look at a map with what the British ruled(in maps sometimes they shade the parts that Britain ruled) almost the whole world would of been pink,we ahve had the biggest empire known to man.IF you dont believe me look it up.

Answer 10

Even though Britain has the most experience -- Within the past 50 or so years the United States has become more and more powerful. With the combined experience of Britain and the Technology and manpower of the United States -- They are the most powerful forces on Earth. Thank god we are allies.

-- Cheers to the most powerful militarys on the face of the planet!

Answer 11

Rather depends which war. If WW2: France was defeated and occupied by Germany and thus had to mount resistance, but otherwise could not fight. Britiain could not fight in Europe because of the Nazi occupation and had to make do with aerial bombardment and fighting in N Africa and elsewhere. As Britian was within reach of Germany it was subjected to repeated bombardment itself, eventually being hit by pilotless planes and rockets from the stratosphere. Britian became the focus of Operation Overlord. USA had not only the European war to contend with but virtually of the Pacific Theatre. The States with the exception of Pearl Harbor however was out of reach of enemy assault. Much of the European war effort was in supplying Britian and others and helping to launch the largest Armada in history.