British Armed Forces (UK Military)

The flight time for flights between the above places is 14 hours

This is an approximate travel time. The actual time might change depending on the flight path chosen, weather conditions, etc.

Best for what? Context is everything...

British Special Forces are extremely good, & have been the model for many other similar units around the world, but there are only a few hundred of them (probably 5-600 max), and, at present, they're extremely overstretched! Most other Western armies have Special Forces units of high quality - eg the Dutch Korps Commando Troepen; German KSK; French RPIMA, & the Parachute Dragoons; Norwegian & Danish "Jaegers"; Canadian JTF-2, to name some of the better known. Less well known are units like the Spanish Legion's BOEL, which in recent years has significantly upgraded its capabilities. Although, in most cases, such units lack the breadth of operational experience of the SAS/ SBS, & equivalent American, Australian, Israeli, & Russian units, & in some cases are very small (eg Danes, Norwegians - little bigger than enhanced platoons), their selection & training standards are very high, & when deployed operationally they've not been found wanting!

The British Armed Forces are extremely well trained professionals, but the British Army & Corps of Royal Marines (part of the Royal Navy) are relatively small, & compared with the US Armed Forces (also, btw, extremely well trained professionals!) lack resources, notably in areas like Close Air Support & Tactical Air Mobility (helicopters etc).

The Gurkhas are excellent light infantry - naturally very physically fit & resilient; adaptable & cheerful in the face of adversity; possessing a "warrior ethos" that means they really do believe in "Death Before Dishonour"! They're particularly adept at jungle & mountain warfare, & have also proved very good at counterinsurgency operations. They do, however, have their limitations: relatively low literacy levels, & lack of familiarity with much modern technology, means they require a lot of extra training to integrate fully into a modern army. Generally they've not adapted well to the mechanized infantry role when it's been tried. The British Army has, therefore, long concluded that the Gurkhas are an extremely useful asset for light infantry roles (especially in difficult terrain, or involving COIN working with people in the less developed world), but they would not get the first call for "heavy" armoured warfare.

The Royal Marines is an elite corps of amphibious light infantry; all are commando trained, & they're expert at mountain & arctic warfare, jungle operations, reconnaissance & raiding etc.. Their basic training is the longest & arguably most demanding of any infantry force in the world; they're extremely physically fit/ resilient, & individual initiative & flexibility are the keynotes of their ethos. The same, incidentally, is also true of the Dutch Marines (Royal Netherlands Marine Corps), who share battle honours with the RM, and who integrate very closely with the British in the UK/ NL Amphibious Combat Group, tasked to operate on NATO's "Northern Flank" (Baltic & Scandinavia).

There are, however, only just over 7,000 Royal Marines (comprising 4 battalion sized units, plus various other specialist units, plus additionally a little over 2,000 RNLMC), & there is really only 1 brigade sized formation continually available for amphibious deployments. They're extremely good at what they do, but their real force projection capability is only about 10% of that of the USMC, & they lack the integral heavy armour & Close Air Support necessary to succeed in opposed amphibious operations.

The United States Marine Corps, in contrast, has the capability to deploy many self-contained Marine Expeditionary Units/ Brigades simultaneously. Each MEU is a "mini-military" containing integral helicopter lift, CAS & CAP, armour (amphibious personnel carriers, recon vehicles, battle tanks) & artillery (155mm guns, multiple rocket launchers etc), plus supporting logistics, medical, recon etc.. The USMC has unique "amphibious force projection" capabilities that are unmatched anywhere else in the world, and no-one integrates all combat arms as well as them.

The USMC alone is larger than most other national militaries! For example, it has more trained infantry, battle tanks, & artillery pieces than the British Army; more combat aircraft than the Royal Air Force (the second largest airforce in NATO!), and more amphibious landing vessels of the US Navy at its disposal than can be mustered by the other 5 leading navies of the world combined!

So, whilst it's probably true that Royal Marines are generally better trained, more individually flexible, & certainly more highly skilled at raiding and small unit operations, than most of their USMC counterparts (Force Recon etc excepted!), the US Marine Corps is, without doubt, the world leader in undertaking large scale force projection operations from the sea. Thus if you wanted to launch relatively small scale (say battalion strength or less) raids on the littoral, or operate in mountains etc, the Royal Marines would "edge it" as first choice. If, however, you wanted to undertake larger opposed landings on the littoral, and exploit in depth, then you'd choose the US Marines, who have the assets & critical mass to do this effectively. It's not a matter of who's best; rather it's about who specialises in what, & also sheer mass - pretty important in large scale warfare!

Same is true re British & US Armies: the British Army's 16th Air Assault Brigade is a formidable formation, comprising 4 infantry battalions, integral artillery, light armour, engineers, & 2 regiments of Apache attack helicopters, but it's very small compared with the mighty 82nd Airborne & 101st Air Assault Divisions of the US Army. The USAF has designated airlift capability that can put nearly 20,000 troops with all their equipment on the ground anywhere in the world within 72 hours. The RAF can only dream of such a capability! So, the British Army can mount very effective air assault operations of battalion to brigade strength in support of larger ground operations (as 16 AA Bde did in GW II), but it does not have the strategic airborne assault capability of the US Army.

The entire British Army can muster a little over 400 Main Battle Tanks; fewer than are contained in any one of the Armored Divisions of the US Army. In Gulf War I the British 1st Armoured Div did excellent work forming the pivot of the main Coalition armoured thrust; protecting the flanks (and annihilating 2 Iraqi armoured divisions for no combat losses to enemy action), and thus clearing the way for the much larger American VII Corps Armored forces, with their large number of attack helicopters, to advance rapidly to hunt the Iraqi Republican Guard.

IMO, the Israelis are not always as good as they're generally reckoned to be. Certainly, their Air Force & Special Forces are excellent, but many of their other units often have surprisingly low training standards (reflecting, to some degree, the large reservist component therein), and in some cases fire discipline is very poor. The great advantage enjoyed by the IDF is that generally (the Jordanians aside) most of their enemies have been grossly incompetent most of the time. Plus, of course, the Israelis can not afford to lose &, therefore, "when push comes to shove" most of their soldiers fight with incredible determination; combined with the ineptitude of their opponents, this "human factor" has enabled them to prevail. For obvious reasons, Israel likes to project an image of itself as "David" facing the Arab "Goliath": in truth, Israel has been the militarily dominant power in the Middle East for decades, & impressive though the feats of the IDF are, this should not lead to the conclusion that it's outstanding in every way. Good - yes. Exceptional? No, not when considered objectively in context.

Armies such as the Indian, Pakistani, and Chinese (PRC), and for that matter Vietnamese, are formidable in various ways: no one but an idiot would choose to fight them on their own ground! Anything else aside, they're very large, & in serious full-on warfare, mass has its own quality - as the Russians have frequently demonstrated! That stated, training standards are variable (some units/ formations are first rate, but others are little more than light scale militias; useful in home defence, but not much use elsewhere), and a lot of the equipment is outmoded. Yes, this is changing (especially in the case of the PRC & India), but generally most of these armies do not yet match major Western armies in terms of first class MBTs, IFVs, SP Artillery, remote surveillance, & key aspects of Command, Control & Communications. They'll probably be "up there" in the first division of world armies within a generation, but they're not there yet.

The power of the Russian Army (RFS) can not be gainsaid; the record speaks for itself. It's large (although considerably smaller than in the Soviet era!), equipment is improving, and Russian soldiers are formidably tough & resilient. There remain, however, significant problems with lower level leadership (notably severe bullying/ physical abuse of recruits), alcoholism, and payment & retention of troops. The sheer brutal stupidity displayed in some operations (Chechnya, the Moscow Theatre Siege, Beslan etc) suggests that operational planning, control, & fire discipline are not yet all that they should be, even in "elite" units.

The Koreans (North & South) are "tough cookies" - not to be messed with! But, the N Korean military is pretty well locked-in to the 1950s; training is hard but unsophisticated; equipment outdated (and probably very unreliable!); initiative & tactical fexibility are simply not allowed! Were they to "come over the border", they'd rely on sheer mass, and probably suffer terribly as a consequence! ROK forces are very good - well trained & equipped; generally "hard" & militarily skilful - eg the performance of the ROK forces (notably Marines) in Vietnam. They are, however, very dependent on the United States, & are only really trained/ tasked for defence of the homeland.

Individual soldiers may be outstanding, good, average or poor - most armies, professional or conscript, contain a fair number of each. Generally, however, the training & leadership standards of Western professional armies (plus the availability of sophisticated weaponry, communications systems, intelligence & logistical capabilities etc) mean that these are the best soldiers - as in most militarily capable/ skilled, & able to bring the most firepower to bear. That stated, however, as events in Afghanistan & elsewhere demonstrate, this does not always mean they'll necessarily prevail easily over determined opponents who have little to lose & much to gain via sustained resistance. The "human factor" is massively important in warfare, especially of the "asymmetric" variety.

There are about 50 RAF airfields in the UK.

The British, along with other NATO countries, got involved in the Kosovo War in 1999 to prevent humanitarian atrocities and mass killings by the Yugoslav forces led by President Slobodan Milosevic. NATO conducted a bombing campaign to force the Yugoslav government to withdraw its forces from Kosovo and allow the return of Albanian refugees.

No, Roald Dahl did not get shot down while serving as a pilot in the RAF during World War II. He did, however, survive a crash landing in Libya that resulted in severe injuries.

I suspect the same reason the Artillery do, the lanyard moved to the right shoulder when bandoliers were in use and worn over the left shoulder, of course at that time the RE would be wearing a plain"working" lanyard to secure a clasp knife or similar, they didn't have a "dress* lanyard at that point afaik. As to the old RE story (fantasy?) of being "awarded" the blue lanyard after taking over guns, that has long been disproven, not least as the RE blue lanyard was adopted in 1951 "to brighten up the battledress", and of course the RA didn't wear a blue lanyard in the first place... :-D

The British military insignia depicting an eagle holding a lightning bolt is the emblem of the British Army Air Corps. It symbolizes the corps' role in providing air support and conducting aviation operations in the British Army.

The British military commander who sustained one of the worst defeats in English history in 1755 in western Pennsylvania was General Edward Braddock. He led an expedition against French forces and their Native American allies during the early stages of the French and Indian War. However, Braddock's forces were ambushed and suffered a decisive defeat in the Battle of the Monongahela.

No, armourers in the RAF do not typically go on patrol with the RAF Regiment. The role of an armourer is primarily focused on maintaining, servicing, and repairing aircraft weapons, munitions, and associated equipment. The RAF Regiment, on the other hand, is responsible for providing protection and security for RAF airfields and assets.

The Security Service (MI5) casts its recruiting net wide, but they will be particularly interested in people who display good analytical and communication skills; particular technical aptitudes (eg computing, electronics, practical mechanics etc), and language and "cultural" capabilities - eg an Islamic heritage; ability to speak languages such as Urdu, Arabic etc..

MI5 recruits graduates in all disciplines, but commonly in fields like law, computer science/ mathematics, history & other social sciences, as well as modern languages, classics, and accountancy. They also recruit non graduates (especially if they have arcane "skills") - often ex military or police.

Most important, however, is evidence of a broad and balanced general education, social and political awareness, and good interpersonal and teamworking skills. Good candidates will be emotionally stable, "reliable" types who have balanced perspectives, independence of judgement, and high willingness to take responsibility in difficult situations and make decisions. They will also be very discreet and tactful, and able to "merge with the crowd" - "showboating", boastful types need not apply!

y No, it was a made up Force made up for the MW2 Campaign. IT IS NOT REAL.

Ian Smith's rank in the RAF (Royal Air Force) was Flight Lieutenant. He served during World War II and was later known for his political career as the Prime Minister of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).

Not particularly no. They do patrols close to Kandahar Air Field but not vast amounts of contacts. If you want to join an infantry style fighting unit go for the infantry or Royal Mairnes. If all you wanna do is stag on and be 'safe-ish' (it's still a dangerous job) join the RAF Regt. Better off goin in as an airman with a trade though then you learn something. Can always switch jobs if you wanted to, this might mean you have to leave and re-join though.

no RAF stands for Royal Air Force, he flew a Hawker Hurricane.

Because of the nature of Crohns disease it may stay in remission long enough to serve out your hitch but don't count on it. Crohns can flare up anytime and stress is a big factor. Army doctors will have access to the latest meds used to control the symptoms but it is not curable. You will want to know where every latrine is during a flare up and it will disrupt your daily routines at the most inappropriate times.

Check out the link for a US Army Staff Sargent with Crohns.

The British army defeated the French. They didn't just play a role, they did it themselves.

The us army had 17 regiment of line, 1 of rifle, 4 of artillery, 2 of light dragoon and some ranger companies in 1812 at the end of the war the us army had 46 regiment of line, 4 of rifle, 1 corps of artillery and 1 regiment of light dragoon.

in 1812 the us army was a very small army regards the british army which have 104 regiment of line for example.

militia are not a part of the us army but was more important

An RAF pilot IS a member of the British Armed Forces serving in the Royal Air Force (RAF) with the duty and responsibility for flying military aircraft.

The only aircraft that fought in Battle of Britain were British aircraft in RAF and German aircraft in Luftwaffe. The Italian Air Force was not involved.

The only aircraft that fought in Battle of Britain were British aircraft in RAF and German aircraft in Luftwaffe. The Italian Air Force was not involved.

There were several famous WW2 Briitish fighter pilots. One of the most famous was Douglas Bader. He was a fighter pilot in the 1930, when he crashed in a "Bulldog", resulting in the loss of both legs; one below the knee and one above.

When Britain entered WW2, Bader petitioned to be allowed to re-enter the military and fly airplanes. He was granted permission and he became an ace in the Battle of Britain. Bader proposed using massed flights of figthers to defend against the German bombers. I believe he lead some of these flights into battle.

He was shot down and captured by the Germans. The British flew an aircraft over German lines to drop him a replacement pair of legs. Bader attempted escape from a 2nd story hospital ward, so the Germans confiscated his legs.

WWII they relied mostly of the Spitfires and the Mosquito and the Avro Lancaster as the top three most relied upon.

Mosquito-very fast and capable of dropping deadly bombs and escaping.

Avro Landcaster- Very effective heavy bomber.

Spitfire- Very effective figher aircraft with high manouvreability and advanced guns.

In modern day and age, Eurofighter, Chinook, Apache

Chinook-effective at most transport roles with ability of selfe defence from attack and also abilty to conduct multirole operations.

Eurofighter-Supersonic multirole jet fighter/bomber. One of the top aircrft in the world (proven).

Apache-Extremely effective anti tank and infantry helicopter with awsome reconnainsance capabilities.

Francis Scott Key, John Randolph, John Bradford, and Margaret Elliot. Francis Scott Key - thought he shouldn't blame Canada for Britain's wrongdoings.

John Randolph- He thought that the only people that will profit from war were the speculators and military officials.

John Bradford - he had shipping businesses that depended on trade and fed Great Britain's Army.

Margaret Elliot- she blamed Harrison and local governors for the conflict at Tippecanoe.

If you are a Briton you are probably referring to the medal, The Victoria Cross which is the highest military award offered with in the military. Otherwise you're referring to The Viet Cong which made up the enemy during The Vietnam war.

The Eurofighter Typhoon at 1550mph top speed

There were many variants of the Spitfire with different wings, fuselages, engines and propellers. Wing spans went from 32 ft for the Mk V up to 40 ft for the high altitude models. The most common wing on many models was 36 ft 10 in.