It’s 2025, and after a strange shift in geopolitics and world powers,
the USA and UK have found themselves going to war with each other. These long-time
allies that once fought side by side in World War 2 and Afghanistan have become
arch enemies fighting for global dominance. The rest of the world looks on in horror.
But who will win?
There’s one fact that’s hard to ignore. One side
is larger than the other by a long way— the United States.
Based on size alone, the US military is the clear winner.
It boasts over 1.4 million personnel, compared with a measly 149,000 in the UK.
That might not guarantee success if the whole US army consists of untrained airheads and idiots,
but it doesn’t hurt.
Especially when you consider the amount the US spends. The American military budget is a huge
$740 billion, compared with the UK’s much smaller $49 billion.
How cute. Money can’t buy you everything in life, but it helps to win wars.
But to be fair, both countries take their military spending seriously. In terms of GDP,
the USA spends 3.4% on the military, and the UK spends around 1.7%. That figure won’t help
the Brits win a war, but it’s something they can nurse their national egos with.
So far, things aren’t looking good for the Brits — they’ve been outnumbered and outspent.
Let’s see if they can turn things around with their equipment. As they say, it’s not all about
the size; it’s about how you use it. Which country has the best weapons, gadgets, and vehicles?
If we’re talking about quantities, the USA gets an easy win here,
as you’d expect. They spend far more on the military overall, so of course,
they have more stuff. The UK only has 227 tanks, compared to the USA’s 8,370.
As for armored vehicles, the UK has 4,673, and the USA has 41,760.
Is the UK’s lack of resources such a big deal? Experience shows that yes, yes it is.
During the Afghanistan conflict in 2009, the British Army stationed in the south of the country
had been finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the peace over the last three years
because of their lack of equipment. Guess who had to sweep in to save them? The Americans.
The US Brigadier General Lawrence Nicholson brought in 4,000 US Marines with a new approach:
“Go big, go strong, go fast.” The new forces weren’t exactly successful in maintaining the
peace, as anyone familiar with the Kandahar Massacre and the Maywand District murders will
know. But they were good at going big and going strong, which could give the US an edge in battle.
In Afghanistan, the British used Jackal vehicles which are designed for maneuverability
rather than protecting the person inside. The Americans had MRAPs, or Mine Resistance Ambush
Protected vehicles. Although MRAP tanks are classed as light-armored vehicles, they weigh
a massive 14 – 18 tons and are a lot sturdier than the Jackals. Designed to withstand the Improvised
Explosive Devices that threatened troops during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, they were
much more effective at keeping the troops safe from danger than anything the Brits had.
However, the US Marines seemed to have plenty of admiration for the Brits and what they achieved
despite their lack of equipment, so that’s something. One American Marine commented:
“The biggest thing I noticed was the vehicles they
drive. You guys are friggin’ gutsy. I wouldn’t get shot at in one of those.”
Does having more flimsy vehicles make the British the weaker side,
or just more badass? It depends which way you look at it.
Another difference between the British and US armies is their deployment of women on
the front line. We don’t want to say women are better or worse in the military than men,
because that would probably start a war in the comments section,
so we’ll let you decide. But it’s definitely worth mentioning.
In Afghanistan, the US marines were shocked to see women wandering around shower blocks wrapped
in nothing but a towel, with no cares in the world. The US does have women in the armed forces,
but they aren’t always allowed to be on the frontline or live in close proximity to their
male counterparts. In the UK, on the other hand, women are seen as equals. Revolutionary concept.
Despite their surprise at the close working and living relationships between women and men
in the British army, the US marines soon realized these women were professional soldiers they needed
to take seriously. But could the initial shock be a trump card up the sleeves of the British?
Anyway, time to get onto the important stuff, the real factors that determine the success
of a military side. Who can handle the most alcohol? It’s a contentious topic — the British
are known for drinking more heavily, and they can start at a younger age, but the US soldiers
might give them a run for their money. Around 40% of US soldiers indulge in binge drinking
I know what you’re thinking — what does this have to do with the power of their militaries?
Although drinking is a skill that might be impressive on a wild night out on the town,
it’s not a positive thing during combat. It’s important for soldiers
to keep their mental health stable over extended periods of combat.
The soldiers might use alcohol as a way of coping with difficult experiences they
encounter during the military instead of talking about them. Over half of British
servicemen and women drank at a level that could harm their health in 2018 — most likely
to self-medicate for mental health conditions like PTSD (post-traumatic stress syndrome). Similarly,
alcohol as a coping mechanism is a huge problem among veterans.
Wow, things just got dark. Back to a more light-hearted topic.
You can’t mention the drinking preferences of the British without mentioning their
ultimate beverage of choice: tea. In contrast, the US prefers coffee. Does
this affect the combat performance of either side? Time to find out.
Many British tanks and armored vehicles are fitted with water boiling devices.
Cube-shaped kettles enable the troops to boil water inside the protection of a tank
and drink tea to their heart’s content. Maybe that’s why the British were willing
to sacrifice the sturdiness of their vehicles in Afghanistan...
This might seem a bit eccentric — not to mention pointless — but hear us out. During World War 2,
a large number of fatalities were caused by crew members having to leave the safety of
their tanks when they needed a break. There was only one reasonable solution: to let them
make a “brew” inside the tank. That way, the troops were less of a target for enemy fire.
Ten out of ten for ingenuity. Who knows, maybe this could be their secret weapon in a future war?
There’s nothing like a fresh brew to keep an army going. But don’t discount the Americans,
because they also seem to recognize the importance of a lovely warm beverage.
The US army aims to ensure coffee is always available to its soldiers, whether in ration
packs or at garrisons. But sometimes there are shortages, so improvisation comes into play to
give the soldiers their daily fix. During the Korean War, some soldiers indulged in “sock”
coffee — coffee filtered using a sock Or, if the worst comes to the worst, they’d just mix
instant coffee granules with cold water and down it like a shot of vodka. Lovely.
It’s worth it to have that caffeine coursing through your veins ready for a battle. Clearly,
both sides have their vices, but we’ll have to give the Brits the edge on this one, based purely
on the fact that they’re less likely to drop dead from swallowing some questionable feet fungi.
In this capitalist world, soldiers aren’t just fighting for their national pride or
a noble cause. They also want to receive their paycheck at the end
of it all. The draft ended in 1973 after the Vietnam War in the USA,
making the army a professional, career orientated force. In the British Army,
the National Service officially ended in 1960, and it transformed into a professional army in 1963.
So, who gets the fattest check?
New recruits in the British Army start on a salary of £15,985 a year in training, soon going up to
£20,400 when becoming a Private. After a few years, if they can reach the rank of a Sergeant,
the salary would go up to £35,853 a year. That's around $46,000.
In the US Army, new recruits can expect to earn $24,512 a year as a Private First Class
after initial training. A Sergeant earns anything up to $29,610 a year.
We have a clear winner here. Let’s hope the Americans don’t find out,
or they could end up switching sides. Now, that would be an interesting war…
With so much more money, you’d hope the British soldiers would go through
a half-decent training program. Let’s find out if that’s the case.
In the UK, most soldiers complete a 14-week Common Military Syllabus, followed by specialist training
for different trades and divisions. US soldiers train for slightly less time — they complete a
10-week Basic Combat Training course, then complete more career-orientated training.
Overall, both countries offer a similar style of training based on fitness,
discipline and weaponry. It’s hard to say that one country is definitively
superior here. But there is one key difference — the age of the recruits.
A US soldier must be 17 to join the forces with parental consent, or 18 without the consent.
Meanwhile, Brits can join at the age of 16 if they have parental consent,
making the UK the only NATO country to recruit young people into its military at age 16. It’s a
controversial policy considering these recruits must then remain in the army until they’re 22,
and they can’t even vote or drink alcohol until they turn 18.
With literal boys among them who might have joined the forces as a rash decision,
could British soldiers be flakier and less mature than their US counterparts? Or is
their youth just testament to how tough they are?
But this is just the beginning. Average soldiers might make up the bulk of the army, but what about
the guys that are really, really well-trained? We’re talking about elite Special Forces.
The British army has the famous SAS, or Special Air Service. Founded during WW2, it’s one of the
oldest Special Forces and has the highest entry requirements of all British forces. With the
motto “Who Dares Wins,” the SAS is respected and feared across the globe in equal measure.
It’s heavily involved in reconnaissance and counterterrorism, meaning most of their work
is below the radar and people like us can’t get too nosy about it. However,
they do plenty of cool and hardcore stuff, like rescuing hostages.
Not to be outdone, the US army has the highly respected and admired Delta Force,
also known as the 1st Special Forces Operation Detachment. Formed in 1977,
it’s known as one of the most secretive US forces and specializes in counterterrorism and hostage
rescue. Sounding familiar yet? Allegedly, the Delta Force was modeled on the British SAS.
We want to give the Brits the point here for sheer originality,
but it’s not exactly good news for them if the Americans know the training secrets and
operations of their elite forces. That’s a rookie error if ever there was one,
especially when there are way more US soldiers and they have better equipment.
What about the heads of the armies? The US Army serves the government of the USA,
making the President of the US the Commander in Chief. Meanwhile, the British army serves
Her Majesty the Queen as Head of the Armed Forces, who is also their Commander in Chief.
Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth is closely tied to the British military, having been a wife, mother,
and even grandmother of individuals serving in the armed forces. During World War 2, the Queen,
who was then Princess Elizabeth, joined the Auxiliary Territorial Service herself
and learned to maintain and drive military vehicles and ambulances.
She even achieved the rank of honorary Junior Commander whilst doing her part for
the war effort. By comparison, the current US president- as of this script’s writing-
claimed to suffer bone spurs when it was his time to serve his country. Points here for
the badass monarch up to her elbows in grease fixing combat vehicles and serving her country.
Overall, the British and American armies are matched fairly evenly
in terms of their training and structure — it doesn’t exactly come as a surprise
considering their histories are so closely linked. Realistically, the Americans would
likely have the upper hand in any war against the Brits due to sheer manpower and weaponry,
but let’s hope the two sides can settle their differences over a cup of tea — or coffee.
Now, check out our India and China military comparison and
our India versus Pakistan comparison.