Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • 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 dominanceThe 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 bylong waythe United States.

  • Based on size alone, the US  military is the clear winner.  

  • It boasts over 1.4 million personnelcompared 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  Britsthey'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 quantitiesthe 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 handwomen 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 stuffthe real factors that determine the success  

  • of a military side. Who can handle the most  alcohol? It's a contentious topicthe 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 thinkingwhat 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 contentMaybe that's why the British were willing  

  • to sacrifice the sturdiness of  their vehicles in Afghanistan...

  • This might seem a bit eccentricnot to mention  pointlessbut 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 “brewinside 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 insock”  

  • coffeecoffee 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 sidesNow, that would be an interesting war

  • With so much more money, you'd hope  the British soldiers would go through  

  • a half-decent training programLet'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 timethey 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  differencethe 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-trainedWe'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  

  • mottoWho 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 teaor coffee.

  • Now, check out our India and  China military comparison and  

  • our India versus Pakistan comparison.

It's 2025, and after a strange shift  in geopolitics and world powers,  

Subtitles and vocabulary

Operation of videos Adjust the video here to display the subtitles

B1 british army military war training afghanistan

American Soldier (USA) vs British Soldier - Army/Military Comparison 2021

  • 3 0
    林宜悉 posted on 2021/02/10
Video vocabulary