US rangers vs British Paras?

#1
Rangers and British Paras - SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network

Now I'm no expert on the US Rangers by any means but have looked into doing the all arms p coy and studied what p coy entails and how good the paras actually are compared to the rest of the army and I simply can't see the americans being that much better than the paras like the american in the link describes.

Any thoughts?

(oh and I know it's an old link, still same principle applies though)
 
#2
well as they can actually air drop and be supplied by air the points rather moot.
how good do you have to be when you have more money and kit than everybody else put together
 
#4
Although US Rangers have an airborne element, they're more akin to army commandoes, as the British had in WW2. It makes more sense to compare our paras to US airborne units (eg 82nd Ariborne Division) although , of course, our units are far superior!
 
#5
Do the Rangers go around calling everybody else 'hats'? Or is this peculiar to our own Lords of the Rollmat.
 
#6
All the Paras I've met are good at what they do. Same with Rangers. Paras tend to be more rough and ready. I think this is an advantage in the battle space. I think they tend to be able to put up with more discomfort and hardship. As with all Brit inf....
Anyone who came up against either would be in the poo IMO.......
So I reckon the paras by a whisker. I am biased though.
 
#7
ya hey - this'll be good (if any paras can be bothered to join in)

I'm not a para but I fail to see how P Coy, running around with heavy things very fast and being really rather aggressive in pubs compared to Rangers actually changes the price of fish or makes them "better".

And before you start, I have worked with both and would prefer almost EVERY TIME, well led paras over equivalent Rangers. It's a mindset thing but if you want an objective achieved, I know who I'd back.

Sadly, the reality is that because of the almost unlimited resource available to US Rangers and our own boringly traditional periodic airborne capability self destruct mechanism, they've got a lot more shiny stuff and the capability to do more things.
 
#9
And they have red (ish) hat of course.
 
#10
I think 'leg' is the preferred term of abuse for craphat infantry in the US.
Does 'legs' know? The poor chap has suffered enough.
 
#11
On one hand I like the Paras, but then again, the Rangers are prety good.....only one way to find out.....FIIIIIIGHT!!!!!

And back to reality...tiz a pretty pointless question without a plausable answer. Each will think they are better, but unless they did really fight each other, for real, over different terrains, then we will never know.
 
#12
Although US Rangers have an airborne element, they're more akin to army commandoes, as the British had in WW2. It makes more sense to compare our paras to US airborne units (eg 82nd Ariborne Division) although , of course, our units are far superior!
But a division even if not terribly impressive beats a battalion although the 82nd would be in for a hell of a fight.
And the rest of the British army would be bored out of their skulls for,the next 50 years abput it :)
 
#13
So the general concensus is that paras make better soldiers but the americans have more money and equipment and therefore would win but soldier to soldier the brits have it then?
 
#14
Maybe 'Top Trumps' is best left as a childrens card game.
 
#15
So the general concensus is that paras make better soldiers but the americans have more money and equipment and therefore would win but soldier to soldier the brits have it then?
You can hardly form a consensus from a dozen ill-informed opinions.
 
#18
So the general concensus is that paras make better soldiers but the americans have more money and equipment and therefore would win but soldier to soldier the brits have it then?
Errrm, no. There are exceptional soldiers in every unit around the world, and there are others that should be shot. Its something that can never be compared because until that person/unit is in a situation where they are being tested for real, you will never know how they will perform.

There are hundreds of examples throughout recent history of soldiers being crap at the most basic of tasks until the shit hits the fan where they suddenly change and become the ultimate warrior. How many times have you read about "The quiet hero".

Training enables a person to do something, but it does not "maketh the man".
 
#19
Although US Rangers have an airborne element, they're more akin to army commandoes, as the British had in WW2. It makes more sense to compare our paras to US airborne units (eg 82nd Ariborne Division) although , of course, our units are far superior!
Surely the closest comparison would be between the Ranger Regiment and SFSG?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top