What are some names of us army units in england?
481862
Y do U want 2 know?\nNot a suicide-bomber R U?
348695
THE WARRIOR/UK.\nLength 6.3 m \nWidth 3.03 m \nHeight 2.8 m \nWeight 24 t \nSuspension torsion bar \nSpeed 75 km/h road\n? km/h off-road \nRange 600 km \nPrimary armament 30 mm L21A1 RARDEN cannon \nSecondary armament L94A1 coaxial 7.62 mm chain gun\n7.62 mm machine gun \nArmour  ? mm \nPower plant Perkins V-8 Condor\n550 hp (410 kW) \nCrew 3 (commander, gunner, driver) + 7 troops \n\n\nTHE BRADLEY/US\nCrew 3 \n 2 Cavalry Scouts 6 Infantry Dismounts  \nLength 21'2" \nWidth 10'6" \nHeight 9'9" \nWeight 50,000 lbs \nRoad Speed 45 mph \nRange  300 miles \nEngine Cummins VTA-903T water-cooled 4 cycle diesel.  \nArmament 25mm cannon (Chain-gun)\n7.62 mm coaxially mounted machine gun\nTOW missile launcher with twin tubes.
636113
Place: On the Charlestown Peninsula on the North side of Boston Harbour.\n\nCombatants: British troops of the Boston garrison against troops of the American Continental Army.\n\nGenerals: Major General Howe against General Artemas Ward and General Israel Putnam\n\nSize of the armies: 2,400 British troops against 1,500 Americans.\n\nUniforms, arms and equipment: The British grenadiers, light infantry and battalion company men wore red coats, the headgear of the companies, bearskin fronted mitre caps, tricorne hats and caps, and were armed with muskets and bayonets. The British had light guns and were supported by the heavy guns of the fleet. The Americans were armed with muskets or whatever firearms they could obtain, a few bayonets and some light guns.\n\nWinner: While the British drove the Americans from the Charlestown peninsula it was with heavy loss. The battle was at the time considered to be an American defeat but has since been lifted to the ranks of a heroic stands against forces of oppression.\nBritish Regiments: \nThe flank companies (grenadiers and light companies) of the 4th, 10th, 18th, 22nd, 23rd, 35th, 59th, 63rd and 65th.\n\n5th Foot later Northumberland Fusiliers and now the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers\n38th Foot later the South Staffordshire Regiment and now the Staffordshire Regiment\n43rd Foot later 1st Battalion, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry and now 1st Bn Royal Green Jackets.\n47th Foot later the North Lancashire Regiment and now the Queen’s Royal Lancashire Regiment\n52nd Foot later 2nd Battalion, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry and now 1st Bn Royal Green Jackets\nMarines: now the Royal Marines\n\nAccount: \nWith the outbreak of the war General Gage, the British commander in chief, found himself blockaded in Boston by the American Continental Army, occupying the hills to the West of the city. Gage resolved to seize the Charlestown peninsula across the harbour. Before he could act, on the night of 16th June 1775 around 1,500 American troops of the Massachusetts regiments and Putnam’s Connecticut regiment occupied Breed’s Hill and Bunker Hill on the peninsula. The American troops began to build a redoubt on Breed’s Hill. The fortification was complete by the morning, after a night of frenzied work. The presence of the Americans on the peninsula was observed by His Majesty’s Ship Lively which opened fire on them.\n\nPlans were hurriedly put in motion by the British to attack the Americans and drive them from their position. Major General Howe, one of the three generals sent from Britain to assist General Gage, was given the command. While the preparations were in train the Americans extended their fortifications from the redoubt to the sea shore, to prevent a flank attack. More American troops gathered on Bunker Hill but few of them could be persuaded to move to the forward positions on Breed’s Hill.\n\nI know i got here to late but i have an excuse. Iam from the UK. lol.\nWell done to Parrotjohn2001
238111
army has one...got it 97th ARCOM (97th Army Reserve Command).  Trust me on this none of these people know what they are talking about.
716949
Hi there,\n             Log on to www.army.mod.uk/qlr for their dedicated web site.   That may tell you.
553712
An army composed of soldiers from many countries which are Allied with each other.
1141173
For organized/professional military, focus on special operations groups/tactics.  The British SAS are the preeminent force from which most contemporary units use as a reference guide.  They date back to WW2.  Also, look under Marine Raiders in the Pacific, Army Rangers,Green Berets, Navy SEALS.  Other sites worth consideration are the OSS and French Underground. \n\nThese groups will also list the opposing forces as well.  Give attention to them also as they were instrumental in the creation/development of the modern day raider!
560258
http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/AmericaSupportsYou/letters_messages.html\nthis place list all of them. There are just so many out there this page list them all and is a .mil so these are the ones the DOD knows about.
305986
no doubt the british.they have the finest trained army in the world since the 18th century.all the training publications of all armis of the world have taken alot from the british.exellant deciplain,great training institutes.it is enough to say that you have been to sandhurst,kimberly,kornwall..etc
657577
http://www.army.mil/\n\ntry this
607823
You betcha!  Go to the National Park Service's Civil War Soldiers and Sailors System at http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/ and click on "soldiers."  When that comes up, type in the name "Elsasser" (and if you want, "Pennsylvania").  \nI typed in just the name and got a very long list---most from Pennsylvania.
967668
TRY THIS http://army.mil
408259
They have of course the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy, army etc.   They essentially have similar counterparts to our military and intelligence services, but their military is smaller.  Comparatively to the US, an individual is less likely to be personally acquainted with a member of the military, this is simply to do percentages of military personnel to civilian and whilst I lived there, they did not seem to hold much respect for members of the military.  And just in case you didn't know, despite the fact that Tony Blair is on the same side currently with the US, we are not liked by most Brits.  I should state that they are despite this general dislike of Americans, still polite and generally helpful if you are visiting their country.
948774
u.s. calavary or brigade quartermasters. don't know their web address, though. also www.cheaperthandirt.com is excellent, too.
435401
British\n\n[modified below to provide source]\n"British forces march on Washington. At a brief battle on the road, known as the Battle of Bladensburg; the British forces defeat the American forces, who withdraw in disarray, thus opening the road to Washington. The British burn the White House and the Capitol, but the rest of Washington is saved by a strong rain storm. The British, under orders not to hold any territory, withdrew."\nhttp://www.historycentral.com/1812/Washington.html\n\n[another modification to provide some more details]\nI'm not a historian, so I will not pretend to be an expert on this subject.  However, I am learning more details as I go along in the effort to more fully answer your question.  At this point, this is more of a challenge and just plain fun, so it doesn't matter if you should choose this as a best answer or not.  The thrill is in the hunt.\n\nWhat I've determined so far is that the burning of Washington (and the White House) was performed by parts of the British Army stationed along the East Coast. Although the Canadian militia did fight on the side of the British, it seems that they were primarily in the Great Lakes regions where they comprised nearly half of the British forces.  The Great Lakes region was a separate theatre of operations during the war. \n\nThe war was conducted in four theatres of operations:\nThe Atlantic Ocean \nThe Great Lakes and the Canadian frontier \nThe coast of the United States \nThe Southern States \n\nThe commander of the British forces on the East Coast was General Robert Ross who served under Admiral Cockburn.  These two men are credited with leading the forces responsible for the burning of Washington.  From my reading, it appears that Ross probably actually led the forces, while Cockburn received credit as the commander of British Naval forces along the US coastal, providing the means for the landing of the ground forces, and as Ross' superior officer.\n\nRoss, himself, commanded a 4500-man army, comprised of the 4th (King's Own) Light, 21st Royal North British Fusiliers, 44th (East Essex) Regiment of Foot, and 85th Regiment of Foot.\n\n(The British commander of the Great Lakes forces was Major-General Sir Isaac Brock.)\n\nThere doesn't seem to be any significant work, citable references, or other resources that indicate any ties between the Canadian militia that served in the Great Lakes with Ross' East Coast forces that participated in the burning of Washington.\n\nFrom additional reading, it would seem that the attack on Washington and Baltimore was performed by components of the British as a diversion so that the British forces in the north (with Canadians) could repel the continual attacks from US forces and make an incursion into the US.\n\n\nSo, it would seem, in my opinion, that it was not Canadians that burned down the White House.  Although Canadians fought alongside the British in the Great Lakes region, they were not instrutmental in Cockburne's and Ross' forces on the East Coast that actually did the burning.  Further, just because the British Army in one region contained Canadian militia members, I don't think it would be correct to conclude, in any respect, that Canadians should get 'credit' for burning down the White House.  That would be like saying that Latvia gets the historical credit for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Hussein.  They had men in the coalition forces, after all.
463142
to add to the above answers, the UK also has a major training base in Canada (CFB Suffield), and in Kenya
743266
off the top of my head, hear go's\nBerreta, Miroku, parazzie, Aya, Benelli, zaballa, Mosberg, Remington, Webly&scott, Bsa, Purdy, holland&holland, Lamber, Greener&Greener, Rizzini, Baikal, Blaser, Browning, Churchill, Lincoln, shadow indy, Macnab, Winchester, Zolie, parker hale, fabarm, Westly richards, Krieghoff, Yelditz, Eibar, Gamba, Franchi,. \nI can not think of any more, but sure there is. \n\nAmong these are some british game guns,