How would the US and it’s armed forces fare against a numerically, strategically, and technologically equal opponent? The US prides itself on having the highest caliber army possible; but when has that been put to the test? It’s been a long long time since the US didn’t have the advantage of superior weaponry and even more important, strategic invulnerability. Many military historians credit Germany with being a superior opponent man for man during world wars I & II, and our victory being due to numbers and absolute industrial capacity. If it came down to whose side had smarter officers and better command structure, how would we do?
???
I mean, I guess if both sides were even in armament, but one side had smarter commanders, one would expect the smarter side to win, no? And if both sides were evenly-matched across the board, one would expect stalemate or some random event to tip the scales one way or another, right?
Actually, now that I think about it, if both sides were evenly matched, both would lose because eventually the nukes would come out, and the world would be toast.
Hence, there won’t be any such conflicts. We’ll probably never fight an even war again.
Issues would be resolved economically and/or diplomatically… both sides would avoid war, since both would see no strategic advantage to it.
I’d say, “we already did this, it was called the Cold War”
Well, the forces there weren’t piece for piece equals, but given a direct conflict, it could generally be agreed that a combination of first strike and luck would leave the victor with control over a decimated European wasteland and nuclear deserts of Russia and America. Given that nukes weren’t used, first strike is an important issue, but neither side had the ability to really harm the other side without nuclear weapons, so Europe would have become a giant chessboard. The military hardware wasn’t exactly equals, but they balanced out, after a fashion (one side had more inferior equipment, or whatever).
The gist is, you only go to war if you think you can win.
Should we happen to go to war with an equal enemy, it would depend largely on posture - who is overextended where. Whoever has a longer supply line could likely lose. The US military structure is so sickeningly “heavy” in logistical terms that deploying just one division can cost billions and take months, so whoever did that first would probably win.
Well, wouldn’t it be a 50/50 thing by definition?
Of course you have to remember, God is on our side because our cause is just.
Not by a long shot. Just having equal forces does not mean anything - hell, you can have a substantially superior force and still lose, depending on the circumstances. In fact, it happens more frequently than people like. See my “Death Disparity” thread.
Man, doesn’t anyone play Civilization? 
The battle isn’t always to the strong or the race to the swift, but that’s the way to bet.
Woody Allen.
Well, as was brought up by FM and myself in the other thread, a “better” modern force has different “victory conditions.” An example can be Vietnam - we killed 3 million of them, they killed 55,000 Americans (I forget the number of South Koreans). By conventional terms, we wiped the floor with them. However, we failed to achieve our objective, and the conflict led to a near social catastrophe back in America. Hell, Britain should have kicked us in the nuts in 1776. The Confederacy shouldn’t have been able to last until July 1863. Just having a better, more well trained, more equipped military does not guarantee anything. There are factors - supply lines, will to fight, victory conditions, geographical position, logistics, outside concurrent conflicts…
Additionally, it is possible to be better equipped and be winning at the start of a conflict, then to have your power play (so to speak) run out - Germany in 1914-1917 is a good example. They began with a jump and a kick, and had they maintained it, they could have likely negotiated a fair treaty. However, the Brits had them by the balls on the sea, and they were surrounded. By 1917, their people were starting to run out of food, their military out of ammunition, and the nation out of ability to fight - then America came along and blew on them until they collapsed (and subsequently declared itself the victory and patted itself on the back).
Did it matter that America’s military was literally a joke? That Germany had terrain? France had the will to fight? Russia had superior numbers? Britain had an unparalleled navy? Nope, because all of these factors came together in the end and ended up bringing disaster to most of the nations.
The conditions of the question involved a “numerically, strategically and technologically equal opponent.” So the matter boils down to the willingness and training of the troops. If you want to think that US soldiers are always better than any possible opponent you are free to do so.
In a straight up fight , the American Military will wipe the floor with all but extra terrestrial opponents.
Declan
HUBBA, HUBBA!!!
O_o Are they fighting on the proverbial frictionless surface, too?
Where did I say anything remotely approaching that?
An almost related story…
Back in the Good Old Days, the Naval War College had the world’s best war game. It was played in a converted gym. The floor was tiled in large alternating black and white squares, each square was made up of alternating white and off-white tiles (or black and gray) tiles.
The two sides fought fleet-on-fleet battles from control rooms above the floor, talking to sailors down below on phones, They moved the ship models.
I think I speak for all the grown-up kids who were raided on Panzer Blitz when I say ‘Kewel!’
The game is no longer played, it hasn’t been for most of fifty years.
Why? There simply is no peer navy to war game against.
Like I said, almost on-topic.
OK. I’m coming at this thread from a new angle (I should note finally here that I LOATHE unrealistic hypotheticals)
So, we’re assuming that there is an island smack dab in the middle of the Atlantic, midway between Maine and Portugal. It is a flat sided 100x100 mile square with a single beachhead on each side (Hm, this is starting to sound like a Command & Conquer map). At simultaneous times, a fleet from America mobilizes, and a fleet from Europe (they all decided to work together) mobilizes. The goal is to hold the center (marked in red tape) of the island for 3 days.
Since we are talking numeric and strategic equals, lets say that most of the American military is engaged in the Pacific, and whatever remainder of the European military is engaged in the Balkans. Further, Europe (via evil Wiccan witches) has magically stolen 2 American aircraft carriers.
The question, now, is who wins.
Is that right?
Why yes, Zagadka, quite right.
Why thank you, Zagadka. I will then continue with my opinion.
Europe. The American military packs more firepower, but it takes forever and a day to mobilize. I believe that the Europeans could throw less powerful forces at it faster. The Americans could probably come along and give them the boot eventually, thought it would be rough. The Euros aren’t all THAT far behind America in military power and technology, if they theoretically united. And hell, it would finally give us an actual use for the F-22! Well, except that it doesn’t have the range for this exercise.
If you want to talk at a point where they are in fighting position when the clock starts ticking… maybe a different story. Flip a coin and keep it to yourself.
Well, we already know the French won’t participate …
heh. Sure they would, they hate Freedom (AKA America), remember? They can bring alone one or two of their crappy little “carriers,” too.
Actually, depending on where the subs are when this conflict started, it could be interesting. No one has really tried torpedoing a carrier since WWII, and things have changed a little since then People forget that WWIII would have been at the start (aside from the Battle of Germany) a largely naval conflict. I’m actually quite curious as to what kind of damage the Russians could still do throwing their near-defunct navy at us. Attrition, baby.
Don’t forget, we can project airpower to Zagadka’s Isle of Doom. Lots of it. And I mean from CONUS, not even counting what will happen when the carriers get there. We have long-range heavy bombers, something that only Russia can kinda-sorta claim to also have.
Granted, if we are assuming a modern-day non-nuclear conflict between America and Europistan, I wouldn’t neccesarily want to be on a carrier too long. Subs were pretty effective weapons back in WW2, and they were virtually blind. (Only periscopes and terrible ASDIC.) Even bad submarines today have many times the endurance, firepower, and sensor suite of their WW2 cousins. Not to mention, guided torpedos.
That is half the fun of major world wars: Seeing what works, what doesn’t, and what displaces what as the new capital ship!
[QUOTE=Zagadka]
O_o Are they fighting on the proverbial frictionless surface, too?
QUOTE]
Ask the OP. If you want to change the OP question to one that fits your answer, that’s OK by me too.
First, the practical: as mentioned, if what we have are truly equal opponents, or even one that is perceived as comparably capable whether the perception is right or not (e.g. the Cold War), the first priority would be to exhaust every conceivable political avenue, and if it looks hopeless then you try to go for the preemptive strike.
But to use your example, Zag, I would not be too sanguine on the Euros being faster to move, or rather in catching the Americans unaware of their seeking to use a light-but-fast strategy. After 50 years of NATO the command doctrine and organizational structure for power-projection would be pretty uniform across Western militaries. They all read the same books!
To the OP closing question – The US officer/NCO corps IS overall VERY highly trained and educated relative to the world average, their command structure is quite sophisticated, and they have a tradition that in situations where the chips are really down you CAN say nevermind the book let’s do what works. This does not mean they do not have comparables – just that most of those comparables are among their allies. If they run into a comparable army with a comparable leadership in both training and attitude, it could be bloody beyond imagining.