How would U.S. armed forces fare against an equal opponent?

You know, I hadn’t thought of that at all. I was thinking more tactical bombing, but of course, no one has quite the same strategic bombing capability. Maybe it’d take us a few ticks to dust off the bombers, but they would have a role.

OTOH, we are hypothetically talking about equal forces, so we have to assume that Europistan has something equal (let’s say that Russia has a trick up their sleeve still). Then it becomes a battle of carrier based air domination - an area where the US excels. As JR pointed out, it still has to be defined whether we are talking exact “equal” or perceived “equal” forces.

Let’s not get to debating what the OP means. :wink: We obviously are defining “strategic equality” a little differently.

Good point. However, I think the US has an especially cumbersome line of logistics, because of the technical complexity. Europe’s varies a good deal, because they have different notions on projection of power. I think Europe is currently more setup for a fast response peacekeeping-type mission - deploy quickly and hold an objective. America is (currently, this is changing) set up for a more heavy combat situation. Once the Styker is activated and other changes made, this could change to emulate the lighter fighting style.

I don’t want to sound overly patriotic or nationalistic, but the quality of the American warfighter must be condsidered.

There are plenty of examples in WWII, Korea and Vietnam, when technology played far less of a role, of American soldiers prevailing over numerically far superior foes. I personally believe a country that can win at the Chosin Reservior can win anywhere.

This result, too, was accomplished with draftees. The quality of the fighting force in terms of manpower with a volunteer force may be even better.

:confused: That was a joke, yeah?

Somebody already brought up the Great War, which is a kinda interesting parallel. Most of the major powers are experienced at fighting small wars against minor enemies but haven’t fought a mojor one against a roughly equal foe for some time.

Sure we’re much better at extrapolating what could happen nowadays, and wouldn’t get totally surprised by the outcome, right? Or would we find out again that offensive tech is way ahead of defensive tech (or vice versa of course)? Would it be just as obvious in hindsight?

I think the OP’s actual question was how good are the officers, which doesn’t seem to actually have made too much difference to the end result of many wars, because conditions never are perfectly equal.

I’d say that at this point, most sane people have been given enough evidence of the costs of major warfare, and the virtual imposibility of a meaningful victory that it just wouldn’t happen. Think about China vs the US for a second. What could China possibly gain by invading the West Coast that they couldn’t gain far cheaper by negotiating trade policies?

There’s always the off chance that a loon somewhere gets his hands on a major military power, but we also have learned lessons about promoting economic and political stability in countries that might prove military threats in the future.

I thought I could live without ever knowing the feel of hot coffee spewing out my nose, but you’ve managed to fight that little bit of my ignorance. Best one-liner I’ve read here in a dog’s age, David.

Ok, some clarification:

We like to think that our armed forces are tough, smart, capable, and ready and able to take on anyone anytime. They may well be. But the Italian army of 1939 thought they were too. A rough analogy might be a heavyweight boxer who is very big, very strong, and apparently well trained; but who has never actually fought an opponent in his own weight class. Until you actually go up against someone who will beat the s**t out of you if you’re not as good as you think you are, you don’t have real-world feedback on your training. My guess would be that we do have a high-quality professional army, at least in the top five worldwide. But I worry that we’ve gotten too used to assuming we will always have more & better weapons and equipment than “those punks” we fight.

I’m not trying to be difficult here, but could you list the other four who are comparable?
Are their officers and enlisted personnel better trained, more educated, better equipped, or what?

My great-uncle fought alongside some Aussies in WW2 and he said they were some tough dudes. If you are talking man for man, who knows?

But your question is not a serious one as the US has resources and industrial capability that no other nation can match.

Not counting the strategic reach , the sustainable firepower, defense in depth

then the other four would probably be

Great Britain , Israel, …em , someone would have to guess on the other two, since its probably gonna be some small country , like the swiss pikers in the vatican.

Declan

Sorry, Dave. The quote is by Damon Runyon, not Woody Allen.

I’d guess GB, Israel, PRC (just on size), and maybe the Germans.

Hmmm. I’m sure I read it in an Allen book but he might have quoted Runyon and credited him, and I forgot.

I don’t see how that’s possible though, I’ve never forgotten anything before!

GB and Germany are certainly up there - The Brits are the only members of our stupid Coalition who we trust to actually use guns. The French actually probably aren’t slouches, either, but they haven’t been in a real combat situation recently, so I’m not terribly sure how prepared they really are to fight.

The real interesting factor here is the Israelis. Man for man, they are at least equals, if not better, partly due to their constant engagement, drilling, and high level of preparedness. There just aren’t enough of them from comparison (it is easier to have a small elite military defending a tight area than it is to have a large military projecting power).

The best you can say, as I implied above, is that there is no such thing as equal anything in warfare. War is a complex, complex thing.

Actually, the Israeli military isn’t all that small - in times of war, with all reserves called in, the IDF can field something between 12 and 16 divisions, most of them armored. How much can the U.S. military raise, including regular Army, Marines, National Guard and reserves? Three times that?

Of course, there’s the whole force-projection issue - i.e. the Navy - which the IDF can’t come close to countering.

Nobody is disputing that no nation can match the US in a straight up fight, but not because that the US armed forces are qualitatively better - they might be but the quantitively it is no contest.

Well, the Brits like to think that man for man their armed forces are the best in the world. We are only talking about comparing man for man here, not technology - the Brit believe that they will ***overperform * ** versus the opponents expectations.

This surely is a valid way to think about it. Someone will pick a fight and will devote the resources he believes will do the job, no more. You may think you are going in with overwhelming force, to “shock and awe” the enemy. But what happens when you get a very bloody nose. In the old days escalate (eg Vietnam, Brits in Boer War, French in Vietnam and Algeria) but is that so easy today when its 24/7 news? Now I suspect an early reverse makes it politically difficult for a Western country to go back in with a bigger stick. There is an old military adage of reinforcing success not failure…

If I had to guess I would say the British Army might be the best in the world measured against that criteria, If not the British then the Israelis - I would have put the Israelis top a decade ago but I am not sure a decade of shooting at kids throwing stones has done a lot for their morale or effeciency. After the Brits and Israelis I would put the Cubans (- on the ***overperform * ** measure not absolute - look how they kicked South African butts pretty much consistently over here). Then the Americas, and after that any of Australians/French/Germans.

Comparing Navies I think the USA are a shoe-in in both absolute and relative terms. The Falklands showed up our Naval weaknesses in staffwork and planning and interservice co-operation. Air power - not so sure. I think the RAF are brave, efficient but stupid - that was certainly the impression I got in the Gulf War, the RAF being willing to take on tasks others did not fancy (low level airfield raids) but taking the heavy casualties everybody told them would be involved. I have a theory that any country that produces good Formula One drivers will produce good airforce pilots… again back to the Falklands the Argentine airforce certainly ***overperformed * ** against our expectations of them. It was just ours ***overperformed ** * even greater versus theirs!

Look, this whole “fair fight” thing is misguided. There are never any fair fights in war. Warfare is always assymetric, where one side or the other enjoys advantages that the other side does not.

Yes, if you take away US advantages in supply, logistics, training, manpower, experience and equipment then there are dozens of countries whose militaries would be roughly comparable man-for-man. The the fact is that those advantages do exist.

Of course that does not mean that the US military will always win, look at Vietnam. As has been pointed out, the key is victory conditions. Winning a war isn’t about achieving arbitrary objectives like capturing the flag in the middle of an island. Yes, sometimes you can win a war by occupying a particular spot on the map. But occupying that spot is just a means, not an end. Being superior in killing the enemy and blowing up his equipment isn’t very helpful if killing the enemy won’t win you the war.

Yeah but I was under the impression that what the op was talking about was along the lines of the USA/Soviet or USA/China where the one side had something that would counter balance the other.

Which would equal a fair fight.

It sounds nice ,but won’t happen. What you would have to have is a co-ordinated global effect , where the actual world (everyone and his brother) gears up to fight the US. Using american methods to mass produce European and Russian high tech weaponry , ships , aircraft etc, and providing a cadre of troops to man these implements.

Declan

During the height of the Cold War, a British General wrote a book called The Third World War - 1985. His sceanrio had the Warsw Pact invading West Germany. The NATO forces responded by attacking the hell out of command and control centers. Cut off from their central command structure, the Warsaw Pact commaners proved less adept at adjusting to shifting battlefield conditions, and NATO eventually won.

The he changed a couple of variables, and the Warsaw Pact won.

Point being, you can’t set up a scenario that says “all things being equal. . .” All things are never equal. Somewhere in the world, a butterfly does or doesn’t flutter its wings and everything changes.

Given enough investment capital (granted, this would be on the level of trillions), I’m actually quite sure that the Russian military has the potential to still be an equal for the US. They aren’t exactly technological slouches, they just approach things from a different way. You have projects like the MiG 31 and MiG 1.42/MFI and Su-37 that, dollar for dollar, make the F-22 look like a very expensive joke. Given the money and a decade of research and production, I think they could countinue to be a match for the US. Fortunately(?), that isn’t terribly likely to happen, and we’ll probably just see the hardware produced as cheaply as possible and continue to be sold to other countries. For instance, the MiG 1.42/MFI’s flight controls are planned to be based on the MiG-29, to save money and simplify training - though this makes it inferior to more expensive, more modern aircraft.

Partly, this is due to half a century of Soviet/Russian military development specifically counter to American development, whereas most other large nations have different goals - the Europeans are mostly focused on localized and peacekeeping operations. The Chinese are largely the same - they don’t have a need to project power (arguably) beyond Taiwan, and most of their action is in their western provinces. They don’t need to maintain the same kind of military that America does. Most other countries are concentrated on national defense, and purchase most of their hardware from Europe, Russia, or America, depending on their politics.

Would it have been fascinating to see how all of the strategic theory that went into the Cold War would have really played out? Hell yea, that is any war nerd’s wet dream. Who wouldn’t want to see the Battle of Germany without consequence of human life? Drool. Who wouldn’t want to see what technologies of destruction and weapons Soviets and Americans could have developed given continued conflict and economic power? It is often said that America didn’t win the Cold War - we just lost it slower. Obviously, the kind of pace that we had during the CW couldn’t be kept up for long, but just imagining what the future of conventional warfare could have been…

Now, war nerds are left with something less fun. No more massive armor conflicts, no more epic battles of air supremacy spanning all of Europe, no more massive fleets prowling the seas. We have gritty urban warfare, terrorism/counter-terrorism, street to street fighting… it harkens back to WWI and the death of the calvary.

Mainly cause every other power in the world is either a pal of the USA , or too pysched out to think they have a chance at winning.

Even if you dumped the worlds GNP into the Russian military , You would get a shit load of high tech equipment , with pilots and soldiers and sailors who still would think they have no chance of winning.

Reminds me of something said about jutland

The British never thought they would lose and the Germans never thought they could win.

Declan