# Super Bowl of militaries: who would win? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 6, 2010, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825 "2010-01-06T00:32:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/41 "2010-01-06T16:51:26Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Surely they only have combat experience in Middle Eastern theatres. What arctic warfare experience do they have? Do Israeli troops even receive any arctic training? Compare to the UK or Germany (or even the Scandinavian countries) that train extensively in arctic conditions in e.g. Norway and northern Canada. I didn’t understand that the scenario was specific to the arctic; I was under the impression Siberia was chosen merely because it was remote and lacked much population. Sure, if it takes place during a Siberian winter, northern nations would have the edge. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/42 "2010-01-06T16:51:37Z")
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole] [quibble] The T34 was arguably the best tank of WWII but it was not technologically superior to German main battle tanks. Indeed its low-tech (albeit smart) design is what made it good. [/quibble] [/QUOTE] It was technologically superior to the Panzer III’s the Germans had in the initial invasion (Operation Barbarosa). It had a superior gun, sloped armor and a superior tread and suspension design. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/43 "2010-01-06T16:54:26Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Training is absolutely a big part of it. > > Your average grunt in the US is probably not particularly better than a grunt in any other army in the world. Cannon fodder. Point gun at bad guy, pull trigger, rinse and repeat till you are dead. > > Training will however allow your average grunt to better assess their position and intelligently choose the most advantageous position (if they have a choice). They may recognize how a situation is evolving and make a better decision because they have seen it before. > > Training also brings discipline. Arguably the Israelis did as well as they did in no small part to the discipline and tenacity that comes with it of their troops. > > Then you start moving up the ladder and the higher you get the more training matters. I’ll take Norman Schwarzkopf over any Iraqi general any day. US fighter pilots are probably the best in the world because of training. US artillery is notoriously bad ass…training. Guys driving a tank are good because of training. Aircraft carrier support crew are amazingly efficient because of (wait for it) training. I cannot even imagine operating a submarine without extensive training. > > A modern army needs all the pieces working together well. In military terms that means an ongoing SNAFU but without the training it’d be FUBAR. Schwartzkopf with c. 1991 Iraqi technology, or Chemical Ali with US technology. Who wins? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/44 "2010-01-06T17:06:18Z")
Damn, if this thread had been just 10, 15 years ago, I’d have bet on my homeboys. Now, though, even though we have superior (local) tech (Rooivalk attack heli, Ratel, Buffel, etc), we don’t have the trained personel or the raw combat experience anymore. Damn shame. I think Israel would take it. Them or the UK. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/45 "2010-01-06T17:10:33Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Schwartzkopf with c. 1991 Iraqi technology, or Chemical Ali with US technology. Who wins? [/QUOTE] Swartzkoff in a defensive position with training consummate with what the US had and Iraqi technology vs Iraqi levels of training and leadership but US tech? I’d say that in the end US tech with Iraqi training wins, but it would have been VERY bloody…so much so that it’s possible that the US electorate would have perhaps been less than enthused to continue and possibly Swartzkoff et al would get some major concessions. (ETA: Or maybe they don’t win at all. I’m having a hard time picturing how even a technologically superior force could even make the deployment with Iraqi levels of training and leadership) -XT ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/46 "2010-01-06T17:13:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Schwartzkopf with c. 1991 Iraqi technology, or Chemical Ali with US technology. Who wins? Hard to say…would be an interesting fight. Can I assume we are swapping troops along with their training as well or does Schwarzkopf get the untrained Iraqi soldiers? US trained pilots flying the Iraqi planes? If so I will take Schwarzkopf. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/47 "2010-01-06T17:17:37Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > It was technologically superior to the Panzer III’s the Germans had in the initial invasion (Operation Barbarosa). It had a superior gun, sloped armor and a superior tread and suspension design. Of note to the training angle (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > Initially, the Panzer III’s were outclassed and outnumbered by Soviet T-34 and KV tanks. However, the most numerous Soviet tanks were the T-26 and BT tanks. This, along with **superior German tactical skill,[2] crew training**, and the good ergonomics of the Panzer III all contributed to a rough 6:1 favourable kill ratio for German tanks of all types in 1941. > > SOURCE: [Panzer III - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_III) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/48 "2010-01-06T17:34:37Z")
Definitely the Germans had superior training, especially early in the war. Later on not so much, due to attrition and the fact that for some odd reason the Germans never did rotate out the combat veterans (especially in their air force) for training of new recruits. Instead, they basically fought until killed for the most part. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/49 "2010-01-06T19:03:45Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Definitely the Germans had superior training, especially early in the war. Later on not so much, due to attrition and the fact that for some odd reason the Germans never did rotate out the combat veterans (especially in their air force) for training of new recruits. Instead, they basically fought until killed for the most part. IIRC the Japanese did the same thing with their pilots. At the beginning of the war the Zero was a better fighter and the Japanese pilots better pilots. Japan left them in and eventually they all died so no vets to train the new guys leading to things like “The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot” (429 Japanese planes shot down versus 29 American planes). ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/50 "2010-01-06T19:07:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > And gotten obliterated. A lot of those guys didn’t even have bullets in their guns. They were essentially dummy units holding prop guns. All the training in the world wouldn’t have helped them beat tanks and helicopters with their fists. All of that is a part of having a well-disciplined military. I’m kind of surprised at how difficult to grasp this concept is for you. Military pedagogy concerns everything from how to shoot straight, to how to operate a radio, how to read a map and understand where other units are in relation to your unit, and how to make sure that the supplies are well stocked. The Iraqi army was mismanaged. Sure it was large, but it didn’t have what it needed. It COULD have spent the same amount of resources on a much smaller force if it had the proper level of advancement to implement it. But if that had been the case, things in Iraq would have been different across the board. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/51 "2010-01-06T19:20:13Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The Iraqi army was mismanaged. Sure it was large, but it didn’t have what it needed. It COULD have spent the same amount of resources on a much smaller force if it had the proper level of advancement to implement it. But if that had been the case, things in Iraq would have been different across the board. IIRC I believe Saddam was not keen on popular and talented generals. He viewed them as a threat to his regime and was a good way to end up dead. So, it actually behooved his military to not be too good (at least the generals who might make that a reality). Stalin had the same issues at the start of WWII having killed off most of his talented military leaders. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/52 "2010-01-06T19:44:05Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > IIRC I believe Saddam was not keen on popular and talented generals. He viewed them as a threat to his regime and was a good way to end up dead. So, it actually behooved his military to not be too good (at least the generals who might make that a reality). Stalin had the same issues at the start of WWII having killed off most of his talented military leaders. That’s an interesting thought that seems so self-evident but I had never really given much thought to. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/53 "2010-01-06T19:45:26Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > That’s an interesting thought that seems so self-evident but I had never really given much thought to. I also read somewhere that Saddam greatly admired Stalin and his methods. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/54 "2010-01-06T19:59:00Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I didn’t understand that the scenario was specific to the arctic; I was under the impression Siberia was chosen merely because it was remote and lacked much population. > > Sure, if it takes place during a Siberian winter, northern nations would have the edge. OK. But the general point still stands: the Israeli military is fearsome, but they seem a lot more specialised in their role compared to the military of the UK, France and Germany. The Israelis are experts in urban fighting, and combating essentially an insurgency, but a “military Superbowl” in Siberia isn’t either of those things. When was the last time the Israelis actually fought a regular army? Compare to e.g. the UK, which has been involved in virtually every major (and a load of not-so-major wars) since the start of the 20th Century: Iraq twice, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Argentina—all these in the last 25 years—as well as all the planning and training concordant with being one of the major European powers during the Cold War. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/55 "2010-01-06T20:09:06Z")
The Israeli tanks would also be a bitch to get to Siberia…even with US air lift. Plus they are so damned heavy that I’m unsure how they would do in that environment. They were really built and designed with defense and crew survivability in mind, and I don’t think they’d do well in a war of maneuver type role. On the other hand, Israel trains hard, they have fine soldiers, solid tactics and are by and large well lead. Still, I’d probably go with the UK as well, especially since they have, IMHO, one of the finest tanks out there right now, good training, are equally well lead, and are innovative as hell. They also have good real world combat experience…something the other contender IMHO (Germany) lacks. I think the UK would win, but there would be some close ‘games’. And, of course, if nations need to bring their own armies, then the UK would pretty much win by default. 😉 -XT ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/56 "2010-01-06T20:10:48Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > The Israeli tanks would also be a bitch to get to Siberia…even with US air lift. Plus they are so damned heavy that I’m unsure how they would do in that environment. They were really built and designed with defense and crew survivability in mind, and I don’t think they’d do well in a war of maneuver type role. On the other hand, Israel trains hard, they have fine soldiers, solid tactics and are by and large well lead. > > Still, I’d probably go with the UK as well, especially since they have, IMHO, one of the finest tanks out there right now, good training, are equally well lead, and are innovative as hell. They also have good real world combat experience…something the other contender IMHO (Germany) lacks. I think the UK would win, but there would be some close ‘games’. > > And, of course, if nations need to bring their own armies, then the UK would pretty much win by default. 😉 > > -XT We should probably assume that the US is providing logistical support to all combatants. Otherwise the counterfactual is simply implausible. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/57 "2010-01-06T20:10:55Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > OK. But the general point still stands: the Israeli military is fearsome, but they seem a lot more specialised in their role compared to the military of the UK, France and Germany. The Israelis are experts in urban fighting, and combating essentially an insurgency, but a “military Superbowl” in Siberia isn’t either of those things. When was the last time the Israelis actually fought a regular army? > > Compare to e.g. the UK, which has been involved in virtually every major (and a load of not-so-major wars) since the start of the 20th Century: Iraq twice, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Argentina—all these in the last 25 years—as well as all the planning and training concordant with being one of the major European powers during the Cold War. I believe that the last occasion on which the Israelis fought a major army in conventional battle was 1973. The Israeli involvement though was much greater on that occasion that that of the UK army in Iraq, Afganistan, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, or Argentina (all of which were, for the army at least, comparatively small-scale struggles) in that it was an existential war that pitted the entirely of the Israeli forces against multiple enemies that far outnumbered them; moreover, enemies equipped with tanks, jets, modern missiles, etc. In fact, in some ways their enemies had the technological edge (the Israelis were sorely surprised by the Egyptian use of missile forces in that fight, for example, though they recovered and succeeded in countering it with a combined-arms approach - a good counter-example to Dio’s stated position, BTW: possession of a superior weapon system can be countered by appropriate use of lower techs enabled by good training). The UK forces have to go back to WW2 for a comparable struggle. Moreover, the UK at present faces no serious threat at all from potential enemy conventional forces; though admittedly the threat to Israel has receded in that respect as well following their peace deal with Egypt. ---
**Author:** ![capeo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@capeo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capeo)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/58 "2010-01-06T20:29:52Z")
Taking away navies, terrain and weather I don’t think you can discount sheer numbers. India would factor in there in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/59 "2010-01-06T20:30:42Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Err…huh? Off the top of my head: > > - Soviets beat the Germans in WWII while in almost every respect the Germans had the better technology. Well, except with regard to tanks, artillery, transportation, small arms, and aircraft. The notion that the Soviets just won with human waves in absurd. Early in the war, when the Germans had a better army, they were winning. The Soviets beat them because they improved their armed forces, including in virtually every area of technology. Their tanks were better, their artillery was generally better, their airplanes eventually were every bit the equal of German airplanes, their small arms were better. They had far better transportation (a truck is quite a lot more technologically advanced than a horse) made greater and more expansive use of electronic warfare, and had any number of other advantages. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/60 "2010-01-06T20:44:15Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Well, except with regard to tanks, artillery, transportation, small arms, and aircraft. > > The notion that the Soviets just won with human waves in absurd. Early in the war, when the Germans had a better army, they were winning. The Soviets beat them because they improved their armed forces, including in virtually every area of technology. Their tanks were better, their artillery was generally better, their airplanes eventually were every bit the equal of German airplanes, their small arms were better. They had far better transportation (a truck is quite a lot more technologically advanced than a horse) made greater and more expansive use of electronic warfare, and had any number of other advantages. Also, going into the Soviet Union in the winter was fucking stupid. They should’ve just waited for the Spring. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825.md?page=4)