# 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:** 4
**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, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/61 "2010-01-06T20:49:57Z")
Spring isn’t too good in the Soviet Union either though…it’s the time of mud (there is a Soviet word for it that escapes me ATM). Also, it took them time to get everything together and into their jump off points, and by the time they were ready (and the roads were solid again) it was too late to go early. Their biggest mistake, IMHO, was that they didn’t have a GoTH plan…they expected victory and didn’t plan for anything else. So, they had no logistics in place for what would happen to their soldiers if they were still in the field when winter came. Monumentally stupid and thousands and thousands of their best troops died because of it. -XT ---
**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, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/62 "2010-01-06T20:51:59Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Spring isn’t too good in the Soviet Union either though…it’s the time of mud (there is a Soviet word for it that escapes me ATM). Also, it took them time to get everything together and into their jump off points, and by the time they were ready (and the roads were solid again) it was too late to go early. > > Their biggest mistake, IMHO, was that they didn’t have a GoTH plan…they expected victory and didn’t plan for anything else. So, they had no logistics in place for what would happen to their soldiers if they were still in the field when winter came. Monumentally stupid and thousands and thousands of their best troops died because of it. > > -XT Rasputitsa. > **[Rasputitsa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputitsa)** > > Rasputitsa (from Russian: распу́тица \[rɐsˈputʲɪtsə\]; literally "season of bad roads") is the mud season that occurs in various rural areas of Eastern Europe, when the rapid snowmelt or thawing of frozen ground combined with wet weather in spring, or heavy rains in autumn lead to muddy conditions that make travel on unpaved roads problematic and even treacherous. > Rasputitsa has repeatedly affected wars by causing military vehicles and artillery pieces to become mired in the mud. In conjunction wi... ---
**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, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/63 "2010-01-06T20:53:00Z")
Thanks. 🙂 -XT ---
**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, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/64 "2010-01-06T20:55:19Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Thanks. 🙂 > > -XT NP. The odd term just stuck in my head. I don’t often get a chance to show off trivia! [Because usually someone beats me to it 😉]. ---
**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, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/65 "2010-01-06T21:14:56Z")
> [@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. Human waves? Well, the Soviets lost about 10 million soldiers. Almost as much as all the other armies in the war combined…from both sides (including the Japanese and Germans). Doesn’t argue for a refined approach to warfare. Also realize more technically advanced does not necessarily mean it is better. I could build a Rube Goldberg contraption to catch a mouse that is far more technically advanced than a simple mouse trap. Doesn’t mean it will work better than the simple mouse trap. The T-34 was not more technically advanced than the Panzer IV (and I bet, all things considered, the Panzer III as well although they were probably close). The Panzer IV was a more refined machine. Thing is the T-34 was a very good design that was (relatively) easy to build and build cheaply (again relatively). Its more simple nature made it more reliable and easier to fix. By the end of the war the Germans had the ME-262 which was a game changer. Fortunately it was a day late and a dollar short and Hitler used them stupidly but clearly the Germans were ahead of the game here. I do not know enough about the trucks to say which was better (thought the Soviets got most of their trucks from the US). All-in-all the Germans were ahead of the Soviets on most counts from a technical stand point. Bully for the Soviets closing the gap as the war progressed. ---
**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, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/66 "2010-01-06T21:22:15Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Human waves? Well, the Soviets lost about 10 million soldiers. Almost as much as all the other armies in the war combined…from both sides (including the Japanese and Germans). Doesn’t argue for a refined approach to warfare. > > Also realize more technically advanced does not necessarily mean it is better. I could build a Rube Goldberg contraption to catch a mouse that is far more technically advanced than a simple mouse trap. Doesn’t mean it will work better than the simple mouse trap. > > The T-34 was not more technically advanced than the Panzer IV (and I bet, all things considered, the Panzer III as well although they were probably close). The Panzer IV was a more refined machine. Thing is the T-34 was a very good design that was (relatively) easy to build and build cheaply (again relatively). Its more simple nature made it more reliable and easier to fix. > > By the end of the war the Germans had the ME-262 which was a game changer. Fortunately it was a day late and a dollar short and Hitler used them stupidly but clearly the Germans were ahead of the game here. I do not know enough about the trucks to say which was better (thought the Soviets got most of their trucks from the US). > > All-in-all the Germans were ahead of the Soviets on most counts from a technical stand point. Bully for the Soviets closing the gap as the war progressed. The Germans had a flair for over-engineering the crap out of things thus making them more expensive to build, prone to breakdowns and harder to fix in the field. Hence the Panther was the T-34s equal in every way except reliability. The Tigers I and II were even worse. The Germans also seemed to over emphasize making shit really big too, even when not necessary. ---
**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, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/67 "2010-01-06T21:30:40Z")
Here is the [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_III) on the Panzer mk III…it was an older design. The Germans deliberately (and stupidly) allowed their development in tank design to lag, due to the fact that they thought the war would be over quickly. As a result they invaded the Soviet Union with an older design…and it came as quite a shock to them that their equipment was so bad. Luckily (for them) their tactics and unit training was so good (and conversely, the Soviets was so bad), otherwise they would have gotten their asses kicked. > [@](#): > > Panzer III is the common name of a medium tank that was developed in the 1930s by Germany and used extensively in World War II. The official German designation was Panzerkampfwagen III (abbreviated PzKpfw III) translating as “armoured battle vehicle”. It was intended to fight other armoured fighting vehicles and serve alongside the Panzer IV. However, it soon became obsolete in this role and for most purposes was supplanted by the Panzer IV, though some Panzer IIIs would continue to be used for infantry support until late in the war. > [@](#): > > Production history > Designer Daimler-Benz > Designed 1935 > Manufacturer Daimler-Benz > Produced 1939–1943 > Number built 5,774 (excluding StuG III) > > Specifications > Weight 23.0 tonnes (25.4 short tons) > Length 6.41 m (21.0 ft) > Width 2.90 m (9.5 ft) > Height 2.5 m (8.2 ft) > Crew 5 (commander, gunner, loader, driver, radio operator/bow machine-gunner) [Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV) is the Panzer mk IV > [@](#): > > The Panzerkampfwagen IV (Pz.Kpfw. IV), commonly known as the Panzer IV, was a medium tank developed in Nazi Germany in the late 1930s and used extensively during the Second World War. Its ordnance inventory designation was Sd.Kfz. 161. > > Designed as an infantry-support tank, the Panzer IV was not originally intended to engage enemy armor—that function was performed by the lighter Panzer III. However, with the flaws of pre-war doctrine becoming apparent and in the face of Soviet T-34 tanks, the Panzer IV soon assumed the tank-fighting role of its increasingly obsolescent cousin. The most widely manufactured and deployed German tank of the Second World War, the Panzer IV was used as the base for many other fighting vehicles, including tank destroyers and self-propelled anti-aircraft guns. Robust and reliable, it saw service in all combat theaters, and has the distinction of being the only German tank to remain in continuous production throughout the war, with over 8,500 produced between 1936 and 1945. Upgrades and design modifications, often made in response to the appearance of new Allied tanks, extended its service life. Generally these involved increasing the Panzer IV’s armor protection or upgrading its weapons, although during the last months of the war and with Germany’s pressing need for rapid replacement of losses, design changes also included retrograde measures to simplify and speed manufacture. I think the tank you are thinking of is the Panzer mk V…[here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank) is the link. This is when the Germans gained technical parity (at least in tanks) with the Soviets. Ironically, the tank was actually built using the German’s experience against the T-34’s, and actually incorporated a lot of the T-34’s design features into the tank. [Here’s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34) the specs on the T-34. It really was technically superior to anything Germany had until late '42-'43. (ETA: post was in response to Whack-A-Mole’s post) -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, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/68 "2010-01-06T21:35:10Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I think the tank you are thinking of is the Panzer mk V…[here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank) is the link. I consistently conflate the Pz-IV with the Pz-V. No idea why…one of those things. You’d think I’d learn but I dont. :smack: ---
**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, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/69 "2010-01-06T21:36:24Z")
It’s because ‘Panther’ is so much more of a sexy name. I used to do the same thing, until playing Panzer General for weeks on end. 😉 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/70 "2010-01-06T21:38:52Z")
> [@capeo](#): > > The Germans had a flair for over-engineering the crap out of things thus making them more expensive to build, prone to breakdowns and harder to fix in the field. Had? _cough_ BMW _cough_ ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/71 "2010-01-06T21:58:49Z")
> [@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. The last time Israel fought a regular army was in 1982, during the opening stages of the Lebanon War: \*Israel’s publicly stated objective was to push PLO forces back 40 kilometers (25 mi) to the north. Israeli forces pushed in from Southern Lebanon. The first battle was at Beaufort Castle, where 6 Israeli soldiers and at least 4 PLO fighters were killed. Israeli troops took control of the castle. Israeli forces took the town of Jezzine, which was held by Syrian tanks and Infantry. One Syrian armored battalion was destroyed, with Israel losing 7 dead and 8 tanks. Operation Mole Cricket 19 was launched, with the Israeli air force winning a dramatic victory over Syrian aircraft, shooting down 29 Syrian planes and also destroying 17 Syrian anti-aircraft missile batteries, with no losses of its own. Israeli forces fought their way into the Syrian-held town of Sultan Yacoub, but became surrounded. They managed to escape, losing 30 dead. Sultan Yacoub was one of the few objectives the IDF decisively failed to take in the war. The Israelis soon reached Beirut but were determined to drive the PLO from southern Lebanon.[27] Tyre and Sidon (major cities in South Lebanon, still within the 40-kilometre (25 mi) limit) were heavily damaged, and the Lebanese capital Beirut was shelled for ten weeks, killing both PLO members and civilians. The Israeli Air Force shot down 86 Syrian aircraft, with no air combat losses of its own. This was the largest combat of the jet age with 150 fighters from both sides.[28] It also performed ground attacks, notably destroying the majority of Syrian anti-aircraft batteries stationed in Lebanon. AH-1 Cobra helicopter gunships were used widely against Syrian armor and fortifications. The IAF Cobras destroyed dozens of Syrian armored fighting vehicles, including some of the modern Soviet T-72 main battle tanks.\* - From Wikipedia. Obviously not as large-scale as in 1973 - he last full-scale symmetrical war of the modern age - but certainly equal to what the Brits were doing in the Falklands around the same time. Today, while most of the IDF’s activity is in counter-insurgency (as is the British military’s), it still sees conventional warfare as its primary objective. Its forces are equipped and organized to fight large-scale armored engagements in the Golan, the Sinai and elsewhere. Other than the U.S., I don’t think any other Western military thinks in such large terms; there’s a reason Israel has 8 times as many tanks as the UK. There’s also a bit of a misconception regrading Israeli tanks. When the first Merkava tanks came out in the late 1970’s they were indeed significantly heavier and significantly slower than any other tank in the world; however, since then other Western tanks have grown bigger, while Israeli tanks have gotten better engines. As a result, the current Merkava Marks 3 and 4 tanks are more or less identical in terms of protection and mobility to modern tanks like the M1 Abrams or the Challenger 2. ---
**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, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/72 "2010-01-06T22:07:47Z")
The Merkava actually weighs slightly less than an Abrams. But the difference is the US has the transport to move something like the Abrams around in significant numbers, while Israel doesn’t. That’s fine, since Israel didn’t intend for the Merk’s to be deployed overseas. It’s a really big tank though, and I don’t think even the mk IV’s have the same performance characteristics (i.e. range and speed) that a tank like the Abrams has…but I could be wrong there. I’m basing this off of a half remembered episode of Top 10 Greatest Tanks on the Military Channel, so I may be mis-remembering. -XT ---
**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, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/73 "2010-01-06T22:41:38Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Human waves? Well, the Soviets lost about 10 million soldiers. Almost as much as all the other armies in the war combined…from both sides (including the Japanese and Germans). Doesn’t argue for a refined approach to warfare. they certainly did lose a lot of soldiers… **most of them when they were losing.** You don’t win wars by having your own men killed. When the Soviets were most successful, they were killing more Germans than they were losing of their own men. > [@](#): > > By the end of the war the Germans had the ME-262 which was a game changer. Fortunately it was a day late and a dollar short and Hitler used them stupidly but clearly the Germans were ahead of the game here. I do not know enough about the trucks to say which was better (thought the Soviets got most of their trucks from the US). It’s not about whose trucks were better. It’s that trucks are better than horses. The primary means of transport for the German army was the horse. The primary means of transport for the Soviet army, at least inthe second half of the war, was the truck. What’s more advanced, trucks or horses? (And who cares where they got them?) You can’t compare the theoretical limits of each side’s best weapon as a measure of the technological level of the army unless you also account for whether most of the soldiers even have the weapon. I’m sure German trucks worked fine but most German soldiers relied on horses to pull stuff. That’s a point for the Soviets. The Me-262 was a neat plane but they had few of them and most German pilots were still flying Me-109s at the end of the war, which were no better than their Soviet counterparts. German tanks were great if they worked, but they usually didn’t. [QUOTE=mswas] Also, going into the Soviet Union in the winter was fucking stupid. They should’ve just waited for the Spring [/QUOTE] Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the second day of summer. The Germans weren’t stupid; they had a variety of reasons to commence the invasion when they did. The war was not won or lost because of individual, easy-to-criticize decisions, but because of systematic differences in how the sides started and wages wars. The fact that Nazi Germany did not have a civilian cabinet has far more to do with its losing the war than differences in guns, planes or tanks. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/74 "2010-01-06T22:53:42Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Other than the U.S., I don’t think any other Western military thinks in such large terms; there’s a reason Israel has 8 times as many tanks as the UK. The British Army ordered around 400 Challenger II. Does Israel really have 8 times as many? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Snite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Snite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snite)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/75 "2010-01-06T23:25:28Z")
Diogenes, you say you were in the military and that you ‘certainly didn’t work very hard’. I have to wonder what your MOS was. As an Infantryman I can say that we train a lot, and the difference between a well-trained unit and a poorly-trained unit is severe. I’ve seen poorly-trained soldiers(mostly cuz they weren’t in the Infnatry MOS but were trying to do the Infantry’s job) execute missions with all the tactical proficiency of a boy-scout troop and get slaughtered. Fortuneatly, this was in training. I’ve also seen poorly-trained troops go out on mission in Iraq and come back with more dead and wounded than any infantry unit would have. American soldiers with their superior technology but poor training get their asses handed to them every time. Also, I would like to point out that during joint-training where infantry were armed with anti-tank missiles and were ‘fighting’ tanks, the infantry won every single time. Mobility and training wins wars. Also, to whoever said NKs would defect if they saw life outside NK: part of an NK special forces soldier’s initiation is to infiltrate SK and bring back photographic evidence they have done so. We know this because those unable to get back - for whatever reason - will commit suicide and sometimes leave the photographs(depicting them shopping or eating at a fine restaraunt) behind. Brainwashing is brainwashing and NKs are extremely loyal. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/76 "2010-01-06T23:57:16Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > The British Army ordered around 400 Challenger II. Does Israel really have 8 times as many? :eek: According to [this table](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country), Israel has over 3,000 tanks, of which about 1,000 are state-of-the-art Merks III and IV, and the remainder are older (but still effective) Merks and upgraded M-60s. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/77 "2010-01-07T00:03:54Z")
> [@Snite](#): > > Also, to whoever said NKs would defect if they saw life outside NK: part of an NK special forces soldier’s initiation is to infiltrate SK and bring back photographic evidence they have done so. We know this because those unable to get back - for whatever reason - will commit suicide and sometimes leave the photographs(depicting them shopping or eating at a fine restaraunt) behind. Brainwashing is brainwashing and NKs are extremely loyal. How hard is it for them to do this? I assume they go undercover, dressed as civilians. Do they have to forge documents to get through checkpoints or something? Or are they able to sneak through the border? ---
**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 7, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/78 "2010-01-07T17:14:28Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > How hard is it for them to do this? I assume they go undercover, dressed as civilians. Do they have to forge documents to get through checkpoints or something? Or are they able to sneak through the border? They used to use tunnels. Don’t know if they have put a stop to that now. Otherwise my sense was they used submarines to smuggle in operatives. ---
**Author:** ![Snite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Snite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snite)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/79 "2010-01-07T23:26:00Z")
All the stories I’ve been told involve submarines putting them ashore. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Baldy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Gary\_Baldy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Baldy)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825/80 "2010-01-07T23:30:19Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > They used to use tunnels. Don’t know if they have put a stop to that now. > > Otherwise my sense was they used submarines to smuggle in operatives. For some information on the tunnels, check out the [wiki article about the DMZ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone#Incursion_tunnels). For some background information about finding the first tunnel, check out [this guy’s account](http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_090803_Tunnel,00.html). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-of-militaries-who-would-win/523825.md?page=5)