While the OP poses an interesting question, I think you need a full thread to thrash out the rules before speculating who would win. The two biggest factors (as others have pointed out) are force projection and what counts as a win.
As an Australian, I’m happy to think that our military is good enough to beat anyone on our terms, and the mix of military and geography means that unless you’re packing a couple of carrier groups, the fight is going to be on our terms. Israel could easily say the same, and for the British and Germans you can probably scrap the carrier-group limitation.
If you’re interested in “who is the best” as opposed to the biggest, a general rule of thumb is that an average unit from a medium power will be better trained and equipped than an average unit of a major power, but that the elite units of the major powers (particularly if at the right point on the readiness cycle) will wipe the floor with a medium or low-tech power.
The US Military doesn’t train any harder than any other military. I sure didn’t work very hard. Most of the essential training is all technical these days anyway – operating the equipment.
A gun beats a sword. A tank beats a gun. An airplane beats a tank. It’s just that simple. If you disagree, give me an example of one technologically inferior military ever beating a superior one.
You are quite wrong. The US military trains harder than just about any other military out there because we have the money to do so. Almost no one else has the funding to train as hard as we do. Oh, they probably have elite forces that train as hard, and certainly NATO countries have similar (though smaller scale) training, but no one can train like we do. We have extensive simulator training, as well as several real world training facilities that simulate combat, and we even go to the expense of maintaining ‘enemy’ forces WITH simulated enemy equipment staffed.
Granted, currently a large percentage of our light ground forces are committed to a grinding war in Afghanistan and Iraq (where they are getting only on the job training in the advanced course), but we’ve built whole simulated Iraqi and Afghani villages to run soldiers through before sending them off to the meat grinder.
There are plenty of examples of a sword (or spear) beating a sword…check out the Zulu wars that the Brits engaged in during the 19th century. There are also examples of guns beating tanks…Stalingrad, Battle of the Bulge. For a good example of how inferior forces can ‘beat’ a major power, perhaps do some reading about how the Afghan rebels defeated the Brits…or the Soviets. Or, how the North Vietnamese beat the French, and how Vietnam was unified, despite going toe to toe with one of the most powerful militaries in history (the US).
It’s not nearly as simple as you seem, and training most certainly DOES have a significant impact. The ease with which the US and our allies defeated Iraq in the first Gulf War had as much to do with how well trained our people were, and how well they could execute their OP orders as to the quality of our hardware. Same goes for how easy the initial stages of the second Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan went. Hell, training is the reason that, even today, our casualties are so light in Iraq, despite Bush et al systematically screwing the pooch there. As the Soviets how well THEY faired in Afghanistan, despite being both numerically superior as well as technologically superior in every way possible. The Soviets had a poorly trained and poorly lead army, and while there are a lot of other factors to why they lost, this was certainly one of the main ones.
If the goal is to win a campaign, I’d bet on Israel - they have the edge in terms of actual combat experience among 1st world nations that are not the US.
That’s assuming of course it’s a “come as you are right now” situation. If on the other hand the nations are given time & incentive to prepare, Israel would be outclassed by 1st world countries with a far higher population and GDP.
I do not think that non-1st world countries have a chance in conventional warfare versus 1st world nations with serious militaries.
The Russian winter, and Hitler’s decsion to split his fronts beat the Germans.
The Chinese didn’t win.
The Vietnamese were supplied by the Soviets, and the US did not fully exploit its technological capabilities there.
Afghanistan was aided by the US and its own terrain in rejecting the Soviets.
Little Big Horn – an example of sheer numbers sometimes being able to win over better technology, but the Indians did have guns in that battle, and, more significantly, it was only won battle, not a whole war.
Training isn’t about hard, it’s about good. I don’t know about you, but the training I got was some of the best in the world; the classes that Air Force put on where at least as good as any civilian training I’ve taken, and usually better paced, better focused, and better measured.
A Sherman vs. a Tiger. The Tiger is without a doubt the technological superior, but the sheer numbers and maintainability of the Shermans allowed them to simply overwhelm the Tigers.
At the end of the day, the guy who has repaired, fueled tanks, beats the guy who has better tanks, but no gas or spare parts. A single plane may beat a tank or five, but only when it’s armed, fueled, and flown; a full wing on the ground without munitions or gas doesn’t stand much chance against those same tanks.
Training my ass. The Gulf War was a walk because we had planes and missiles and tanks, and because the other side didn’t fight back. Training means nothing anymore. It’s all just a video game now. Any fat slob can launch a missile.
Maybe we’re using different definitions of “training,” but I was thinking in terms of physical training, not just learning to maintain the equipment, which I agree is important, by my point is that it’s still the equipment that wins the wars.
Seems to me the Russians fought in the same weather the Germans did and it was not always winter there. Regardless the Russians won against a technologically superior foe (your challenge).
The Chinese didn’t lose either and ultimately stymied the US in Korea. We accepted half a victory or half a loss there depending how you want to measure it. Either way our technologically superior army did not win to complete victory.
The Vietnamese were supplied by the Soviets but it remains that they were far and away technologically inferior to the US in every respect. US lost.
Afghanistan for the Soviets was the other side of the coin for the Soviets to what Vietnam was for us. Supplied though they were by the US the Afghans were, in every respect, less technologically advanced than the Soviets.
There is a lot more to winning a battle than better tech which even you have noted (e.g. Germans dealing with adverse weather).
Actually, the Russians had a decent parity with the Germans…in some ways (like the T-34) they were superior. It’s actually a good example the other way…the Russians were poorly trained (prior to hostilities) and poorly lead, and they took massive losses from the Germans, who were very well trained and lead. That training made all the difference in the early phases of the war. The Russians basically swamped the Germans with sheer weight of numbers. Training only goes so far…but look at the comparative casualty numbers some time.
The Americans were also poorly trained and lead in the initial stages of the war, which is why WE did so poorly.
No, they didn’t…but they managed a draw, despite being totally outclassed technologically. It’s a poor example anyway, since the US army (and the South Korean Army) went in pretty poorly trained as well. In this case, it was technology vs sheer weight of numbers, and it came out a draw. Had the US not dropped the ball post WWII and maintained our training regiments I think it would have been a completely different outcome. I think one of the reasons the US DOES train so hard is we got tired of sending in poorly trained boys to gain experience through blood, instead of putting in the sweat (and money) for training.
But they never came close to achieving technological parity with the US, despite being supplied by the soviets, especially in the insurgency campaign fought in South Vietnam. Most of the ‘high tech’ (such as it was) that the Soviets gave them was used in the North to defend their cities, factories, etc.
.Afghanistan rebels fought for years BEFORE the US started giving them substantial aid, and they managed to hold their own despite a huge difference in technological capabilities (until the Soviets brought in helicopter gunships). Most of the aid we gave them was in the form of stinger missiles…and training.
Actually, IIRC, the Indians in question were better armed than Custer’s men (they had repeating rifles vs single shot breach loaders, again IIRC), so this isn’t a good example either.
Uhuh. Well, no point in continuing to discuss this with you DtC. The above statement is about as ignorant as it gets. Some day, look up what the US and the allies did PRIOR to the ground campaign and perhaps you’ll learn something about the realities of the military.
The other side didn’t fight back. There was effectively no enemy. Gangs of untrained, largely unarmed conscripts just surrendered without a fight. It was a joke. We took more casulties from friendly fire than we did from the Iraqis. Do you really think that little action came down to training? Are you serious? That was the decisive factor in your mind? Are you kidding me?
[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]
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.
You’re claiming you’re in the military and then you say:
A plane doesn’t ‘beat a tank’ and a tank doesn’t beat a gun. This isn’t rock paper scissors. They each have tactical strengths and weaknesses. An armor division with a squad of infantry is a very potent weapon for fighting on the ground. A jet simply can’t do the close in ground work, and for that matter a tank cannot either.
The Soviets held the Germans off with human wave attacks and lost almost their entire generation of young fighting men doing so. If that had been the ONLY front the Germans were fighting on I doubt the Soviets would’ve won.
Fair enough.
No they didn’t. The US lost the political will to pursue it. The Vietnamese didn’t ‘beat’ the US in any meaningful military sense.
The Afghans beat the Soviets with Stinger missiles provided by the US. But otherwise this is a good example of your thesis.
I don’t think they were. So this would be a good example.
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.
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.