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.
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
Schwartzkopf with c. 1991 Iraqi technology, or Chemical Ali with US technology. Who wins?
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.
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
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.
Of note to the training angle (bolding mine):
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
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).
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.
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.
I also read somewhere that Saddam greatly admired Stalin and his methods.
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 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.
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.
Taking away navies, terrain and weather I don’t think you can discount sheer numbers. India would factor in there in my opinion.
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.