Super Bowl of militaries: who would win?

[ChrisBooth12]

@mswas

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.

You have a grunt, a tank and a plane. Which is mostly likely to come home?

[XT]

Is the ‘grunt’ a caveman? Or does he have a Dragon, Javelin, etc? What kind of cover? What are the air defenses like? What counter measures are on the tank? What…well, you get the point I’m sure.

-XT

[mswas]

@ChrisBooth12

You have a grunt, a tank and a plane. Which is mostly likely to come home?

Which one can kick in the door and arrest a terrorist?

[RickJay]

@ChrisBooth12

You have a grunt, a tank and a plane. Which is mostly likely to come home?

Depends on the war. Tanks have a very short life expectancy in wars between fully equipped armies. In our imaginary Super Bowl of militaries it’s likely most of the main battle tanks will be destroyed.

For your planes, in modern war, one air force or the other is usually destroyed, so if you’re on the losing side, the plane has an outstanding chance of dying. Consider the fate of the Egyptian air force in 1967.

So you never know.

[Boyo_Jim]

If the UK can use its soccer hooligans, they get the edge.

Otherwise, Israel.

[dropzone]

@Whack-a-Mole

Was going to add the battle of Little Bighorn but not sure if the Indians were equivalently equipped to the US soldiers at that time.

@mswas

I don’t think they were. So this would be a good example.

Interesting book about the archaeology of the battlefield. While Indian weapons ran the gamut from coup sticks to the latest lever-action rifles, they had more than a few of the latter. The troopers carried Colt revolvers and Springfield single-shot rifles. The Springfield had better range than the lever-actions, but could only be loaded and fired a few times per minute while if you’ve ever seen the old Western show “The Rifleman” you know how quickly a lever-action can be fired. The range and accuracy advantages of the Springfield were probably compromised by the minimal training the troopers received, getting only a few rounds for practice per year, and the relatively close quarters of the fighting. The Indians were so close yet hidden in the tall grass that even bows were useful and were probably used for indirect fire.

Finally, as troopers were killed or abandoned their weapons Indians picked them up and used them against the cavalry. In the end the Indians had many more guns than they started with, and they started with better than parity.