What is the best military unit from another country the U.S. has ever faced?

[Slithy_Tove]

*Originally posted by Mephisto *
**What do you mean the obstacle course was down there–does it not exist anymore? I only ask because I read something about that particular Legion course not to long ago.

Also, do you have a cite regarding the U.S. Marines’ time? Not that I have any reason to doubt you. It’s just that I have a friend who was a ja-- um, who was a Marine, and I like to share little factoids like this with him from time to time. **

It was on a video documentary I checks out at my local library a couple of years ago:

The Foreign Legion
West Long Branch, N.J. : White Star, [1990]
Call #: VT 355.359 FOR
2 videocassettes (ca. 100 min.)
Summary: Looks at what life in the Foreign Legion is really like from recruitment to military life.

I also like to log little factoids like that. Another I recently collected was on a documentary video of British cavalry training in the 1980’s:

“If you fall off of your horse and become separated from him, just make a noise like a carrot and he will come running back to you.”

Sorry about this tangent away from the OP; but I’d orignally posted the bit about the obstacle course, since I think there are too many variables in actual warfare to create an even field on which to judge the contestants.

[krisolov]

I would guess the best higher level unit the US ever faced was one of the SS Panzer Divs in the Battle of the Bulge.

[Mephisto]

*Originally posted by Slithy Tove *
"If you fall off of your horse and become separated from him, just make a noise like a carrot and he will come running back to you."

It’s not often that I actually Laugh Out Loud, but that did it.

Also, thanks for the name of the video. I’m going to see if the library at my school can get ahold of it for me.

“Make a noise like a carrot . . .” snicker

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled thread . . .

Make a noise like a carrot . . . that’s really funny . . .

[Urban_Ranger]

*Originally posted by Lizard *
And I don’t buy that ultimate victory means anything in the case of the Vietcong or the NVA. That conflict was not a total war - i.e., they “won” for political reasons, not military ones. War and politics are intrinsically linked, and the Vietnam War was not decided through combat.

You forgot war is just an extension of diplomacy (or politics if you prefer). Wars do not exist in a vaccum and be judged by themselves. A war is used to achieve a political goal, there hasn’t been any war fought for its own sake.

Saying the North Vietnamese didn’t win through combat is silly. Of course they did. If they didn’t win it through peace, then they had to have win it through war. They might not have won any of the battles, but they have won the war. Everything else is irrelevant.

[Lizard]

*Originally posted by Urban Ranger *
**You forgot war is just an extension of diplomacy (or politics if you prefer). Wars do not exist in a vaccum and be judged by themselves. A war is used to achieve a political goal, there hasn’t been any war fought for its own sake.

Saying the North Vietnamese didn’t win through combat is silly. Of course they did. If they didn’t win it through peace, then they had to have win it through war. They might not have won any of the battles, but they have won the war. Everything else is irrelevant. **

I believe you have used logic to reach an illogical conclusion, and ignored the substance of the OP in the process. The original question concerned what opponent of the U.S. military could be considered the most skilled, comparing that opponent against both other armies of its day and to the U.S. equivalent that it faced.
Given these criteria, it makes no sense whatever to say the North Vietnamese Army was a high quality opponent of the U.S. Army when the NVA failed to win a single major engagement. That the government of North Vietnam eventually met its political objective is an event unconnected with the performance of its military in the field.
This may seem counterintuitive, but war is not the black and white, straight-line proposition you are intimating it is in your second paragraph. Yes, wars are fought for political goals. But those political goals are not always met through the war that is fought to meet them. History is full of wars that were fought to indecisive conclusions, with no change in the status quo after the conflict was concluded.
For the United States, the Vietnam War was just such a conflict. When the U.S. military pulled out for good in 1973, North Vietnam had still not conquered South Vietnam, and did not do so until 1975. As long as U.S. forces were present, it was impossible for N. Vietnam to meet its strategic goal of unifying the two countries. Therefore, while N. Vietnam may be said to have “won” the War because they met their stategic goal, they did not do so by outfighting the U.S. military.

[lokij]

Just because it hasn’t been mentioned yet, the Afrika Korp under Rommel was a pretty tough cookie.

In the realm of guerilla combat you can’t overlook the Moros of the Phillipines for whom the 1911 colt .45 was adopted.

[bup]

Reading the OP again verbatim, I’d say the British Army in the Revolutionary War were the best adversary the Americans ever faced.

There’s no way the U.S. should have won that war - it ended simply because it was a British Vietnam.

[Danimal]

Re the Vietnam-U.S. question, maybe a little analogy would clarify.

I step into the ring with Mike Tyson. In the course of one round, while the crowd boos, I manage to hit Tyson once and split his eyebrow. He splits both my eyebrows, blacks both my eyes, breaks three of my ribs and sends me down for the count twice. At the end of one round, concerned with the booing and the state of Tyson’s eyebrow, and having already earned the meager purse, Tyson’s manager throws in the towel.

Now, I have won the fight. Nobody disputes that. But it would be questionable, to say the least, to thereby conclude that I am a better boxer than Mike Tyson.

Likewise, nobody disputes that the North Vietnamese won the Vietnam war. We gave up before they did, so they won. But it’s a non sequitur to conclude from that that North Vietnam fielded a qualitatively superior military force.

Re the OP, I would suggest the German Wehrmacht of World War II was the toughest we faced. It’s true that the British whipped us pretty thoroughly in 1812, but I humbly submit that was more because we were so bad than because the British were so good. Against a nastier opponent like France, the British lost quite a number of battles, even with allies to help them. Even we Americans could beat them when properly trained and led, as at New Orleans. But the Wehrmacht gave everybody a very hard time, and it took us, the British and the Russians together to bring them down.

I would definitely not nominate the World War I German military for anywhere near the toughest we faced. The fact is, the Germans in that war were just about as inept as the Allies; we just hear less about it. The mixup about which side of Paris to march on, von Moltke’s panic, the Verdun offensive, and the stupidity of not even having a plan to go to war against Russia alone were all unforgivable military blunders, IMO.

[starfish]

*Originally posted by Urban Ranger *
**You forgot war is just an extension of diplomacy (or politics if you prefer). Wars do not exist in a vaccum and be judged by themselves. A war is used to achieve a political goal, there hasn’t been any war fought for its own sake.

Saying the North Vietnamese didn’t win through combat is silly. Of course they did. If they didn’t win it through peace, then they had to have win it through war. They might not have won any of the battles, but they have won the war. Everything else is irrelevant. **

Technically, the US and the North Vietnamese ended the war through a peace treaty (1973 Nobel Peace prize) leaving North Vietnam and South Vietnam as separate countries.

The US moved out as quickly as they could. North Vietnam broke the peace treaty and defeated the South Vietnamese. The US “honored” the peace treaty and did not get involved.