Given the choice of 2 EQUALLY TRAINED and KITTED soldiers/armies; one being an American and the other?

Question

being Vietnamese, Arab, Eskimo, Zulu or whoever the American enemy of the month is, who would you rather be fighting your cause? Who would win any battle and why?

Apologies should I have not expressed my question clearly. Given 2 equal armies..i.e numbers, training, equipment..and fighting for the same cause..one being American and the other being ANY other nationality, who would win and why?

Answer 1

Gurkha no need to say more, & they serve the british because of respect for the best,& the british respect them

Answer 2

Quote=Given the choice of 2 EQUALLY TRAINED and KITTED soldiers/armies; one being an American and the other?
being Vietnamese, Arab, Eskimo, Zulu or whoever the American enemy of the month is, who would you rather be fighting your cause?

Which of your examples are trained and kitted as well as the U.S.? Are you asking whether we'd choose American or other nations to fight our wars. The Americans already have other nations fighting for them, the Brits and Canadians. If you're asking whether we'd want the U.S. to win or lose I think you are asking the wrong question.

The British Army is one of the best in the world and even the U.S. Marines have respect for them. I believe that given equal numbers of troops and equipment that the Brits would win.

Answer 3

Given 2 Equally trained & equipped armies (1 American) the winner would be the one with the best Leader (General etc) and militiary doctrine.

The current British Army is generally regarded as one of the best in the world (Equipment shortages aside) for its morale & ethos.

American militiary doctrine is to apply maximum firepower to any situation - that will usually, but not always work.

To me, the most successfull army in history that could beat an equal American Army is the WW2 Germans (not that im a Nazi).

German militiary doctrine delegated responsibility down to unit leaders, so Captains etc would modify their orders to suit conditions, unlike the British Army of the time.

There is a reason why the Germans held off the russians for 4 years, despite being outnumbered 25-1

Answer 4

I know someone who served in the British Army medical corps in Iraq, and he claims that he was more frightened of the US soldiers than the Iraqis; he said they were badly trained, ill disciplined, and very trigger-happy. Apparently, this was not an uncommon sentiment among British servicemen and women.

In your example, if both soldiers are equally trained and equipped, then either one stands as much chance of winning as the other, regardless of nationality. If you're just trying to find out if the US army is the best in the world, the answer is "no".

If my a** was on the line, I'd rather have the SAS rescue me than anyone else.

Answer 5

when we went into iraq my regiment the royal irish were called upon to go help the americans and afterwards they said they were glad that we were on the same side.they are better kitted out than us but we are the better soldiers.they are to gung ho.in the first war the british army lost nine men in total.it was american planes that done it because they could not tell the difference between friend and foe.saying that a lot of the yanks are good soldiers and i am proud and honoured to have beside them.

Answer 6

in terms of universal elementary preparation i could Say That the U. S. Has A reasonable benefit, it ought to look a splash purpose yet, The aspects at our Disposal are greater beneficial which In words could bring about greater effectual preparation, an occasion of this can be the Jungle warfare college, or the Camp Pendleton seventy two Drop Off, US protection rigidity preparation Is so some distance progressed That The Marines Have progressed their own Manadatory style of Martial Arts, Im exceptionally optimistic That military customary replaced into in simple terms showing delight

Answer 7

dude i would choose ANY other country than the americans because i assume that the other counteries would try and kill only the enemy and not anything that moves wether that is your allies or civillians which is all that the yanks seem to kill. More british were killed by the usa than by the iraqis in the first gulf war.
Anyway the yanks would only turn up late as usual (WW1 WW2)
and claim all the credit for only half the work.

Answer 8

Canada!

We've never been defeated in battle with the Americans. Our troops have traits that make them vastly superior on the battlefield that no amount of training or kit can make up for:

- adaptability
- perseverance
- intelligence
- initiative

These traits have been demonstrated in deeds over a number of conflicts, not just a bunch of BS bravado. If I had to stand on any battlefield, it would be with my fellow Canadian. My next choice would be any other Commonwealth soldier - British, Australian, etc.

The overall performance of American Forces has been sub par when you consider the overwhelming superiority they have in numbers and technology. To be fair, this has more to do with poor political leadership, than the competence of the grunt on the ground.

Suspendor - Inuit (Eskimo's) are Canadian eh! Get in the new millenium!

Answer 9

Zulu? Stop an Abrams tank with a spear?
Eskimo? A harpoon against a destroyer?
Arab? Cannot beat anyone not even themselves!

In any war the US kills more of the enemy than they have lost (exception being the Civil War.)
I'll take the US any day!

Answer 10

any side other than US too much blue on blue, safer on the other side. I think US would defeat themselves.
they do lose sometimes remember Korea and Vietnam Iraq is going the same way

Answer 11

depends on the cause even a weaker armed army can win