Large number of troops VS a highly squad of soldiers?

Question

Let's say that there is an urban battle and there is a squad of 10 US highly trained soldiers VS a company of about 100 men regularly trained. Who would win?

Answer 1

The US armed forces are far-by more than highly traind soldiers, even on situations like this, although i think a MARINE scout sniper would take on the 100 men and the 10 US soldiers like cutting a slice of cake!

Answer 2

The 100 would win almost everytime, unless the 10 had access to air support.

Notice you said, 100 trained men.

So you would be looking at a leg infantry company vs a A team or seal patrol.

The battle would be over quick.

Advanced training can only do so much.

What generally lets smaller US units win over larger foreign units, is close air support or artillary support.

We can discount that inthis case, because both would have that support or both wouldn't.

And the amount of direct fire 100 trained men could put out, would quickly overwelm 10 men, no matter how well trained.

Answer 3

This is really a two-part question. You see, the 10 Special Forces operators would wreak a lot of havoc, but so would the 100 regulars. The problem is, AFTER the battle is over, that piece of territory still has to be held. In this case I would choose the 100 regulars any day of the week.

This is the same error made by Donald Rumsfeld during the "Shock and Awe" portion of the Iraq War. His idea of using a light, technologically superior force in a blitzkrieg-style attack was pure genius, and it worked well. The problems started happening AFTER the initial battles were won; the supply lines were stretched out with little cover, and the insurgents simply started picking off units from the flanks. Sending in enough troops would have insured that the flanks of the supply lines were protected against the sorts of attacks to which they were subjected.

Also, after the combat phase of the Iraq War was successfully executed the coalition started having major-league problems with insurgents turning Iraqi cities into battlefields, and simply travelling from one town to the next was (and still is) basically a game of IED "Russian Roulette"; one never knows when/if his own humvee is going to end up in burning pieces before he gets to the mess hall in time for dinner. Having enough troops in place to hold the territories would have severely cut into the insurgent's ability to move around and create all this havoc in the first place. Soon after the Pentagon finally decided to increase troop levels the number and ferocity of the attacks started to drop and are still dropping to this day; to me just proves the point I'm trying to make here. BTW, have you noticed how little recent news you're hearing these days about Iraq violence, especially AFTER the "troop surge"?

You can have all the UAV's, robots, advanced fighters/bombers and Special Forces operators you want; but no one has yet found a suitable substitute for actually having enough boots on the ground. After all, even after you win the battle, you still have to hold the territory you've just won - otherwise the enemy just keeps coming back, and you just keep having battles.

Answer 4

Easily the 10 highly trained soldiers, but a lot of it would depend on how they were armed and what capabilities the unit(s) had. Keep in mind in Mogadishu we were pretty much ambushed, we lost 19 men and killed approximately 1,000 Somalis.

Answer 5

Let me answer it this way. In the years leading up to the invasion of Vietnam, Navy Seals were patroling up and down the Mecong Delta. These were highly trained and highly motivated special ops units who would steal into the landscape under the cover of darkness, engage their enemy, and head to their next destination, before anyone knew what happened.

These fine warriors worked quickly, quietly, and efficiently. and it is said they suffered no casualties.

In his infinate lack of wisdom, Lyndon Johnson decided to send in large numbers of half trained troops, the result which, was 58000 casualties (killed).

You tell me, which is more effective ?

Answer 6

Too many unknown factors.
Did the 10 have time to set up a proper defense?
What equipment did they have?

Are the 100 men coming alone or do they have artillery and air support?
Armored vehicles?
When are they attacking? Regular troops have smart soldiers among them as well, that could a deciding factor?

As to Somalia - they also had air support. That helped.

Answer 7

Big guns win the battles. Give the 10 soldiers with amored vehicals, .50 cals or Mk 19 Grenade Launchers and it's no constest.

Answer 8

im with our US Soldiers anyday, and hey little guy(gotta give ya the credit for pride and spirit!), i was in USMCJROTC 4 yrs, Love the Marines, remember, they are a part of our United Stated Armed Forces, we are on the same side.

Answer 9

One "highly" trained US solider can kill 5 enemy troops a minute. So the battle would take about 2 minutes.

Final toll:

US Dead- 1
US Wounded- 2
Enemy Dead- 90
Enemy almost Dead-10

Americans Still Free- 360 Million

"Savin' your a** whether you like it or not"

Answer 10

There are way too many variables to even take a guess.

But lets be realistic, USMCJROTC, Marines are good, but not that good.