The United States...

[Dark Nexus]

[quote="*BBB* ZERO";p="356170"]

Suuure they do! OK, the US military ELITE (Navy Seals, the best Marines, etc) may well fit that description - they're damned good, but account for only a small portion of the troops. I'm sorry, but for all it's equipment, the US army as a whole isn't well trained at all. The same may or may not be said for the other branches, though I expect they all have higher entry requirements for anybody being placed in combat situations (especially the Air Force and Marines).

What wild and crazy claims. How come, in every war the U.S. has been in, the U.S. has lost a significant amount less than any of their opponents? Obviously, who ever trains the military does a fine job of it.[/quote]

1) Proof of that claim? Oh, you CAN'T. I'm pretty sure you can't get numbers for say, the war of 1812. Numbers for WWI are probably rough at best.

2) With more recent wars, less losses than their opponents, yes. But notice that I said ALLIES in that post, not opponents. Even WITH that point, which really has nothing to do with any points I gave, that's still one point to my what, 4 points? Unless you can dispute those points I gave, I think you've lost this "debate".

[quote="Martin Blank";p="355940"][quote="Dark Nexus";p="355893"]Or how the US, in pretty much any multinational effort, traditionally takes more losses and more time to achieve similar objectives as their allies, something I consider to be a matter of training.[/quote]
I understand your point, but you're not putting things in context. Were the objectives more or less difficult to achieve? Were there surprises in how easy or difficult a given objective was to take? Were there lucky breaks, such as hitting an enemy ammunition depot that was previously unknown, or unlucky breaks, such as a good commander getting hit while behind cover by a ricochet shot?[/quote]

Well, I said similar objectives, meaning roughly the same difficulty expected. As for the other parts, I honestly don't know. I've just seen it emerge as a bit of a pattern, though I suppose the US military could be extremely unlucky throughout history.

[Calus]

Dark Nexus, you forget that in Korea the US was the largers part by double, same with Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. I'll look up the numbers later.

[Dark Nexus]

[quote="Calus";p="356355"]Dark Nexus, you forget that in Korea the US was the largers part by double, same with Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. I'll look up the numbers later.[/quote]

No, I'm not. In many cases (though I'd be suprised if it was all), I expect that % losses for the US were higher than at least some of their allies that participated actively.

[Dr. Tower]

[quote="Deacon";p="356278"][quote="Towerboy";p="355744"]Well, personally I think that the Civil war was a loss for the United States.[/quote]
Do you mean in some grand, metaphorical sense? Or do you mean literally? Because

a) We were fighting ourselves. We won and lost in one stroke, really.
b) Technically, the United States *won*, as the Confederacy surrendered.[/quote]

Mostly in the grand metaphorical sense.

[Imperator Severn]

No, I'm not. In many cases (though I'd be suprised if it was all), I expect that % losses for the US were higher than at least some of their allies that participated actively.

Could it be that the US got stuck with the toughest jobs? As far as it goes for Afganistan, Iraq, and Korea, I'd say definitely. In World War 2, the Americans were more aggressive than any of the western Allies, which meant higher death tolls in the short run, but also meant the war ended sooner. Also, in addition to Europe, it was pretty much just the Aussies and the Americans in the Pacific Theater.

[Phong]

[quote="Dark Nexus";p="356350"]
1) Proof of that claim? Oh, you CAN'T. I'm pretty sure you can't get numbers for say, the war of 1812. Numbers for WWI are probably rough at best.

[/quote]

Well I could get you Naval figures for the War of 1812, and prove conclusively that the Butcher's bill for American ships was much shorter than on British ships in almost every single engagement.

[Imperator Severn]

Partly because our Frigates could beat anything they couldn't outrun. Very good ships, those.

[SothThe69th]

[quote="*BBB* ZERO";p="356182"]

Yes, and China has no nukes at all. I keep forgetting.

Then it would be a nuke war, and we would be no more. Not at any time did I say China did not have nukes![/quote]

No. You didn't. But you did say that we would most likely use nukes. I merely pointed out the consequences of that action, which you seemed oblivious to.

[Martin Blank]

China has about two dozen warheads that could conceivably reach US soil, not counting the SLBM sub they have which has been problematic from its launch, and may not be successful in case of war.

[quote="*BBB* ZERO";p="356170"]

That honor would most likely go to the Israelis

The United States could EASILY crush the Israelis. An Israeli with a Navy Seal in hand to hand combat...who would win? An Israeli general against a Unites States general...war tactics, who would win? Firing a military issued rifle most accurately...Israeli or American soldier? You have no case!

Israeli...................LMFAO[/quote]
I wouldn't jump on that bandwagon so easily. In wargames, Israeli pilots have repeatedly shown up American aggressors by embarrassing margins. The Merkava is likely at least an equal to the Abrams and more survivable (the crew has the additional protection of the engine compartment in front of them). Israeli generals have also proven adept at improvisation and flexibility when attacked from multiple directions.

Israel is about the size of New Jersey, and has never finished a war without taking territory. At at least one point, the US had to rein in Israel because the Soviets were about to get into it to prevent the Arab aggressors from being obliterated. The US might eventually win out from sheer numbers, but it would be pyrrhic at best.

[Dark Nexus]

[quote="Imperator Severn";p="356677"]

No, I'm not. In many cases (though I'd be suprised if it was all), I expect that % losses for the US were higher than at least some of their allies that participated actively.

Could it be that the US got stuck with the toughest jobs? As far as it goes for Afganistan, Iraq, and Korea, I'd say definitely. In World War 2, the Americans were more aggressive than any of the western Allies, which meant higher death tolls in the short run, but also meant the war ended sooner. Also, in addition to Europe, it was pretty much just the Aussies and the Americans in the Pacific Theater.[/quote]

First, I've specifically used examples with similar objectives (which means about the same difficulty on paper). Second, the Brits were most definitely involved in the Pacific Theatre.

[Imperator Severn]

Nowhere near the extent to which the Americans and Australians were. And rightly so, they needed to keep Hitler out of London.

[Calus]

Dark Nexus, show me the examples with real data. All you have made is claims.

[peter-griffin]

Okay...
...Right.

You are comparing MODERN-DAY WEAPONRY to Mongolian weaponry from hundreds of years ago!

Why don't you just friggin compare tanks to Aztec warriors, because that's about as effective as your stupid excuse for an arguement is!

Modern weaponry will ALWAYS be the best ever used because (now sit down, this may be a shocker) it's modern! Modern, get it? No, a longbow won't beat an sniper rifle. No, the Mongols wouldn't beat the US. A) Because they're dead. B) Because they've have obsolete weapons.

Stop comparing the USA to ancient empires! Your point is moot!

Oh my..fucking...god...








Clearly, talking in obnoxiously large letters is the only way to get my point across. Technology is an *integral* part of an army's ability to fight; therefore, since you eloquently and idioticly pointed out, the army with vastly superior technology will always win. If I'm trying to find out the most powerful country in the history of mankind, I have to compare the US to ancient countries. It is your point that is moot, mostly because you proved me correct; the US would slaughter any of its historical enemies mostly because of the technology it has now.

The best anology is the one you used: compare Aztec warriors to tanks. Who's more effective in battle? Gee, I wonder!

[StruckingFuggle]

I created a new thread for this whole "mightiest army" thing, so we can stop derailing this thread, located over here.

[Imperator Severn]

Big font makes you appear more intelligent.