I think the US vs. PRC is a stalemate on both sides.  Pound for pound, our soldiers win, but they have the "extra" pounds to offset us.   We could not "take and hold"any part of mainland china, because they would be frantic to "push us out" and we likely would have to either give ground or be overwhelmed.  I don't see where China has the experience.   Half a billion peasants with AK's is alot of AK's to overcome, even if they are untrained [unlikely] or ill trained and inexperienced [more likely].

OTOH, China likely could not "take and hold"any part of the US, in our case partially because of our armed populace.  We wouldn't be able to bring the overwhelming numbers to bear that they could, but we wouldn't need to.   We have millions of gun owners that I think would prove next to impossible to "pacify".   We've all see Red Dawn, one to many times [is that possible?] and I think the vast majority of us would stand up to the threat, reguardless of any actions by our own army and .gov.  Think there's alot of insurgents in Iraq?  Try invading the US.

Logistics would likely be the Achillies heel of either attempt.  Nukes would also be problematic except as the same type of use as in WW2, as a means to force capitulation, NOT as a way to destroy troops.

I used to believe that the IDF was, pound for pound, the toughest fighting force out there, but that was before the gulf wars where the US "caught up" in terms of real world experience.  Lord knows how much of a difference, one talented, motivated NCO can make during the course of a battle, and now we have plenty of them.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How will things go if we have to fight a land war against a competent enemy? The EU/DPRK/PRC? We'll win. Against all three? Hard to say. You're talking like 60% of the world's land mass and some of the biggest governments. The EU? Easy. We already know the Brit's are on our side, they always have. DPRK? Democratic people's republic of Kaliforna? Easy. I'll take this one myself guys. China? Japan and South Korea could deal with it for a long time, we could help them out but in the end we would win. No, no I must have miscommunicated. I was throwing out what I felt were three modestly competent world powers who might be on the wrong side of the fight. People mentioned nukes - what about in a conventional war? I feel that we could not win a conventional war against the PRC.

Just a matter of using the proper amount of napalm.


Add some thermobaric and ion yield bombs in with the mix.

We'll control the air in any war against the Chinese, and that's all that matters these days. They can charge us with their 100,000,000 man army, and it won't matter, we'll cut them to ribbons from the sky.



And that doesn't even bring up our seapower advantage.

Quoted: In terms of individual infantryman, hard to tell they have never faced a superior #s army or an infantry of near or equal footing. Bulk of U.S. killing is done by the USAF far and away.  It must be said virtually no force will be allowed to arrive in battle intact to fight U.S. infantry, and even if they did you have air superiority problems.  To my knowlege no aircraft has fired/released on U.S. forces since Korea.  Rifles are inferior to most but training balances the equation.  Till O.I.F the average Israeli police officer had more combat experience than nearly all active duty combat arms units in the U.S. military.  That said I have a hard time believing the Brits are on equal footing in terms of infantry. Countries I would least like to invade are in no particular order; Sweden, Switzerland, Finland(ask the Russians) and the former Yugoslavian countries.  Arms in all the above are abundant as are trained shooters that would fight.

The British Infantry that I saw train at Yakima each winter for 3 years were EXCELLENT troops and very professonal.  They are a tough lot and are more than willing to oblige anyone to a fight.  

Thanks eodtech....

Anyone else?

Again, I'm lookin' for people who have trained with foreign troops and the subtle differences in the way they do/did things as compared to our guys.

Never under estimate the other guy. When someone has nothing to loose it happens.

Keep in mind that Israel has the per capita best educated population in the world and conscription so even the smartest serve, and they really have had to figth to preserve their country against an invading force, that sort of wars really motivate people.
So I'm inclined to say that America isn't number one, but I'm sure we're number two or three.

I believe that one of the things that makes us great is what we are fighting for.  I believe that a man (or an army) is much more effective fighting for freedom than a tin-pot dictator.

Quoted: .....................Countries I would least like to invade are in no particular order; Sweden, Switzerland, Finland(ask the Russians) and the former Yugoslavian countries.  Arms in all the above are abundant as are trained shooters that would fight.

I would surrender or defect at the onset to certain Swedes.

ETA: ^1000

Have zero expertise in this area, but I remember a story that started to circulate after WWII.

A Japanese soldier was interviewed and on of the questions he was asked was, "Who are the best Jungle fighters?"

He said, "The Japanese"

Well who's second - "The Aussie"

Third - "The English"

Fourth - "The Chinese"

Fifth - "Well, I guess the Germans."

Well, what about the Americans?  

His response, "The Americans don't fight in the jungle.  They blow up the jungle, then they fight!

Superior Firepower - an American invention.

Specialized Training
Motivation - A fighting force that is not made up of 100% volunteers can stay as motived.
Will to always complete the mission.
Equipment
Logistical Support
CAS/Fire Missions.

The common wealth nations have some of the best troops in the world, handicapped by some of the worse equipment.  When they buy kit made by other than England they are good to go, but when they use stuff made for nationalistic reasons they are very poorly equipped.

Overall, I would say cardiovascular endurance foreign countries are a little (in some cases allot) ahead of US forces, that is because that type of training is cheap and time filling, on the other hand, US forces spend allot more time in the gym and are probably a bit stronger than their foriegn counter-part.  

Quoted: This is related to another thread I started about tactical differences between our troops and the troops of other nations. That thread lead me to the broader question: Are U.S. Soldiers Really the Best in the World? Why? How about our troops compare to some other good, well-trained troops. How do our troops compare to, say, the Israelis? Some advantages that U.S. troops have come to mind. 1) Well-equipped. 2) Experience: name one other nation that has been fighting all over the world for as long as our guys? So, if our troops are really the best (and I believe they are ), tell me why? If you can, justify your reasons with specific stories or experiences. NOTE: if you are from another country and/or disagree that the U.S. soldiers are the best in the world, tell me why; and please include your name and address so I can forward it to my Marine buddies <---your face here. Ha ha. Just kiddin'. Any and all feedback will be appreciated.

It's a pretty broad question.
As a whole, the soldiers in the US military are great.
On an individual basis, some are stupider than cactus. Some are smart. Some are lazy. Some are methodical. The list can go on and on. Regardless, I have friends in the military and I support them.

Quoted: Have zero expertise in this area, but I remember a story that started to circulate after WWII. A Japanese soldier was interviewed and on of the questions he was asked was, "Who are the best Jungle fighters?" He said, "The Japanese" Well who's second - "The Aussie" Third - "The English" Fourth - "The Chinese" Fifth - "Well, I guess the Germans." Well, what about the Americans?   His response, "The Americans don't fight in the jungle.  They blow up the jungle, then they fight! Superior Firepower - an American invention.

In truth, the Japanese wereawful jungle fighters, as Japan has no jungles.
And their occupationist role in the rest of Asia didn't teach them much.
Phillipinos were among the best jungle fighters of WWII.

Training, Equipment, and Volunteer.

Quoted: I know our Air Force has to have the money to train and fly more then any other in the world.  Well, maybe the Chinese come close in flying hours but that's a complete guess. ~Dg84

No the Chinks don't get new a many hours,,,and how about the Israeli's,,,their force is small  enough and elite so as they only take the very best candidates..

Quoted: I know that the British SAS are unbelievable. I read a book about an SAS soldier that ran.... thats right... ran across Iraq in Syria with nothing more than a rifle and two boots on his feet. He engaged two truck loads of soldiers during his flight.

Why don't you include the teams fuk up(s) also in that book ,,not the legends that most think,,,that rescue at the iran-ian embassy was their elite team,,,not to say they are close to bad but not  the legends that most think they are what about SBS? or the Aussies units,,,good guys also.

I just started another thread with a little difference question:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=426228.

The exact specific situation and question that has prompted these threads is in my third post down.

Check out the other thread...and I hope this thread marches on--getting some really good information.

Thanks.

Quoted: Quoted: I know our Air Force has to have the money to train and fly more then any other in the world.  Well, maybe the Chinese come close in flying hours but that's a complete guess. ~Dg84 No the Chinks don't get new a many hours,,,and how about the Israeli's,,,their force is small  enough and elite so as they only take the very best candidates..

Ya, you might want to delete your racial slur there.

I wouldn't trade our soldiers for anyone elses..that for damn sure.

Not in a million years.

HH

IMO

At the level of SF there are countries that would have individual soldiers equal to the US.

However, as has been posted before, there is no other country that can match the logistics of the US Armed forces.

SEAL's, etc have to get to the target, service the target, get out safely.

First and last is what makes us better. (not to denigrate the middle)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I know our Air Force has to have the money to train and fly more then any other in the world.  Well, maybe the Chinese come close in flying hours but that's a complete guess. ~Dg84 No the Chinks don't get new a many hours,,,and how about the Israeli's,,,their force is small  enough and elite so as they only take the very best candidates.. Ya, you might want to delete your racial slur there.

'Chink' is a racial slur?

I thought that was 'Gook'?

Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink *click* *drops mag* *inserts new mag* *hits bolt release* Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I know our Air Force has to have the money to train and fly more then any other in the world.  Well, maybe the Chinese come close in flying hours but that's a complete guess. ~Dg84 No the Chinks don't get new a many hours,,,and how about the Israeli's,,,their force is small  enough and elite so as they only take the very best candidates.. Ya, you might want to delete your racial slur there. 'Chink' is a racial slur? I thought that was 'Gook'? Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink *click* *drops mag* *inserts new mag* *hits bolt release* Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink Chink....

Nice knowin' ya, Noob.

Quoted: A Japanese soldier was interviewed and on of the questions he was asked was, "Who are the best Jungle fighters?"

Is this like asking Rosie O'Donnell the best way to lose a few pounds?

The Japanese Army has always been really assed up.  US Army Rangers raided a Japanese POW base in Cabatuan, killed the entire Japanese garrison and only lost two people.  Can't fight in jungles my ass.  What about the stories of outnumbered, starving, and diseased Marines killing waves of banzai chargers?  Top it off, these assholes pull shit like the Bataan Death March.

I do not respect the Japanese as warriors.

A very significant factor in our ability to fight and hold any area (including our own country) is the fact that we have never signed nor will we ever sign the landmine ban treaty.  I realize that in an out and out war treaties like this really mean nothing and the signatories will ignore the treaty if it's expedient for them, but our willingness and capability to deploy landmines gives us a significant tactical advantage against enemies that rely upon their superior numbers to compensate for inferior tactics, equipment, logistics, and training.

Quoted: In truth, the Japanese wereawful jungle fighters, as Japan has no jungles.

Good camo and tough, but not very smart about jungle fighting against determined opponents.

Case in point: Guadalcanal. The situation worked out pretty much the same every time on both sides. The beach area was trafficable but heavily defended, and the flank was open or lightly defended on the jungle. So almost every offensive involved going around the flank in the jungle to turn the beach defenses. The Japanese tried this several times and failed every time, then afterwards settled down to die of starvation and disease because they had lousy supply. The US repeatedly turned the flank in the jungle because they had a plan to supply the troops if everything didn't go exactly as planned. In general the Japanese jungle fighting tactics worked if and only if they won the first engagement. If they didn't, they'd starve and waste away in place.

No, its bought by who knows who

One problem that the American military is facing is the loss of 'Auftragstaktik'

Basically, it's the concept that decisions should be made at the most junior level possible. Several articles have appeared now in the military publications such as "Armor" magazine either cautioning or bemoaning the fact that the US is moving away from this policy, partially as a result of the increases in communication capabilities. The US is returning to centralised decision making, and company commanders are being relegated, in the words of one article, to being no more than 'glorified platoon leaders.'

NTM