Within their niche and typical operating environment, they would have an upper hand. But as far as force projection capabilities, available mission assets, manpower, etc., they'd find themselves at a serious disadvantage.
No.
YES
Less than American players for sure. Around 10k or so.
Because the American and French surrounded them so they couldn't escape, it was better than killing people on their army. Also because they had a waek army
The Assyrian army was much better than the Babylonian Army, because they had a tactical offensive very well planned.
The British army and the Turkish army has the same strength
zaharat alsahraa school is better than american school
china's army is about 2 to 3 times bigger than American army
The England army were better trained because the colonies army were a bunch of farmers.
its difficult to compare the two, but i think that army of two got better reviews than 40th day
The US wasn't beat militarily. However, the limitations imposed on the scope of operations in Vietnam made it into a war of attrition, which the Vietnamese people were better prepared for than the US populace.
Generally the German Army was better organized than the French Army; and were overall better able to maintain their field works.