>>27679546It depends on many things, including equipment, quality of training, physical fitness, inteligence, etc.
In your example of Johnny VS Kahbib, if they were both the same in terms of fitness, inteligence, health and equipment then Kahbib would be the most likely to win because he is more experienced when it comes to warfare. However this is assuming that they both were on a level playing field.
If this were a more realistic engagement then (assuming that they joined their country's armies) Kahbib would have Afghan military training, an AK with about three magazines, a bullet-proof vest, a helmet, a couple of grenades and his buddies. Meanwhile, John would have US military training, an M4 with whatever attachments he wants to buy for it, some grenades a bullet proof vest, a helmet, a radio, his buddies and other mission specific gear. In that engagement John should win due to better equipment and training.
This is the same argument that can be made with North Korea's soldiers. They can have the best training and experience ever, but it doesn't matter when your enemy can just say: "Fuck it! Call for air support."
This is why most modern militaries have dedicated support units, such as aircraft, artillery and tanks just to name a few. They are there to provide support for front-line units.
And this doesn't even go into logistics, it's all well and good to have an army that could kick the shit out of an equivalent number of US soldiers. But if you can't provide logistical support for them to keep them fed and armed then they are about as useful as a paper tiger.
So in short: North Korea could have the best infantry ever, but their support equipment does not beat modern American/Japanese/South Korean equipment. As such, they loose due to the inability to support their troops.
