I am a member of a private Internet group where people postulate often bizarre questions regarding warfare. A couple years ago a member posed the question what would happen if the Comanches and the Mongolians to do battle at the height of thei war making strength.
It was the consensus of the group, with a few dissenting opinions, that the Mongols would win because of logistics and organization.
As a side I have seen reports from the US military about engagements with the Comanches. While they display typical white arrogance with regard to the Comanches. It is clear, however, that many officers took their threat very seriously.
More like the Mongols would win because of silk. Survivability of wounds is one of the most important factors.
Louis L'Amour said in interview that, if the North American tribes had had a Genghis Khan to weld them into a single nation, "we would not have succeeded." The point he kinda missed there is, the tribes weren't all one nation or even one language, and shared a history of thousands of years of war against one another. The talking points are wrong -- the tribes weren't "victims", they made war, and they lost. And if the "whites" had actually conducted genocide, there'd be no one around to complain about it.
It is clear, however, that many officers took their threat very seriously.
If they didn’t, often, they, their soldiers and camp/fort wives were killed or worse, taken prisoner.
A bloody book re the violence back then:
Killing Crazy Horse by O’Reilly and Martin Duggard.