User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 11:40:36 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...Better Health. I'd say that a 26 year old Private who just WALKED across Europe was probably in better health than a 19 year old corporal who rides in a humvee everywhere he goes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Where is that article that discusses something very similar? The general belief was that modern infantry wins the day, fairly easily. It cites better health, better physical fitness, better training, and better tactical awareness than the WWII counterpart. As somebody said earlier. Modern infantry are volunteer professionals while WWII infantry were mostly conscripted. Something like WWII infantry are told to attack 'over there' and, while they have general principles, they mostly make it up as they go. While modern infantry has worked on this exact scenario dozens of times and everybody knows their role. Dunno if it was that article or not but I came across something that said that WWII casualty rates were not necessarily due to heavy-fighting-no-way-around-it-a-lot-of-people-are-dying but due to lack of training. Remember, while Germany was invading Poland, the US had one of the smallest poorly equipped armies in the world. They had to go from that to toeing it with the Axis nearly overnight. ...Better Health. I'd say that a 26 year old Private who just WALKED across Europe was probably in better health than a 19 year old corporal who rides in a humvee everywhere he goes. Lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 11:40:57 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Professional Soldiers", huh? Are we talking about Rangers, or are we just talking about a bunch of grunts who just got out of boot. My step-grandson is infantry in the army, and he is about 3 cans short of a 6-pack. I think the poll needs to include the amount of time each team had in-country, in actual combat operations. WWII wins hands down... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Modern Infantry is composed of Professional Soldiers, WW2 was conscripted,volunteers and a few Professionals. Modern Wins "Professional Soldiers", huh? Are we talking about Rangers, or are we just talking about a bunch of grunts who just got out of boot. My step-grandson is infantry in the army, and he is about 3 cans short of a 6-pack. I think the poll needs to include the amount of time each team had in-country, in actual combat operations. WWII wins hands down... We've been constantly at war for 14 years, and many have been fighting for all or most of that. Modern soldiers have far far more experience than WWII. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 11:43:02 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do people keep saying this? Am I the only non veteran who actually talks to guys who fought overseas in the last 15 years or so? Jesus Christ, they'll clear up a lot of misconceptions if you spare 5 minutes of your time to actually listen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The WW2 guys would clean up while the modern guys were waiting for permission to engage. Why do people keep saying this? Am I the only non veteran who actually talks to guys who fought overseas in the last 15 years or so? Jesus Christ, they'll clear up a lot of misconceptions if you spare 5 minutes of your time to actually listen. Hell, he could just read the thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 11:45:03 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What he said. Think of the scenes in Band Of Brothers where they threw people out of their houses so they could have billets, then stole all their stuff. This was common. Nobody would complain that you stole some Kraut's silverware. Hermann shouldn't have started the war. Think of the retaliation for the Malmedy massacre. The 328th Infantry Regiment ordered that all Waffen SS and paratroopers were to be shot on sight. Other American units didn't need such encouragement. It went on for a couple of weeks until the army issued an order to stop murdering German prisoners because they needed to interrogate them, but not because their lives were worth anything. The official response was, "Don't know, didn't happen, war is confusing (fuck off.)" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are we applying the World War II ROE to the modern army or the Iraq ROE to World War II? Both sides have to use the same ones and the modern army will move very quickly when you tell them that they can do whatever they want. . The ROE of the modern army in iraq was very similar to WWII for the first couple years. 3rd ID killed pretty much anybody they saw outside on the initial push to take Baghdad. I would somewhat have to disagree, both 3ID or 1st MarDiv used considerable more constraint in combat than they would have in WWII. In World War II there was not a need to positively ID targets. Most of the restrictions are not really on direct fire system either, we are no where as willing to use fire support unless troops or in contact and there additionally would not have been anything like a "Structural" restriction when firing artillery. What he said. Think of the scenes in Band Of Brothers where they threw people out of their houses so they could have billets, then stole all their stuff. This was common. Nobody would complain that you stole some Kraut's silverware. Hermann shouldn't have started the war. Think of the retaliation for the Malmedy massacre. The 328th Infantry Regiment ordered that all Waffen SS and paratroopers were to be shot on sight. Other American units didn't need such encouragement. It went on for a couple of weeks until the army issued an order to stop murdering German prisoners because they needed to interrogate them, but not because their lives were worth anything. The official response was, "Don't know, didn't happen, war is confusing (fuck off.)" How is looting and murdering prisoners an advantage in a fight? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 11:56:00 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What he said. Think of the scenes in Band Of Brothers where they threw people out of their houses so they could have billets, then stole all their stuff. This was common. Nobody would complain that you stole some Kraut's silverware. Hermann shouldn't have started the war. Think of the retaliation for the Malmedy massacre. The 328th Infantry Regiment ordered that all Waffen SS and paratroopers were to be shot on sight. Other American units didn't need such encouragement. It went on for a couple of weeks until the army issued an order to stop murdering German prisoners because they needed to interrogate them, but not because their lives were worth anything. The official response was, "Don't know, didn't happen, war is confusing (fuck off.)" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are we applying the World War II ROE to the modern army or the Iraq ROE to World War II? Both sides have to use the same ones and the modern army will move very quickly when you tell them that they can do whatever they want. . The ROE of the modern army in iraq was very similar to WWII for the first couple years. 3rd ID killed pretty much anybody they saw outside on the initial push to take Baghdad. I would somewhat have to disagree, both 3ID or 1st MarDiv used considerable more constraint in combat than they would have in WWII. In World War II there was not a need to positively ID targets. Most of the restrictions are not really on direct fire system either, we are no where as willing to use fire support unless troops or in contact and there additionally would not have been anything like a "Structural" restriction when firing artillery. What he said. Think of the scenes in Band Of Brothers where they threw people out of their houses so they could have billets, then stole all their stuff. This was common. Nobody would complain that you stole some Kraut's silverware. Hermann shouldn't have started the war. Think of the retaliation for the Malmedy massacre. The 328th Infantry Regiment ordered that all Waffen SS and paratroopers were to be shot on sight. Other American units didn't need such encouragement. It went on for a couple of weeks until the army issued an order to stop murdering German prisoners because they needed to interrogate them, but not because their lives were worth anything. The official response was, "Don't know, didn't happen, war is confusing (fuck off.)" Scenes of Band of Brothers, the TV show? No thanks, I live in the real world. We took over many homes in afghanistan. You people have no fucking clue. We'd go totally shit house on the WII soldiers and murder all of them. Even if the mythical ROE existed and we had to wait for them to fire on us (not true in real life), we would still win. That shit may have existed in some contexts. I never saw it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2015 11:57:19 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is looting and murdering prisoners an advantage in a fight? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are we applying the World War II ROE to the modern army or the Iraq ROE to World War II? Both sides have to use the same ones and the modern army will move very quickly when you tell them that they can do whatever they want. . The ROE of the modern army in iraq was very similar to WWII for the first couple years. 3rd ID killed pretty much anybody they saw outside on the initial push to take Baghdad. I would somewhat have to disagree, both 3ID or 1st MarDiv used considerable more constraint in combat than they would have in WWII. In World War II there was not a need to positively ID targets. Most of the restrictions are not really on direct fire system either, we are no where as willing to use fire support unless troops or in contact and there additionally would not have been anything like a "Structural" restriction when firing artillery. What he said. Think of the scenes in Band Of Brothers where they threw people out of their houses so they could have billets, then stole all their stuff. This was common. Nobody would complain that you stole some Kraut's silverware. Hermann shouldn't have started the war. Think of the retaliation for the Malmedy massacre. The 328th Infantry Regiment ordered that all Waffen SS and paratroopers were to be shot on sight. Other American units didn't need such encouragement. It went on for a couple of weeks until the army issued an order to stop murdering German prisoners because they needed to interrogate them, but not because their lives were worth anything. The official response was, "Don't know, didn't happen, war is confusing (fuck off.)" How is looting and murdering prisoners an advantage in a fight? Dont you know? It allows them to shoot 1000 yards in combat with an iron sighteed m1 garand! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 12:00:16 AM EDT
[#7]
WWII soldiers have miracle eyesight that lets them see small camouflaged figures at 1000 yards and then first aimed fire at them with iron sights.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 12:00:44 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...Better Health. I'd say that a 26 year old Private who just WALKED across Europe was probably in better health than a 19 year old corporal who rides in a humvee everywhere he goes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Where is that article that discusses something very similar? The general belief was that modern infantry wins the day, fairly easily. It cites better health, better physical fitness, better training, and better tactical awareness than the WWII counterpart. As somebody said earlier. Modern infantry are volunteer professionals while WWII infantry were mostly conscripted. Something like WWII infantry are told to attack 'over there' and, while they have general principles, they mostly make it up as they go. While modern infantry has worked on this exact scenario dozens of times and everybody knows their role. Dunno if it was that article or not but I came across something that said that WWII casualty rates were not necessarily due to heavy-fighting-no-way-around-it-a-lot-of-people-are-dying but due to lack of training. Remember, while Germany was invading Poland, the US had one of the smallest poorly equipped armies in the world. They had to go from that to toeing it with the Axis nearly overnight. ...Better Health. I'd say that a 26 year old Private who just WALKED across Europe was probably in better health than a 19 year old corporal who rides in a humvee everywhere he goes. Aaaaaanddd you'd be wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 12:02:07 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WWII soldiers have miracle eyesight that lets them see small camouflaged figures at 1000 yards and then first aimed fire at them with iron sights. And blowing up tigers with 1911's 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 12:02:35 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...Better Health. I'd say that a 26 year old Private who just WALKED across Europe was probably in better health than a 19 year old corporal who rides in a humvee everywhere he goes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Where is that article that discusses something very similar? The general belief was that modern infantry wins the day, fairly easily. It cites better health, better physical fitness, better training, and better tactical awareness than the WWII counterpart. As somebody said earlier. Modern infantry are volunteer professionals while WWII infantry were mostly conscripted. Something like WWII infantry are told to attack 'over there' and, while they have general principles, they mostly make it up as they go. While modern infantry has worked on this exact scenario dozens of times and everybody knows their role. Dunno if it was that article or not but I came across something that said that WWII casualty rates were not necessarily due to heavy-fighting-no-way-around-it-a-lot-of-people-are-dying but due to lack of training. Remember, while Germany was invading Poland, the US had one of the smallest poorly equipped armies in the world. They had to go from that to toeing it with the Axis nearly overnight. ...Better Health. I'd say that a 26 year old Private who just WALKED across Europe was probably in better health than a 19 year old corporal who rides in a humvee everywhere he goes. Your propensity to being wrong is absolutely amazing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 12:05:03 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your propensity to being wrong is absolutely amazing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where is that article that discusses something very similar? The general belief was that modern infantry wins the day, fairly easily. It cites better health, better physical fitness, better training, and better tactical awareness than the WWII counterpart. As somebody said earlier. Modern infantry are volunteer professionals while WWII infantry were mostly conscripted. Something like WWII infantry are told to attack 'over there' and, while they have general principles, they mostly make it up as they go. While modern infantry has worked on this exact scenario dozens of times and everybody knows their role. Dunno if it was that article or not but I came across something that said that WWII casualty rates were not necessarily due to heavy-fighting-no-way-around-it-a-lot-of-people-are-dying but due to lack of training. Remember, while Germany was invading Poland, the US had one of the smallest poorly equipped armies in the world. They had to go from that to toeing it with the Axis nearly overnight. ...Better Health. I'd say that a 26 year old Private who just WALKED across Europe was probably in better health than a 19 year old corporal who rides in a humvee everywhere he goes. Your propensity to being wrong is absolutely amazing. All those guys in Afghanistan that are rucking up mountains all day are sissys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 2:11:19 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ...Better Health. I'd say that a 26 year old Private who just WALKED across Europe was probably in better health than a 19 year old corporal who rides in a humvee everywhere he goes. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Where is that article that discusses something very similar? The general belief was that modern infantry wins the day, fairly easily. It cites better health, better physical fitness, better training, and better tactical awareness than the WWII counterpart. As somebody said earlier. Modern infantry are volunteer professionals while WWII infantry were mostly conscripted. Something like WWII infantry are told to attack 'over there' and, while they have general principles, they mostly make it up as they go. While modern infantry has worked on this exact scenario dozens of times and everybody knows their role. Dunno if it was that article or not but I came across something that said that WWII casualty rates were not necessarily due to heavy-fighting-no-way-around-it-a-lot-of-people-are-dying but due to lack of training. Remember, while Germany was invading Poland, the US had one of the smallest poorly equipped armies in the world. They had to go from that to toeing it with the Axis nearly overnight. ...Better Health. I'd say that a 26 year old Private who just WALKED across Europe was probably in better health than a 19 year old corporal who rides in a humvee everywhere he goes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 2:46:56 AM EDT
[#13]
I see the hate for our generation is still here. I think they're just jelly cause they never got to pop their cherry with the Russians.
While we on the other hand have been slaying mother fuckers on a daily basis for the past decade and a half. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 4:17:17 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see the hate for our generation is still here. I think they're just jelly cause they never got to pop their cherry with the Russians. While we on the other hand have been slaying mother fuckers on a daily basis for the past decade and a half. Nah, man. We just suck because we don't kill enough civilians. More war crimes more manly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 6:42:29 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...Better Health. I'd say that a 26 year old Private who just WALKED across Europe was probably in better health than a 19 year old corporal who rides in a humvee everywhere he goes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Where is that article that discusses something very similar? The general belief was that modern infantry wins the day, fairly easily. It cites better health, better physical fitness, better training, and better tactical awareness than the WWII counterpart. As somebody said earlier. Modern infantry are volunteer professionals while WWII infantry were mostly conscripted. Something like WWII infantry are told to attack 'over there' and, while they have general principles, they mostly make it up as they go. While modern infantry has worked on this exact scenario dozens of times and everybody knows their role. Dunno if it was that article or not but I came across something that said that WWII casualty rates were not necessarily due to heavy-fighting-no-way-around-it-a-lot-of-people-are-dying but due to lack of training. Remember, while Germany was invading Poland, the US had one of the smallest poorly equipped armies in the world. They had to go from that to toeing it with the Axis nearly overnight. ...Better Health. I'd say that a 26 year old Private who just WALKED across Europe was probably in better health than a 19 year old corporal who rides in a humvee everywhere he goes. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 9:05:27 AM EDT
[#16]
This pic is full of win, applied to "greatest generation" fanbois...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 9:11:32 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This pic is full of win, applied to "greatest generation" fanbois... I mean, I love my Grandfather and marvel at the sacrifices he made in '43-'45. Hell, I've got a thread dedicated to his military service, my sig line references it and my avatar is all about him. I think it's pretty clear my feelings on his service. That said, the "greatest generation" stuff is massively out of control. It's gotten silly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 9:12:55 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Modern unit is picked off at 800-1000 yards by M1 Garands......over.  Modern infantry just waits until nightfall, then picks them off at night with night vision and thermal technology. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 9:19:50 AM EDT
[#19]
Modern Infantry would slaughter WW2 Infantry.
To put in perspective, Iraqi troops in 2003 had better weapons and vehicles than WW2 troops, plus 8 years of experience in the Iran/Iraq war. We fucking slaughtered them wholesale, drove over their bodies, and moved on. WW2 Infantry has older weapons, worse radios if any, poorer optics, so on and so forth. They also are a generation that grew up during the depression and are small. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 9:28:57 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Private Tom Joad grabs PV1 Pajama Boy by the scruff of the neck and introduces his face to the kerb. Then Joad grabs his plastic BB Gun and busts it in half on the pavement. A couple of butt strokes with Joad's .30 Cal M1 Rifle, and some quaint politically incorrect 1940's verbage in regards to his manhood, and PV1 Pajama Boy is left bleeding on the ground with hurt feelings that will require decades of therapy to deal with. Pajama Boy retires to California on a full disability pension, while Tom Goad dies at 32 of asbestos poisoning he picked up working in a factory in Racine, Wisconsin. The End.  Pvt Goad almost dies of poisoning when he tried to drink gun cleaner solvent after sometime told him there us alcoholic in it. A whole generation of rapid alcoholics. Pvt Goad can only smash shit with his M1 because he only spent six weeks in basic training, mostly learning how to march, and barely understands concepts marksmanship, not helped that he only has a 7th grade education. Luckily he fought Pajama Boy and not Germans or Japs because his inadequate combat training would have likely meant an extremely low chance of surviving combat. Pvt Goad is average height weight for his era, 5'8", 125 lbs soaking wet, and can't even muster the strength to lift Pajama Boy off the ground, because childhood malnutrition sucks. When given a heavy ruck he instantly gets a hernia and then spends the rest of his life hanging out at the VA wearing a US Army ball cap festooned with pins telling everyone in ear shot how tough his generation is. Also, Goad fathers and spoils his kids, does such a shitty job they contribute to the whiniest generation in human history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 9:30:40 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They also are a generation that grew up during the [/span]depression[span style='font-size: 8pt;'] and are small. [/span] 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 9:39:30 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They also are a generation that grew up during the [/span]depression[span style='font-size: 8pt;'] and are small. [/span] http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee427/ltlabner/Gramps/93ECE982-DA8D-4A0B-8301-8CFAE334C3CE_zpsckwq4iqn.jpg http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee427/ltlabner/Gramps/C850B664-6ECC-4412-BBDB-4A7ADF731551_zpsbhlexzci.jpg In comparison, I'm the white guy and I'm 6'2"  Guys from my truck.  Guys from my later section  Our tiniest Marine, was the size of an average guy from the 40's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 9:40:26 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...Better Health. I'd say that a 26 year old Private who just WALKED across Europe was probably in better health than a 19 year old corporal who rides in a humvee everywhere he goes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Where is that article that discusses something very similar? The general belief was that modern infantry wins the day, fairly easily. It cites better health, better physical fitness, better training, and better tactical awareness than the WWII counterpart. As somebody said earlier. Modern infantry are volunteer professionals while WWII infantry were mostly conscripted. Something like WWII infantry are told to attack 'over there' and, while they have general principles, they mostly make it up as they go. While modern infantry has worked on this exact scenario dozens of times and everybody knows their role. Dunno if it was that article or not but I came across something that said that WWII casualty rates were not necessarily due to heavy-fighting-no-way-around-it-a-lot-of-people-are-dying but due to lack of training. Remember, while Germany was invading Poland, the US had one of the smallest poorly equipped armies in the world. They had to go from that to toeing it with the Axis nearly overnight. ...Better Health. I'd say that a 26 year old Private who just WALKED across Europe was probably in better health than a 19 year old corporal who rides in a humvee everywhere he goes. Do you take all the bullshit your dad or grandpa said at face value? Not a single infantryman walked across Europe. The units fighting in France weren't the same ones fighting in Italy. After the breakout at Normandy and mass slaughter at Fallaise pocket, Germans retreated straight across France quick to the Rhine, which was the only place they could defend from, at the Siegfried Line. All US forces were trucked to keep up, meaning that most of France wasn't even contested. Meanwhile, American infantry of WWII were notorious at the time for barely marching, being driven everywhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 9:47:13 AM EDT
[#24]
Yeah bro,
We totally rode in our humvees up into the Afgahn mountains. Don't let the packs fool you either, it's just my lunch for the day. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 9:53:06 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah bro, We totally rode in our humvees up into the Afgahn mountains. Don't let the packs fool you either, it's just my lunch for the day. http://www.longwarjournal.org/images/Afghanistan-Kunar-patrol.jpg That's not Afghanistan. Too many trees. Everyone knows Afghanistan is rocky mountains and desert. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 12:44:51 PM EDT
[#26]
Didnt most front line divisions in Europe suffer 100% casualty rates in a year of fighting? Does that mean they are better soldiers? Plus that was against the German's JV team since most of the bad asses had been killed. Hell, if you take the Eastern Front by itself, that was the biggest war in the history of the world, with the highest casualties. I also havent read anything where the Germans were scared of regular GIs. It was the arty and air support that gave them the vapors.
We have the greatest armed forces the world has ever seen, and they would handily roll up and smoke WW2 GIs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 12:51:55 PM EDT
[#27]
Does the modern infantry have to use modern ROE?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 1:05:31 PM EDT
[#28]
This ROE thing is pure poppycock.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 1:09:37 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does the modern infantry have to use modern ROE? I hope so. It makes it pretty easy when you can kill all known enemy on sight, and kill unknowns when they display HA/HI. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 1:54:00 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The cold war? That was a REAL war. Quote HistoryQuoted:
The cold war? That was a REAL war. Quoted:
The wars of now probably carry much more significance to sitting off the coast of Libya in the Cold War with the potential of being strafed. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 1:58:07 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Private Tom Joad grabs PV1 Pajama Boy by the scruff of the neck and introduces his face to the kerb. Derp. Since everyone in today's military volunteered, there is a statistically minute chance of a PVT Pajama Boy being there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 8:14:29 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...Better Health. I'd say that a 26 year old Private who just WALKED across Europe was probably in better health than a 19 year old corporal who rides in a humvee everywhere he goes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Where is that article that discusses something very similar? The general belief was that modern infantry wins the day, fairly easily. It cites better health, better physical fitness, better training, and better tactical awareness than the WWII counterpart. As somebody said earlier. Modern infantry are volunteer professionals while WWII infantry were mostly conscripted. Something like WWII infantry are told to attack 'over there' and, while they have general principles, they mostly make it up as they go. While modern infantry has worked on this exact scenario dozens of times and everybody knows their role. Dunno if it was that article or not but I came across something that said that WWII casualty rates were not necessarily due to heavy-fighting-no-way-around-it-a-lot-of-people-are-dying but due to lack of training. Remember, while Germany was invading Poland, the US had one of the smallest poorly equipped armies in the world. They had to go from that to toeing it with the Axis nearly overnight. ...Better Health. I'd say that a 26 year old Private who just WALKED across Europe was probably in better health than a 19 year old corporal who rides in a humvee everywhere he goes. I think you would be very amazed at just low the physical standards were in WWII. I was amazed when I started reading some autobiographies at just how lax most of the PT sessions were compared to today. Most of them seem to have thought a three mile run was a suckfest where as today a 4 or 6 miles is just a another day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 8:24:53 PM EDT
[#33]
Modern soldiers are far better trained with and without technology.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 10:53:55 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:This thread is an amazing source of people saying dumb shit. Thats because many romanticized the cheesy WWII movies and thats pretty much about their only experience with the military. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 11:03:21 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Professional Soldiers", huh? Are we talking about Rangers, or are we just talking about a bunch of grunts who just got out of boot. My step-grandson is infantry in the army, and he is about 3 cans short of a 6-pack. I think the poll needs to include the amount of time each team had in-country, in actual combat operations. WWII wins hands down... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Modern Infantry is composed of Professional Soldiers, WW2 was conscripted,volunteers and a few Professionals. Modern Wins "Professional Soldiers", huh? Are we talking about Rangers, or are we just talking about a bunch of grunts who just got out of boot. My step-grandson is infantry in the army, and he is about 3 cans short of a 6-pack. I think the poll needs to include the amount of time each team had in-country, in actual combat operations. WWII wins hands down... Do you have any idea what a modern Platoon has in firepower compared to say, a typical WWII COMPANY? And yes some knuckleheads make it through OSUT. Ft. Benning isn't that hard, though many like to pretend it was. It wasn't in 91 anyway. They were good at making it really suck but if you didn't graduate, its because you didnt want to, not because it was too difficult. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 11:13:43 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have any idea what a modern Platoon has in firepower compared to say, a typical WWII COMPANY? And yes some knuckleheads make it through OSUT. Ft. Benning isn't that hard, though many like to pretend it was. It wasn't in 91 anyway. They were good at making it really suck but if you didn't graduate, its because you didnt want to, not because it was too difficult. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Modern Infantry is composed of Professional Soldiers, WW2 was conscripted,volunteers and a few Professionals. Modern Wins "Professional Soldiers", huh? Are we talking about Rangers, or are we just talking about a bunch of grunts who just got out of boot. My step-grandson is infantry in the army, and he is about 3 cans short of a 6-pack. I think the poll needs to include the amount of time each team had in-country, in actual combat operations. WWII wins hands down... Do you have any idea what a modern Platoon has in firepower compared to say, a typical WWII COMPANY? And yes some knuckleheads make it through OSUT. Ft. Benning isn't that hard, though many like to pretend it was. It wasn't in 91 anyway. They were good at making it really suck but if you didn't graduate, its because you didnt want to, not because it was too difficult. This. I graduated back in 2011, and I'm a pretty stupid motherfucker. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2015 11:43:55 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have any idea what a modern Platoon has in firepower compared to say, a typical WWII COMPANY? And yes some knuckleheads make it through OSUT. Ft. Benning isn't that hard, though many like to pretend it was. It wasn't in 91 anyway. They were good at making it really suck but if you didn't graduate, its because you didnt want to, not because it was too difficult. Irrelevant, firepower doesn't matter in combat, only whether or not you grew up before or during the time when TV was black and white. Obviously you're tougher if you had to guess what color that guy's shirt is on TV or the radio. In fact, rather than physical or firearms training, I have taken to listening to the radio all day for this very purpose. I'm also replacing my iPhone with a rotary phone. I intend to retrofit a set of points on my truck soon, have to replace all of my medical equipment with dirty bandages of one single size, my leather belt, and a stick. Because the shittier your technology and the lower your skill level, the tougher you are to kill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2015 2:04:14 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are delusional, it would be a one-sided slaughter. WWII American Infantry, one on one, weren't even the equal of the Germans. We won due to arty and air Power and superior logistics and support. And that burst from an M-240 doesn't care how many stumps you pulled while working for the CCC. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You young guys have no ideal how fast you would lose. men where a different generation back then. hard working farm boys , and they lived in a time when parents kicked there asses. no crying about being cold or hungry . WWII guys were hunting for food as teens not playing video games. 300 men company wouldn't survive a day with a 300 men WWII troop with equal amount of weapons no electronics You are delusional, it would be a one-sided slaughter. WWII American Infantry, one on one, weren't even the equal of the Germans. We won due to arty and air Power and superior logistics and support. And that burst from an M-240 doesn't care how many stumps you pulled while working for the CCC. The Germans were also fighting wars on two fronts in a way where they were basically surrounded. The US Military adopted many German military technologies and strategies and perfected them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2015 2:12:38 AM EDT
[#39]
You people have no fucking clue. We'd go totally shit house on the WII soldiers and murder all of them.
Even if the mythical ROE existed and we had to wait for them to fire on us (not true in real life), we would still win. That shit may have existed in some contexts. I never saw it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2015 2:31:39 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You people have no fucking clue. We'd go totally shit house on the WII soldiers and murder all of them. Even if the mythical ROE existed and we had to wait for them to fire on us (not true in real life), we would still win. That shit may have existed in some contexts. I never saw it. The silly myths come from pogue officers and ncoes briefing pogue joes who don't leave the wire, and from infantry/cav units doing logpack duty in areas where they never actually get attacked, but for whatever reason cant stop hitting busses and taxis with their 240bs and get extra scrutiny on EOF training/execution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2015 10:37:11 AM EDT
[#41]
It would be a size difference almost as bad as the north korean soldier.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2015 10:45:01 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meanwhile, American infantry of WWII were notorious at the time for barely marching, being driven everywhere. 
I think the WWII would do better than some are thinking, but in the end they'll get their asses kicked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2015 10:47:06 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think you would be very amazed at just low the physical standards were in WWII. I was amazed when I started reading some autobiographies at just how lax most of the PT sessions were compared to today. Most of them seem to have thought a three mile run was a suckfest where as today a 4 or 6 miles is just a another day. Blah...I was never a good runner...could ruck all day (235lbs when I was in...). Was in the 82nd...fucking PSG "Alright guys...short 4 mile run today..." and takes off at a 7min clip. Fuck me. What's short about 4 miles??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2015 10:55:10 AM EDT
[#44]
One of the big advantages US soldiers in WWII had was their Garands. A semi-auto with an 8rd clip was huge. The amount of fire they could lay down to maneuver with vs what the enemy could with their Mausers was tremendous.
Now with a modern unit, each squad carries the equivalent of 2 light mortars, 2 mgs, and several guys with semi-autos with 30rd mags. The firepower is so far leaning to the modern soldiers it's not even fair. Now imagine a company on company engagement. WWII companies were a bit larger, but the firepower and volume of fire the modern unit would put down would more or less freeze the WWII unit. They'd have a couple choices. 1. go "over the top" and hope for the best or 2. retreat Once the modern company started maneuvering a platoon to their flank...they'd be complete and total toast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2015 10:59:06 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One of the big advantages US soldiers in WWII had was their Garands. A semi-auto with an 8rd clip was huge. The amount of fire they could lay down to maneuver with vs what the enemy could with their Mausers was tremendous. Now with a modern unit, each squad carries the equivalent of 2 light mortars, 2 mgs, and several guys with semi-autos with 30rd mags. The firepower is so far leaning to the modern soldiers it's not even fair. Now imagine a company on company engagement. WWII companies were a bit larger, but the firepower and volume of fire the modern unit would put down would more or less freeze the WWII unit. They'd have a couple choices. 1. go "over the top" and hope for the best or 2. retreat Once the modern company started maneuvering a platoon to their flank...they'd be complete and total toast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2015 11:32:52 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 http://youtu.be/K_DnRn9hyFU
I think the WWII would do better than some are thinking, but in the end they'll get their asses kicked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Meanwhile, American infantry of WWII were notorious at the time for barely marching, being driven everywhere. http://youtu.be/K_DnRn9hyFU
I think the WWII would do better than some are thinking, but in the end they'll get their asses kicked. It really depends on the time and unit. But even top notch regiments got mauled in battle and never recovered. The worst the US Army performed in terms of training and ability was at the end of the war, when the need to press the Germans and Japanese was so great that they feed barely trained replacements into the units. You can even see that in BoB, where E Co., 2-506 PIR was almost unrecognizable after the Ardenne and the proceeding counter offensive. Regular infantry divisions had it even worse. The 90th ID suffered 200% casualties before the breakout at Normandy occurred. By the time they entered Germany the old hand veterans would have been the new join cherries during Metz and the Bulge, a month earlier. One of the primary lessons of WWII is that unless the force is trained to such a high level that it increases their combat effectiveness greatly, spending the time to train high speed infantry isn't worth the effort, because they still die too easy. A war as brutal as WWII couldn't happen now with the US military because we'd end up using nukes before allowing tend of thousands of our infantry to be chewed to pieces in the span of a week. Same goes for most of the possible US enemies today, they too have nukes and would use them or threaten to use them to prevent heavy conventional losses. So fighting a WWII meat grinder fight isn't really something the US Army had to worry about unless mike delivery systems become unreliable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2015 11:43:39 AM EDT
[#47]
Fuck it. Make it fair.
Give them both early Vietnam gear and let them familiarize themselves with the weapons. No more, no less. No armor, NVGs, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2015 11:45:41 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fuck it. Make it fair. Give them both early Vietnam gear and let them familiarize themselves with the weapons. No more, no less. No armor, NVGs, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2015 12:10:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The modern infantry is going to be better in every way physically. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Being an 11B as recently as 2014, I really want to say modern but I still think it'd have to go to the old guys. Their only disadvantage against us is optics. They don't have 130lbs of PPE to slow them down. Their rifles can outrange ours. The individual soldier is going to be a tougher, leaner, meaner sumbitch; while half of ours won't be in the fight because they went red on dental and have a profile for fibromyalgia. This is the correct answer. The AVERAGE modern soldier is an Olympic athlete in WWII times. No shit. In a straight up hand to hand fight, the WWII guys were AVERAGE of 5'7"-5'8" and 130. Average infantry guys now are 5'10" to 6' and 175 - 200. That is a massive disadvantage for the little guy. Just because a Garand can shoot farther, does not mean that he can shoot further when the modern guys have scopes and more accurate rifles. You act like the old guys are going to be making 1000 meter headshots. That's not the case. In fact I don't actually know when the last badguy got waxed with a issue infantry weapon outside about 500. Secondly, most 11b's have a few guys who tend to carry around DMR's. Secondly, with ACOG's, every single infantry weapon is the WWII sniper's weapon. This isn't a movie, whether you're shot with a .223 or a 30-06, you're out of the fight unless you've got armor. The WWII guys didn't have armor. Our armor stops their bullets, their shirt isn't going to stop shit. And once things get urban, having a Garand, M1917, or a 1903A3 vs an M4 is a HUGE disadvantage. Even having an M1 Carbine, Grease gun, or Thompson, while you're doing a bit better against modern infantry weapons, you now *MUST* make headshots because modern armor laughs at .45ACP. And lastly, there's sixty years of tactics that the WWII guys would be at an absolute loss to beat. It would be an epic curbstomp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2015 1:08:39 PM EDT
[#50]
One thing is for certain.
The ARFCOMers in this thread who say the modern military would win would kick the absolute shit out of everyone here who says the WW2 guys would win.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
