A bunch of Infantry stranded in time

[Puncha]

I was watching a local (i.e non-US) TV series and the storyline featured a squad of infantry armed with M-16 rifles, Squad Automatic Weapons, LAW rocket simulators and M203 40mm grenade launchers participating in a war game in the present day. They all had blank ammo and miles gear and took shelter in an abandoned barn during a freak thunderstorm. Anyhow, unknown to them, their barn was actually ground zone for some kind of time travelling wormhole (spelling may be wrong) and when they woke up in the morning they were transported 62 years into the past.

As my country was occupied by the Japanese in 1944, our protagonists found themselves having to deal with patrols of Japanese infantry. Needless to say, serious casualities were incurred after the 1st contact with troops of the Imperial Japanese Army as the modern soldiers had no live ammo.

Anyhow, the plot of this show got me thinking......

If we change the context of the show to involve a squad of US marines out on a LIVE FIRE exercise with soldiers of the Japanese Self Defense Forces on modern day Iwo Jima and the USMC guys get transported into the past to the exact day in WWII 4 days before the USMC invades Iwo Jima, do you think the squad of US marines (with their weapons and a full operational load of live ammo) will be able to survive long enough (escape, evade and skirmish with Japanese patrols) to either link up with invading WWII USMC elements or get to the location of a possible time warp worm hole to get back to the present day? (assuming they know where and when the next wormhole will be)

How does the modern small arms TO&E for a USMC squad stack up against the combined firepower of a WWII japanese platoon or company?

LASTLY, if you were the Gy Sgt in charge of the squad, what would be your strategy for linking up with the WWII marines and NOT getting turned into swiss cheese by 30.06 fire?

 

[Grump]

Quite well, so long as they don't get creamed by an artillery barrage.

History Channel had an interesting treatment of the Pacific war I saw maybe a year ago. The ammo load and general materiel (not a typo-a defined miliatry term for our English-as-second-language friends) support for the average U.S. soldier was something like triple what the Japanese soldier had. Maybe more.

One less than meaningful measurement was just the weight of total support-X pounds vs. Y pounds (I think that probably included gas for Jeeps, etc.--meaningful but hard to compare when the Imperial Army [they were NOT called "Self Defense Forces" back then!] had fewer vehicles overall anyway.)

There's only so much you can get out of having a "SUPERIOR" fighting "spirit" as compared to the decadent round-eyes. The Japanese warlords were too slow to learn that truth, and tens, if not hundreds of thousands, died in island after island after the Japanese Gov't should have surrendered.

 

[scubie02]

Well, I know that back in the day the average soldier was more likely to be a better marksman than today, where the majority of soldiers go in never having fired a weapon. Think Sergeant York. And if you're talking a modern platoon with no combat experience, there is obviously a big factor there--I don't know that just having m-16's is going to overcome that. We had semi auto main battle rifles against the Japanese and German bolt guns during the war, but it didn't make it a cake walk to take them on.

That doesn't mean they couldn't retreat somewhere and maybe hold on. But I wouldn't expect them to go kick butt and take names and such either just because they have M-16's. In fact, I would see that as fairly inconsequential.

 

[Oldtimer]

Interesting "time travel" scenario! I think that the modern day Marines would be caught between a rock and a hard place. Their current issue uniforms would look "foreign" to the WW-II grunts, so they might take casualties from BOTH sides, at least until they could establish themselves as Americans (Remember, the current issue Kevlar helmets look quite a bit like the old Nazi brain buckets!)

Even if they WERE able to identify themselves as American Marines from the future, most of the WW-II grunts wouldn't believe their story. I can just see a WW-II grunt handing an unloaded M-1 Garand to the future Marines, and to PROVE that they're Marines...."Field strip this rifle!" The future guys would be totally out of their realm!

The WW-II grunts would look at the futuristic M-16 rifles AND the M-9 pistols. "Colt and Beretta?" (How many Colt and Beretta firearms were issued to WW-II American troops?)("Isn't Beretta an Italian name?")

How about the present-day Marines trying to prove their story by showing the grunts their radios and GPS equipment? None of it would work, for there weren't any satellites back then!

Ammo? "Who would go to war with a .22 rifle?" "What is this 9mm stuff? Isn't that what the Krauts are using?"

Let's not overlook the present-day flag of the USA.
It has 50 stars on it, not the WW-II period 48!
The present-day Marines would have I.D. cards with the words "Department of Defense" printed on them, not the WW-II "War Department"!

"President Bush? Who is he? You mean, you fellas don't even know who our President is?"

How would a present-day Marine explain a photo of himself standing beside his "Toyota" 4x4 truck? Heaven help him if he was standing next to a "Mitsubishi" car in that photo! Heck, what if one of your present-day Marines was a Japanese-American? OOOPS!

Me? If I was one of those present-day Marines who had been transported back in time? "Hey, we gotta keep out of sight! We're in the future, but what we're going to see is HISTORY!"

 

[WT]

Sounds like a repeat of a 40 year old Twilight Zone episode. It that case the 'modern' American soldiers were sent back to the American Civil War with their Thompson SMG's.

I am not sure where one could hide a squad of Americans on Iwo Jima 4 days before the invasion. I think they would have been spotted and artillery called in on them. It would have been tough.

 

[chopinbloc]

We had semi auto main battle rifles against the Japanese and German bolt guns during the war...

wait a minute. the garand had only three more rounds on tap than most rifles on the other side. while it was semi auto, it wasn't as able to take advantage of a higher volume of aimed fire as the m16 is. the m16 has SIX TIMES the amount of amunition on tap as standard rifles of the day, reloads faster and, unlike the garand, can be reloaded in the middle of a magazine. modern riflemen often have optics (acog, aimpoint, eotech, etc.) which seriously increase hit likelihood at all ranges and light conditions and make hits faster as well. in addition to the above, modern infantry units utilize sqaud automatic weapons which have no real analog in capability to automatic weapons of the era. the m249 is light enough to be a personal weapon and allows the operator to carry a very respectable load of ammunition. the japanese had nothing like this and the closest analog to it in american hands at the time was the BAR. the BAR was much heavier, limited to twenty round magazines and the combination of weight from both the ammunition and feed devices meant the operator couldn't carry nearly as much ammunition. modern troops are also equipped with the m203 grenade launcher. the closest weapon that i can think of to the capability of this little gem at the time was the japanese "knee" mortar. this weapon could not be fired as accurately and the operator could not carry as much ammunition. also, though it was quick to set up for a mortar, it was still not capable of firing on the move like the m203, though i'm sure it's payload was a little more effective. further, modern day american troops have reliable accurate night vision devices. this advantage alone could give them an almost unbeatable advantage. the psychological effect of quick, accurate death coming out of the dead of a moonless night could very well be enough to break the will of the enemy. lastly, we have learned much about tactics in the last half century and this, combined with the above technological advances, would be enough to dominate the enemy, imho. this is a perfect example of what the army terms "force multiplier."

 

[chopinbloc]

hmm, after reading the above, i'd like to qualify my opinion. if they arrived at night, i think they'd do really well but if they showed up during the day, they could be screwed. 'course not knowing that they've traveled in time could case them to quickly make a final mistake. i could see myself just walking up to the "friendly japanese gentleman" to ask directions. um, oops.

 

[dracphelan]

I think it would all depend on how quickly the modern Marines realized they are in that particular situation and where exactly on the island they find themselves. Even today, there's not much cover on that island, so they would need to find a good place to go to ground. Then, hope they don't get shot by their own forefathers. This is actually a situation (in larger scale) that takes place in a book called Weapons of Choice. A multi-national task force from the year 2021 gets transported (by accident) into the Battle of Midway.
Someone mentioned what if there is a Japanese (or Asian) American in the squad. Better yet, what if there is anyone who isn't white (especially NCOs or Officers)? Remember, the military didn't really allow anyone who wasn't white to fight til the end of WWII. And, even then, it was not Marines.

 

[USMCRotrHed]

IMHO

I don't think the average Marine squad would show that much of an advantage due to the overwhelming numbers of Japanese. They would still have to fight their a**es off. Now throw in the modern close air support or a little armor and now we're talking firepower. As far as convincing the WW2 Marines that the modern Marines are really American, lets just say I hope they studied the NY Yankees starting lineup from the early 40's or hopefully they studied their Marine Corps history enough to know who the commandant was at the time. When I was on active duty, I couldn't even identify a Garand, let alone field strip one, but give me an M2 .50 cal MG, (still in service in my old squadron, even to this day) and I could have broken that one down with the best of them!

 

[c_yeager]

I dont really think it would be all that different. Our technology is better today, but it really isnt all THAT different from what was issued to WWII soldiers. Our modern soldiers benefit more from behind-the-lines support (airpower, artilary, armor, logistics) than they do from their individual weapons.

In other words, a squad of Marines armed with M-16s, SAWs, and LAW rockets is really only moderatly more effective than a squad of Marines armed with M1s, .30can brownings, and Bazookas. They are still Marines/soldiers, and they are still shooting at the enemy, thats the fundamental factor operating here and it doesnt depend heavily on equipment. It is quite possible that the "vintage" fighting men would have significantly more actual combat experience, and that might make all the difference.

Take away the support and a modern soldier isnt much different from one 50 years ago.

 

[scubie02]

well, I know I've read that the average new recruit today is a waaaaaay worse shot than back then, and having all the ammo in the world isn't going to help you much if you're just spraying and praying and hoping to get lucky. I know we used way more rounds per kill today than then partially because of that problem--more rounds down range but no more kills. The granade launchers and such probably aren't going to wowo them either--they were certainly used to artillery and mortars and granades and such then in probably larger numbrs than one group of marines is going to be laying down with their grenade launchers, and how much ammo are they carrying? Because as soon as its gone there's no resupply.

 

[jtward01]

There was a similar scenario a few years back in a called The Final Countdown. In the film the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier was transported back in time to a couple days before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The ship's commander had to make the choice between defending Pearl and possibly upsetting the time line and changing everything that happened after Dec. 7, 1941, or letting the Japanese carry out their attack and leaving the time line intact. I won't tell you his decision in case you haven't seen the film, but it's a pretty darn good flick. One of the neatest scenes is when two F-14 Tomcats engage two Japanese Zeros in aerial combat.

FWIW, there's a pilot in Florida who claims he went through a similar time warp on a trip from Daytona Beach to Miami. The guy claims he flew into a circular fog bank - much like the storm in the movie - shortly after he took off, and when he came out of the fog he was already over Miami. The flight, which should have taken about 45 minutes in the aircraft he was flying, only took about 20 minutes, a physical impossibility. Yet his takeoff time was recorded by air traffic control, as was his arrival time in Miami.

 

[No_Brakes23]

Well, I know that back in the day the average soldier was more likely to be a better marksman than today, where the majority of soldiers go in never having fired a weapon.

The OP stated US Marines. One problem that does not plague the Corps is going in without firing weapons. At least 500 rounds go through the rifle in bootcamp, and the minimum qualification involves an 80% or better hit rate on man sized targets at 200/300/500 meters. That is just what everyone goes through in bootcamp. Then after bootcamp, everyone disassembles, reassembles, fires and cleans the M203, M249 SAW, M240 MAG, Mk19 Grenade Launcher, and M2 .50cal, (East Coast Marines, may not fire the M2, however.) Marines usually qualify annually with the M16A2. That is just non infantry Marines. Grunts get a whole lot more trigger time. Going into combat with no rifle familiarity is NOT a problem the Marines have.

Remember, the military didn't really allow anyone who wasn't white to fight til the end of WWII. And, even then, it was not Marines.

I am pretty sure that is not right. Blacks have served with distinction since the civil war if not before. Have you not heard of the Tuskagee Airmen. Or the 442nd Nisei Regiment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Colored_Troops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._2d_Cavalry_Division
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Airmen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_regiment

 

[Bigjake]

Your question makes it seem like the modern day squad is BETTER ARMED than thier predecessors...

personally, i'd say that the oldschool Marines had the better hardware, in the form of garands, BARs, 1911s, and 30 cal browning machineguns (forget model, 1917??)

all the modern guys seem to have is body armor, better coms (which wouldn't matter anyway, who are you going to talk to?) air support also doesnt count, since they didn't bring f-18s with em.

i'd also venture that your average m-16 wouldn't like the fine stuff that made of Iwo's beaches

As much as i respect our guys now, i think they would've been in a world of hurt just showing up in the past with no support infrastructure or the combat experience of the day.

 

[Correia]

If it was at night, and the modern Marines had NODs, they would have absolutely dominated.

Day time? I'm with the rest of you guys. Outnumbered, no resupply, no significant advantages.

 

[444]

Where does this idea that Marines of today are worse shots that the Marine of WWII come from ?
How has the Marine Corps. rifle qualification been watered down over the years ?
Today's Marine seems to be getting much more rifle training than simply known distance ranges on bullseye targets. Arn't they doing stuff like urban training that is closer to combat shooting ?
How much actual weapons firing was done prior to deployment in the middle of WWII ? How about their training ? Were they pumping out fresh meat as fast as they could for these invasions or were they training as long as today's Marine ?
What percentage of Marines hitting the beaches of Iwo Jima had prior combat experience ?
How much of a factor do you think it might be that the Marine of today volunteered for duty and was not a war-time draftee ?
Didn't the Marines hit the beaches of Iwo with 1903A3s ? The Army had the M1 rifle before the Marine Corps. Edit: I looked this up, it looks like this was the case at Guadelcanal but the men on the Mt. Sarabachi (sp ?) monument clearly have M1s.

But, to answer your question, I don't think the modern Marine would have any real advantage. Maybe a little, but not much if any.

 

[USMCRotrHed]

Didn't the Marines hit the beaches of Iwo with 1903A3s ? The Army had the M1 rifle before the Marine Corps. Edit: I looked this up, it looks like this was the case at Guadelcanal but the men on the Mt. Sarabachi (sp ?) monument clearly have M1s.

That is correct. The Marines went to Guadalcanal with mostly '03s. When the Army took over for the clean up and occupation, they had mainly Garands. From then on the Marines used mostly Garands as fast as they could get their hands on them. USMC snipers still preferred the '03 for years to come. So....the M1 was standard issue by Iwo.

 

[dracphelan]

I am pretty sure that is not right. Blacks have served with distinction since the civil war if not before. Have you not heard of the Tuskagee Airmen. Or the 442nd Nisei Regiment?

Yes. But, they didn't see action until the last actions of WWII. And, they still weren't Marines. Except for the Tuskagee Airmen, the army and navy relegated black soldiers and sailors to rear/non-combat duties such as supply or construction. The units of minority soldiers who saw combat were the exception and not the rule.

 

[chopinbloc]

forgot about the advantage their iba would give 'em.

Going into combat with no rifle familiarity is NOT a problem the Marines have.

nor the present day army, for the most part. while i admit that there are incompetant individuals, this is no different than any other organization. the average soldier is probably (much as it pains me to admit it) not the marksman that the average marine is but every soldier must demonstrate basic competance with his rifle in basic. infantry, scouts and others who are more likely to be called upon to close with and destroy the enemy train constantly with the weapon systems they will use in combat, to include small arms. every soldier qualifies on the m16 every year just like the marines, though we do it at 50-300 meters. not trying to make this an army vs. marines discussion, just trying to point out that today's warrios (whether marine or soldier) are well trained killers who know what they're doing and it isn't particularly accurate for armchair commandos to infer that every wwii troop was an audie murphy or sgt. york while your average modern warrior is a pvt. pyle.

Your question makes it seem like the modern day squad is BETTER ARMED than thier predecessors...

how did i know that someone would make that comparison? let me just pick on the easiest one: other than the fact that the m1919 and m1918 .30 machineguns fire a much more robust cartridge, what exactly makes them superior? a machinegun that never makes it to the battle because its operator passed out from heatstroke is not superior. same goes for the ammunition. fact: nearly all engagements in modern times (wwii included) occurred well under 300m, most under 150m. fact: the 5.56mm cartridge is generally VERY effective at that range. fact: one can carry a heck of alot more 5.56mm. "yeah, but the .30 weapons have better penetration/tissue damage/etc." and REAL men shoot massive, overpowered cartridges - from a bench at a covered range and have likely never walked any real distance in their lives, let alone with a 40lb ruck, kevlar, iba, buckets worth of ammo and water and a weapon that even with its relatively light weight of ca. 7lbs unloaded seems too heavy to hold after the first 15k or so. i'm not gonna argue calibers and weapons anymore but having fired the m1 garand, owning an m1a and being issued an m16, i KNOW that today's equipment is better. just because old men fondly reminisce about "the good old days" doesn't necessarily make it so.

oh, and i happen to know that a properly maintained - no not babied, just maintained - m16 functions just fine in dusty sandy conditions. enough with the b.s. already.

 

[HankB]

A squad of Marines on their own behind enemy lines on Iwo Jima for 4 days would be wiped out in short order if they had to engage the enemy. Their guns are still shooting bullets, not death rays, they don't know the ground, they have no artillery or air support to call in, no resupply . . . their only hope is evasion.

And Iwo Jima got a pretty major artillery bombardment before the landings . . . how well will Marines in the open weather that? Unlike the Jap defenders, they'd have no bunkers or tunnels to shelter in.

 

[Beren]

If it was at night, and the modern Marines had NODs, they would have absolutely dominated.

They'd need to setup battery rationing right quick, or that advantage would be gone in a couple of nights.

 

[Byron Quick]

No air support, no reinforcement, no transport, no resupply, no artillery.

With basic combat loads of ammunition there's only two ways to go. Either be like a rabbit and avoid the predators or die. A squad wouldn't have a chance against an army of knights.

A fully equipped infantry company with a mortar squad that was sittng on a fully stocked supply depot when it was all transported would be a different story. For a while. Rommel's law would win as soon as the ammunition ran out.

As has been stated before, the modern infantryman's power doesn't really come from his weapons, it comes from what gifts he can bring to you with his radio. Take that away from him and cut him off from resupply...he's totally screwed

 

[Dr.Rob]

Reminds me of a Sonny Chiba / Hiroyuki Sanada film called GI Samurai (1979)

In this Japanese sci-fi adventure, Japanese soldiers are suddenly transported back to the 16th century where they must take on a regiment of angry samurai. They must fight for their lives while simultaneously trying to understand what has happened to them and while trying to figure out how to return to their own time.

http://www.ninjadojo.com/video1/gi_sam3.jpg

 

[Jim K]

In spite of its endorsement by General (Himself, The Greatest) Wesley Clark, I think I will believe Mr. Einstein when he says time travel is nice fiction, but can't work. Space-time continuum and all of that sort of thing, y'know.

Jim

 

[Randy in Arizona]

An interesting story somewhat along those lines is:
[Excerpt follows]

GUNS OF THE SOUTH
A book review by R.B. Schmunk (Copyright 1992)

The Guns of the South is a new alternate history novel from one of the more prolific writers of that sub-genre, Harry Turtledove. Although Turtledove's specialty in graduate school was Byzantine history (see his Agent of Byzantium short stories), he turns in this case to the American Civil War, or as it is called in The Guns of the South, The Second American Revolution
.......
The premise of the story is not new, having been used before in Harry Harrison's A Rebel in Time and Charles L. Harness' "Quarks at Appomatox" and that is of someone going back in time to give aid to the Confederacy. In this case it is Afrikaaners from the year 2014 who have decided to smother that pernicious concept of racial equality before it evers reaches South African shores. To this end, they show up at Robert E. Lee's encampment in January 1864 and offer to provide the entire Confederate army, both Lee's Army of Northern Virginia and elements elsewhere, with AK-47 automatic rifles. After a demonstration of that weapon's capabilities, Lee readily accepts.



More at the site - -

http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/review.html

Fifth review down - - actually reviews 5 through 9 are of Guns of the South!