A bunch of Infantry stranded in time

[Gunpacker]

What are the modern Marines going to do to offset their lack of flamethrowers??

 

[JAG2955]

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......

I can assure you that the average private/PFC right out of MCRD (Marine Corps Recruit Depot) Parris Island or San Diego is as good or better a shot than his predecessors. Less trigger time before boot means that there are no bad habits to be trained out of.

Additionally, I doubt that there is a significantly higher number of rounds fired per kill today than in most past wars. Figure size of the engagement, number of enemies, terrain, etc. Remember trench warfare? Thousands of rounds to kill one enemy.

 

[Pilot]

There was a similar scenario a few years back in a called The Final Countdown. One of the neatest scenes is when two F-14 Tomcats engage two Japanese Zeros in aerial combat.

The movie came out in 1985 and Kirk Douglas was the ship's captain. I liked that scene, Douglas says "splash the zeros".

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.

I've done that with a good tailwind.

BTW, there was a Twilight Zone episode where a WWI British pilot gets transported to "modern day" circa 1961 with his Sopwith Camel. He ends up at a joint U.S./RAF base (I think, heven't seen it in years). Pretty interesting. He ends up escaping from his modern captors and takes off ending up in a dogfight back in his time.

 

[entropy]

There are no coincidences! I had a dream last night about a 688i class sub surfacing next to a WWII US carrier just prior to Pearl Harbor. The Captain of the sub boarded the ship after they used light semaphores to communicate who they were, and the two captains discussed to situation, with the WWII captain wanting the sub to launch on the Japanese carrier group, and the sub commander having reservations about disturbing the space-time continuim by significantly altering history.

In college, I started writing a story about a 'gathering of warriors from ages' type thing set from the viewpoint of a US Army Platoon leader on patrol near the Iron Curtain. (this was in 1982.) I changed to another storyline and didn't finish it, but I have alwas been fascinated by such stories.

 

[Byron Quick]

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,

Einstein's been dead for a few decades now. There's some indications in physics theory developed after his death that indicates that time travel might be theoretically possible. The engineering details would depend on some other things that might well be impossible-like artificial gravity. Basically, if you've got a spinning cylinder of neutron star dense material...strange things would happen within the gravitational field.

Of course, the problem here is producing and manipulating matter as dense as a neutron star!

 

[cxm]

Japanese Infantry

The Jap infantry of WWII was not much different than a WW I infantry unit.

While the Jap infantryman had elan and was very brave, his equipment was hoplessly out of date for WWII type fighting. The 6.5mm and 7.7mm machine guns were not particularly modern and difficult to produce so they were always in short supply. There was little artillery available and the so called "knee mortar" was about all their infantry platoon had available for direct support.

The Imperial Army had little armor and what they had was mostly of the light tank variety which would have no chance at all against modern weapons.

I'd worry about the power of the .223 round, but with a large combat load of ammo a Marine infantry outfit, particularly one with combat experience in the sand box (and I would think they all have some combat experience by now) would be able to escape/evade pretty well... pitched battles would have to be avoided.

The real trick would be to realize help would arrive soon and not do anything wild until their grandfathers landed on the beach...

FWIW

Chuck

 

[No_Brakes23]

The movie came out in 1985 and Kirk Douglas was the ship's captain.

I vaguely remember looking at the VHS in 1983 in a video store. It came out in 1980. Just nitpicking.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080736/

 

[albanian]

The modern Marines would cut through the 1940s people like they were butter. It is not just about the weapons and tech that the moderns will have, it is about training and smarts. Most people living today would seem like wizards if they went back into time. People back then were just not as smart as we are now. The next generation is going to make us look just as stupid. So it goes on. Every generation makes huge leaps in learning and speeds up the pace of life.

That is why it is hard for younger people to tolerate show and movies from the 1940s. It is just too slow paced and boring. Some things translate well (comedy and some drama) but most thing like news will seem like it is in slow motion. We need our action packed these days. We can't be hanging around waiting for these old timers!

Sounds like a good plot for a show. I am a sucker for time travel.

 

[KriegHund]

I'de say we have superior squad-level tactics than we did back then. Less mass infantry and more focus on the individual.

Dont have much to prove it, but look at the ways we have fought in desert storm, afghanistan, and particularly iraq.

oh, and guns of the south is a good book

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

I can not remember where I heard this but it was fairly recent, it was on a military show. A military spokesperson stated that with the advent of helicopters and modern transports, starting in Vietnam and going through to the present day, that the average U.S soldier in just under 4 weeks of combat was the equivalent of one year to a WWII vet and in 90 days you have the same as the entire WWII soldier. That was for actual combat experiance.

If that is true I would say that just about any Marine would have more combat experiance then there WWII counterpart.

 

[mack]

Many of the Marines at Iwo Jima had been through hellish combat on island campaign after island campaign. They did not have the benifit that their modern counterparts do of overwelming airpower. The US did dominate the air but had nothing like modern day close air support. In many of the earlier campaigns a US victory was not certain. Their enemy the Japanese did not surrender but fought to the last man. The Marines lives depended on the small arms they carried, while air power or naval bombardment could be decisive, it was not as it is today call on demand pinpoint accurate and lethally decisive. While Modern Marines and soldiers still depend on their small arms for survivial they are not near as dependent on them.

I seriously doubt than any group of US soldiers since Korea has seen the hell, the intensive fighting, and the long term close up grist mill combat that the Marines who fought in the Pacicfic endured and ultimately triumphed over.

Technically the M16 or M4 though it has a 30 round magazine does not have a really significant higher rate of practical fire than the M1 Garand. Side by side shoot offs sending 40 or more rounds down range with an M1 Garand and an M14 have been done before and the rate of fire was for all intents and purposes comparable. The Garand took an 8 round clip that could be slammed in without concern for up or down orientation and didn't have to be removed by hand or inserted with as much care or dexterity as a magazine. The modern M16 does not offer in the real world a substantially decisive advantage in practical firepower.

As far as individuals today being smarter or better than past generations - that is frankly laughable. Individuals today have the advantage of modern technology and are probably on average more technologically adept. However modern IQ's, or however you want to measure intelligence, are not any higher than that of our great great great great great great great great great great grandparents. Over the centuries mans technology has improved but the intelligence of the average individual has not changed appreciably, in fact there are some good arguments that if anything it has declined. In the past if you were a total idiot you died - today .gov takes care of you and yours.

The survival probablity of a modern Marine squad on Iwo Jima was probably less than the survival probabilty of a then contemporary Marine squad who would know the fight, the enemy tactics, and there own forces. They would also be familiar with the enemies weapons and radios and be able to utilize them effectively. The only significant advantage a modern squad of Marines would have is their night vision and possibly their body armour. Given the overwelming odds and firepower against them both would in all likely hood be wiped out to a man.

I'm not disrespecting our moderm Marines or soldiers, but squad level firepower is not a quantum leap ahead of WWII weaponry. Their firearms may have been heavier, but their level of effectiveness is generally comparable - one is not talking about comparing flintlocks to cartridge arms.

As has been referrenced before in this thread where the modern soldier beats the WWII soldier hands down in effectiveness and firepower is through the power of communication and combined forces - the coordination of artillery, airpower, mobility, smart weapons, and night vision.

 

[cracked butt]

I'de say we have superior squad-level tactics than we did back then. Less mass infantry and more focus on the individual.

Kind of what I was thinking. The modern marine has 60 more years of learning and experience through the school of hard knocks backing him up than a WWII Marine squad would.

The weapons are better, a soldier can carry more ammo and put down more firepower. Once the ammo is all gone, its all over.

 

[Hardtarget]

Many years ago,I saw an article in Playboy,,,(I only read the GREAT articles)...where a squad of WWII infantry got zapped back to Civil War time. The photo looked cool. Sepia tone, Yankee uniforms, but the soldiers were holding M1s, carbines, Thompsons, and BARs. I wish I had a copy of that.
Mark.

 

[mack]

The "superiority" of modern squad level tactics for a squad of modern Marines dropped off on Iwo Jima is questionable at best - 60 years of learning experience, yes - but it is crucial to realize that the evolution of squad level tactics over that time is tied inextricably to technological advancements - particulairly in relation to the use of combined forces and communication - an element that would be absent for a modern squad suddenly dropped and isolated on Iwo Jima. How much superior would modern squad tactics be without communication to air or artillery support in the midst of an unfamilar enemy?

 

[spooney]

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

Bingo, the Night Vision would make all the difference in the world.

 

[Kevlarman]

Uh, so what was this show called?

 

[cracked butt]

The "superiority" of modern squad level tactics for a squad of modern Marines dropped off on Iwo Jima is questionable at best - 60 years of learning experience, yes - but it is crucial to realize that the evolution of squad level tactics over that time is tied inextricably to technological advancements - particulairly in relation to the use of combined forces and communication - an element that would be absent for a modern squad suddenly dropped and isolated on Iwo Jima. How much superior would modern squad tactics be without communication to air or artillery support in the midst of an unfamilar enemy?

Yup good point. If a squad of modern marines were compared to a squad of marines 60 years ago, both in a predicament where they had no air, artillery, or supply line support, I'd still give the edge to the modern warriors.

 

[No_Brakes23]

Are we talking about Iwo Jima specifically?

Cause Iwo is super tiny. Basically an airstrip, some caves and Suribachi.

And that sand isn't even as fine as the middle east sand. If anything the Iwo Jima sand is chunkier. I have a bottle of it somewhere, but no AR15 to pour it in .

 

[aaronrkelly]

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?")

I can think of atleast one Colt firearm that your WWII grunt would be familiar with..........one of the most notable guns in the history of the US military.

 

[chopinbloc]

the question of the original post was whether they would be able to survive and skirmish long enough to meet up with allies or find the wormhole again. it also said they showed up four days prior to the invasion. that means at least three nights to me. i am confident that - if they caught on to the situation quickly enough and they had at least a few hours to get their heads on straight - that they would be able to survive and take out some critical japanese positions in the mean time. even on a night with a full moon and a clear sky, the japanese would be at a distinct disadvantage. their artillery wouldn't be very helpful because they wouldn't know where to shoot. if the marines were one of the high speed, ninja door kicker units that might have been issued suppressors the advantage is almost godlike. the m4, when suppressed is still plenty loud enough to hear but the ballistic crack confuses the direction of the shooter and the muzzle flash is nearly eliminated. a squad of modern marines with night vision and suppressed m4s could quickly roll over a japanese position and destroy their equipment. after a few of these attacks, the psychological advantage might be nearly tangible. the japanese would have no logical way to explain the brutal effectiveness of the marines and might even chalk it up to the supernatural. it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

look, i'm not overlooking their initial disadvantage. it would be very easy to make a fatal mistake in the first few minutes but i see no reason they couldn't survive and even seriously hurt the enemy if they had the chance.

 

[R.O.F]

FWIW, I see a lot of people discussing the Civil War scenario. I read somewhere a while back, that if you put 1 guy on top of a hill with an M-16, with a steady supply of ammo, he could win every battle fought. Not sure if this was just speculation or they tested it out with ballistics etc. but it makes one think. Just thought I'd throw that out there. BTW, what show was it that started the discussion?

 

[WvaBill]

Yes. But, they didn't see action until the last actions of WWII. ... The units of minority soldiers who saw combat were the exception and not the rule.

Those exceptions were exemplary...see Dorie Miller.

 

[mack]

My bad. I somehow must have forgot about the "God-like" powers of a modern Marine squad operating cut off from all support, surrounded by thousands of fanatical enemy, who are highly motivated and armed with artillery, mortars, grenades, heavy machine guns, who have occupied the island and fortified it for months, who know every square inch of the island, who during 12 hours of daylight on a small island will have little trouble locating the enemy particularily once they initially become aware of the intrusion.

What was I thinking - why in four days the Japanese would probably have all surrendered to the squad - I mean they were so dumb - that they couldn't possibly set up an ambush, pin them down, use grenades or mortars on them or call in artillery. I mean in the dark the Japanese couldn't know where they were unless of course they had ears to hear with, lights to see with, flares to illuminate with. And thank God the Japanese never knew how to use mines or set booby traps.

Why after they linked up with the invading USMC they could have been redeployed and dropped off on the Japanese mainland and in a week to ten days, using their non-standard surpressors and ninga skills the Japanese would have surrendered.

 

[Puncha]

Shorter time frame

How much would it weigh in the modern squad's favour if the timeline to invasion was shortened to 2 days instead?

Secondly, the implication in my original post was that they had standard issue NODs.

Lastly, the TV series originally mentioned is called "the section" and it's produced in SE Asia. The show was produced for local consumption and is unlikely to make to to the US or Canada.

 

[HankB]

Most people living today would seem like wizards if they went back into time. People back then were just not as smart as we are now.

I disagree - strongly! - with this statement.

Knowing about modern technology isn't the same as understanding the underlying principles. When so many of today's high school students graduate as functional illiterates, when college graduates struggle to balance a checkbook, I really don't think most 21st century people would be seen as "wizards" if they went back in time to 1940 or so. In fact, considering that in modern society, stupid people flourish rather than perish, a random group sent back would probably include quite a number who'd be seen as dullards.

Send a modern physicist, biochemist, or heart surgeon back, and sure, he'll have the benefit of several decades of progress in his, well, call it "institutional memory" and would probably advance the state of the art quite a bit in his area of expertise. But I don't believe he'd be seen as a "wizard" in any sense of the word.