WWII 1943 Platoon vs. Current 2003 Platoon

[Blain]

WWII sparked a nationalist trend of patriotic and military support like never before. The terrorist events of 9/11 ressurected that same type of support and enthusiasm.

Say a platoon or group of well armed WWII US soldiers faced off against a platoon or group of modern US soldiers (both containing identical number of troops) and both groups being equiped with their respective weapons.

What do you think the outcome of the fight would be?
1: In a place like Afganistan?
2: A place like a southeast Asian jungle?
3: Or an urban city type enviorment?

WWII troops would be armed with an assortment of M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, BARs, .45 cal pistols, gernade launchers and bazookas of their time.

The modern Soldiers would be armed with M4s, M16A2s, SAWs, 9mm pistols, and the modern 203 gernade launchers and RPGs.

Who do you think has the upperhand in each of these situations and why?

I have heard reports of US soldiers in the early 80's confronting Communist rebels equiped with old M1s and BARs and being outgunned by the old vintage weapons!

 

[M58]

Ask Custer.

 

[lilbiggun]

In all 3 situations I'd give the upper hand to the WW2 guys. The weapons used dont mean crap its the guys behind them and I think the the guys back during the WW era had a better mindset.

 

[Blain]

Yes, that is a major factor. The troops of WWII had a motivational factor like never before or since....Esp. if General Patton was commanding!

 

[Nightcrawler]

US forces don't use RPGs.

We did have a nice, light rocket launcher; the M72 LAW. They replaced it with the AT-4, which is apparently more poweful. The tradeoff is it's twice as long, doesn't collapse for convenient carry, and weighs three times as much.

At any rate, the weapons don't make that much of a difference, it's the people using them.

That said, being armed with .30-06s, the WWII guys would have a big advantage in an Afghanistan type place.

The modern guys would have more ammunition on hand, but that's about their only real advantage. Either side could call in artillery, though modern artillery is more accurate.

Either side could call in air support. I don't think I'd want to be attacked by a P-47 any more than I'd want to be attacked by an A-10.

 

[Blain]

No Artillery or air support in this scinario, this is purely Infantry based! Who had the superior infantry?

 

[444]

"The troops of WWII had a motivational factor like never before or since"

What motivation ? In this senario they are attacking another platoon of American GIs.

 

[Blain]

What motivation ? In this senario they are attacking another platoon of American GIs.

Uuummmmm, errrrrrrrrrr, for all they know it's a secret high tech commie trick!

 

[Dannyboy]

I'd have to say the modern guys would come out on top. They have the same advantage we have over most of the world, our night vision devices and our ability to fight a night.

 

[Blueduck]

I know this is supposed to be about the guns but it sounds like some folks are thinking of our current crop of soldiers as a bunch of scared kids who would not have clue what to do in a real firefight.

Remember what happend when our troops fought the "battle hardned Iraq's" a few years back?

How about when our "inexperinced boys" who were massivly outnumbered put down an approximate 120-1 KIA ratio with thier hands tied behind their backs in Somalia?

What about our recent incursion into Afghanistan against those folks who were "Raised on war" and understood "moutain fighting and guerilla warfare" as our volunteer force never could?

I take our current crop 3 for 3 in this contest. It's not about the guns though. It's about the fact that the current crop of soldiers recieved the training of the lessons learned by our brave men who not only fought in WWII, but also the lessons learned in Korea, Vietnam and dozens of other smaller confrontations.

Best, Blueduck

 

[jimbo]

With all due respect, the modern platoon would handily destroy its antiquated cousin. The technologial advantage is overwhelming.

Night combat has been revolutionized by night vision systems. We have digital communications to the extent that field officers will be able to issue orders immediately to all troops via personal headsets.

Modern troops use GPS satellites for mapping and navigation.

Modern optics are far more clear than what was available in WWII and has night vision capability, both for spotting the enemy and for use as rifle scopes.

The modern platoon can carry far more light 5.56 rounds than the old platoons heavy .30-06.

Modern medics have far better resources to keep fighting men in fighting condition rather than in sick call.

I have to believe modern clothing and supply depot are far more effective against such WWII maladies as trench foot and frostbite.

This wasn't the intent of your question, but that modern infantry platoon is much more likely to be motorized and therefore highly mobile than it's antiquated cousin.

Moving further from your intent, the ability of modern soldiers to direct accurate artillery fire and close air support is light-years ahead of their WWII counterparts.

Their is no comparison. The M1 may be a better battle rifle than the M16. That aside, a modern platoon would quickly decimate one equipped with 1940's technology. Think about it.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Okay, where to begin. The poster was talking about a firefight between platoons, not an extended campaign.

-The night vision advantage is only an advantage if the engagement is at night.

-Optics aren't always standard issue, either. Some units get them, but the majority of troops are still using iron sights.

-Modern troops can use GPS. It doesn't mean everybody has it, (my unit sure as heck doesn't, unless the guys bring their own) and it isn't going to help you in a firefight.

-Personal headsets are anything but standard issue yet. Rangers and specops might get them, but the rest of us still have the guy with the radio. Besides, it's going to be hard to hear your headset anyway when your ears are ringing from gunfire. The only field officer in the platoon is going to be the Lieutenant (platoon leader). In most cases, even in the modern Army, he's going to be commanding his troops by shouting orders and hand signals.

-More rounds is only an advantage if you need to fire more shots. If you hit the first time, you probably won't need a second shot. Still, the modern platoon can lay down a heavier volume of fire with their SAWs, but again, the 1943 platoon will have the range advantage.

-Medics are typically a company asset, not a platoon one. In other words, each platoon doesn't have its own medic, as a rule.

-The fact that your foot powder is better isn't going to help you in a firefight. Modern issue boots are still made out of leather, and you can still get trenchfoot if you don't change your socks. Modern BDUs and equipment still give you rashes if they rub and you sweat alot.

-Modern soldiers are by NO means "more likely" to be "motorized". We have mech battalions and we have light battalions. Mech guys ride in Bradleys and 113s. Light guys (like rangers and airborne) WALK.



In other words, the modern Army would be able to defeat the 1943 Army, all other things being equal.

But two platoons, engaged against each other, without benefit of the rest of their respective forces, are going to be more evenly matched. Twenty guys versus twenty guys; it'll come down to which group is the better shot, is better at squad level manuvers, and has the best training and skill. Technology does not always mean victory. Never underestimate skill and motivation.

 

[Jim March]

What happens when we pit some sort of modern "special forces" (SEAL team, Green Berets, ???) versus whoever were the "elite foot soldiers" of WW2 (airborne?)?

Methinks the modern dudes will eat 'em alive and start munchin' on their buddies. 'Specially when the lights go out.

 

[Wildalaska]

My mom can beat up you mom

WildyaguysgotwaytoomuchtimeonyerhandsAlaska

 

[lilbiggun]

As nightcrawler said, all things being equal, I would still pick the 1943 guys as victors. We can talk about technology til we are blue in the face but.....

Imagine if the guys back in 43 had our technology...

I got out of the Marine Corps 3 years ago and trained with some outstanding men (3 combat ready units, 2 "noncombatant" units). we are trained decently, but If we had the mentality of the guys back in the old days (not just the WW's but korea and vietnam), we wouldnt have to rely on technology to win a war.

Anybody can pick up a rifle or NV, are they ready and trained to use it? I'm not talking specops either, just the typical soldier, Marine, sailor and airman. hmmmmm......

 

[lilbiggun]

wildalaska,
watch out my mom is a big woman

 

[lilbiggun]

lets talk about special forces, intel and technology. We've been fighting guys who live in caves for the last year+ and still cant get the sonsofbitches. I'm not saying that the folks from WW2 could better, but do you see a problem here?

 

[mons meg]

I still don't understand all this talk about the previous generation had a better "mentality" or mindset. Why? Because the fate of the world rested on their shoulders? And our Soldiers and Marines aren't motivated because...oh yeah, their enemy attacks civilians on purpose.

I think you have to take historical events out of it if you want this simulation to work. That being said, the modern platoon wins. Extra range on the M1? Whoopee. Can you see your target that well past 300m without a scope? Be honest.

 

[geekWithA.45]

We're doing this for fun?

...Because the fate of the world rested on their shoulders...

You mean it doesn't now?

As in, it doesn't really matter to the state of the world and the future whether Saddam stays in power, eventually with nukes?

It doesn't matter that whole generations are raised in ignorance, their only education being centered around a perverse interpretation of a religion, whose centerpiece is killing infidels and Americans?

It doesn't matter that women are treated as second or third rate citizens, kept barefoot, pregnant, and circumcised?

It doesn't matter that a whole region teeters on the brink of being a nightmare of a theocratic police state?


If that where true, I'd say lets stay home, and do BBQ and football, or the local equivalent, which is what most humans really want to be doing in the first place.

No, we're doing this, because it needs doing, and it's important to the future of us all.

The men and women of the "greatest generation" where heroes, and a reminder of our both our potential and our nobility.

We, however, DO MEASURE UP. We are not the group of craven weenies that we are sometimes made out to be.

American's have always been reluctant warriors, and always will be. It's our nature. We'd rather BBQ and toss the pigskin, and argue and bicker among ourselves, UNTIL it's time to roll.

Our enemies have always looked to our "soft" ways, our apparent disunity as evidence of weakness, and moral malaise.

And every time, we snap together, strap on our armor, and show them otherwise.

 

[Blain]

Say what you will, I don't think the weapons of today can stand up with classics like the M1 or BAR, esp at the longer ranges.

 

[444]

This question is somewhat interesting, but it is so open ended that there is no way to answer it. Are we talking about green recruits ? Actually this can't be the case because there will be NCOs and Officers that have some time in. Are we talking straight leg infantry, Rangers or what ? It seems to me that probably a lager percentage of GIs in today's Army have combat experience of some degree or another. We are involved in police actions and UN missions all over the world today which involve being shot at. Also today, we have an all volunteer military. Most of these guys want to be there, they are not draftees. Then there is the idea that men back then were really men and today we are a bunch of sissies. I don't buy that for a minute. Then there is the idea that everybody back then was a gun owner and shooter before entering the service. I dont' have any facts on this but I am sure that a very large percentage of those guys back then came from major cities and had never fired a gun in their lives. Another factor to consider is that many of the guys deploying right now have been in for at least a couple years. Most of the guys deploying in WWII had just finished basic and AIT (whatever they called it then) and often times the NCOs were just other guys that had the same amount of time as everybody else but showed leadership potential.
One thing about weapons that has always stuck in my craw. We all like to talk about how the M1 or the M14 or the BAR is a better long range weapon than the M16. But this assumes we can actually hit someone at "long range". Do yourself a favor, buy some kind of silhouette target and place it at 500 yards and shoot at it from a field position like prone. See how you do. Then imagine that an enemy soldier probably is going to blend in to the back ground better than a target. Also factor in the fact that you won't know ahead of time where the target is. Then factor in the possibility that he or his buddies are shooting back at you or will shoot back at you after you fire. Then keep in mind that the guy won't just stand still waiting for you to shoot; true you might catch a guy in the open totally unaware of your presence but probably not. Also factor in that odds are you will not be able to see his whole body, more than likely it will only be a head poking up from a foxhole or possibly a firing port in a bunker. Also keep in mind that in combat you won't know the exact range of the target, you will be estimating. Now most of us on this board are experienced shooters. I am sure that a lot of us would find a drill like this challenging. Now how about a raw recruit, or for that matter anybody whose only firearms experience was the little bit of time spent on a military range in training. Then get back to me about all this long range shooting.

 

[telewinz]

The WWII American Combat soldier had a great deal in common with the French soldier of the 19th century. They had a great deal of e'lan (highly motivated to the extreme) but they lost because they chose to ignore advances in technology. Our modern day soldiers (volunteers) are pretty much as motivated as our WW2 soldiers but are much better educated, trained, and have better weapons and carry more ammo (Much like the early WW2 German soldier when compared to his rivals). If warfare had not gotten more complex and deadly at the squad level (and other levels) then you might have a point. All the stats give a thumbs-up to the present day American soldier, its not even close!

 

[J Miller]

Say a platoon or group of well armed WWII US soldiers faced off against a platoon or group of modern US soldiers (both containing identical number of troops) and both groups being equiped with their respective weapons.

The modern soldiers would whip the WWII's soldiers in about 5 minutes...........................................For crying out loud the WWII soldiers are in their 80's now.
Geeze..........

 

[2nd Amendment]

I'd have to disagree across the board, telewinz. Our soldiers today are for the most part graduates of the most mediocre educational systems we have ever offered. They did not grow up shooting and have less over all weapons familiarity than their WWII predecessors. The average grunt has less training in some regards and the weapons are not necessarily better, merely different and with different specific capabilities.

We are a softer nation and we have softer troops. Examples of our recent *** kicking endeavors are examples of push button war against poorly trained and unmotivated forces. In a one on one situation I doubt either platoon would come out alive but I'd give the nod towards the WWII crew based on better marksmanship and longer range ability.

 

[Nightcrawler]

It seems to me that probably a lager percentage of GIs in today's Army have combat experience of some degree or another.

Not according to the Army and the word that's going around the service.

Many deployments today, yes. Most are peacekeeping or nationbuilding exercises. I have a buddy of mine that did guard duty in Kuwait; wasn't even issued ammunition. Word is from guys I know that have been in Bosnia and other places it was much the same thing. A few incidents here and there, but little of anything that could be described as "combat".

Wheras the US Army by, say, 1945 had a large number of combat veterans.

In fact, one of the problems I've heard discussed with modern military is the lack of combat experienced leadership. We have, for the most part, good training, but nothing simulates the real thing.

The USMC trains its troops to shoot out to 500 meters with the M16A2, from what I'm told. With irons. Tell THEM about how pointless long range shooting is. The idea that since long ranged shooting is less likely has been used as an excuse by the Army to reduce its marksmanship training drastically over the past few decades. If a soldier NEEDS to make a 400, 500 meter shot, and he can't, because he wasn't trained, then HIS TRAINING HAS LET HIM DOWN, and that could get him killed. There's no excuse for that. If hitting a man sized target at 500 meters is doable with the M16, then our troops should be training for it. They should be able to make the most of their weapons.

That said, an M1 Garand is going to have a lot more energy at 500 yards than an M16.

The fact is, the majority of engagements in, say, Vietnam, took place at less than 100 yards. Should we based on that start issuing our infantry FN P90s? Why not? They carry a lot of ammo (four mags and you've got 200 rounds!), they're light, handy, and easy to tote. They'll penetrate armor out to like 200 meters. They'd probably work well enough in a jungle environment. And besides, with all of the air support and artillery today, you don't see much in the way of large scale infantry battles. They just get on the radio and call in artillery.

Until, of course, the troops came to a, you know, field, and there was an enemy position visible four hundred and fifty, or five hundred meters away. The enemy could have a .50 caliber machine gun that could easily reach that far. But our troops with P90s couldn't fight back, because their equipment and training is based soley around the "all engagements are short range" doctrine. See the problem? Oh, artillery and air support aren't always going to be there.

See, whatever weapons our troops are issued, they should be trained to maximize the usage of them. The troops should be able to hit a man sized target with their M16s out to the edge of its effective range and beyond, because odds are, the poorly trained Terrorist rabble spraying his AK-47 sideways (ala that one Al Queda training video) isn't going to be able to hit squat at that range.