quote:

Originally posted by TX35:
Let's change it up a bit. Let's even it out with giving both squads WWII weapons. No satellite communications, no night vision etc...
Me, I'll pick the WWII vets hands down!!!!

Why? All of WWII technique has been taught and absorbed by future generations. Which WWII vets? If you're talking european, then none of them will have ever experience guerilla warfare. That gives us experiences from Korea, Vietnam and current conflicts in multiple types of warfare that we are trained for today.

If you are talking about a mindset, there were just as many scared newbies back then, and there are just as many experienced and well trained troops now.

Back then, officers led everything and the troops followed. NCO's today have so much more battlefield control, leadership and education.

You're comparing apples to oranges, and the oranges may be a little more succulent, so now you're saying, "well, what if they were both apples."

*They're very different.
*One has experience, the other has a different experience in addition to be educated by the experience of the first group.
*The had a draft back then, some people in the squad might not have the grits of the guys today that ALL volunteered.
*They were in great shape back then, we have learned from them and are in great shape now, plus a hint more.

Today's troops ALL volunteered, so they probably have slightly more heart than those that might have been drafted.
We have learned from the WWII training through today, and are in slightly better shape.
We have much more knowledge than them in how to conduct several types of warfare, and there is stronger small unit leadership.

So, today's troops seem to me to be better mentally, physically, and they seem to have more heart...

Why would the WWII troops do better?

The people/troops back then were entirely of a different breed & mindset. They grew up in the depression, had to be tough or die. They all grew up hunting & shooting, & most of that was for food not fun. There were 14, 15, & 16 year old kids attempting to join up, with some actually making it in. The one thing those WWII troops had that they do not have today, sadly saying so, is an entire Nation 100% behind them. The entire family had to ration to help the troops. What do we have now, our own damn Senators & Congressman pointing fingers accusingly at our troops!!!

I don't know if I posted this before but it's just like professional sports... Babe Ruth wouldn't have even made it to the major leagues if he was playing today... But for their time they were THE BEST soldiers on the Planet!!

The WWII squad would lose. The psychological edge that the modern squad would have, would be huge. M4's plus the M249s would give the modern squad a huge psychological edge.

The one major theme that the Germans found when field testing the STG42 in late '42 / early '43 on the Eastern Front, is that this semi / full fire weapon gave the infantryman wielding it, CONFIDENCE. That is a big edge in combat that cannot be ignored.

The modern squad's firepower sounds alone would psychologically negatively impact the performance of the WWII squad alone.

quote:

Originally posted by TX35:
Me, I'll pick the WWII vets hands down!!!!

Why?

The training alone give the modern squad the edge in my opinion. I'd say fighting with the same weapons they'd probably have an edge because the modern military is just much better trained and much better prepared to fight. We've learned a lot about preparing soldiers for combat since WW-II.

I'm not knocking our WW-II military. They beat two of the most powerful militaries ever. I have complete respect for them (and anybody else who's EVER fought anybody, actually). I think the Babe Ruth analogy is right on. They were the best military of their time. It's impossible to compare them to a modern squad, though. A lot of the WW-II soldiers would be disqualified at MEPS today.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: PepeLep,

I've been in 7 years as an Infantryman, and I have 3 tours under my belt. My opinion is this:in 2002, the modern guys. Now, WW2 vets hands down. And if you make the older guys more like a good vietnam vet squad even more so, and they would probably even beat the 2002 group.

The reason? Today's Army has lost alot of the lessons learned from earlier wars. Now we are dependent on technology. There are ALOT of places this stuff doesn't work. And the gear issued now is CRAP. Light infantry tactics are a lost art. Not to mention that we carry so much crap now that they could run circles around us. They were trained to shoot better. Their weapons were more effective at shooting through cover.

Just my .02

They don't call them the greatest generation for nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by PepeLep:
They beat the highly experienced Germans who met them. Most of the Germans had more days in combat when the Allies invaded than the Allies would have in 1945.

And a few extremely unlucky Koreans, like this fellow:

Kyoungjong Yang, conscripted by the Japanese and fought at the Nomonhan Incident/Battle of Khalkhin Gol. He was captured and conscripted by the Soviets. He was then later captured by the Germans in 1943 and then by the Americans at Utah beach. He settled in Illinois after the war, becoming a citizen.

I pose a better question to get everyone riled up about. Only one condition, unlimited supplies.

quote:

Originally posted by BigRed82:

quote:

WWII boys wouldn't make it out of the gate.

+1. Agreed.

Night Vision alone would spell absolute one sided victory for the current squad. Better technology, better training, better equipment, more firepower, and the list could keep on going. Our WWII soldiers were bad MFs because of what they did with what they had, but they wouldn't be able to beat the US Army of today.

Today's soldiers and yesterday's soldiers - Heroes just the same.

The first use of night vision was during WW2 in the Pacific, in Okinawa if I'm correct. The Japanese suffered heavy losses during night fighting and did not understand why until the war was over.