It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Current US Military Would Lose WWll As Well As Most Wars From The Past

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Yes. I said it. Strong words. But I believe it.
Now before you call me a moron hear me out.
The current US military boasts many incredible weapons, highly trained personnel, and technologies we can only guess at. I say guess at because I believe that for every one thing we know about there are several things we don't. A formidable force for certain.

Now let's look back to fairly modern history. WWll. The US and her allies won the war in both the Atlantic & Pacific theaters. It was a hard fought, bloody war which was won by determination, courage, intelligence, and outstanding leadership.

OK, you say, So What? We'd kick Hitler & Tojo's butts in half the time. They wouldn't stand a chance.

I need to qualify something here. My statement is based on all things being equal. By that I mean that the current US military forces from top to bottom would replace the forces top to bottom fighting then. And all technologies would be the same as what existed then.

WWll. There were no satellites. There was no radar or sonar for most of the war. There were no smart weapons. No Internet. In WWll the forces basically had to guess what their opposition was doing, where they were, where they were going. It was much like chess. Often times the smarter commander won.

Then - A reconnaissance plane was high technology. It was an aircraft sent aloft to try - underline TRY - to locate the enemies position. Remember the aircraft had no radar.

Now - Click a satellite image and you can tell everything you want to know about the enemy with pinpoint accuracy. Add infra-red and thermals and you can even tell how many individuals even if they are hiding behind objects.

Then - Naval vessels had watch towers manned by personnel with binoculars. That was how they located enemy vessels. Unless a submarine was at periscope depth and an eagle eye scout managed to see the tiny wake created by a periscope, that submarine was not known to be there. The whereabouts of entire formations of enemy warships would go unknown for days at a time.

Today - Between radars, sonars, satellite imagery, there isn't so much as a canoe that can't be spotted at any time. With the advanced sonar systems of today, we not only can tell you how many submarines there are, but where they are, and analyzing their screw signatures exactly what type of submarine.

Then - Scouts leaving minute clues of what the enemy is doing for the men following up the rear. If they were lucky they had a two way radio, but that was not always the case. Battles being fought by men vs men, sometimes in hand to hand combat. Every shot had to count.

Now - Personnel have electronic gadgets everywhere, in some cases including mounted to their helmets to pinpoint the enemy, to get up to the second information of what they are doing, and their positions.

Then - A dogfight was a battle of reflexes and nerves. The better pilot won. Obviously the type of aircraft made a difference, but there were no guidance systems. A Bombing raid had bombers in the air with a bombadier looking through a scope to try and drop the payload on a target. Cloud cover would basically make them drop bombs blindly.

Today - Computers and radar will lock on target.

I am in NO WAY bashing todays military. I am in NO WAY saying they are soft. I know they are tough. I know they are dedicated. I know they are formidable. I am pro military. I am a vet.
I am simply saying that todays forces are too reliant on technology. If the power went out I'm not so sure that the majority of personnel would be able to win against yesterdays personnel.

I hope to hear from others on this subject, but PLEASE do not make it a Military bashing platform. Argue the point I'm trying to make here whether it be pro or con.




posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I must respectfully disagree with your premis here. I understand it and it has merit, but some of what you said in inaccurate.


Originally posted by withopeneyes
Yes. I said it. Strong words. But I believe it.
Now before you call me a moron hear me out.
The current US military boasts many incredible weapons, highly trained personnel, and technologies we can only guess at. I say guess at because I believe that for every one thing we know about there are several things we don't. A formidable force for certain.

Now let's look back to fairly modern history. WWll. The US and her allies won the war in both the Atlantic & Pacific theaters. It was a hard fought, bloody war which was won by determination, courage, intelligence, and outstanding leadership.


Replacing the forces top to bottom would entail the forces to learn and develop these techniques just as they were learned on the battklefield then. most of the troops were acquired via the draft, thus were not career soldiers so battlefield learning was a must.



WWll. There were no satellites. There was no radar or sonar for most of the war. There were no smart weapons. No Internet. In WWll the forces basically had to guess what their opposition was doing, where they were, where they were going. It was much like chess. Often times the smarter commander won.

Then - A reconnaissance plane was high technology. It was an aircraft sent aloft to try - underline TRY - to locate the enemies position. Remember the aircraft had no radar.


Radar was an available technology during WWII.
Check out this source here, complete with photos of a radar array mounted on the plane's nose



Then - Naval vessels had watch towers manned by personnel with binoculars. That was how they located enemy vessels. Unless a submarine was at periscope depth and an eagle eye scout managed to see the tiny wake created by a periscope, that submarine was not known to be there. The whereabouts of entire formations of enemy warships would go unknown for days at a time.


Sonar was also an available technology during WWII.
You can see the source here



Then - Scouts leaving minute clues of what the enemy is doing for the men following up the rear. If they were lucky they had a two way radio, but that was not always the case. Battles being fought by men vs men, sometimes in hand to hand combat. Every shot had to count.


Again this was a tactic learned on the battlefield, by men who months earlier were mopping the floors at a local hardware store or sitting on a milking stool at 5 AM. These skills would be learned rather quickly by the soldiers of today.



Then - A dogfight was a battle of reflexes and nerves. The better pilot won. Obviously the type of aircraft made a difference, but there were no guidance systems. A Bombing raid had bombers in the air with a bombadier looking through a scope to try and drop the payload on a target. Cloud cover would basically make them drop bombs blindly.


This is where I think your point becomes more valid. I know a number of pilots and the tech today is second to none. But they do learn beginning with single engine Cesna's just the same as the pilots back then....I would call this a push with the tiebreaker going to the forces of then.


I am in NO WAY bashing todays military. I am in NO WAY saying they are soft. I know they are tough. I know they are dedicated. I know they are formidable. I am pro military. I am a vet.
I am simply saying that todays forces are too reliant on technology. If the power went out I'm not so sure that the majority of personnel would be able to win against yesterdays personnel.


I wouldnt let you go ahead and bash the military here haha. The technology argument is a strong one and has its points, especially in flight, but I would have faith that the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines of today would adapt to the necessary elements of yesteryear's battlefield and prevail. But good thing this is simply a hypothetical and we will never have to find out.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Your argument makes no sense. If the soldiers of today were using WW2 technology, then would they be trained on that technology and not reliant on todays whiz bang stuff. Right? You said all things being equal but left out the most important part IMO.
edit on 26-1-2011 by type0civ because: punctuation



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
What he probably means is today america fights wars, and the oppositin does not bother turning up, there brains would be scrambled. This was not the case in ww2, although japs where investigating microwaves back then, it was only the start.

Who knows the answer, we know american males today are alot softer than they may of been in past, and lack the resolve maybe of what males of past where, but you can never say for sure.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Kudos to the posters coming back at me. I love it!
First, yes radar and sonar were available, and in my opening post I did state that it was not for most of the war. Perhaps I should have said it was not widely used for most of the war. The links you sent were awesome by the way.

As far as todays personnel being trained as their predecessors were, they would be of course. Apples to Apples. The mindset is different though. It just is. And that goes for every single segment of the US populace from that generation to this generation. The ideals are different as is the work ethic. It just is. I'm going to star both of you. Nice work!



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


The premis is good and has merit, I've seen it many times brought up in military classes in college and in other places, and it is right, we may never know, but the details of the premis are a little off.

What you said makes a stronger argument, the toughness, grit and resolve of the past are something that is missing in the 21st century and replaced by technology.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I think you miss a huge point.

If the techs are roughly equal, it doesn't matter much how good the individual soldier is. What matters is how many and how much.

The average German soldier in WWII was better trained, tougher, and more skilled than any single opponent he faced. As long as the odds weren't more than 10-1 and he was in good supply with at least contested airspace above, he could beat anyone.

What defeated Germany was being out-produced and out-supplied. When you're out of gas and ammo, it doesn't matter how good you are: as a soldier you're ineffective. Pretty much the same with Japan, but that victory was aided by outmoded military thinking on the part of the Japanese.

Today's pilots are tougher and better than those of old, and I hugely respect the elder pilots. But today's pilots pull far more g's than ever before, and train regularly in centrifuges. In air combat, he who can pull the most g's for the longest time has a big edge.
edit on 26-1-2011 by apacheman because: sp



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
I think you miss a huge point.

What defeated Germany was being out-produced and out-supplied. When you're out of gas and ammo, it doesn't matter how good you are: as a soldier you're ineffective. Pretty much the same with Japan, but that victory was aided by outmoded military thinking on the part of the Japanese.


It also should be pointed out that Germany defeated itself by trying to wage a two front war (more when you take into account the North African and Italy once the allies hit the belly of the beast).

The two fronts would not have been a problem, except it was waged against the US/UK on the west and the Russians on the east. If they had not overcommitted to both fronts, it would have been an easier battle.

Oh and they should not have broken their treaty with the Russians, and left Poland, then the Russians would not have entered the war so early.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


War is a callous burnishing tool of the soul.

You get tough, acquire grit, and gain resolve quickly, or you die, sometimes quick and sometimes slow, but you change or you die. Beem there, seen that.

People in the past might have been more ruthless, but they were just people, same as you guys, no tougher than life demanded of them for their station. Every generation has members who rise to the challenges of war. What matters most is why you fight, not necessarily how good you are at it.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The problem is that nobody "wins" a war...

BUT if I could play along-

Then: atomic bomb just developed, only a few to use, taboo but we did it.

Now: 1,000's of nukes on hand, we would have nuked much sooner to end it.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
Now: 1,000's of nukes on hand, we would have nuked much sooner to end it.


I disagree. If it was taboo in 1945, when the US was the only power that had that tech, how taboo woud it be now when there would be many other countries with their fingers quivering over the launch button with a chance to strike back at the big bad US.

I feel it is more likely that another nation will use their nuke capability before the US does again, even if MAD is seems to have vanished in the past 20 years.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
It's not as if the US military of WWII were the height of military training.

When the Germans fired, the British ducked
When the British fired, the Germans ducked
When the Americans fired, EVERYONE ducked.

Variations of this are found all across Europe. American soldiers had a terrible rap for being untrained and gun ho

Furthermore, as with now, the American strong point was always man power and technology. Nothings changed.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
That would be like saying the WW II military could not win the Revolutionary War because they weren't willing to use their bayonets as readily.

Unit for unit, today's military has many times the firepower and ability to perform military operations.

I could go on and on, but I think that would be pointless.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by withopeneyes
 


The "current" US military in 1941 couldn't win the war either....

Don't underestimate what's possible should it become necessary.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Since WWII They have not been allowed to fight to win.
And we were even held back on that one.
We had to allow Russia to catch up so they could meet in Berlin.

Why exactly are we in Iraq and Afganistan?
War on Terror?'
Why does it look so much like a war of terror?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
today's military training is based on past experiences. that plus todays technology like stealth fighters, satellite guided missiles and bunker buster (in case of Vietnamese caves) and jet fighters @ match speed no way for past military to beat todays.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by metalpr
 


I think you totally missed the point, go back and read the OP again.

Technology of today was addressed . It would not be available in the past so it is discounted.

It was more of a thread about the character of today's man.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Ok, I agree that the US is getting their asses handed to them by insurgents but it’s all due to politics and dumb Rules Of Engagement. Also, the media, I’m all for freedom of the press but they make our Soldiers feel like they are constantly under a microscope.

Let our Soldiers fight with the freedom to make decisions instead of having to call everything in things would be a lot different.

Remember when the Army was let loose in Fallujah? Totally kicked ass!!!! I believe that was the first time that the Army had gotten that green light since Vietnam.

I believe in our soldiers but just like anybody else in handcuffs, they become ineffective.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I believe the OP has a point but it isn't based on technology or the forces themselves.

It's THE MODERN AGE OF MEDIA

We would lose because we would our leaders would quit. The general public lacks the will or fortitude to support a war if they have to witness the atrocities daily that accompany conflict. Innocent people die and that just isn't acceptable to most people over time regardless of the original motive for war.

Thanks for posting the topic.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by withopeneyes
 


You can't even compare the United States Military of 60 years ago to todays Military. Battles then were much more like a chess match that relied heavily by overwhelming the enemy with shear numbers. Todays battles are much more precise and calculated and overwhelm the enemy by speed using a much smaller amount of troops. If there were another WWII with todays weapons and todays soldiers the battles wouldn't be nearly as personal as it was back in the day, many soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan rarely ever see the enemy face to face like they did in WWII, bayonets were standard issue for every soldier in WWII and they were used often, now they are a novelty item and serve very little purpose on todays battlefield with exception to close quarter battles like raiding house to house. Times have changed, technology has changed and the battlefield has changed so comparing then and now is like comparing apples to oranges.

If you want to compare things then compare US vs. China and their close ally Russia because it is inevitable that this will be the next war and when this happens im sad to say the US is in for a whooping. China's Military is just about on par with US Military as far as technology goes only they outnumber our soldiers 10 to 1 and add Russia's might along with the Chinese overwhelming numbers and the US will have its first war that they will need to turn to the rest of there allies for support. US will be nearly in the same position as France in WWII if war was to break out. Sure the US Military will put up an epic fight but eventually will get overtaken by numbers in the end and then the real battle will start when the enemy hits the mainland and that is the war that will be unwinable for China and Russia because then we armed citizens outnumber China and Russia's ground forces.

But if the Anti-Gun nuts out there have it there way when and if this does happen whatever is left of America's population that cannot defend for themselves will be thrown into refugee camps until we throw away whatever freedoms that we once had and took for granted and live out our days under the rule of a foreign communist governemnt on our soil that our Fathers and Grandfathers and Great Grandfathers gave there lives and their blood to protect. Anti-Guns is Anti-American.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join