Present USA vs. Greatest Generation USA in War: Who wins?

[rednblacklumberjack]

I came across this thought experiment on the Hardcore History podcast: Could the present United States beat your grandparents' United States? They sacrificed thousands, saw the Dustbowl, the Great Depression, WW1 and 2.

I know that to some extent the technological disparity might skew things, and the location of this confrontation is pretty important, but I feel this invites some interesting tension: for micro-example, could your drones and snipers outdo their numbers and, perhaps, some intangible quality related to this profoundly different historical circumstances (values of thrift and duty being preferred to whatever we have today)?

I know there's a playful set of assumptions you'd have to embrace here, but I thought it'd be a fruitful to detect what values and perspectives our societies may select in the near future, more frontier-inspired, "hard-nosed" values?

[lzzrdgrrl]

I think kids these days are bigger and stronger, but they are not as smart as they think they are. Grampa Dogface will win it on concentration and strategic thinking. And the toys you can figure out if you concentrate on how they work rather than why......

Don't let the big sissy get his hands on you 'cause he'll peel you like a banana. Just keep in mind that he's not so good acting on initiative and his analytics are rather weak. And his command is like his over-protective parents, they'll pull his squad out when they get into a lil' bit of trouble......

Mama Patton out........

[Ibrahim]

These modern kids aren't holding up very well. I think its probably a result of ambient cultural factors, but they are:

1) failing, or perceived to be failing, in most active wars
2) suffering from endemic PTSD, with shocking numbers of suicide attempts and total incapacity to reintegrate in civilian life
3) receive support and equipment during their military deployment that would sound like Shangrila to a US soldier in the Bulge or Bastogne. E.g. Drones. Some of them even have A/C. Many get to use actual toilets on a regular basis.

So I'd have to say WW2-era wins handily. They walked through the Nazis and Imperial Japan (arguably more dangerous opponents than today) under comparatively shit conditions, came home and built/benefited from the postwar boom, and sent their kids to college. Exceptions of course, but that's the narrative.


Unless you meant on a nuts-and-bolts level, in which case I suppose modern equipment triumphs over old stuff. But that's not how I understood the question.

[I am ST]

[lzzrdgrrl]

I'm not gonna turn this into some different argument. This is the ARTS board and I'm looking at the game theory aspect.......

The old-skool guys are defo behind in communication and field technology. They are DEFO behind when it comes to sheer firepower. And when it comes to controlling the airspace, they are absolutely wiped. Know what they look like? They profile in many ways to what we are fighting in Afghanistan. And those operatives are disultory, disorganised and fragmented and they are still in the field. Imagine what they would've done if they were better organised, disciplined and with their head in the game......

Two things Grampa Dogface has in his court. HE can suffer casualty and will slog through discouragement and demoralisation (the 'doughy' aspect). One thing that can be used against modern troops is the 'everybody goes home' mentality, especially with the elite forces. Take some casualties to get casualties and make sure that there are no dead or wounded to send back home. That's right, burn the dead and shoot the prisoners. Shoot the women soldiers, absolutely. This is not to play, an elite tactical force can negate an entire battalion. Break their team spirit at all costs and you've got a chance. Modern troops are excessively attached to moral support from the 'home front', from their mommies and daddies, their husbands, wives and babies. Breaking those communication links even if you can't break the tactical ones, will make everybody breathe defeat and demoralisation. Moderns take everything very symbolically, turn those symbols on their heads and maybe they'll start to roll downhill. Oh..... and will they fight without air support? Anytime you can get them into that situation, try it, even if you are in bad position and are undermanned........

Anyway you look at it, it's a long shot. I certainly wouldn't wanna fight this man's army the modern version, and certainly not the special forces. They could turn this deal into an early rout and by then, there is just no way you can run fast enough.......

[Ibrahim]

Couple of people mentioned physical size. I don't see why this matters, unless we are talking about giving them Viking equipment. I'll still usually bet on a Gurkha.


Also the talk about "massed" infantry tactics doesn't wash. We've all seen videos of troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. They are in rough lines, spaced a few meters apart, firing from cover. They advance in alternation, one man firing and the other advancing to the next piece of cover. They set up support weapons to provide a firebase and suppress the enemy, and attack his position. This is what WW2 soldiers did, and its basically the same infantry tactics that were developed towards the end of WW1.

The last example of massed infantry assaults are the Chinese in Korea, or some of the Viet Cong assaults in Vietnam. They learned their lesson, I don't think anyone is planning them today.

[Colonel Sun]

Apples and oranges.

War is not a game, rather a matter or life and death.

[Ibrahim]

[Ibrahim]

[lzzrdgrrl]

Game theory doesn't have the same geopolitical restrictions as RL. If a hypothetical modern army goes into this game like the way the military is presently involved in Afghanistan and foodles around, the opposition stands a chance. If they decide to bore right in there and take you out, you're probably toast.......

[Ibrahim]

[Tinker]

[Tinker]

As always, it remains true that 'losing' in Afghanistan has to do with our very strict rules of engagement. In a Total War scenario we'd roll over Afghanistan without much trouble.

[Hans Bulvai]

[Tinker]

[cincinnatus]

[Demon of Undoing]

[Ibrahim]

[Demon of Undoing]

[Ibrahim]

[cincinnatus]

Ibrahim,
Is your basic point that the current American military sucks/are pussies? Or that the mythology of American supermen is just that, a myth? Other than just wanting to insult (the former), or debate the obvious (latter), I'm not sure what you want. If the former, good day Troll. If the later, no shit sherlock.

For the specifics of this "game", I'll add:

As Col Sun mentioned, apples and oranges fallacy argument. Why?

1. Things like PTSD weren't even on the radar for the mental health profession before 'Nam. Kind of hard to know exactly how many fighting men around the globe in WWII would be diagnosed today (and yes, other than Guadalcanal, the Red Army had the most brutal experiences of WWII).

2. Certainly less journalism coverage and reach in 1945 and 2011, no "social media" to spread stories, real or imagined/wished of the dysfunctional U.S. soldier.

3. All the amenities the current force enjoys? Mainly at big airbases, and HQ. Just like in WWII. FOBs and COPs aren't comparable 'cause the WWII troops, especially in the European theater, weren't sitting in a defended position for "presence" to support stability ops. They were flanking, looking for openings to enter Germany-proper.

4. Stop complaining about the use of firepower...especially air-to-ground...everyone then and now use their asymmetric advantages. Ours is firepower, theirs is stealth that comes from blending in with the population.

[Ibrahim]

[cincinnatus]

Ibrahim,
I guess we're just on different wavelengths to a degree. I basically think the specific question (WWII American soldier vice 2011) has too many differences in the dependent variables/circumstances to accurately compare, or in the parlance of this thread, to game.

One specific point of disagreement we have is the firepower (esp. airpower) versus the stealth of not being uniformed soldiers and "blending in" with the local population: reason it's so much a disagreement on my part is it's clearly written in the Laws of Armed Combat/Geneva Conventions the rules about lawful and unlawful combatants that to be in the lawful realm, you have to be clearly distinguishable by a recognized military uniform. It's one of the reasons being a spy behind enemy lines can be very bad if you're caught...you're an unlawful combatant and have surrendered the protections of the Geneva Conventions. For the air-to-ground stuff, they (we) have to follow rules in the LOAC/GC about proportionality, military necessity, etc. For that reason, I don't think it's realistic to use as an example of a lack of mental toughness. If the WWII grunts had accurate airpower available in killboxes waiting for taskings from tactical air controllers assigned to ground maneuver units, they damn sure would have used them rather than assaulting heavily defended positions just to prove how bad-ass they were.

To your ending conclusion of soldiers today, and people in general being less mentally tough, I'd probably agree to that. Especially in the industrialized world, the disparity between civilian life and the firezone of an ambush in the Korengal valley is immense. Maybe/probably the kids just coming out of the Depression of the '30s were used to more deprivations compared to now. But that could be argued for all of human history...probably the baddest mofos in history were on both sides of the Hot Gates at Thermopylae (people always point to the 300 Spartans, but the lightly armored Persians and subjugate levies showed brass balls to go at the ancient equivalent of a tank with a wicker shield).

[Ibrahim]