Mordern day vs ww2

Most defidently not ! Its better in many areas !

No, not that i am aware of. But that is intirely due to the fact that a global round was needed for UN forces, wich is why the superior 30.06 round was replaced aswell.

The 7.92x57mm Mauser and 30.06 Springfield are both extreemly similar in ballistics.

Regards, KBO.

 

how about we drop a modern military onto poland and see how long they can last without satillte support as well a other reinforcement to count on to withstand an german attack in 1943?

 

Depends upon the situation. Do they have modern tanks and air support? If so, they win.
If they lack modern armor and air support and the only difference is modern small arms and personal equipment, it might be a closer thing.
They would have more automatic weapons and machine guns, better hand grenades, much better communication...the ability to see and fight at night without illumination, better rations. Man portable missles that could take out any WW II era tank with ease.
All in all, even without the decisive advantages of modern air and armor, all the advantages would be on the side of the modern force.

 

That depends, is it a range fight ! If it turns out to be a close incouter, then the modern troops would the definitive advantage. But if the fight turns out to be on a stretchy plain, then the old army might actually have the biggest chance !

Modern regular armies rely on 5.56mm caliber weapons, and maby some 7.62mm Machineguns for suppressing fire, as all these are better for warfare in urban areas. Old armies relied on high power bolt-action-rifles/Semi-automatic-rifles and machine guns, especially the Germans who prefered range-fighting, and won almost every single time it accured.

Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and without aircover or modern AFV's, then the Modern regular infantry aint 'much' better.

However if were going to place modern Elite vs WW2 Elite, then the modern force has an absolute edge in everything !

KBO

 

What about these other advantages..all of which belong to the modern force?
An M-16 is adequate for 300m and below engagements though it can be deadly in skilled hands at 500m. There are few instances in modern combat when enagagements beyond that range were significant, much less decisive. This has been extensively studied and is the reason why few if any modern Military forces equips as standard issue it's soldiers with full rifle caliber weapons.
Personally I worked with both and preferred the 7.62 NATO chambered M-14 to the 5.56 mm M-16 however that was merely my personal preference and I'm a bit of a dinosaur. The M-14 on full auto was quite a handful and the additional weight of rifle plus ammo was burdensome. Once the jamming problems of the early M-16s was corrected it went on to serve quite well I must admit.

 

What are you going to need advanced communications for if you can't call for air support or ground support ? And what are you going to need night vision for if it isnt night ?

Exactly ! But in WW2 most encounters were between 700-1000m.

Yes, for making weapons more effective in Urban warfare.

The M14 and M16 are two completely different weapons ! The M14 is basically a hyped up M1 Garand with a slightly weaker round, while the M16 is an assault-rifle.

For the modern battlefield the M16 and its generation is the ultimate weapon.

 

Unless you are in the artic night comes every 12 hours or so. If you don't know why communications are valuable to a military force (and not just for calling in supporting fire) think about it awhile and it will come to you.

Do you have a source for that idea? I highly doubt that is the case..to say that it is counterintuitive is an understatement and it contradicts nearly every acount of WW II that I have read.

Have you worked with either one? Just curious about where your expertise in this area comes from understand ..not being hostile.
The M-14 also had full auto capabilty and was lighter than the M-1.
It was effective to 1000m+ in the right hands. More than enough range for most any use..it was used as a back up sniper rifle in Vietnam..the main weapon being a Remington or Winchester bolt action modified sporting rifle and the spotter carried the M-14..which could fill in, in a pinch quite nicely.

 

:roll: *Sigh* This is about what happens if you put a WW2 German infantry squad against Modern infantry squad, without any support.

By night the Modern force offcourse has the advantage, but i kinda visualized a daytime struggle here.

A source !!!! For christs sake, why do i always have to bring you a source, when you 'never' bring forward one yourself ?! The 'fact' that most WW2 engagements accured at 700-1000m is a very well known fact Grieg !

Yes i have Grieg, and they are two completely different weapons.

Have you ever seen a M1 inside ? An M1 could also shoot full-auto, it just needed a little modification. The M14 is a modification of the M1 Garand.

And already there we can see, that it is a totally different weapon than the M16.

Your forgetting it aint todays service-rifle, because all of its qualities are obsolete for Urban warfare. It used full caliber rifle rounds, and weighed more than an assault-rifle, it had enormous recoil in Autofire etc etc...

Todays regular infantry squad aint going to carry it, they are going to carry Assault-rifles and LMG's.

 

I hate to butt in again, but...
I always thought that the Germans conducted a study which showed that most infantry combats happened below those ranges, which was why they developed the Stg44...

I could be wrong...

Ok, a modern combat squad dropped into Poland - It would give a bloody good account of itself - the Germans would never be expecting any forces as well trained in manouvre, for a start... Plus the advantage of better support weaponry, especially better & more AT weaponry. Better communications is good (co-ordinating squads of infantry, calling back to HQ, etc). However, they would still get hte same level of support (artillery, air cover, etc) that the standard Polish troops got. Which is 'not enough'. They would be forced to retreat at the same pace as the Poles, or be outflanked. Plus, their supplies would run out eventually.

Basically, they would give a damn good account of themselves, but that is all.

 

As long as they conform to your preconceived ideas perhaps we cn envision a situation where the antiquated force would have an advantage...perhaps we can blind the modern troops in one eye and saw off one leg? What good would a military force be that had to call time out when the sun went down?

Not true. I have provided several sources in previous threads.
Since you have definite numbers 700-1000m you must have a source?
Most combat occurring at nearly a kilometer would be quite controversial to most people I debate military history with. Most anybody would ask for a source for such a revisionist idea.

Really? Were you in the US military?

Indeed I have. Most any semi-automatic weapon can be "modified" to fire full auto. The M-1 was not designed to be operate fully automatically.
Some differences between the two rifles; the gas recoil system is somewhat different, the detachable magazine as opposed to internal magazine, the flash suppressor, the stock and handguard , the trigger group and of course the cartridge. Though the M-14 was developed from the M-1 and shares many features and similarities it is a distinctly differnt rifle, without doubt.

Not arguing any of those points.

 

I did say they both have their strnghts and weaknesses didnt I ? At night the Modern force has the advantage, but not at daytime.

Grieg most books will tell you that most commonly WW2 engagements took place under 1000m, others will tell you that 'most' took place 'at' 700m and others at 1000m. So saying 700-1000m isnt being unrealistic at all.

No, not the U.S. military, but the Danish. Denmark had M1's too you know !

=Basically a hyped up M1.

KBO

 

Ah, thats why nobody bothered to develope submachineguns for regular use... Wait, they did! Just about all major players did that!

Are you sure you are not referring at tank vs tank -engagements with that range?
Average grunt wont hit a stationary man at those ranges with full calibre bolt action rifle.

 

Notmi SMG's were made specifcally for close-combat/city-warfare, So thats why every major players manufactured them.

At 700m ? The engagement might start at 700m, but it could draw closer or further away depending on the situation.

He might not hit the first time, but he will hit ! The K98k was a very accurate rifle at up to 1000m+ ! Even the German Semi-automatic G43 was reported by the British of being able to hit a standing man (Sized target) consistantly at 650y.

Even with an M16, if your lying down, you can consistantly hit a human-sized stationary target at 400m.

KBO

 

You keep getting closer and closer..down from 700-1000m to 650m or 400mm...a couple hundreds meters closer and you will be in the range where the majority of combat actually took place..well inside 300 m.

I want to see the shooter than can hit man sized targets at 1000m without a scope. It is difficult from 500m and only attempted from the prone position by serious shooters. I qualified as Expert with the M-14 as well as the M-16. The M-16 was only fired at 200m and 300m while the M-14 was fired at 200m, 300m and 500m. All with iron peep sights. beyond 500m scopes are required for accurate engagement.
later I moved to machine guns..both the M-60 and M-2 and of course, using area engagement as opposed to point engagement one can deliver accurate area fire at 1000m and beyond.
Different thing entirely.

Did the Danish military use M-1s and M-14s also and what time frame would that be? For comparison purposes, I was in the USMC from 1970 to '74.

 

I dont get closer ! Im just pointing out that firing against an upright man at 700m isnt impossible at all.

First of all in an incounter bolt-action rifles isnt all thats going to be firing, fullcaliber Machineguns are also going to be firing.

For accurate engagements, no, unless your lying down then it can be surprisingly accurate beyond 500m(Although without scope, it wont be a 'one shot-onekill scenario' ) . Also let me remind bolt action rifles are more accurate than Semi-automatic rifles.

Hahaha ! :lol: I think you missunderstood me, i didnt serve at the time where the M1 was a service rifle in Denmark, but alot of them are still in Denmark today. I fired them both(M1 and M14), and even once owned an M1 myself.

KBO

 

And quite soon they found out that most engagements happen at effective smg ranges.

First you need to have that 700-1000m clear and obstacle-free view to have such an engagement. I believe there weren't that many battlefields where these "requirements" were fulfilled daily.

I was talking about how accurate average grunt is, not how accurate gun is. Besides, its very, very different thing to shoot at comfortable shooting range than in the heat of a battle when you are tired, adrenalinerushed and in a hurry.

 

No, they found out that most battles in the Future are going to take place in city's not on wide strethced fields, as in Russia.

The SMG was developed for Urban warfare, where engagements usually takes place under 300m.

It wasnt uncommon on the Esatern battlefield, or the African battlefield.

The average grunt trained alot with his rifle, and knew it was effective at up to 1000m+. German training during WW2 for the average Wehrmacht grunt, envolved alot of target practice with his K98k, and if he was good he would be assigned to a 'Sniper/Sharpshooter's-school'.

According to the K98K's manual, it has an effective range of 800m+ with iron-sights. With Scope it is greatly extended !

No argueing with that, however theres a difference between accurate fire, effective fire !

KBO

 

The need for SMG was already found during WW1 trench warfare. There were many experimentals, such as modified automatic pistols which were full-auto capable. Also Pedersen device for Springfield M1903. Therefore SMG was definitely not developed for Urban warfare. Besides, how come russians, which fought mainly on wide stretched fields, produced over 6 million SMG's during WW2 if they weren't suitable at their on-going campain?

I was quite sure you would take these as an example (as they were just about only battlefields were this kind of ranges werent uncommon). But still, eastern europe is not flat and forest-free. And north africa isn't flat either.
This lefts us with western europe, eastern europe, northern europe and pacific out of those goodview battlefields

Gun might be effective up to 1000m+ but where you find a man who is effective at those ranges? Maybe one man from a battalion could do that after extensive training.
This means that althought gun is effective to great ranges, users couldn't use it effectively up to those ranges.

 

The SMG was developed during WW1, yes for clearing out trenches (The U.S. used their trench-broom)! As WW2 began the development of the submachine gun went into World War II without much change, though the environment in which fighting began to take place did change. Warfare over vast tracts of open farmland migrated into urban areas. The submachine gun was found to be very useful in this environment, and therefore was mass-produced. Hadnt it been for the more and more Urban settings, then the SMG wouldnt have been made in the scale it was.

Well we havent even decided what the setting for the encounter should be yet, so this is actually irrelevant. If it is a wide peace of flat farmland then Modern weapons wont have an advantage, but if its 'close in' Urban or forrest fighthing then the Modern weapons will prove decisive.

I agree that with Iron sights at 1000m+ there wouldnt be 'anyone' who would be accurate with a rifle, but at 700m there will be 'some'. And even if your not accurate with your rifle, just the fact that there is 10 of you firing rifles at the same target, increases the chance of a hit.

MG's dont rely much on accuracy, rather on sending a wall of led your way, wich is why they have such a long effective range. And MG's would also play a big part in an engagement !

KBO

 

When I was in the army we were taught that firing a rifle for no reason would bring morter fire and other painful things our way. Shooting at 700m would show your postion away for know reason. If I had night vision I would hide during the day. I could do alot more damage to the ww2 guys at night then I could do during tha day and perserve my own forces. Why be fair.