Tall soldiers better for WW2 and modern rifle infantry?

Sometimes when I think about the selection of men for war, it reminds me of a farmer choosing the biggest livestock for the slaughter..

 

yes, you do have a point here.never have thought like that way.

how about the plane load though? less wieght you have in the plane the faster the plane can get to it's destination and get out of the havic.
my views only.


the best thing in this situation would be medium size men.

 

Yes actually I'm 5ft 8-9in (174cm) but it's when you have to look up when speaking to your mates wife, you realise you're being left behind in the genetics race.

~Steve

 

If he was anything of a mate...He'd get another wife...

 

this thing about Wiki... it is a bit like the human body the more you work on it the better and fitter it will be, if you see an error fix it by citation. I know people with Phds in science subjects that believe sincerely that sites like Wiki and other free exchange sites will in future massively benefit society and knowledge,- after all to a limited extent that's what we are doing here.

Regarding Bantams;

Colonial forces raised in the U.K. such as the East India Company and the later (British) Indian Army recruited smaller men as the Home forces had first pick. Hence the 19th Royal Hussars (Queen Alexandra's own) (an East India rgt) were known as "the Dumpies" as no one over 5ft 4in could be recuited into the regiment. It became the 15th/19th The King's Royal Hussars after WW1.

That's a bit cruel

Steve

 

Wiki, I dont have a problem with to be honest. I dont use it all that often. As you say its what we make of it, and how we can better it.

Personally I dont have the time. I have this forum, a few others I frequent and cant be bothered getting involved with Wiki. Even to correct if need be.

Only so much time in life to play.

 

exactly it was more a general comment, as there is alot of criticism out there.

 

Hiedi,

You may find this interesting:

(from Gerard M. Devlin's Paratrooper!, p. 85)

Cheers

BW

 

When I went to STA School in the hand book on Range Estimation there was a caption on the page explaining the Mil Dot reticle:

"Caution: Short People Are Closer Than They Appear"

 

Don't know about WW2 but in WW1 my Grandfather was in a 'Bantam Battalion'. They'd take really short guys, 5 foot etc. In the trenches one day they were next to a Guards Regt whose soldiers were all six foot plus.

'They all wished they was Bantams when that artillary started up' he always said!!

 

I can imagine that for the average soldier's duties, being tall is an advantage; after all, there's alot to war than actual fighting, such as dragging equipment, carrying equipment, walking, climbing and so on and on.

However, there are many situations where being short is an advantage. For tank crews, for instance. But more related to infantry, I can imagine that having a low profile is advantageous in certain combat situations. To name a historical example, there's the Finnish sniper ace Simo Häyhä that killed some ~500 Russians during the Winter War.

 

Ball turret gunners had to be really small in the Airforce. Tall guys couldn't even fit in

 

razin wrote:

I am unaware of any height restrictions for paratroops and know that I served with a number of airborne guys that were shorter than 5' 7". We also had several females much shorter than that in my airborne class, none graduated but they did start the course.

Biak wrote:

.
I'd question this last statement, long legs generally make running and humps easier because of the length of the stride. Shorter people usually had to run a lot harder than taller people to achieve the same run time. As far as the "further" comment you may have a point, on a hump while the taller guys in front are stepping it out the short guys in the back had to run most of the way.

dgmitchell wrote:

Astute observation sir. I don't know about the physics but I've noticed heavier people do fall faster than lighter people, under canopy. Falling faster means you hit harder and thus have a greater chance of injury on landing. So in that aspect (Taller people also tend to be heavier) height could be considered a disadvantage.

 

There's doubtlessly a strong non-military reason - many of those units are prestige units, that are expected to represent the best of aryan ubermensch/british pride/etc, and you don't want a rabble of shorties to appear on parade. Even subconsciously, war photographers might seek out groups of strong looking, handsome men, instead of dumpy short normal people.

 

You make a point there. Thi was not only a fact during WWII but way before: Napoleon used the tallest recruits for his Imperial Guard and Kaiser Franz Joseph hired Croatians because they were the tallest of his empire. The bear skin hats of British guards are used to give the impression that those who wear them are taller.

 

Height does make some difference. For example, the Japanese adopted the 6.5mm Askara rifle originally because its smaller dimensions fit their troops better. Today Russian tanks are built such that the crew has to be practically midgets to fit inside. On manually loaded ones that becomes a problem with a small crewman trying to lift a large awkward round in a tight space.
In naval forces the same thing is true. Ships are designed for a certain range of crew size. Crewmen that are too tall will have difficulty moving about the ship. I served with a guy everyone called "Lurch" (after the Addams Family butler). He had to stoop to walk down passageways and, even myself at 5' 11" occasionally got peened by some low hanging item.
Even on some other equipment height matters. Another example are many gun systems. The height of the breech is such that lifting a shell to load it is more difficult for a short man than a tall one. You can imagine a shorter loader lifting say a 30 to 50 lb round to say face level to get it into a breech while his taller crewmate is lifting them to just chest level to do the same. The shorter man is working harder to do the same job here.

 

Biak wrote:

"Marines I see as two breeds, Rottweilers or Dobermans,
because Marines come in two varieties, big and mean,
or skinny and mean. They're aggressive on the attack and
tenacious on defense. They've got really short hair and they
always go for the throat."
-RAdm. "Jay" R. Stark, US Navy; 10 November 1995.

I figure you are probably a Doberman, short, fast and mean.