Increase Force Size

Trex · 04-14-08, 08:05 AM

Part of it is that modern forces are incredibly more capable, more lethal, more aware, than their WW2 counterparts. Artillery has far greater range and can in some cases score first-round hits instead of having to fire hundreds of rounds to take out a given target. This means that you can have fewer guns but still do better than before. Air mobility has dramatically improved tactical flexibility. Modern armour breaks down far less often, meaning that you have a bigger slice available for operations. Sensors increase your situational awareness to an extent undreamed of by Patton or Rommel. If you look at pictures of wars c 1900, say the Japanese-Russian war, you will see trenches defended with men literally shoulder-to-shoulder. That was the current standard. We would laugh at that now – there is simply no need.

Another problem is cost. I don’t know the figures for US soldiers, but the cost of the basic kit for a Canadian soldier in WW2 was on the close order of $135, including rifle, clothing, gas mask, etc. You couldn't buy his rifle magazines for that now. A Spitfire could be produced for about £5,000, but a modern fighter aircraft now costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Yes, there has been inflation since then, but not enough to account for it. Our more capable forces cost us an incredibly larger amount of money.

This last trend has been emphasized by the desire on the part of the Western world to substitute equipment for manpower. A drone will not leave grieving relatives if shot down. Even the CIA switched away from agents to satellites and electronic intelligence gathering (which proved a bit of a mistake as photographs do no tell you intentions).

Lastly, in WW2, national survival was on the line and the country was prepared to accept significant greater disruptions to its daily life, economy, etc.

However desirable it may be, it’s not quite as simple as it seems. Pity.

04-14-08, 08:05 AM	#2
Trex Lieutenant Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 262 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Part of it is that modern forces are incredibly more capable, more lethal, more aware, than their WW2 counterparts. Artillery has far greater range and can in some cases score first-round hits instead of having to fire hundreds of rounds to take out a given target. This means that you can have fewer guns but still do better than before. Air mobility has dramatically improved tactical flexibility. Modern armour breaks down far less often, meaning that you have a bigger slice available for operations. Sensors increase your situational awareness to an extent undreamed of by Patton or Rommel. If you look at pictures of wars c 1900, say the Japanese-Russian war, you will see trenches defended with men literally shoulder-to-shoulder. That was the current standard. We would laugh at that now – there is simply no need. Another problem is cost. I don’t know the figures for US soldiers, but the cost of the basic kit for a Canadian soldier in WW2 was on the close order of $135, including rifle, clothing, gas mask, etc. You couldn't buy his rifle magazines for that now. A Spitfire could be produced for about £5,000, but a modern fighter aircraft now costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Yes, there has been inflation since then, but not enough to account for it. Our more capable forces cost us an incredibly larger amount of money. This last trend has been emphasized by the desire on the part of the Western world to substitute equipment for manpower. A drone will not leave grieving relatives if shot down. Even the CIA switched away from agents to satellites and electronic intelligence gathering (which proved a bit of a mistake as photographs do no tell you intentions). Lastly, in WW2, national survival was on the line and the country was prepared to accept significant greater disruptions to its daily life, economy, etc. However desirable it may be, it’s not quite as simple as it seems. Pity.