WW2 GI vs Modern Marines

This came up on another forum (I think I brought it up come to think of it) but basically we started arguing about who would win a hypothetical fight between WW2 GI's and modern US Marines.

Given identical weapons in a thickly forested area.

 

Modern US Marines are well-trained professional soldiers. The US infantryman of WW2 was a draftee, for the most part unwilling to fight and given very little training in comparison. I don't see how he would stand a chance.

 

Modern marines win hands down. They're professionals with automatic M16A2s. WW2 GIs probably had the M1 Garand, which is definetly inferior to the M16. This is kinda' like my Abrams vs King Tiger topic.

 

Blaster I mentioned they were given identical weapons.....(presumably paintball or airsoft guns...

Damn I was hoping the GI wouldn't get totally wiped out but modern training and moral just has 'em beat.

What about some of the famous groups like the 105 airborne (Band of Brothers) Would they stand a better chance?

 

????? Could you elaborate please?????

 

If they're drafted, then probably not.

 

Based on what? The famous SLAM interviews that never happened? US GI was as willing to fight as average German draftee of 1944, if not earlier. I recommend you read "The Deadly Brotherhood, The American Combat Soldier in WWII" by John C. McManus.

 

I meant that comment as relative to the volunteers of the modern USMC. Still, as far as I know the GIs weren't particularly enthusiastic about going to war in Europe, and there doesn't seem to be a good reason why they should have been.

Siberian: Band of Brothers was about Easy Company, 506th PIR, 101st Airborne Division, which was not the most experienced or best led American Airborne division of the war. I'd say that given equal equipment the 82nd would stand a much better chance than a given unit of GIs but they still probably wouldn't be a match for men who underwent years of training involving all the lessons of previous conflicts.

 

Thanks for explaining what you meant, I understand what you are saying, quite a bit of difference between unethusiastic and unwilling

 

101's Frig my memory is trying to make me look stupid.....oh wait...

 

depends...veteran old salts ..pattons 3rd division ,audies 4th , big red one?...marines fresh outta boot camp?

 

You;re forgetting one important thing...

There were alot more GI's

IIRC American mobilized almost 16 million men in her fighting forces during WWII

 

Given equal numbers and equal weapons, I think training and above all battle experience will tell. A lot depends on which unit (tankers as infantry = bad idea) and how much combat they've seen

Tom

 

I think it all rests on combat experience rather than camp training.

It showed in that Germanies troops whcih had significant combat experience, but again were often voluneers and draftees rather than pre war profesionals fought much better against green profesionals like the French and Brits in 40, the Russians in 41 and the US in 42/43

Basically you can be a professional with 10 years training but I'd rather put my money on a a bunch of conscripts/volunteers with 3 months boot camp training and 9 months front line combat experience.

So in answer to your question, I would say that a bunch of battle hardened mean US Vets would kick the ass of a bunch of green US professional solidiers. Especially if forced to use WW2 equipment so the modern grunts couln't rely upon technology to give them an easy adventage.

FNG

 

Well then how-a-bout the modern Airborne VS Modern Marines.

 

Paratroops are generally better trained aren't they? Being dropped behind enemy line (if they still do that)

Of course they both rely on tech so much an EMP grenade will practically knock them out of the fight (no more green night)

Probably not.....

 

Generally, i believe that a WW2 Marine has an edge in a man to man combat as todays GIs have many more ways to get supplies etc simply because of technology.For example, Helicopters can supply battered troops much easier when compared to airdrops from C-47s. A ww2 soldier would be much more hardened than a modern soldier can be.

 

I don't understand, all these armies were also composed of draftees were they not? Only small parts of them were professionals or even reservists.

Experience is of course very important. Then again, many modern US marines also have combat experience, albeit of a different nature.

 

Most GIs in Euopre saw it as a job that had to be done, and quite willingly, if not enthusiastically, crossed the Atlantic to do what had to be done. Most didn't hate Germans and weren't enthusiastic about killing them, althought the Nazi's and SS were almost universally hated. As causalties mounted so did resove and deteremination to finish the Germans.
US GI's in the Pacific were quite enthusiastic about going to war against Japan.

 

Uh, IIRC the BEF was fully professional army.