Ceramic plates and flak jackets have greatly increased the survivability of the infantryman. Against an Abrams, with a wingman that can just shower his buddy with high-explosive rounds that do nothing substantial to the armor …Īs far as the individual service member is concerned, the primary difference is the body armor. This technique was costly during World War II. The only reasonable option for destroying one with 1944 equipment would be swarming it with infantry and trying to get a grenade inside. The M1A2 Abrams main battle tank would probably be as close to invulnerable as anything ever employed in warfare. With improved fuses and nearly automatic rates of fire that can be achieved with today’s weapons, you wouldn’t need the hours and hours of shelling they used during World War II landings. In the 1940s, 5-inch guns were almost considered an afterthought.

destroyers and cruisers now only come equipped with one or two 5-inch main guns. If we start talking about the B-52, things get even crazier.) Additionally, naval gun fire support has come a long way since the 1940s. (Keep in mind, the F-15 is a fighter/bomber, not a dedicated bomber. I once heard that a single F-15 packs as much firepower as an entire squadron of World War II–era bombers when you take into account explosive weight and the percentage of ordnance you can get on target. The most important difference between 1944 and today would be in the realm of guided munitions. Marine Corps three combat tours, three years as an embassy guard and detachment commander: This question originally appeared on Quora.Īnswer by Paul Frick, former infantry staff sergeant, U.S.

Us tank destroyer modern