No dog in this fight, but I have read that some experts (apply your own meaning to the word) consider today's infantryman better trained that the special units of WWII...and discuss.
In WWII our military was truly one of "Citizen Soldiers" built around a tiny core of "Regulars".
Today we have "professional soldiers".
We also have the luxury of a "huge" mil and "relative" peace.
I met a WWII vet and he told me he was a replacement that got to France in February of 1945.
Initial impression is "The war ended in May, how much action could he have seen"
Thing was replacements at that time were basically people sent to the front to quickly catch bullets that otherwise may have hit a seasoned veteran. Once the Army hit the Siegfried line the Germans were done with giving up captured territory and they invested in going Teutoburg Forest on the "invaders" 24/7. Our government was looking at lowering the age of the draft and by no means was it considered the war was wrapping up.
Soldiers in Britain building up for the invasion got a lot of training but once the killing started replacements were thrown in to the fray as bodies were required.
Marine engagements tended to be sharp and relatively short. They rotated units into different operations and between landings units rebuilt and did their best to train replacements to be ready for the next operation.
I think the greater difference was that they came from a civilian existence that was by no means pampered. Poverty did not provide LCD TVs as it does today. Childhood ended at about 13 and experiencing physical labor was not rare.
I think that likely bred more independence into the WWII recruit which was a help and a hinderence. Those recruits likely chaffed at military discipline but they also thought "Hey I get three squares and Ive done worse labor". The "rigors" of military life were not as "shocking" even if they were more Spartan than todays standards.
So training wise I can see where todays line soldier gets more training than a Ranger of WWII. We get the luxury of size, smaller wars, and time.
but......
I think the raw material that had to be trained was imbued with some life experiences prior to going into the mil that prepared them beforehand and did not have to be trained.
Ill also add a different mindset to what war meant.
We declared wars back than, we engaged the rest of the country in the effort, we went to end it quickly and we used the force required to get it done. We didnt wring our hands over what the rest of the world was thinking in regards to our actions. Today it seems we have accepted war as a constant activity, just regular background noise that people "volunteer" to do as their job and the government seems willing to keep them "employed" with the benefit of good contracts going to our mil suppliers in different political constituencies.
My thoughts are superficial and not entirely binding. If you actually read through history many of these same "issues" were brought up again and again in our history. At the start of WWII they thought of their recruits as soft and unable to win against the German and Japanese superman as well at times they argued rules of engagement, commie stuff, and appeasing our enemies.
In the USA what goes around comes around and in that there is hope that the ship will get through the storm and come upon calm seas again at some point.
as expected from a navy guy. Having to bring in his daughter on internet forums.
