If the rules of engagement were the same now as in 1939-1945?

Question

Would the conflicts we have today last so long, and if not. Is that not better than the long protracted conflicts so called smart war seems to have spawned

Answer 1

Rules of engagement are set tactically by commanders on a campaign by campaign basis.

Current rules of engagement for U.S forces in Iraq are different to those for UK forces, which are the same ones they used in Northern Ireland.

That basically means that the enemy is allowed to fire at you, blow you up, and cut your head off if they capture you, but if you fire back and hit one of the poor buggers you will end up in court on a murder charge.

The Americans have a more pragmatic ROE in that if you do not wear a U.S uniform, know all the baseball players in the last world series, or look slightly middle eastern they can slot you.

Answer 2

These so called wars, which become real fighting wars for the squaddie, are not wars on a world scale.
They are politicians showing off their boxes of soldiers.
America has never committed its fighting forces anywhere as much as it did when fighting the biggest half of the 1939-45 war, and neither have we.
These were wars to survive and really the only time wars can be fought with any honour. If ever there is any?
Squaddies are trained to survive in battle, not look backward as they move forward, except in street fighting.
This kind of fighting is nerve wracking in the extreme, without being warned not to fire first unless--
Unless what? After the target shoots or maims you?
I for one could not work like that, but I was first a volunteer and then a conscript.
Use me to fight or put me back in the box.

Answer 3

Its because since then the art of war has been refined to that it involves smaller groups of troops compared to sending masses of troops at the enemy until you win(overly simplified but pretty much accurate). So conflicts last longerbut the toll on your forces is smaller.

But as a sidenote there hasn't been a proper war for almost two decades so its hard to judge how armies would react.

Answer 4

Warfare today is totally different to the mass armed comflicts of WWII. Most of the conflicts currently going on are low-intensity guerrilla campaigns. You can't use standard battlefield tactics against guerrilla fighters, and much heavy weaponry such as tanks, artillery and air power is essentially useless. The ROE don't make much difference as the whole point of guerrilla warfare is to avoid prolonged contact with enemy forces - they sneak in, hit hard, then try to break off before their enemy can retaliate.

Answer 5

We live in a politically correct world my friend and our enemy could care less... they don't wear uniforms they hide in churches dress as civilians and hide behind women and children. These conflicts wouldn't last more than a few months if we fought like we did back then. Could you imagine if we fought like we did 200 years ago... there wouldn't be anything left of the enemy.

Answer 6

Terrorists are using attrition based tactics. Instead of Haig, Bin laden is sending them to their deaths.

Future wars will be guerrila, urban wars. What use is a stealth bomber in iraq or afghanistan right now?

Answer 7

they chickened out any way back then ..when they knew tat the japs were solid they used nukes ..... wats the use of smart war fighting with dummies ...