AboutTom Expertise While it is a huge topic, I am well-versed in World War II generally. There is a huge wealth of information available on the internet, HOWEVER, one has to know the trash from the gems. Many sites which are not obviously credible (govt, university, and museum sites, for ex.), provide erroneous information (intentionally or otherwise).
Experience BA in history, and been reading and studying WW2 as my 'hobby' for 30 years. Regular contributor to several online forums in military history, WW2, and related areas and topics.
Organizations None relevant to this topic.
Education/Credentials BA, History (Secondary Education), with minor in Geography
US Army Engineer Officer (Officer Basic and Advanced Courses)
Expert: Tom Date: 4/9/2008 Subject: changes in militarism
Question How has military stratigies, weapons, and tactics changed since WW II??
Answer This is an enormously broad topic, if taken in detail, or if talk was to include the interrelationship of military (war and threat of it), with politics, economics, and the dominant themes at various times since WW2 (end of colonialism, cold war and spread of communist/socialist ideology, etc.).
But here's a military-focused answer that I hope is of some help:
Similarities of WW2 and the postwar years:
* Artillery - still "Queen of battle"; heavily used, esp. in western armies
* Tanks - still, despite all the ATGMs and such, a dominant force on battlefield
* Airpower - became a key factor in warfare during WW2, and remains so today; for western armies CAS (Close Air Support) remains the on call firepower, with long-range reach
* Carrier-based airpower - came to prominence in WW2, and today remains a central point of USN policy, despite the far longer legs of aviation generally.
* Army tactics - US tactics (and largely matched by western armies and Russia) remain based on the same tried and true tactics of WW2. Though modified and renamed and tweaked, they seem very close relatives when talking army-on-army fights
* Politically - nation on nation fights remain as before, but those are not the majority of wars in post-WW2
* Naval speeds - oddly enough, the actual speed of main combatants has not increased enormously. While the speed of fighters, and even of tanks, has increased notably, main combatant ships have not.
Dissimilarities:
* Ranges of weapons has changed - artillery range, sniper range, airpower range, tank gun range
* Precision of munitions - obviously, this has continued to improve since WW2, esp. taking off during our wars in Vietnam, and showing up in Persian Gulf War, and current wars. Everything has increased it's precision, though some far more than others (e.g., rifles are better, but bombs are leaps & bounds better).
* Airpower - obviously the speed, precision of weaponry, range, and ability to strike day/night/weather has all improved.
* Data flow has increased enormously, in many ways, from simple improved radios to GPS systems and live video feeds. Use of UAVs and satellites has had great impact on volume of data, versus the piper cadet spotter plane and forward observer.
* Nukes - another obvious example is the possibility of the use of nukes, which has an absolute effect on wars against states which possess them. Russia is quite unlikely to ever again face true invasion like it did in 1941. MAD doctrine.
* Politics - UN has dominated international politics and events since 1945. Their ability to prevent wars, or police ends, is clearly weak, but international acceptance thru the UN (and similarly through alliances, e.g., NATO) is often sought. Evidence: Korean War, 1st and 2nd Gulf wars, efforts in former Yugoslavia.
* War types - since WW2 there have been nation-on-nation wars, but they have not dominated the landscape in the same way. Many more civil wars or variants (Yugoslavia, Korea, Vietnam, Sudan, Greece, Nigeria, Rwanda, Somalia, Lebanon, Turkey, Georgia, even Tibet). Many more guerilla wars (esp. due to ending of colonialism, and the advent of socialism/communism), such as Vietnam-Laos-Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chad, tons of examples in Africa and Latin America.
I'll add that a friend pointed out that no major state has DIRECTLY engaged another in mortal combat once they had nuclear arms (e.g., NATO alliance vs. Warsaw Pact, US vs. USSR, China vs. Anyone, etc.).
Advent of helicopters can be seen as either a radical departure due to its mobility and ability to put troops right on target, or just an improvement to ability to transport. It's WW2 lineage would be to airborne divisions (e.g., air-dropped men, such as at Normandy and Market-Garden).
