Outfitting a soldier for battle costs 100 times more now than it did in WW2

[daftandbarmy]

WASHINGTON - As official Washington argues over the spiraling price of the war in Iraq, consider this: Outfitting a soldier for battle costs a hundred times more now than it did in World War II. It was $170 then, is about $17,500 now and could be an estimated $28,000 to $60,000 by the middle of the next decade.
"The ground soldier was perceived to be a relatively inexpensive instrument of war" in the past, said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, head of the Army agency for developing and fielding soldier equipment.
Now, the Pentagon spends tens of billions of dollars annually to protect troops and make them more lethal on the battlefield.

In the 1940s, a GI went to war with little more than a uniform, weapon, helmet, bedroll and canteen. He carried some 35 pounds of gear that cost $170 in 2006 inflation-adjusted dollars, according to Army figures.

That rose to about $1,100 by the 1970s as the military added a flak vest, new weapons and other equipment during the Vietnam War.

Today, troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are outfitted with advanced armor and other protection, including high-tech vests, anti-ballistic eyewear, earplugs and fire-retardant gloves. Night-vision eyewear, thermal weapons sights and other gear makes them more deadly to the adversary.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071002/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/arming_for_war

 

[Old Sweat]

And we are as far removed from the Second World War as it is from the Little Big Horn and Rorke's Drift, not to mention the Second Afghan War.

 

[RHFC_piper]

I think they should factor in that modern soldiers are fighting a different type of war, with several different fronts.  We are trained and equipped to fight in many more environs and against many more different types of enemy than the WW2 soldier... Everything from trench warfare to COIN Ops to Humanitarian aid.

Sure, the WW2 soldier had to do a lot of these kinds of operations, but we have since learned from those experiences.  Soldiers are much more expensive to equip now because they are asked to do almost 100X more than their WW2 counterparts... Including survive longer. (body armour is probably the most expensive piece of kit we have).

Anyway, I have a feeling that articles like this will have some people asking; "why do our troops need so much expensive kit when soldiers from WW2 were just as effective with out it?"  Simple answer... In WW2 we fought an army carrying bolt action rifles and crude (by todays standards) machine guns, with bolt action rifles and crude machine guns... the bar has be raised by the enemy, so we need to pony up the dough to compete on the modern battle field.

The ground soldier will always be an integral part of combat since most missiles and arty bombs wont knock on doors, and tanks don't fit in buildings... we spend probably more than 100X more cash on missiles and tanks, why not upgrade the troops?

Just my 2 cents. 

 

[Nemo888]

I hate to say it but families were much bigger back then and losing one son was nowhere near as catclysmic as it is now. Whole family lines can be wiped out with a single death now. Our society finds risk less and less acceptable.

Hell my parents even gave me lawn darts and a bb gun back in the day.

 

[emmiee]

I hate to say it but families were much bigger back then and losing one son was nowhere near as catclysmic as it is now. Whole family lines can be wiped out with a single death now. Our society finds risk less and less acceptable.

Hell my parents even gave me lawn darts and a bb gun back in the day.[/b][/b][/b]

Yep, so did mine. 

 

[Danjanou]

...Anyway, I have a feeling that articles like this will have some people asking; "why do our troops need so much expensive kit when soldiers from WW2 were just as effective with out it?" 

I tend to agree with RHFC Piper. I can see certain elements using that line. Another example of taking something out of context to suit their dubious political agendas.

Hell my parents even gave me lawn darts and a bb gun back in the day.

As for toys when I was a kid I had a Johnny 7 One Man Army that fired hard plastic bullets, grenades and all sort of cool stuff that would make a WW2 era doggy drool with envy.

I survived childhood.

Me I espouse to the ideas of this underrated social theorist on kids and toys.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AVUiCq8F2eY&mode=related&search=

 

[BernDawg]

OMG  That was the coolest toy ever.  My friend had one but we could never find one to buy.  The component parts we're functional all on their own and when assembled it was a total weapon system. Tres Cool!

 

[exspy]

Old Sweat's quick note got me thinking about where we are today, historically speaking.

It's been 62 years since the end of the Second World War.  If we go back 62 years from 1939 as OS suggests then it's 1877.  As he says the era of Rorke's Drift, the Battle of the Little Bighorn and the Second Afghan War.

More to the point while I don't remember the Second World War I do remember the War in Vietnam which ended  32 years ago, the Falklands War (25 years and ago) and I did my part for Queen and Country in Gulf War One (16 years ago).  All of this is ancient history to people in their 20's.

There are easily rankers and officers fighting in SW Asia with no personal recollection of the first Gulf War and we're less than 5 years away from the generation with no personal recollection of 9/11 and its aftermath starting high school.

My points are this: 1) I am feeling very, very old, 2) nobody has learned anything about anything since 1877 and 3) we (mankind) will continue to not learn anything to 2077 and beyond.

Dan.

PS:  On the other hand, people are living longer, Canada is one of the UN rated top countries in the world in which to live and milnet.ca allows us all to chat together.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

As for toys when I was a kid I had a Johnny 7 One Man Army that fired hard plastic bullets, grenades and all sort of cool stuff that would make a WW2 era doggy drool with envy.

Wow...they had toys back then??

 

[1feral1]

100 times, hummm. What must be considered is look at the cost of living then, and now, our wages, inflation over the past 65 yrs, etc. Cmpare the price of a car then to now, etc, etc.

Instead of tin hats we havev kevlar ones, and full body armour, with other cream of the crop gucci kit. A far cry from a M1, steel pot, condom, and canteen w/ cup.

We have evolved, and I would have thought it would be more than 100 times.

EDIT, as for the Johnny Seven, my cousin had one! It was the coolest. I did end up with an plastic M14 made by the same company. Had a 20rd mag (clear plastic) brass coloured plastic casings and fired bullets which separated from the case too. Thats was the Christmas of 1967!

Oh the 1960's!


Cheers,


Wes

 

[tomahawk6]

Congress is hardly going to stop funding the equipment the soldier needs. After all a soldier is still cheaper than a missile, an aircraft, destroyer or a bomber. Got to keep everything in perspective.

 

[GAP]

Had a 20rd mag (clear plastic) brass coloured plastic casings and fired bullets which separated from the case too. Thats was the Christmas of 1967!
Oh the 1960's!
Cheers,
Wes

We got them the next year in Hue.....  ;D

 

[geo]

Johnny Seven!.... I had one of those!

Yes, sending a soldier in harm's way can't be done on the cheap!  Remember that!