How is modern warfare different from World War II? tactics and military operations,

The difference between modern warfare and World War II is not too big, what has changed is the change of ** and the corresponding tactical changes, of course, this is talking about large-scale wars, and the difference is not too big. The purpose of war is nothing more than to destroy the resistance of the other side, overthrow the other side's regime, or to obtain the territory and resources of the other side and defend it. Or beat the other side and force the other side to make political concessions.

It is the means that change, not the war itself. From a tactical point of view alone, the biggest change is the acquisition of battlefield information, which is the so-called informationization. But personally, I don't think this has changed much for the war in World War II.

The main reason for the change is that the ** is different, and the tactical means also respond to the change.

As you said, the soldiers charged in World War II, and this will also happen in modern warfare, the difference is that in World War II, before covering the advance of the ground forces, at most they used artillery or bombers to bomb indiscriminately, first destroying the opponent's resistance and then charging, but in fact, it is not very accurate and completely to destroy the opponent's resistance, and often cannot destroy much of the opponent's ** equipment and living forces, resulting in a great threat to the charging troops. Modern warfare can destroy the opponent's fortifications and ** more accurately and thoroughly, but this is also relatively accurate and relatively thorough, and in the end it still needs infantry to enter, the difference is that the danger is reduced.

Perhaps the biggest difference lies in the collection of intelligence, which used to be a game between the two sides in the dark, but now both sides are playing in a visible state during the day, or one side can clearly see most of the other party's movements, while the other side cannot see it.

From the perspective of small-scale conflicts or small-scale wars, rapid response is currently advocated, and this was also the case during World War II, when Germany invaded Poland and France, it used rapidity to fight, and tried to control and destroy the other side's resources and vital forces when the other side was caught off guard.

It's easier to get information. In layman's terms, there was battlefield fog during World War II, and the battlefield fog of modern warfare is intermittently displayed. Of course, this is for the great powers. As for the small ones, there is no essential difference, but they are just digging deep into the tactics of World War II.

Modern warfare has precision guidance, and World War II.

The kind of large-scale carpet fire coverage of the time is already very rare.

Because of the susceptibility to collateral damage, humanitarian responsibility is heavier.

Now the war is also going on relatively quickly, for example, last year's conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, which ended in two months, and the First World War.

Four years of fighting, six years of World War II.

There is no comparison between the World War II period and the current war During the Second World War period, it was relatively backward and engaged in crowd tactics The current war rarely sends ground troops It is generally a long-range strike **It is also relatively advanced I see the sub station Information station and so on There are very few personnel The main offensive is the key target.

Compared with World War II, there must be a lot of differences between modern warfare, because the new ** is becoming more and more advanced, the function of missiles is getting stronger and stronger, and the range is long and very accurate, so the current war is often decapitated first, and then bombed important key military facilities to paralyze the other side, so the war is more cruel.

World War II was still a traditional land war, with both sides sending troops to fight the war by using rivers and ravines according to the terrain and landform.

Modern warfare has already achieved informationization and dataization, and it is not a one-man battle of the army, but a three-dimensional integrated war of sea, land, and air.

If modern warfare is at the level of a world war, then the difference between it and World War II can be quite large, first of all, **advanced, and during World War II, it was all modern**.

Modern warfare places greater emphasis on informationization, intelligence, and multi-service coordination.

Compared with World War II, what is the difference between modern warfare and World War II, the current era of tactics and military operations is different from the era of World War II, the current war does not need anyone to be beaten, now as long as there is a nuclear bomb, everything is solved with nuclear **.

During World War II, it was a three-dimensional operation of land, sea and air, and modern warfare is four-dimensional or multi-dimensional.

Drone technology is widely used, and you don't need people to go to the scene to bomb the opponent's position! Electronic warfare is more prominent, long-range strikes are very widespread. It's smaller.

How is modern warfare different from World War II? Tactics and military operations are absolutely different from World War II, which was a conventional war, and modern warfare is a modern war.

Yes, the war is different from World War II now, at that time it relied on ** and manpower, and now it has to rely on science and technology to fight the war, so now the need for people is not so great.

Modern: Compared with World War II, the tactics of modern warfare are certainly different, because modern warfare is a scientific war, while World War II warfare is a long-term war.

Modern warfare is over-the-horizon warfare.

Information warfare is the integration of land, sea, air and space.

The most typical representative is the 1991 Gulf War.

Except for combat automation, there is not much difference in tactics.

The war is mainly information warfare, racing warfare ......Sensitive topics such as intelligence are involved.

God, the gentlemen upstairs, you are too one-sided, if modern warfare is at the level of a world war, then the difference is quite big from World War II, first of all, **advanced, during World War II, it was all modern**, too primitive, and modern martial arts.

There will definitely be no large-scale army battles, if it is a great power war, first start the information war, then the air force and navy battle, and finally the army special operation, this is just a conventional war, unconventional war will have Ebola virus improved, H2N2 improved and other biochemical **, followed by microwave **, infrasound ** and other lore **.

Modern warfare places more emphasis on scientific and technological prowess.

Revolutionary progress has already taken place in military technology, which is long-range, accurate, and information-based.

Modern military is an information war, which is based on quality and supplemented by quantity. An all-out war consisting of land, sea, air, space, and electricity.

World War II was more radical, and now the war is relatively stable.

It's a big problem that needs to be written in a book.

1) The massive use of high-tech equipment will significantly change modern battlefields and combat operations;

1) The airspace of the war has expanded, and the battlefield has developed in the direction of great depth and high three-dimensionality, and there is no obvious front and rear.

The enhancement of the long-distance combat capability of troops and weapons has enabled the operational airspace to develop in great depth and made combat operations more emphasis on the implementation of great depth. At the same time, the height of the distribution of equipment has increased, so that the combat space has developed into a high degree of three-dimensional integration of high and low levels, and combat operations have placed more emphasis on the three-dimensional combat of "integration of air and ground," "integration of sea and air," and even "integration of land, sea, air and space."

2) Due to the improvement of the rapid combat capability of troops and weapons, as well as the improvement of combat capability at night and under undesirable conditions, combat operations will develop to a high-speed, all-weather, and all-time domain.

2) High-tech equipment will compulsorily lead to changes in the mode of warfare;

Engels once pointed out: "As soon as technological advances can be used for military purposes and have been used for military purposes, they immediately and almost coercively, and often against the will of the commanders, cause a change or even a change in the mode of warfare." The progress of military technology and the continuous transformation of advanced equipment will inevitably promote the development and change of combat methods.

Since the 80s of the 20 th century, under the fierce impact of rapidly rising high technology, the traditional operational theories formed since World War II have gradually lost their guiding significance, and changes in operational theories are inevitable.

The Gulf War was a high-tech local war of the highest standard in the history of warfare, which was universally recognized. When talking about the influence of operational theory on the operation, Dick Cheney, a former member of the US Department of Defense, said: The theory of "air-ground integrated operation" put forward by the United States in the early 80 s of the 20 th century and written into the operational doctrine has played an important guiding role.

In this war, the US-led multinational forces carried out integrated air-ground combat operations against the Iraqi army, such as electronic firepower assaults, vertical breakthroughs, in-depth air-to-plane landing, and long-distance encirclement and detours, and finally won the war.

In recent years, the theory of information warfare has become a new operational guiding ideology. Information capability is regarded as the key to measuring a country's combat capability, and has even become the core of modern warfare, which has a decisive impact on the outcome of an operation. Information technology equipment has extensively penetrated into all areas of the battlefield, constituting an increasingly perfect operational "nervous system" and creating electronic warfare means that combine soft and hard killing.

Computer viruses and "hacker" attacks also constitute the main content of the information war.

The impact of military high technology on modern warfare includes the following aspects:

1.High-tech weapons and equipment have markedly changed the battlefield and combat operations of war.

2.The compulsion of high-tech equipment has led to a change in the mode of warfare.

3.The operational command system has made Changji Xiaozhao more flat and networked.

4.Precision guidance technology is an important technology in modern warfare, which can achieve accurate, long-range, and automatic targeting strikes.

In short, the development of military high technology has had a far-reaching impact on modern warfare, making warfare more complex, precise, and rapid.

The most common is CQB tactics, in this regard, the British SAS is the top expert, that is, indoor close search operations, the German G39 border brigade has also had classic examples, the French gendarmerie intervention team is not very good, the American Delta and Navy SEALs are particularly good at this type of tactics, to the FBI's HRT special hostage rescue team has done a good job.

For the specific details of modern warfare tactics, please refer to the library for war command science It is not clear here! To put it simply, the tactics of warfare at present are generally based on the first round of air strikes, accompanied by mechanized units directly attacking strategic targets.

Tactics refer to the methods and means adopted for the sake of a certain strategic goal, combining the first or most advanced systems with the natural environment of the operation. It is directly related to the ** or ** system used by the fighter. Therefore, the tactics should be formulated according to the actual situation at that time.

Clause. 1. Extensibility -- The battlefield is wide and auspicious, the boundaries between the front and rear are not clear, and large-scale battles affect the entire territory and outer space of both sides of the war;

Clause. 2. Variability -- The battlefield situation is complex and ever-changing, and the struggle for the initiative on the battlefield is fierce, which requires a higher level of rapid response;

Clause. 3. Intersectionality -- the battlefield is staggered, the battle lines are blurred, and complex engagements will be multi-level;

The first lack of buckets. Fourth, three-dimensionality -- the three-dimensional prominence of the battlefield, in which operations in the air, at sea, under the sea, on the ground, and in outer space are carried out simultaneously or in a staggered manner;

Clause. Fifth, destructive -- strong firepower, large destruction, high consumption, complex support;

Sixth, decentralization -- the army will be further dispersed and distributed, and the combat operations will be manifested as scattered and independent operations of groups under the unified control of the large corps;

Clause. 7. Mobility - the mobility of the army is large, and the possibility of encounters increases;

Clause. 8. Continuity -- The interval between campaign battles is shortened, breaking the boundary between day and night. Some emphasize electronic warfare, others emphasize "fast-paced", some focus on political and technological factors, and some focus on the impact of the economy on modern warfare.