How is warfare different from when it was during WW2?

Traditional warfare between large standing armies from the largest countries no longer exists. Because of the atomic bomb the largest countries have to settle their matters short of war. Smaller countries for the most part cannot afford much of an air force so that part is pretty much out. The last traditional type wars were against Israel and didn't last very long. These wars featured tanks and artillery which Israeli air power handled readily. Since Viet Nam most conflicts have been insurgencies and civil wars. What's happening in Syria now and Egypt and Libya recently seem typical. The greater powers seem ready to supply the rebels so that they can win. Tanks are useless against missiles so only small wars can use them. There will certainly never again be an amphibious invasion like D-Day or a bombing campaign like that against Germany. War as an instrument of policy will soon be entirely obsolete in my opinion.

This is from the link:

In the course of the afternoon General McBride decided to keep the attack rolling by introducing his reserve regiment, the 317th, between the two attacking regiments. The 317th Infantry (Lt. Col. Henry G. Fisher), which had been following the 318th Infantry, was given the mission of clearing the ridge which ran north to Welscheid. Once beyond this town Fisher's troops were to turn east toward the Sure River, thus cutting to the rear of Ettelbruck. When night fell the regiment was on its way, the ***2d Battalion in the lead and the 1st Battalion a thousand yards to its rear. Nearing Welscheid sometime after midnight, the forward battalion started into the assault over a series of rough slopes where each man was outlined by the bright moonlight reflecting from the glazed field of snow. The enemy, waiting with machine guns on the reverse slopes, had all the best of it. The American tanks tried but could not maneuver over the broken ground. The battalion commander therefore sent two of his companies to make a wide detour through a deep gorge, their place in the line being taken by the 1t Battalion. But too much time was consumed by this movement, and day broke on the 24th with the two battalions out in the open and dangerously exposed to German fire. The attack had to be abandoned; new plans were made for bypassing the town and striking directly at Bourscheid and the Sure River.

My Dad was in the 2nd Bn, found this looking into his adventures.

Not even close. Conventional warfare is a daily slug fest with artillery barrages that may last for over an hour. In a book written by a Lt in the same Bn as Dad he mentions taking a crap in his helmet during a long artillery barrage. Couple days later he mentions cooking in it. After they broke thru the German 352 they ran into old men and kids in Wehrmacht uniforms. from the end of Feb til April 12th they had moved down to K town, back towards Luxembourg, to Mainz to cross the Rhein. On to Kassel and back down towards Weimar where 3rd Army gave the the task to enter Buchenwald. In one letter he tells about getting trapped on the 2nd floor of a farmhouse while a 3 man Wehrmacht patrol spent the night below him...they never checked upstairs. He was out checking comm wire strung from Bn to the Companies.

One of the biggest problems is our generals and admirals always seem to want to fight the last wars over, using the same tactics even though the weapons got better.

Example 1. The Generals of the US Civil War used the tactics of Napoleon, even though his tactics were developed when single shot muzzling loading muskets were standard and cannons did not shoot shrapnel shells. Using the tactics of Napoleon with more modern breech loading rifles and cannons using shrapnel shells and you end up with a lot of dead troops. Bad plan.

Example 2. The Generals of WW ONE used the tactics of the Crimean and Bore Wars, massive bombardment followed by mass frontal assaults. Did not work so well against machine guns. Bad plan.

Example 3. We went into WW TWO with the idea we needed battleships. Found out real fast the carrier was the ship we needed and we knocked of building battleships pretty much and went for a lot of carriers. Started out with a bad plan but were able to change in midsteam.

Example 4. Today we are once again all set to fight the naval war of WW TWO all over again. The US Navy has put a lot of money into planes and carriers. Problem is, with over the horizon radars and satellites, it is impossible to hide a carrier. A sub launched cruise missile with a tactical nuke will easily take it out. In the next major naval war, it will be the submarines that will rule as they can still hide.

Example 5. We will no longer see any jet fighter aces. The F22 and F35 are the last manned fighters for the USA and against them, a robot fighter will win. The Navy seems to have figured this out as the X47B is going to be operational just two years after the F35 and when they start having war games of the robots against the manned planes, the manned planes will lose. A pilot can only take 9 G turns and the robots will be able to pull up to 20 and out turn the manned planes.

The next war will be a lot of robots. Say hi to Arnold.....

If you take away materials and tactics the biggest historical difference is in the number of people being killed fighting the battles.

World War One was a carnage and less people dies in World War Two. Each successive war since sees less people die and the different tactics and technology bites into the situation.

More Communication devices. better rescue teams , better weapons, gps , more military branches,

We would now dump nukes on each other.