Diffrences between WW2 & Modern Era

[Imp]

Not sure where to post this & talking tactical difrences how it effects play, not the obvious listed quickly.
WW2 tanks generaly need to be still & often still require multiple shots to hit, also often need to be reasonably close to damage/kill. On the flip side early infantry AT weapons are not much cop so they can give close support to your infantry. Arty was lethal kill factors have not gone up much & in fact big stuff is quite capable of destroying vehicles, call times though make effective use harder.
Infantry to dont improve much they tend to have a rifle & LMG the same as there modern counterparts except there AT ability gets better. If anything engagement ranges have gone down fractionaly traded for slightly better kill or accuracy but squad size has shrunk.
So the main diffrence is in vehicles, both more frequent if you take that into account & play that way i.e. use trucks or nothing more often. They are faster & you can use the speed as far more accurate. Also theres helicopters to deal with in more modern times but much better AA once radar & SAMs come along.
But the question is how does this effect play is WW2 a more static game, do you find yourself using your units diffrently due to the diffrences etc.
I will kick the ball off by saying I think planning is far more important in WW2, arty takes longer to plot & a lack of vehicles or speed of means reacting to the enemy, changing the plan takes time. While this means pulling off something like a flanking move is harder to do it is also harder to react to so overall I think staying ahead of the situation is more important. Suppose what I am saying is the modern force is more flexible it can react to a situation that crops up faster meaning you can wing it more. One big diffrence is planes in WW2 you can risk using them for recon to get an overview of whats going on, trying this in modern times is not healthy so I rarely buy unless can get 6.

[gila]

There is no doubt they are different on many levels.

You answered your own post

[Zinegata]

I don't think it's really as simple as "World War 2 vs Modern Era"

Personally, even within WW2 itself there's are significant differences in terms of the tactics that can be employed year-on-year.

Early WW2

Early World War 2 is characterized by poor artillery response times, and the lack of a squad-level anti-tank weapon. This means that MGs are often the main method of halting an infantry assault, and one should expect to get into nasty, short-ranged firefights whenever only infantry is involved. Also, the attacker will generally have the advantage in terms of artillery support: They can fire on immobile defensive positions and keep on suppressing them until the moment of infantry to infantry contact. The defender has to keep adjusting fire depending on where the attackers move (and this fire adjustment is so slow that it's often ineffectual)

However, if one side has tanks, the equation changes dramatically: Tanks will generally just roll over the infantry unless the tanks blunder into assault range and get taken out with hand grenade assaults (even then, most early-war infantry would rather run than assault).

Air power, in my view, actually evolves the least out of all the services. From start to finish it's highly accurate but one-shot artillery, and they make decent scouts. AA is an issue from start to finish since WW2 era planes are highly vulnerable even to small arms fire.

Mid-WW2

Eventually, the arty response time issue is resolved (earlier for some armies), which allows the infantry to call in fire support when things get rough. In this period, infantry becomes stronger in defense against their fellow infantry

Arty fire isn't as good against tanks though (they move much faster), so things will still often get hairy for an infantry force that has to deal with tanks. The counter to this is, more often than not, having your own tank force, or anti-tank guns.

Also, a note on tank on tank or tank vs anti-tank gun battles: Mid-WW2 is often characterized by one side or the other having obscenely better kit than their opponents. A 1940 tank fight between the Brits and the Germans will often result in a one-sided massacre of the German Panzers if the Brits have some Matilda IIs. Russian T-34s and KVs tend to kill every German tank they meet in 1941. On the flip side, German 88s handily slaughter any Allied tank.

Late WW2 - 1950s

Late WW2 finally sees the introduction of squad-level anti-tank weapons (i.e. bazookas). This finally allows a pure infantry force to stand up even against a tank attack (assuming they have artillery support). However, improvement to tank armor make it hard for infantry to engage armor at long range.

Many armies also introduce armored taxis for their infantry at this point - a trend which will continue until most Western/Russian armies are fully mechanized.

Late WW2 also sees tanks begin to reach a kind of "parity" - wherein virtually every tank is capable of killing its opposite number with one hit. Exceptions remain (i.e. Tigers), but generally speaking by this period everybody has upgunned their tanks to be able to blow up their opposing numbers. At this point, it's more important to get the first shot to score - which means positioning your tanks properly, and refraining from moving them to increase the accuracy of shot.

Note that by the end of WW2 - this "armor parity" is virtually universal, at least as far as MBTs are concerned. Pattons, T-55s, and Centurions are all generally capable of facing each other on an equal footing. It now boils down to tactics and crew quality to see who wins.

Also, air power gets a boost with the introduction of jets, which are somewhat less vulnerable to ground fire.

1960s-70s

Things don't change a lot unti after the Korean War, wherein most armies start getting new kit.

Firstly, most armies start getting helicopters at this point. They're useful as scouts, and (once available) gunships are very useful against enemies with poor air defense. However, SAMs start appearing in this era, making a pilot's life more dangerous.

Tanks don't evolve much, but they face the new threat of long-range anti-tank missile. This piece of kit finally allows infantry to engage armor even at long range, and (for a while) makes an all-infantry defensive setup viable (see Yom Kippur).

1970s-2000s

Finally, we get to the "modern" MBT era.

With the development of long-ranged ATGMs, everybody suddenly starts rshing to develop high-speed, insanely armored tanks. This is the era that gives us the Abrams and all of its contemporaries. Tanks in this era are often well-armored enough to survive an ATGM hit, can move at high speed, and they can fire on the move with high accuracy. Plus, they can shoot through smoke!

MBT are thus once again able to operate with relative freedom even in the face of ATGMs, and now they're also backed up with IFVs (i.e. the Bradley and BMPs) that can lend them substantial firepower on top of carrying their infantry support.

However, despite these improvements, ATGMs can still consistently score kills with flank shots, and at short range just about everybody has an RPG (or its equivalent) to take out even an MBT. All this serves to emphasize the need for combined arms - albeit the high speed of MBTs and their IFV support means that a modern battlegroup can now move a heck of a lot faster than its WW2 equivalent (and thus bypass strong centers of resistance if needed).

(Not to mention Airmobile forces now have powerful gunships for support - i.e. Apaches - which can take out hard targets with relative impunity)

Also, a final note: These new MBTs tend to massacre tanks of the previous era (or their cheap "export" versions). Just see the First Gulf War.

Post 2000 Era

Around the time "The War on Terror" kicks off, things pretty much remain the same on the heavy weapons front. MBTs get new VISS and CIWS systems to ward off long-ranged ATGMs, but everybody also gets some pretty good new kit to counter this. Top-attack missiles (i.e. Javelin) and really nasty RPGs (Vampirs) help keep the balance. Adding a few of these modern gadgets to even a 3rd world force can pose unwelcome surprises to a Western MBT force.

Possibly the biggest change in the post-2000 era is the introduction of high-tech infantry and light vehicles that also have IR. These guys allow a small infantry force to triumph against a much larger infantry force with older weapons.

Some armies also get _ranged_ thermobaric weapons at this point, which are a God-send in most infantry fights. Being able to set hexes on fire from 5 or 6 hexes away helps clear out occupied buildings with only minimal casualties.

Also, wheeled armored transport becomes really popular in a lot of armies. These transports are a lot like vanilla APCs (an armored box with an MG), but a few of them have been upgunned to resemble IFVs (with 30mm auto cannons, and ATGMs). Their main advantage over the tracked versions is insanely high road speeds, an asset in theaters like the Balkans or Iraq where there is a decent enough road network.

[Imp]

Nice summary & agree was being simplistic spliting WW2 MBT & basing on major powers nice summary. I had not realy thought about jets but you are right the era of comparitivly safe overfly was early MBT nice call.
I think its reasonable to say my original comment about the more modern the force the easier it is to react still holds. But it has a flip side applies to the other guy to & as everybody tends to be far more dangerous this adds to it. Infantry are far more dangerous to armour & the reverse applies & as you say once infantry become reliable tank killers combined arms is the way to go.
Dodging arty in early mid WW2 is a huge problem no wonder WW1 was trench warfare

[RightDeve]

In WW2 you shoot tanks using molotov at ranges no longer than 10 meters away, in modern era, you could do that even from the horizon