Infantry squad fire power 1944 vs. 2004

[17thfabn]

Towards the end of WW II the Germans introduced the STG 44 rifle. There is much debate as to wheather this was the first assault rifle. One thing is for sure, it could put out more lead than any other World War II rifle, with it's slective fire of semi or full automatic modes. And it had a much more effective round than the sub-machine guns of the era.

Imagine the amount of lead a WW II German infantry squad could put out with one MG 43, and all other troops in the squad armed with STG 43 rifles.

Flash forward to 2004 to a U.S. infantry squad armed with M-249 squad automatic weapons and M-16 rifles. The volume of fire they could produce would be about the same as a late WW II German Infantry squad.

In the almost 60 years since the end of WW II great strides have been made in military technology. But it seems like small arms technology has not realy had any great break throughs. True, the assault rifles carried by todays troops are lighter, as is the ammunition. But even a U.S. infantry squad of WW II armed with M-1 rifles and BAR squad automatic rifles could go toe to toe against a modern infantry squad. And if the fire fight was at ranges over 400 yds the WW II squad would have the advantage.

[1952Sniper]

The way I see it, no more advances in small arms were necessary. Our military doctrines have shifted from ground-based assaults to aerial bombardment. More firepower from foot soldiers is not always better. With today's smart bombs and other precision ordnance, I guarantee you today's military could decimate any WWII unit. There's much more to it than simply giving the guys better firearms.

[Marlin]

Very astute observation, Snipe, and so true. Not only in the aerial war but look at the differences/advances in the rolling armoured end of the fighting. With WWII armament in the air and on the ground, other than the infantryman, where would we be, yet, in the Iraqi campaign?

[Xracer]

There's a heck of a lot more to an infantry squad's capabilities and effectivness than the amount of lead they can throw per minute.

If you add in laser sighting, night sights, night viewing, modern grenade launchers, RPGs, body armor, and instant communications for mortar, artillery and air support (and the amount of support readily available), there's absolutely no comparison between "then" and "now".

No Infantry squad from any nation during WWII would stand the slightest chance againist today's U.S. Army or Marine equivalent.

[DemonDesert]

Yeah, any WWII squad could do little more than you or I versus a modern squad--rear guard, snipe from the wings tactics. Until they inevitably smart bombed you.

[17thfabn]

Xracer, I agree with you up to a point. The electronics that a U.S. infantry unit carries can bring much more fire power to bear, than the weapons it is carrying. A squad with a modern radio, GPS unit and a laser designator can have a 2,000 lb. bomb, or artillery barrage on top of an enimies heads with pin point accuracy.

But you may not always have that heavy fire power available to you immedietly. Let me give you a scenerio:

You're in a light infantry squad from the Tenth Mountain division. You've been sent to block a possible escape route for terrorists, as part of a major operation.

The position you have been assigned to is a five mile hike from any road, at the top of large hill, blocking an old camel trail. But you got lucky, a black hawk helo dropped your unit off. Your ten man squad has two M249 saws, 2 M-203 assault rifle/grenade launchers, the rest of the squad is armed with M-16 assault rifles. You have radios, GPS, and a laser designator.

Your superiors don't think any thing will happen in your area, but they want to block all possible escape routes. All available artillery, mortar, attack helos, and attack aircraft are commited to the main effort.

You and your buddies are hunkered down on your hill top, taking turns keeping look out. You can here the sounds of the battle in the distance. Our fire power is really giving those bandits heck!

Suddenly you see movment in the distance, coming your way. Fifteen scragly terrorists are coming your way, they are armed with old lee enfield .303 rifles, and one old soviet light machine gun of WW II vintage. The clumsy new guy (nfg) in your squad stands up and gives away your position. At a range of 300 yards the fire fight starts! Immediatly radio contact is made to H.Q. requesting fire support. They inform you that it will be a few minutes, but attack helos, and artillery support is on the way.

For three minutes shots are traded at 300 yards between you and the bandits accross the rocky terrain. That three minutes seems like three hours. But three minutes after you called for support the first 155mm artillery rounds crash down, and in the distance you here the Apache attack helocopters coming in! And then the fight is over, as quickly as it began. The terrorists just seemed to have vanished!

Your squad is lucky. Your vests and helmets have protected your vital regions. There are numerous minor wounds from the fragments thrown up when the old .303 bullets strike rock, splinter and hit exposed legs, arms and faces. One of your guys has some rock fragments to his eyes, but the medics think he will be O.K., but they medi-vac him out to be safe.

Once reinforcements arrive you go down to investigate the position vacated by the fleeing terrorists. One is found down, dead with a single 5.56mm bullet through his throat. There are a couple of blood trails going back into the rocks, indicating possible two other enimies wounded. Nothing else is found.

After a three minute fire fight, the score is USA 1 bad guys Zero. Not a great day for the home team considering fourteen bad guys have gotten away to fight and snipe and road side bomb another day. For three minutes bandits armed with WW II era weapons have gone toe to toe with a U.S. infantry squad. Not until heavy fire power arrived was the stalemate broken!

[inplanotx]

17thfabn, you forgot to frag the FNG!!!

[Xracer]

Well 17, I'll also agree with you....up to a point.

I think that arming our forces with a varmint cartridge was a move in the wrong direction.

I really think that the five-sided puzzle factory in Washington came to the conclusion that they were never going to be able to teach conscripts to hit what they aim at.....so the way to go was to lay down a "volume of fire"....which required every man to have a machine gun.....which required less recoil, smaller rounds....etc., etc., etc. (you know the drill).

I also remember a line in Robert A. Heinlein's "Starship Troopers"....something to the effect of "while you're fooling around with all of that high-tech gagetry, some caveman can come up behind you and kill you by hitting you over the head with a rock!"

I don't necessarily disagree with ya.....sometimes I just like to play "Devil's Advocate"......and nothin's more fun than to argue Military History!

[17thfabn]

Hey 1952, if I were a fire arms engineer I don't think I'd like your threat to my job! With no new innovations needed in small arms you are going to put a lot of designers out of work.

[islenos]

When you get down to it, all the new little gismos in the world won't help you when the .30, shot by the little guy 900 meters away, enters your brain cavity. Technology is nice but It's not going to make you a better soldier.

[Xracer]

Agreed, islenos.

There have been numerous complaints coming out of Eastern Afganistan (near the Pakistani border) about just that thing.

Seems to be a standard tactic by the BGs to engage at 400-500 meters with WWII bolt Moisin-Nagents & Enfields........effectively beyond the range of our pipsqueek M-16s....and then boogie out of there before backup arrives.

Modern technology isn't always the answer. Sorta reminds me of the problems the Brits ran into in the Falklands. Their ships couldn't support their infantry.

The Brit Destroyers carried only missles....too expensive and not enough of 'em to take out Argentine hard points, machine gun nests, etc.

The Brits would've killed for a couple of WWII Sullivan Class destroyers with their 5"/38 turrets.

[jsmarriner]

Um guys
Hate to break it to you. They have better stuff than that. alot of the long range baddies have Soviet SVD sniper rifles, thanks to the fall of the soviet union and ZERO economy there. SVD is a superb rifle and id stack it against almost anything.

[polishshooter]

Ah, I've missed this!

Do doctine, and tactics dictate weapons or weapons tactics and doctrine?

In WWII, US Doctrine was still essentially pre-WWI, but with the best weapon for it, the M1 Garand. The RIFLEMAN with AIMED fire was the OFFENSIVE backbone, everything else was support, Which is WHY the BAR complemented the M1 so WELL, but actually sucked as an SAW if you are objective about it. The Brits were similar, with the best battle BA rifle ever, and a better SAW. (What would US firepower have been like if we had a BREN in '06?) (or THEIRS if they adopted the Garand?)

The "new" German army of the 30s had a DIFFERENT perception of the role of infantry. The main Infantry weapon was the LMG, mosts SQUADS had 2 or 3, the riflemen were just support for the MG 13s then 34s then 42s. So it didn't matter if they had a sucky rifle, all they did was hump ammo for the mgs anyway. Plus more emphasis on DEFENSIVE use of small arms-- only to fix the enemy for artillery, armor, or Stukas to actually destroy, i.e., combined arms!

It wasn't until the Soviet tank riding massive assault troops all armed with PPshs after Stalingrad covered by tracked assault artillery firing direct, that doctine and tactics actually changed for the Germans...spray and pray and get in close in order to throw the grenade or satchel charge or molotov. (supported by BATTALIONS of snayperskayas... )
First they tried to overload with MP38/40s, then they came up with the MP 43s...low power rifle vs pistol, same idea, lots of ammo, with better range than the SMG, but capable of offensive or defensive use.

Then of course the Soviets stole the "Assault rifle" idea...

BUT along the way, US doctrine at least shifted from offensive to defensive - infantry was not intended as the main weapon, but to find and fix, and call in the arty or air, small arms just to defend the infantry. Actually started with Patton calling for "walking fire..." "Keep their heads down..."

That's what we tried to do with the infantry from the 60s to the 90s...DEFENSIVE-FIND AND FIX-Call in support. Didn't always work as planned, and whenever AWAY from support...everyone wanted .30 calibers!

But today? The wheel turns...

Some of our 4-8 man Spec ops teams that were compromised in the first Gulf war got into 300 yd running gunfights with COMPANIES of Iraquis with AK47s, and slaughtered them, with 16s, many times complaining the damm BEDOUIN with .303s that stayed farther away and plinked at them were the MOST dangerous enemy they faced!

Now, in Afghanistan? Spec ops teams are leaning more and more towards M1As and other .308s...not only because of the range. WITHOUT support, the rifle becomes the offensive weapon AGAIN. .30s are coming back! AGAIN.

The Dragunov? NOT a "sniper rifle," actually, but actually a platoon level "support" weapon like MMGs, meant to "give rapid AIMED accurate fire at 300m+ against specific targets" like vehicles, support weapons, bunker slits, etc. What a concept....

I.e., capability like WE had with the M1 Garand in WWII! What goes around...

I'm with 17th... give a WWII style Marine platoon armed with M1s, M1 Carbines with grende launchers, and BARs (and OK, a shotgun or two ...modern body armor, optics, GPS, and Laser designators and a radio that WORKS with support on call and all the other goodies we have today......


And they would give ANYBODY today a damn good fight.




As an aside...the 6.8mm M16 round?

The wheel turns.

(I was always partial to the 6.5 Arisaka round... ) (Which was replaced by a .30... )


Really, when I was a kid and was first reading of the .223 controversy during Vietnam, I actually wondered why they never mtried the Armalite in .243 Win.????

[Xracer]

WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN POLISH????

You're listed as AWOL and the CO wants to see you right away!

Seriously, nice to see ya back....how 'bout staying for a while?

BTW, just to be contrary......IMO, the 6.5 Swede was a better round than the 6.5 Arisaka (it just wouldn't be natural for me to agree with ya, Polish).

[polishshooter]

Hey X! Just like a bad penny...

Yep, that 6.5 Swede and that pretty little mauser was quite a rifle and round, good thing the Swedes never used it in action or they would have ran screaming to a .30 like every OTHER country that had one when they actually had to USE it on other humans... Let's see, the Japs, the Dutch, the Italians, who else...(?)


...Simo Haya had it about right...used a custom presentation grade 6.5 Swede for a couple of kills then threw it in the sh!tcan and went back to a good old Mosin Nagant, more powerful, reliable AND accurate than the Swede so he said.....MORE than once... Who's to argue with the greatest sniper probably ever?


Just tryin' to get a rise, X, just like old times!


Geez I need to edit the signature, that was a LONG time ago. Then again, he IS just going to trial!

[stash247]

IMHO, you guys have raised some very cogent, though politically incorrect, points. Let me offer:
At a range of 400-600 meters, I can kill at will with a .308; hammer your ass, 'til you die, and really not worry about the .223 you are shooting. Why else is the current sniper system, M42, so chambered???
A TRAINED RIFLEMAN can hit anything he can see, given a couple of ranging shots. Hear any of this in your M-16 training? It was taught, as a matter of course, when the .45-70 was an Issue Arm!
It is a fact that the M-16 Pattern rifles are sweeping the course, at Camp Perry, but these are far from the rifles given our front line troops, and the shooters are far from the training level of those same troops.
At Perry, we need only to knock a hole thru a piece of paper; in Kabul, we need to knock a mofo down, so he doesn't want to get up, again; this requires, at 400 meters, considerable energy in excess of that to punch a target.

Seems to me that between WWII, and VietNam, we have traded philosophies as to what a grunt should be able to do; and done it to our ultimate disdvantage.
Given the current state of Marksmanship training, I would feel really good, as the moslems do, about going toe to toe, with a guy shooting an inferior weapon.
Give me a single shot rifle, like the Ruger #1, in 7Mag, and how many of our troops would it take to bring me down, do you suppose?
To the point, if we minimise, as we have, for so many years, marksmanship, in deference to logistics, which was the entire point of "downsizing" from .308 to .223, how many misses does it take to equal 1 kill?
My position is, that "Personal Service", i.e. the job of the Infantry, is best served with training, not technology.

[17thfabn]

On the military channel the other night they had a documentary about the "Battle of Robert's Ridge". This occured in Afghanistan in the mountains bordering Pakistan on March 4th, 2002. A joint Afghan, U.S. operation was launched to capture Al Quada forces believed to be active in the area.

During this operation a U.S. Navy S.E.A.L., Petty Officer Robert's (thus the name Robert's Ridge) fell out of a helocopter. A quick reaction force in two helos was to go and try and rescue him. These helos were delayed in responing until after sunrise.

As the helos approached the mountain were Petty Officer Robert's was missing they recieved intense fire from the ground, one helo was forced to leave the scene due to damage, the other crash landed. After crashing the helo continued to recieve a heavy volume of automatic weapons fire and R.P.G. rounds. The Ranger team, helo crew, and three Air Force men (para rescue and close air support specialists) formed a defensive line. Many of the U.S. fighting men were killed or disabled quickly. They were hardest hit from fire coming from a well constructed bunker 50 meters and up the hill from them. Relief helocopters could not be sent in until after sunset due to the ground fire.

The Airforce close support specialist radioed for help. The first arriving pair of aircraft (either F15 or 16s) had only their 20 mm vulcan cannons. They made repeated gun runs against the bunker. Firing from the bunker slowed but did not stop. A second pair of aircraft arrived (again either F15 or 16s) and they were carring bombs. One of these planes was piloted by the squadron commander. He did not want to bomb, because the bunker was so close the the Rangers, only 50 meters away! the Ranger commander insisted, that this was a dire emegency. The squadron commander agreed to bomb, but would not allow his wing man to. Two bombs were dropped, behind the bunker. Again firing from the bunker slowed, but did not stop. The aircraft were ordered to leave the area. Finaly an unmanned drone controled by the C.I.A. showed up. It carried a Hell Fire anti-tank missile. The hell fire was fired into the bunker destroying it. The greatest threat to the U.S. force had been neutralized, but they still continued to take heavy fire from terrorists forces surrounding them. And for the rest of the day they would be alone, with no air or artillery support. After sunset they were finaly relieved

One thing I found interesting was how lightly the Rangers were armed. This may not be true, I am only basing it on the documentary on the military channel, but the Rangers seemed to only have rifles, and m-240 machine guns (the rifles appeared to be CAR-15 carbines) . Our 40mm grenade launcher round is pretty weak, but it could easily hit a bunker 50 meters away, and a lucky shot might go through the slits. A L.A.W. rocket would also suppres fire from the bunker. Two or three hits by a javelin anti-tank missile, or Carl Gustof recoiless rifle would have destroyed the bunker.

This team was on their own most of the day. Heavier weapons would have been useful. The force they faced was said to number over 100!

Here is an example of our space age troopers having to rely on only the fire power they packed in with them for most of the day. They had three air support missions to help them, but for most of the day they were on their own. It is fortunate that they were elite troops, that were able to make the most of the weapons they had.

[offeror]

Originally Posted by Xracer

There's a heck of a lot more to an infantry squad's capabilities and effectivness than the amount of lead they can throw per minute.

If you add in laser sighting, night sights, night viewing, modern grenade launchers, RPGs, body armor, and instant communications for mortar, artillery and air support (and the amount of support readily available), there's absolutely no comparison between "then" and "now".

No Infantry squad from any nation during WWII would stand the slightest chance againist today's U.S. Army or Marine equivalent.

I agree with this. While aerial bombardment may not be instantly available, the precision of our squad-level capability and the survivability with our better armor would help assure the modern team would get back alive and the other guys would lose the fight.

By the way, I'm not aware of any huge debate over whether the STG 44 was the first issued assault rifle. I think it's clear to most historians that it was; the debate is whether it should COUNT, since it came in so late and in such limited numbers, that it had no impact on the outcome. And besides, "fans" of other guns on the Internet will defend their favorite model in almost any situation, which doesn't mean a whole lot.

But the STG 44 had all the key features of the assault weapon (carbine length, shortened rifle round, hi-cap boxes, etc.), and the name invented for it by the Nazis, Sturm-Gewehr, has been translated as "assault rifle" too. I'd say that covers it pretty thoroughly.

But again, at the sqad level, the technologies have improved in so many ways to insure accurate kills and troop survivability that the use of an assault rifle (or the round being shot) is not the deciding factor.

[stash247]

Let me offer again, the magic words: Aimed fire.
For twelve or thirteen years, the Russians continued to get their a***s kicked, in Afghanistan, by a bunch of old dudes on CAMELS.
Yeah, the CIA gave them some Lee-Enfields, and even Stinger Missiles, but the point remains, AIMED FIRE. MARKSMANSHIP. PRECISION.
The SEALS are among, if not, the best, at what they do, but it's not technology, but PRACTICE, that makes them so.
Let me re-phrase my prior post. A good man, with an accurate .308 bolt gun, is well the master of a ten man squad spraying and praying, with AK's, m-16's, or anything of the like. He can shoot, move, and shoot again, well outside the range of any but a chance connection, on their part. It only takes one bullet to make one less opponent.
This was taught in WWII: it was not, in Viet Nam.
My vote goes to the '44 team!

[Xracer]

Well let me weigh in again and take this discussion on a 45 degree angle.

IMO, the greatest advantage today's U.S. Infantry (or Mud Marine) squad has over WWII, is in four areas.....none of them in the firepower area.

Communications....the ability of each squad member to communicate with each other squad member during battle. Everybody knows where everybody else is, and what they're seeing.

Body armor.....survivibility of today's Doggie or Grunt is up 300 to 400% over his WWII equivalent. This leads to higher confidence and a more agressive squad.

Rapid Medivac and Modern Medicine...the ability to evacuate and more effectively treat the wounded. Again, leads to higher confidence, a more aggressive squad....and is able to more quickly return experienced men back to active squad duty.

Night vision devices....allows today squad the ability to "own the night" in a way never dreamed of in WWII. Gives today's squad 24-hour-a-day attack capability, and a more secure defensive cabability.

Again, IMO.....today's mouse guns (5.56mm and 9mm) are a step backwards, but in these other areas, we're light years ahead of WWII.

[stash247]

Xracer, your points are well made, and well taken; we have the technology, to win any war.
But, do we use it, effectively???
If we taught our kids to shoot, as we did for WWI, and WWII, we could turn them loose with whatever weapon was appropriate, to the theater of operation, or, with whatever they chose to carry, and WIN.
I'll bet you a Hershey Bar, if we go play in the dark, and I get the choice of weapons, the story will remain that accurate fire is the answer!
Given all the tech toys, if you pull the vest up, over your face, you are a zero; no Offensive Asset; or,if you do not, I will shoot you in the unprotected area of your head; also, a zero, no (Longer) an offensive asset.
I can deal with the idea of tech advances, but will not yield the notion that the force with the best training will win; Being a country boy, and shooting to eat from my pre teens, life has taught me a few simple lessons, which I hold dear; not the least of which, is, the guys with the best marksmen, WIN!

Comments....

[17thfabn]

Stash and Xracer I agree 100% with both of your last posts.

Xracer, I think equipment wise a modern U.S. infantry squad has it over a World War II era squad in ever area EXCEPT it's small arms. The M 249 S.A.W. can spit out a lot more lead at short to medium ranges, but at ranges over 400 meters the B.A.R. would have much superior hiting power.

Stash you are of course right. At any thing except short ranges pray and spray will get it's clock cleaned by skilled marksmanship! A guy on our department was a Bradley crew member in the early 90's. His unit deployed to Kuwait after the Gulf War to protect our Kuwaity "friends". He said they normaly got to shoot their small arms every six months. While in Kuwait they got to shoot "real often"... every month! Shooting every month is not enough for ANY sevice member who is expected to defend himself in a life or death situation, and of course the infantry are much more likely to get into a small arms action than any one else other than special operations troops.

My whole point is their has been massive improvements in most every aspect of military equipment EXCEPT small arms. Let me give some examples of 1945 equipment versus today.

F-15 Eagle versus the top of the line fighters of 1945. The top prop planes could do around 440 mph give or take, the few jet fighters available could do around maybe 600 mph. The Eagle can do over 2100 mph, has missels and radar that could kill an enemy before he even knows he is in a fight.

M-1 tank versus the best WW II tanks, take your pick of the Panther, Tiger II, or any of the Soviet late war super heavies. The M-1 would be at least twice as fast. With it's computerized fire control it can shoot on the move and achieve kills at over 2,000 meters. It's sabot round could easily rip through the armor of any WW II tank. Sitting still a WW II tank probably couldn't hit the M-1. Even at point blank range a WW II tank could not penetrate the armor of a M-1.

A modern destroyer can fire missels over the horizon, and destroy a WW II tin can before they knew what hit them.

Artillery and mortars. The guns themselves are much the same but the projectile is much more powerful. At Fort Sill Artillery training Center we were told that the switch to Composite B explosive had made artillery rounds explosive power twice that of their WW II ancestors. Add to this the special rounds artillery can now fire such as improved conventional munitons with multiple sub munitions that can be anti-personnel, dual purpose with anti-armor and vehicle appoications, or mines. Also there are precision anti-armor projectiles that can be guided in by a lazer designator on the front lines.

In all these areas, air warfare, ground warafare, combat at sea we have made vast strides.The story is much different when you compare the best small arms of WW II to those today.

Side arms: Arguable the best hand guns of WW II are both John Browning designs, the Colt .45 automatic, and the 9mm Browning. Today our troops are armed with the M9 Berreta 9mm semi-automatic. The WW II era 9mm Browning is every bit as good a weapon as the Berreta of today, and if you are a .45 auto fan it is inferrior to the Colt.

Sniper Rifles: The U.S. 1903 Springfield, Lee-Enfield .303, German Mauser, or equivalent Soviet sniper rifle of the era are very effective weapons. A modern sniper would feel quite at home with these rifles.

Submachine guns: The German M.P. 40 would hold it's own against any modern submachine gun.

M-1 rifle. There is really no modern standard issue equal. The closest thing would be the M-14, which is mostly used by special troops. The M-14 is a slight improvement over the M-1 with it's 20 shot cpacity mag versus 8 for the M-1.

Machine guns: Compare a U.S. m60 or m 240 to a WW II German mg 34 or mg 42, or American m1919 series weapons. The mg 34 & 42 are just as light as the modern weapons. And the mg 42 has a much higher rate of fire.

In 1945 the M-2 .50 cal machine gun was the best HEAVY machine gun in the world. Heck in 1920 the .50 cal was the best heavy machine gun in the World. IN 2005 the M-2 with slight improvments and a change in nomenclature is STILL the best heavy machine gun in the world!

Many of the above weapons, are not World War II vintage, but actualy WW I vintage (colt .45, Sringfield 03, Lee-Enfield .303, Mauser, M-2 .50 cal). And yet a modern Ranger squad could carry these WW II weapons plus all the modern electronic equipment (comms., navigation, target designation) and body armor and be extremly effective.

[Xracer]

"A modern destroyer can fire missels over the horizon, and destroy a WW II tin can before they knew what hit them."

Yes it can.....but as the Brits learned in the Falklands, the modern destroyer is totally useless for shore bombardment (one of it's primary uses in WWII). One of the most effective weapons in our island hopping campaign in the Pacific was close inshore fire support....those WWII 5"/38's were very effective against MG nests and Jap bunkers. Modern DD missiles are too expensive, too inaccurate, and a DD or Frigate doesn't carry enough of 'em to be useful in that role today.

Another thing the Brits learned....Missles and their associated equipment are heavy. So, in order to bring the overall vessel weight and center of gravity down to acceptable levels, they made the upper levels of their DD's out of aluminum (we do too). Not a good idea. Get it hot enough and aluminum burns......and after being hit by Exocet missiles, several of their Aluminumcans did......right down to the waterline!

And another rant....The Pentagon seems to have forgotten, that even with the "Gee Whiz High Tech" gagetry, you've still gotta "take the high ground and hold it!" And that takes "feet on the gound".....and that means enough feet on the ground to take, and hold, and occupy, and pacify the territory.

You'd think that this basic military doctrine would be obvious to all.......but apparently to Rumsfeld & Company, it's not.

[17thfabn]

Xracer, in the Coast Guard we also had steel hulls and aluminum superstructures on some of our newer Cutters. It was found that the dis-simmilar metals would cause a small electrical circuit which caused rusting. There was some worry that the superstructures might actual split off from the hull! It's like Neal Young said, rust never sleeps!

[Xracer]

Yeah 17.....the Navy found the same thing. Electrolysis was causing structural problems to aluminum superstructure/steel hull interface.

They solved the problem by riveting an aluminum alloy plate to the bottom of the hull as a "sacrificial anode" and wiring it to the aluminum superstructure. An inelegant solution, but it worked.