[B.T.]

Once again, a very educated ans very inspiring thread, Thank you all for sharing your thoughts.
I would like, to add some of my own:

Originally Posted by Webstral

The degree to which US Army infantry is reliant upon close and consistent fire support is dismaying. It’s a major weakness. Once again, I feel the irresistible urge to advance my personal campaign for supplementing the traditional light/mechanized distinction in the US Army with a dragoon/grenadier distinction. Like typical mechanized infantry, the dragoons would be expected to move operationally and tactically in organic transport and to fight dismounted with close support from organic fighting vehicles as well as artillery and CAS. Dragoons could come in a variety of configurations while meeting the above conditions.

Grenadiers, on the other hand, would move tactically and operationally in vehicles belonging to a higher echelon. They would fight dismounted without close support from fighting vehicles. Support from corps-level artillery and CAS would be worked into the doctrine, but grenadiers would be expected to execute their missions without heavy fire support. I would add, though, that they should have some vehicles that could carry packs, ammunition, and other consumables over short distances so that the light fighters themselves could move and fight carrying the minimum additional mass. Every pound counts.

Dragoons probably would fight during the day, and they would never get very far from their fighting vehicles. Grenadiers probably would operate at night. Dragoons would go into the crucible of combat with the principle role of defending the tanks against the enemy’s infantry and dismounted anti-tank fires. Grenadiers would avoid combat as much as possible, preferring offensive or defensive ambushes. Dragoons could operate in any terrain, being all combined arms and junk. Grenadiers would operate in restricted terrain where the enemy’s dragoons would be forced to fight dismounted and with limited assistance from fighting vehicles. Dragoons could be produced relatively quickly. Grenadiers would take some training. Grenadiers would be junior Rangers, in effect, with a healthy dose of WW2 Japanese light fighter thrown in for good measure. Infiltration, camouflage, deception, superior leadership, superior training, superior marksmanship, superior conditioning, superior unit cohesion, superior leadership (‘cuz it needs to be mentioned twice), superior perks in the rear, and superior leadership (‘cuz it really does need to be mentioned three times) would distinguish grenadiers from dragoons. I’d have never been an NCO in a grenadier unit, though I might have done okay as a private.

I agree. As I see it, this was the reason behind the German (=West Germany in the Cold War) decision, to field the Panzergrenadier-units (mech. Inf with the Marder IFV) and the Jäger-units (Kind of "light Infantry", equipped with trucks or the M113.) Every PzGren-Btl in the Bundeswehr of the 80ies had one integrated Jäger company. Those would have been asked to support the Panzergrenadiers in FIBUA situations and in fighting in wooded areas. The Jägers were better trained. Every single soldier in my unit was trained with rifle, MP, Pistol, handgrenades, MGs, and the le. Panzerfaust. Everyone had seen the Milan and was instructed, to use it (although not everyone visited the 6 week training course).
We were trained in lying minefields and in improving booby traps with grenades.
The Panzergrenadiers, on the other hand, were not trained with the Uzi. At a time, when the Marder still had the firing ports for the Uzi!

Originally Posted by Raellus

We also seem to ignore or discount the fact that Western technological superiority failed to win the wars in Korea and Vietnam and, more recently, the war in Afghanistan. Yes, those are different types of wars, but GWI and II were not really comparable to a WWIII in Europe scenario either. It's not fair to say that the lessons of Korea and 'Nam don't apply to WWIII whereas the "lessons" of GWI somehow do.

Therefore, I think it's fair to say that the west clearly had a technological advantage over the ComBloc, but that this advantage was not a decisive one.

Very true. Technical superiority does not win wars. The more advanced technical weapons would help in warfare, but what counts, are the single soldiers. You know: "(More) Boots on the ground!"

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

Every allied nation was behind Germany in terms of tech and yet Germany still lost.

Compare the M4 Sherman to the later model Panzer IV's let alone the Panther and Tiger. The German Panzerfaust and Panzerschrek where superior to both the Bazooka and the joke (sorry, by joke I mean the british PIAT). The Germans had the jet aircraft which where superior in every way to the allied fighters.

The problem Germany had was numbers and fuel. In a WW3 scenario the Russians have a massive numerical advantage and this could prove as telling as it was in WW2.

One should not forget, that the German society was in a constant state of paranoia. Even in the developement of weapons, several agencies tried, to convince all others, that their approach would be the best. And that led to a situaton, where different groups worked on the development of certain items, but a central "power" was lacking. Look at the development of a modern infantry rifle, as an example: Fallschirmjägergewehr and Sturmgewehr both were interesting designs, both were really influential. But in the end, a lot of labour and intellectual manpower were wasted. Because everyone tried his thing, ignoring the work of others. (As an aside: This seems to be repeated in the current US: SOCOM, Marines and Army all search for a specific new rifle. But every force uses a different approach. Or look at the developement of helmets: Marines and Army both replaced the PASGT helmet, but both forces developed their own design!)
The majority of the German units in WWII were still equipped with an old rifle (Kar 98), even in the end of the war. And most soldiers did not ride in fancy halftracks, they moved on foot.