Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Taller people have a height/LOS and reach advantage. Short people find cover easier. I think I'd rather be tall to look down on enemies and climb things easier. What do you think?

Also talk people are more intimidating, thus good for morale. Also taller people can throw grenades farther.

There's a reason modern combatants spend most of their time shooting from the prone position, or dug into foxholes. The bigger your visible profile, the bigger target you present to the enemy, and you stick up over more of the low cover available in most combat locales.

If you want height, climb a hill. Automatic weapons fire is more intimidating than a tall person. And there are grenade launchers if you need more range on your grenades.

If I was on a battlefield, my biggest priority would be surviving it. I don't want to look down on my enemies, I want to not be shot by them. I'll be a smaller target that can hide easier thanks.

Contrary to popular myth, taller is actually better.

Here's an example but several conducted studies have had results that run counter to the popular stories that taller men were more likely to die. In fact, soldiers who survive war are likely to be taller than those who don't.

The straightforward explanation is that a few inches variation in height does little to alter your target profile but can make a surprising difference in your capacity to survive blood loss, among advantages like more muscle mass, longer strides, etc.

I'm 5'8" I'd rather be 6' or 6'4". I did 10 years in the army and I see taller as a bit better mostly because of all running that is going to go on. Prone doesn't change all that much from my size to a bit taller but I could do with the added mobility and the potential for a better use of muscle mass once in physical contact. There is also the psychological element in feeling physically smaller any opposition or non combatant will feel which could deescalate a situation just on physical presence alone. I'd still be responsible for my end of the things, staying in shape and taking care of myself. There is an advantage I don't currently have to being at least 8 inches taller.
Army length would be one as well. When I first went in the M16 stock was so uncomfortable and it felt like I had no arms on my body, as in I struggled to fire from the prone. This impacted my ability to shoot as a new shooter.
I did my 4 miler for air-assault school in the allotted time but I can't say my time was impressive than goodness i was in my 20's.
A wider pace would have certainly helped me in every physical event. All of that I feel easily translates to the battle field having been overseas a few times. But sadly instead of 8 more inches of height I was cursed to be the sexiest man alive doomed to live my life at 1/10 my power for the sake of every other person I encounter. I would have preferred to be 8 inches taller I been asked.

We do seem to be seeing a lot more musculoskeletal problems in taller personnel that had to carry extreme weight in the last two decades in Iraq and Afghan. So as well as being sexy you get to have a better back

For hand to hand combat you would actually want to be smaller, lower centre of gravity/fulcrum weight.

I would prefer not to be on a battlefield.

Also, does the time period of the combat change your answer?

 Easy E wrote:
I would prefer not to be on a battlefield.

Also, does the time period of the combat change your answer?

Well, yeah. In ages of primarily melee combat size, strength, and reach make a big difference. In an age of automatic guns, being a small target - or better yet not being a viable target at all - is a survival trait.

Taller, but not excessively so. Talking 6-6'2.

Prone, there's not height difference, and past 20m there's essentially no difference in size profile.

But, being taller has a few upsides.

You carry weight easier (% of bodyweight). You march at a sustained pace faster and easier. It does make it easier getting over walls and fences, but not significantly. My cruising walk with a pack has anyone 5'10 and under having to shuffle to try keep up.

Hand to hand, eh, not sure on other nations, but ours emphasises getting close, grappling, and simply attempting to maintain that till you get bailed out. You're not really actively fighting.

Throwing grenades I'm not sure really matters. You aren't attempting to yeet a grenade 100m. You're using them at close ranges in quite precise manners.

My $0.02

Also might depend a bit on your planned combat role. If you are intended to sit in a tank or similar, small size might be a lot more comfortable. Had a buddy that was 1,65, so...5'5'' who had his service in the artillery (PzH 2000 I think). He told me most taller people in his unit were selected for shorter size.

I'm 6'3 and as someone who has spent their working life digging holes in the ground and carrying heavy gak, boy let me tell you, I'd quite like to have been shorter. My back is ruined. No wonder Dwarves are always miners in fantasy, being closer to the ground is bloody great for that.

I toyed with the idea of joining the armed forces when I was 18, my cousin was in the army and my granda served in the Paras during WW2. I figured the RAF would suit me but as I recall, there's a height limit or something. In the end I did something different.

I've been in fights where me being taller is dead useful, I'm thankful I haven't been regularly shot at, but I figure it won't make that much difference.

There are certainly limits at both ends. Extreme height and extreme shortness both bring with them potential health complications from additional stresses/strains on the body. Both inherent to the size, but also from things like how standard equipment and such will be made for a certain size. Eg someone who is very tall is likely spending a lot more time stooped over because vehicles and such are made for average dimensions.


That said it makes sense, if you are taller you've got more room for muscle mass and a longer stride. Sometimes being the survivor is being able to run as fast as you freaking can to get into cover or get out of a bad situation.

I think you’d want to be on the tall side, above average, but not exceptionally tall, not lanky and still a solid athletic build.

The average Olympic athlete is about 6’ and 80kg, the average Australian rules football player is 6’2 and about 90kg, I feel like that’d be a good size and build, maybe a bit heavier since you’d need to be carrying equipment with you.

I'm 6'5" tall, and let me tell you there WOULD be some downsides. Supply and logistics.

I'm jealous of people that are 5" tall when I fly. Coach for them has more proportional room than me in first class.

Finding food, pants, shoes, or a coat that fits is hard enough as a civilian with access to the internet. If I was in the trenches I'd be the guy with rags tied around his feet, using a blanket with a hole in the center and a belt as a makeshift poncho-coat.

Every standard meal would feel like not enough.

If army life was like real life I'd also become the designated squad pack-mule for everything too heavy for others.

Need to be carried on a stretcher? better have four guys instead of two, and hope it never has to be time sensitive.

An avowed wuss, I’ve never been anywhere close to Real Combat.

But for what it’s worth, I’m 6’2”, and I’ve done LARP.

There height does have some advantages. Being taller also means a greater reach. Pass me a polearm, and not only can I comfortably hit people in your second or third rank, whilst standing in my own second rank, but I’m going for the typically more exposed head. Sure you can wear a helmet, but a bit of Deff From Abuv is still a pain, as you can’t go protecting your bonce, because you still have to protect your body from folk of more average height.

The downside is I Stand Out. Enemies with pole arms don’t just go for my head. They go for the side of my head. And some idiots don’t pull their blows either. It may be largely safe combat, but some moron wrapping a polearm round your lughole still flipping hurts.

If fighting in more of a skirmish? Shields cover less of me, as the game has maximum sizes allowed for safety. I of course go with the maximum (for Protectiness, and the fact I’m really not that good in a fight!). On some of my smaller compadres? That maximum size is more than enough to completely hide. Me? There’s always something poking out round the sides, and those, Sod’s law being what it is, always prove to be arrow magnets.

But the other upside is that when wandering alone, people see Big and think Scary. Which is just as well, because if they knew how bad I was at the fighting, let alone that I’m naturally quite the wuss, I’d be a target for sure!

I'm 5' 9", and that was pretty much ideal when I was in combat. Taller guys had more issues with gear, vehicle entry/exit/whatnot, and are a larger silhouette for the enemy to shoot at.

Doesn't matter what size you are. If it's your time to get opted out then it's your time to move on. Murphey Law applies here. No matter what your physic is you always try your best to look unimportant