Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-03-2015, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
31,988 posts, read 34,536,457 times
Reputation: 15022

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
The question is vastly different because in one the U.S. is using 2015 technology and in the other 1940 technology.
Yes. We already addressed that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by catdad7x View Post
I was talking about both sides having the same WW2 technology & weapons of the period. That's way different than what you asked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I see. I missed the part about both sides having period weapons. My bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-03-2015, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
31,988 posts, read 34,536,457 times
Reputation: 15022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haolejohn View Post
Does Germany have the same technology advances as America in your scenarios? Or is it modern technology vs WWII tech?
Germany has WWII Tech.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2015, 08:55 AM
 
15,752 posts, read 20,346,743 times
Reputation: 20895
Could the US conduct total war in this scenario?

Would a US military of 2015 ever firebomb a city?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2015, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
31,988 posts, read 34,536,457 times
Reputation: 15022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
SEAD today strongly relies on radar emissions, almost all air-defenses rely on radar to acquire and target HARM missiles for instance would be useless against 1940's air defenses since except in few instances did not use RADAR. So would most aircraft installed EW systems that rely on passive radar detection to alert pilots of possible incoming fire. So Apache's and similar would have no warning of ground fire directed at them, and the tools used in 1940 are not dissimilar to those used today, how would said Apache handle an 8.8cm HE shell impact? I can tell you, it wouldn't be pretty.
Apache helicopters certainly wouldn't have any more trouble than they had in the Iraq and Persian Gulf wars where we faced enemy that was far more technologically advanced than WWII Germany. And it's not clear what types of missions our generals would elect to use Apaches for. I doubt they'd employ them in some reckless fashion where they'd be at great risk of getting shot down. And drones would be able to gather intel so that we'd know where air defenses were located.

The A-10 Warthog would be virtually indestructible. And an M-1 Abrams Tank could easily smash through any opposition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
In my opinion were this possible that the higher tech side would be stunned, they would go in thinking they have all the advantage and inflict heavy losses but also receive heavier losses than expected (thus being stunned), this is typical of most engagements we (the US) have seen from Vietnam onwards. In the 1940's people accepted that wars cost lives, the bigger the war the heavier the cost. Look at Iraq, it started in 2003, and cost around 4,500 US lives, the Battle of Moscow cost Germany a high of 400,000 men in 3 months (97 days), or around an average of the same casualties the US suffered over the entirety of Iraq for every single day for 97 days. Do you think that the US has the political will to experience those levels of casualties today and not break, Germany did in 1941? I'd think that with today's political will even 1/10th or less over an extended period of a week or more would result in some form of reflection.
The difference is that the Viet Cong and the Iraqis were supplied with Soviet technology that could compete reasonably well against American technology. The Vietnamese could shoot down our fighters with surface-to-air missiles. The Germans wouldn't be able to do that. They wouldn't be able to get their fleet off the ground because we could just bomb it from altitudes they couldn't even reach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
I think your overall presumption of an easy victory in such a scenario is greatly overrated. As Jaggy correctly states too, there's a big difference between "winning the war" and securing peace. Even if Berlin fell within a few weeks of an offensive, the war is not won. You may have secured a strategic objective, but that's not winning the war.
That depends on the how you're defining "winning." If "winning" means conquest plus occupation and the subsequent neutering of a country, then no, it wouldn't be easy. But who said anything about doing that? Did Israel go occupy Egypt and Syria after scoring a decisive victory against them in 1967? No one really argues that those countries weren't "defeated" then. Did we not "defeat" Iraq in the Persian Gulf War? Not every military defeat leads to complete domination and nation-building.

You're assuming that the goal here is regime change. That's why the Iraq War was so costly. We had already defeated them, but we wanted to "nation-build," and we paid for the price for that. Here I'm only talking about military defeat. I don't consider "defeat" to only have occurred once free, peaceful and democratic elections have taken place.

With modern-day technology, there's nothing that would stop American tanks from rolling all the way to Berlin, destroying everything in sight. And yes, after most of your military has been destroyed and you have an enemy charging into your capital city, you've been defeated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2015, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
31,988 posts, read 34,536,457 times
Reputation: 15022
One military expert's opinion on how D-Day would go down with modern weaponry.

Quote:
The M1A2 Abrams main battle tank would probably be as close to invulnerable as anything ever employed in warfare. The only reasonable option for destroying one with 1944 equipment would be swarming it with infantry and trying to get a grenade inside. This technique was costly during World War II. Against an Abrams, with a wingman that can just shower his buddy with high-explosive rounds that do nothing substantial to the armor ...
Quote:
The MK19 automatic grenade launcher: Designed for use against troops in the open and in trench lines, light armored vehicles, urban strong points, and light fortifications, this 76.2-pound beast is technically man-portable (by someone's standard) and is widely employed on mounted assets. It's capable of firing 325 to 375 40-mm grenades per minute, and there is arguably no more intimidating weapon in the U.S. arsenal that is commonly used in firefights. I have personally been within 25 meters or so of the beaten zone of someone unleashing a long burst of grenades, and it was, shall we say, disconcerting. This is probably the one weapon capable of allowing an individual to single-handedly end a firefight.
How easily could the U.S. military take Omaha Beach with modern weaponry?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2015, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Type 0.73 Kardashev
11,110 posts, read 9,770,079 times
Reputation: 40161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango View Post
100,000 citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would probably have to disagree with you. And besides, there is such a thing as a pure fusion weapon... all the "bang" of a hydrogen bomb without the "bonus" hershey-squirts until death, hair shedding, skin peeling, vomiting, eyeball popping and millennia-long ground-tainting of circa 1950's nuclear weapons technology. Unfortunately, pure fusion bombs are much harder to say "no freaking way" to when it's optional to use them.

They are certainly still top-secret in this current era but still in the arsenal nevertheless. Guess that's the big surprise for WW3... shoulda given a spoiler alert.
You're remarkably confused about nuclear weapons. From an effects point of view, the only different between thermonuclear weapons and fission bombs is the scale. Fission bombs have a maximum yield of about 500 kilotons. Fusion weapons have no theoretical limit, though into the tens of megatons they start to get impractical from a deployment point of view. The latter just produces a wider radius of destruction.

Now, aside from that, do you know what is used as the trigger in a fusion bomb? One or more fission bombs. So, first, there's no such thing as a 'pure fusion' nuclear weapon. Second, both fission weapons and fusion weapons produce thermal radiation, ionizing radiation, and residual radiation (or, fallout). So where you got the notion that fusion weapons don't cause burns, radiation sickness, and local contamination is beyond me.

Finally, there's history. You speak of total war, but even World War II was not a total war. Do you know why Kyoto was scrubbed from the initial list of targets for the atomic bombs? Because of its exceptional cultural treasures, as well as the fact the Secretary of War Stimson had honeymooned there and was rather fond of the city. And that was not an isolated example. Chemical weapons were not used. We didn't even use nuclear weapons against the USSR when we had them and they did not (until late 1949). The notion that the U.S. would slaughter 50 million or more German civilians when it didn't have to do so is a fantasy (and a rather sad one at that) - and the silly idea that you could even find worthy targets for anywhere close to 1000 nuclear weapons in the Third Reich doesn't exactly enhance your credibility on this topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2015, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
31,988 posts, read 34,536,457 times
Reputation: 15022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile View Post
My scenario assumes that higher command has the sense to play to their strengths. Put E-2 and E-3 radar reconnaissance aircraft up to track their airforce, and shoot them down whenever they're airborne. Their fighters would have zero chance of scoring a kill on an F-16 or F-18, and I seriously doubt their flak would be effective on supersonic aircraft. They might get lucky and tag a few just by sheer chance, but their fire control would not be able to track fast enough or adjust to such a completely different generation of aircraft.

A-10s would make mincemeat of their armored formations, and yes, some of them might get lucky with a 20-mm or a random MG-43 every now and then, but for the most part their ground forces wouldn't have much to defend themselves against modern jets. For that matter, even the F-16s, F-18s, and F-15s would shred the top and rear armor on any German armored vehicle of that era, although the low ammo loads would mean that they'd only be able to bag a few tanks on each mission, but they've got time. Cluster bombs that were designed to savage massed formations of T-72s and T-80s would make Panzers and Tigers look like they were made of tinfoil.

Our air force and navy would easily destroy their air force and armored units with very few losses. Their surface fleet would last only days, and their U-boat fleet would be useless against 21st Century ASW technology. Besides, with the destruction of the surface fleet and the U-boat bases, they'd only be able to stay at sea a few weeks. At that point, the objective specified in the OP - defeat of the German armed forces - would be accomplished.

But, then comes the hard part - the liberation of Europe, which means occupying it with ground forces. I don't see any way to do that without several infantry divisions, perhaps an entire army. The OP doesn't ask about how to deal with a potential insurgency after the war is over, so I won't bother speculating. But I think that part would be a hell of a lot harder than simply defeating their army and air force.
Very solid and detailed response.

I was reading that modern day AA guns are largely useless against modern-day bombers (they are very effective against low-flying planes, however). That said, wouldn't we just carpet bomb German formations into oblivion?

I didn't realize how devastating the A-10 was. It's been interesting reading for sure.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twMPQFDu-Rc
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2015, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Falls Church, Fairfax County
5,162 posts, read 4,470,324 times
Reputation: 6336
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonMike7 View Post
Could the US conduct total war in this scenario?

Would a US military of 2015 ever firebomb a city?
There would be no need to conduct total war or to firebomb a city. As a matter of fact this would play out much more civilian friendly than the original war in that you could just target fuel and power centers, maybe some bridges and railroads and the military itself.

The US would own the night, much as it does now, but to a much, much, greater extent. You could also target Hitler better better but I am not even sure that with today's tech advantage that you would find him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2015, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Falls Church, Fairfax County
5,162 posts, read 4,470,324 times
Reputation: 6336
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I was reading that modern day AA guns are largely useless against modern-day bombers (they are very effective against low-flying planes, however). That said, wouldn't we just carpet bomb German formations into oblivion?
I doubt we would have a need to carpet bomb them. We could just isolate them and let them surrender which is much more preferable. Then you keep the existing military, purge the command structure of NAZI's and leave it in place for peacetime enforcement as the German state rebuilds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2015, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
31,988 posts, read 34,536,457 times
Reputation: 15022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Guard View Post
I doubt we would have a need to carpet bomb them. We could just isolate them and let them surrender which is much more preferable. Then you keep the existing military, purge the command structure of NAZI's and leave it in place for peacetime enforcement as the German state rebuilds.
Yes, I think most of them would surrender once they learned a U.S. invasion force was on the way to Berlin. I don't think there'd be any need to go from village to village in France getting into gunfights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:37 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top