Hypothetical

"Jcarr" (jcarr) 08/03/2017 at 10:14 • Filed to: None

0

38

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

It’s December 1941 and the Japanese have just executed their attack on Pearl Harbor*. U.S. involvement in WWII is about to go full-throttle. Everything about the Axis powers is exactly the same as it was in real life. The U.S., however, has its full, modern 2017 military from personnel to equipment to tactics and command structure.

What are your thoughts on the following questions:

How long does it take the U.S. to pound the Axis powers into submission?

Does the U.S. suffer any combat losses that aren’t a result of accidents or friendly fire (excluding Pearl Harbor)?

What unforseen difficulties would the U.S. encounter in fighting 1940s Axis powers with a present-day military?

* I know the attack would have been easily detected and repelled with a modern U.S. military, but I’m just going to use this event as it occurred as a starting point.

random001 > Jcarr 08/03/2017 at 10:20

1

About 3, maybe 4 days.

No.

I can’t forsee any...

66671 - 200 [METRIC] my dash > Jcarr 08/03/2017 at 10:20

1

Shock and fucking awe. Wouldn’t even know what hit em lol.

I wonder if heat seeking missiles would go after propeller planes???

The airforce I think would just be too effective and shut it down immediately tbh, no point on putting boots on the ground at that point.

vondon302 > Jcarr 08/03/2017 at 10:20

1

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Jcarr 08/03/2017 at 10:21

1

1 - Assuming they’re still running with 1940s technology, a few weeks mainly because we probably don’t have all of the German, Italian, and Japanese military installations ready to queue up with cruise missiles. It could be days otherwise since we would be able to very effectively cut all of their 1940s radio communications and our planes won’t be detected by their 1940s radar.

2 - Probably not. We’d be bombing the shit out of them from outside of their weapon range. There might be pot-shots towards civilians though like the Japanese attempts to burn the Pacific Northwest with bombing balloons or when the Japanese shelled Ellwood.

3 - Domestic media outcry regarding heavy-handed tactics is the only thing I can think of.

My X-type is too a real Jaguar > Jcarr 08/03/2017 at 10:22

2

I’ll just leave this here

Jcarr > vondon302 08/03/2017 at 10:22

1

Ha, that’s what I had in mind while writing this.

Ash78, voting early and often > Jcarr 08/03/2017 at 10:22

2

Wow, so you’re making me relive the tough conversations I had with my dad when we watched The Final Countdown on VHS in 1986? Thanks.

Our honest consensus back then — and even more today — is that a single carrier’s counterstrike on Japan would have been such a show of force, they would have backed down. I doubt we’d even need a nuke, which is a sad and scary thought.

EDIT: Unforeseen difficulty — exactly what Nazi Germany saw with the first jet fighters...they were too fast to engage with propeller-driven fighters, which was awkward. Sometimes technology is too good. But then again, they didn’t have long-range air-to-air missiles that could strike the enemy dogfighter before they even saw you.

Jcarr > My X-type is too a real Jaguar 08/03/2017 at 10:23

0

The inspiration for my post!

ttyymmnn > Jcarr 08/03/2017 at 10:34

5

How long does it take the U.S. to pound the Axis powers into submission?

Longer than you might think. The volunteer Army is pretty small, and even with reserves you probably couldn’t fight a war in two theaters. Even with all the tech whiz bang, you still needs boots.

Does the U.S. suffer any combat losses that aren’t a result of accidents or friendly fire (excluding Pearl Harbor)?

Absolutely. Planes can still be dropped by flak, no matter how fast they fly, and the enemy still has very effective small arms and MGs.

What unforseen difficulties would the U.S. encounter in fighting 1940s Axis powers with a present-day military?

Fighters too fast to engage propeller planes. Heat-seeking missiles with no heat source to lock on to. Too much emphasis on tech.

e36Jeff now drives a ZHP > Jcarr 08/03/2017 at 10:42

2

If the enemy didnt know our abilities, the war would be over in a matter of days. Something like that would likely result have resulted in Japan getting a nuke up their ass ASAP, probably before Germany could declare war on us. And the second they saw what we did to Japan, they’d likely sue for peace.

And Pearl Harbor would have had a very different outcome. We would have seen the entire fleet coming, had surveillance on them while they were still hundreds or thousands of miles away(and likely a few SSNs shadowing them), we’d have known the second they launched fighters, when that happened, and it became clear their intentions were hostile, the subs would have unleashed hell upon that IJN fleet, it would not have survived to launch a second wave. The ships in Pearl Harbor would have spun up their Aegis combat systems and started launching SM-2s while the IJN bombers were 100nmi out and I doubt there would be any left to hit the naval base. Any combination of 2 Ticonderogas or Arleigh Burke class ships would contain sufficient SM-2's to end the first wave on the spot. Last time I was there, there was one Tico and 4 or 5 Burkes, which should be enough to wipe the first wave 3-4 times over

Air warfare would be absurd, we could literally orbit our tanker above Berlin and they wouldn’t be able to touch them. You could do refuelling ops out in the open with zero concern for combat losses. Our tankers, aside from the KC-130(and that could still outrun most WW2 fighters), would all be able to outrun any plane sent up after them.

Ocean warfare would be totally one sided, they did not have reliable torpedo guidance in WW2 and there was no such animal as a nuclear submarine. subs were only found from the air by spotting one snorkling. SSNs and SSBNs and SSGN would rule the ocean. The combo of guided torpedoes plus nuclear power would devastate anyone that dared to set out. We would not even need to bother setting to sea with the rest of our fleet, the subs alone would end the IJN in a matter of months. You could just park the SSGN’s offshore and wipe their shipyards off the planet.

Ground warfare would be pretty one-sided, but not as bad, we’d have the advantage of all our troops wearing body armor and our tanks could likely withstand anything the Germans could throw at them. Our APC’s would still be vulnerable to tank fire. Helicopters would be a game-changer though, nothing even close to modern helicopter existed in WW2. I think Germany had some very rudimentary choppers, but they were not fast nor all that good.

Information warfare would be totally lopsided. We would likely have the ability to jam their radars at will, with modern surveillance aircraft orbiting above the range of WW2 era AA we’d know the layout of the entire battlefield at all times.

AuthiCooper1300 > Jcarr 08/03/2017 at 10:42

1

From a strategic point of view there would be no contest, particularly if using the full arsenal of bombs/missiles doesn’t bother you.

From a tactical point of view... not so easy, not so fast. Ultimately victory equals occupation/boots on enemy land, and even with their 1940s weapons and tactics Axis guerrilla warfare could take forever to wipe out. I suppose I don’t need to mention recent examples of that kind of miscalculation, right?

Absolute victory would be easier on Japan, for exactly the same reasons as in WW2.

But do you really think that the US would actually use nuclear bombs to quickly flatten Berlin, or Hamburg, or Kiel, or Stuttgart? Really? Then prepare for a long, bloody occupation.

ttyymmnn > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 08/03/2017 at 10:46

1

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Army officials acknowledged that the 30 mm cannons used by the Apache gunners were far bigger than what was needed to kill the men, but said it is the smallest weapon the Apaches have.

Tape Shows Apache Pilots Firing on Iraqis

ttyymmnn > AuthiCooper1300 08/03/2017 at 10:49

0

Agree on all points. On the nukes, most people don’t know that the atom bomb was originally intended for Berlin. However, the Americans were worried that the bomb might not work and Hitler would get his hands on the device (in some obviously mangled form), and the war in Europe ended before the bomb was ready. Still, I wonder if there might not have been some cultural issues at play. Would it have been easier for America, with its shared European heritage, to drop the bomb on “those yellow bastards” than on Germany?

AuthiCooper1300 > ttyymmnn 08/03/2017 at 10:54

0

Too much emphasis on tech.

Exactly.

AuthiCooper1300 > ttyymmnn 08/03/2017 at 11:02

0

Would it have been easier for America, with its shared European heritage, to drop the bomb on “those yellow bastards” than on Germany?

No doubt. Also, we must bear in mind that before the war Europe was a big market for US products; Japan, not so much.

Cultural proximity aside, you don’t want to destroy completely a territory that some day is going to be a buyer of your stuff.

We must not forget that certain GM plants in Germany were somewhat spared total destruction because the Allies were already thinking “just in case” of the postwar period. (On the other hand, one of the options studied, the Morgenthau plan, certainly did not foresee a future industrialised Germany.)

promoted by the color red > Jcarr 08/03/2017 at 11:04

1

1.) 30 days, tops

2.) Do mechanical maladies count?

3.) How well modern targeting systems work on technology this old. The answer should be “very well” but “should be” and “is” aren’t always one and the same. Also, fighter tactics have probably changed in the last 70 years. Advantage still goes to the 2017 pilots though.

uofime-2 > ttyymmnn 08/03/2017 at 11:09

1

In addition to manpower, lets not forget material shortage as well. We do not have stock piles large enough to cope with the sheer numbers involved in that conflict.

Think about the industrial might that went into that war.

Consider the global economy involved in manufacturing these days, just aquiring the basic electronics components for manufacturing our tech is a global afffair and would be utterly impossible. (at least in any sort of short timeline)

The same reasons they say we can’t have a global war today would be a huge problem in that scenario as well

AuthiCooper1300 > uofime-2 08/03/2017 at 11:12

0

In terms of widespread destruction and suffering, it is most unfortunate that we still can have a global war; just not of the traditional kind.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > 66671 - 200 [METRIC] my dash 08/03/2017 at 11:16

1

wouldn’t you at some point need boots on the ground to liberate populated areas? You can have air superiority and you can take out key strategic targets, but at this point there’s quite an occupation going on.

uofime-2 > AuthiCooper1300 08/03/2017 at 11:20

0

I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but I’ll just assume you’re talking about the destruction and suffering we currently/recently have had and while I don’t want to downplay that, it is entirely bush league compared to what we did to ourselves in the world wars

AuthiCooper1300 > uofime-2 08/03/2017 at 11:25

0

No, I was talking about nuclear war.

An all-out [nuclear] confrontation between any of the nuclear superpowers would be calamitous for the whole planet; hence it could be considered, in terms of widespread destruction and suffering, a global war (even if the number of “actors” is actually much smaller than it was in WW1 or WW2.)

ttyymmnn > AuthiCooper1300 08/03/2017 at 11:29

1

RE: Cultural proximity: During the war, many German POWs were shipped back to the US to work on American farms while American kids were fighting in Europe. Many of these POWs ate dinner with the American families, and sat with the families at restaurants, while black American soldiers were forced to eat out of the back door of the kitchen.

ttyymmnn > uofime-2 08/03/2017 at 11:30

1

We barely have stockpiles to deal with ISIS today, let alone a global conflict.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > ttyymmnn 08/03/2017 at 11:31

1

The first Gulf war was an example of WWII tactics vs modern mobile warfare and it was over pretty quickly.

In Europe I think you’d have MBT’s supported by infantry fighting vehicles rolling through Axis armor like they didn’t exist. Germans would have been in full retreat once you smashed their armored divisions and you’d probably only meet resistance again once you got to the German border.

In the Pacific, once you annihilated the Japanese Navy you’d be able to cut off their supplies and pick off at will. I’m pretty sure Okinawa would have fallen much quicker if the Allies had bunker busters to use on the tunnel networks and had taken out command and control centers.

AuthiCooper1300 > e36Jeff now drives a ZHP 08/03/2017 at 11:37

0

A war does not end with the defeat of the army, navy and air force, but with the physical occupation of the land and total control of the borders, territory, economy, industry, politics and population of the enemy.

Assuming a quick victory over the Axis’ conventional forces, you would have to invade Germany, Austria and Italy without the advantage of the long attrition the Germans and its allies had suffered by the spring of 1945.

Assuming a level of Nazi German and Fascist Italian fanaticism similar to the one prevailing in 1941-42 (or in 2017 Afghanistan, for that matter), the occupation and “pacification” of the Third Reich/Italy area would be an absolute nightmare. Ever heard of the Alpenfestung, the Alpine Fortress so dreaded by the Allies? In the end it did not happen for the reason I mentioned above. But with a “quick” victory it certainly would.

Now please explain why the Nazis or the fascisti would be less profficient than the VC or the Taliban or ISIS at being a royal thorn on the side of the occupying forces. Control of the situation would be patchy or limited at best.

With the added inconvenience of fighting in Europe, not in an alien, backward, faraway land you don’t really mind blowing to smithereens.

e36Jeff now drives a ZHP > ttyymmnn 08/03/2017 at 11:42

1

WW2 vintage flack is virtually meaningless to modern planes. The German 88, which was one of the best AA guns of WW2 has a max ceiling of 26k ft. All you have to do is orbit above 26k and the flack can’t touch you. Or you can fly high subsonic at nap of the earth altitudes and they won’t be able to move the gun fast enough to line you up, it would take a 100% luck shot to get a hit. And while the fighters of WW2 might be more manuverable at lower altitudes and lower speeds, you can force them to engage you at altitude where modern fighters would hold a huge advantage, assuming the WW2 planes could get to your altitude in the first place. beyond that though it wouldn’t even matter as you can just pepper their airfields with cruise missiles and/or guided bombs and kill their entire airforce while its on the ground.

Also we wouldn’t need to fight a 2 front war. At least not in the traditional boots on the ground sense. Given the massive advantages we’d have in air and naval power you could easily just blockade the Japanese forces on their various islands and starve them out while we finish the fight in Europe, then pivot to the Pacific.

And while a heat seeker might not be able to get lock on a propeller plane, I’d bet a WW2 era fighter(aside from the Mosquito and its wooden construction) would give a big enough radar return for a missile to lock onto.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > e36Jeff now drives a ZHP 08/03/2017 at 11:44

0

“Information warfare”, that’s a big one, being able to communicate reliably and quickly without fear of being listened in on. That alone changes the entire course of this war. 

Which is an interesting thought, what if everything were the same, except we have far more advanced communications.

e36Jeff now drives a ZHP > AuthiCooper1300 08/03/2017 at 11:50

0

Uh, we absolutely blew large chunks of Europe to smithereens(ask the people of Dresden about that). In an era where carpet bombing is a totally acceptable option and using modern planes that can each carry the equivalent of an entire flight of WW2 era heavy bombers of bombs you’d be able to make the populace weary of continued fighting much, much faster.

And yes, OFC you still need boots on the ground to occupy the areas and ground troops are never going to be invulnerable, but there isn’t a huge disconnect in culture like exists in the middle east. We don’t look like or act like foreign invaders, and the general populace usually doesn’t want to be at war. And the general populace was mostly unaware of the atrocities their government was committing, pulling back that curtain would undercut much of the remaining support they might have otherwise had.

e36Jeff now drives a ZHP > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 08/03/2017 at 11:52

0

I bet the radioman would be the happiest person since he doesn’t need to hump around the giant backpack anymore.

ttyymmnn > e36Jeff now drives a ZHP 08/03/2017 at 11:58

0

Good points. Thanks.

66671 - 200 [METRIC] my dash > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 08/03/2017 at 12:14

0

Ok true, I was just thinking in U.S. vs Japan which is not very realistic lol.

Helicopters I think would be particularly effective in being somewhat closer to the action and being somewhat precise? I would assume just the communication technology would have pretty devastating consequences even without the small arms advantage (however big or small).

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > 66671 - 200 [METRIC] my dash 08/03/2017 at 12:20

0

I imagine we’d also have the tech to jam literally all of their communication. That would be so devastating they might as well surrender, I would think.

The US would have the advantage of communicating in real time every single enemy movement, while they can’t do anything but yell at each other.

Additionally they’d be able to share tech with the allied forces. We’d have massive amounts of information flowing in, the trick would be to process it all. We haven’t had a conflict on this scale since WW2. It would take an army of hundreds just to analyze and compile data.

AuthiCooper1300 > e36Jeff now drives a ZHP 08/03/2017 at 12:22

0

No, I am not talking about strategic bombing. That would be over in no time. I am talking about the local, tactical side, dealing with counterinsurgency and Axis troops hiding in the mountains once the major battles are over and Berlin, Rome etc have already been “neutralised”.

That’s asymmetric warfare, the same we have seen in SE Asia or Irak or Afghanistan. But instead of blowing up a mosque or a Buddhist shrine you’d be destroying a church or a castle from the Middle Ages, or quaint little Austrian/Tyrol villages.

Jcarr’s scenario is basically “WW2 but the US has 21st century weapons”. Can you imagine fighting against German special forces of 1941-42 vintage, completely fanatical, driven by an ideal of racial superiority, in the Alpine valleys? Would that be at all different from, say, fighting the Taliban in Afghan? I don’t think so.

It would take a looong time to finish off the job once and for all.

66671 - 200 [METRIC] my dash > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 08/03/2017 at 12:42

0

Interesting point considering I’ve heard/read a few things about cyber warfare being a potentially very large part of what would be a WW3, but who knows how adaptable that sort of technology would be to what are relatively primitive enemy forces lol.

I mean keep in mind the sheer size of the military today. I can’t fathom the details but hell, they could probably colonize large parts of the Earth fairly quickly, maybe not Russia or Germany or England but I think you get my point. In the last 50 years we’ve come so far with technology I think a 2017 US military would almost be alien compared to any other 1940s army.

AuthiCooper1300 > Jcarr 08/03/2017 at 12:50

0

This is turning out to be a fascinating exercise. Shocking, but fascinating nevertheless.

What do you think it would happen?

Jcarr > AuthiCooper1300 08/03/2017 at 12:57

1

I think we’d quickly overwhelm them with superior weapons/technology/tactics, but I think there’d be some issue with eradicating small pockets/cells of enemies on the ground. That would lead to some “boots on the ground” engagements that would likely result in some casualties on our side.

It would be over quicker than in real life, but it wouldn’t be a few days or weeks even.

AuthiCooper1300 > Jcarr 08/03/2017 at 13:03

1

Thanks for letting us know your take.

As you can imagine I am slightly more... pessimistic.

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > Jcarr 08/03/2017 at 15:25

1

I think we would run out of ordinance really quickly. Meanwhile Japan, Germany, and Italy would still have boots on the ground eating up territory. Every interaction we would have we would win quickly but would not have enough bullets, missiles and bombs to do it quickly. Remember we had fucking B28's carpet bombing germany and Japan and they were still producing ordinance.