Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

If you could take one modern military unit and bring it back to WWII...

E-Dog Night

By E-Dog Night
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

The_cavalierman

The_cavalierman

Posted
Posted
A Guided Missle Cruiser

That would work....:D

The Normandy invasion might have been a lot smoother with bunker busting tomahawk cruise missiles leading the way....

Not to mention the cruise missiles could have hit the areas behind the beach and taken out the big guns assigned to the ranger battalions.

The pacific would have been much different as well..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zoony

zoony

Posted
Posted

Where the Allies really suffered was on the ground. They dominated the skies in both theaters of operation. And while WWII bombs weren't all that accurate, what they lacked in accuracy they made up for in numbers. They simply carpet bombed huge areas and created infernos.

I think an Apache is a fine choice, but it could be shot down relatively easily by enemy fire. Hell, the Taliban took out Apaches :doh:

And M1 would be great too, because the Allies were woefully under-equipped when it came to armor. The Sherman was a tinder-box. The problem with a tank, however, is that it is just one tank. It's reach would be severly limited.

I think the correct answer is a Nuclear Submarine. Between the ballistic missiles it could launch against Germany/Japan within a few inches of accuracy and the absolute havoc it would reek against the entire German U-Boat fleet, it would be the most effective.

So many millions of tons of supplies and people and provisions were sunk in the North Atlantic by the Nazi UBoat force... to have those supplies actually arrive when they needed them would have done more to speed up the victory imho.

Also, Hitler would have had a Tomahawk missile land in his lap at one of his political rallies. That would ruin his whole day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zoony

zoony

Posted
Posted
I'm thinking the M-16.

It's not as sexy as Apaches or bombers but I think our ground troops would have greatly benefitted from machine gun of that caliber.

The M16 is a smaller caliber rifle than the WWII rifles. .223 -vs- 30.06 :)

It would provide a little bit more mobile firepower for all soldiers because of it being automatic... but soldiers had plenty of BAR's and few complained of ever actually being outgunned

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted

I would definitely bring in the B-52. You could even say i could just use the plane, not the bombs it would carry. I'd be fine with WWII era non-guided bombs.

800px-Usaf.Boeing_B-52.jpg

My reasoning: My goal would be to win the war with as few casualties as possible for the Allies in general and Americans in particular. The B-52 would be essentially invincible as it is capable of flying much higher than any WWII era interceptor that the Germans produced, even by wars end. The B-52 cruises at 50,000 feet. The Germans best interceptor, the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 had an operational ceiling of 39,000 feet.

Further, the range of the B-52 is tremendous, and would allow us to hit all of Germany from bases in England, and Tokyo from Pearl. Hell, a B-52 has reached Japan from SPAIN before, unrefueled. (of course, it wasnt round trip.)

So now that we've established that this platform could hit any target anywhere in the world with little chance at being stopped, just think about the firepower it brings with it. It wouldnt even be fair. It carries a 60,000 lb payload. In comparison, the largest bomber Germany ever produced during WWII, the Dornier 217, could carry 8,000 lbs.

Hitlers is in the Eagles Nest? Good bye Eagles Nest.

Japanese forces dug in at Okinawa? Good bye Mount Suribachi.

But honestly, getting back to my original point of ending the war with a minimum of Allied casualties....showing the Germans and Japanese that we could destroy their cities (and populations) at our whim, and there was absolutely nothing they could do about it, would have ended the war just as effectively with tons and tons of conventional bombs (with this delivery system) as the 2 nukes did with Japan.

:2cents:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The_cavalierman

The_cavalierman

Posted
Posted
I would definitely bring in the B-52. You could even say i could just use the plane, not the bombs it would carry. I'd be fine with WWII era non-guided bombs.

800px-Usaf.Boeing_B-52.jpg

My reasoning: My goal would be to win the war with as few casualties as possible for the Allies in general and Americans in particular. The B-52 would be essentially invincible as it is capable of flying much higher than any WWII era interceptor that the Germans produced, even by wars end. The B-52 cruises at 50,000 feet. The Germans best interceptor, the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 had an operational ceiling of 39,000 feet.

Further, the range of the B-52 is tremendous, and would allow us to hit all of Germany from bases in England, and Tokyo from Pearl. Hell, a B-52 has reached Japan from SPAIN before (of course, it wasnt round trip.)

So now that we've established that this platform could hit any target anywhere in the world with little chance at being stopped, just think about the firepower it brings with it. It wouldnt even be fair. It carries a 60,000 lb payload. In comparison, the largest bomber Germany ever produced during WWII, the Dornier 217, could carry 8,000 lbs.

Hitlers is in the Eagles Nest? Good bye Eagles Nest.

Japanese forces dug in at Okinawa? Good bye Mount Suribachi.

But honestly, getting back to my original point of ending the war with a minimum of Allied casualties....showing the Germans and Japanese that we could destroy their cities (and populations) at our whim, and their was absolutely nothing they could do about it, would have ended the war just as effectively with tons and tons of conventional bombs (with this delivery system) as the 2 nukes did with Japan.

:2cents:

Great point and an excellent choice but.....

Both germany and japan were bombed back into the stone age and did not surrender so this weapon would not have had the desired impact needed to drastically alter the outcome IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sacase

sacase

Posted
Posted
^^^^ Good choice and reasoning on the B52

See, have you guys learned anything from the current war? Jeeze. An Air war only softens up the enemy. You still need boots on the ground. Why do you think the Infantry is called the Queen of Battle? Does the phrase "Follow Me" mean anything to you? I bet Ryan's Rangers would probably say RLTW though. LOL

Here is my new choice.

robocop0904_639x800.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted
Great point and an excellent choice but.....

Both germany and japan were bombed back into the stone age and did not surrender so this weapon would not have had the desired impact needed to drastically alter the outcome IMO.

Thats not true. The home islands of Japan were relatively untouched until the very end of the war when the outcome was no longer in doubt. When we wiped out 2 of their cities in short order, then gave up. And Japan has a culture where surrender IS NOT an option.

Germany, the only city we really leveled with bombers until near the end was Dresden.

Again, my goal would be to end the thing before it really got going. For that you need a serious terror weapon with no defense, not a battlefield weapon like a tank or a fighter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sacase

sacase

Posted
Posted
AK-47 much more reliable/durable...yes

Better weapon no...less accurate than the M-16 and heavier.

Well that depends on what you want. For relatively close range firefights the AK offers more firepower with the 7.62mm round vs the 5.56mm round. But yeah for accuracy the M16 is much better especially if you are engaging point targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zoony

zoony

Posted
Posted
Well that depends on what you want. For relatively close range firefights the AK offers more firepower with the 7.62mm round vs the 5.56mm round. But yeah for accuracy the M16 is much better especially if you are engaging point targets.

A .223 will kill you just as easily at close range as a 7.62

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The_cavalierman

The_cavalierman

Posted
Posted
Well that depends on what you want. For relatively close range firefights the AK offers more firepower with the 7.62mm round vs the 5.56mm round. But yeah for accuracy the M16 is much better especially if you are engaging point targets.

Good points....

Most modern day fire fights are up close and personal and not a point target affair.

The M-16 is holding the upper hand in against the Ak in Iraq/Afghanistan though.

That could be the result of better training or it could be the weapons system.

Personally I'll always take accuracy over knock down becuase if I'm accurate he/she is going down anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The_cavalierman

The_cavalierman

Posted
Posted
Thats not true. The home islands of Japan were relatively untouched until the very end of the war when the outcome was no longer in doubt. When we wiped out 2 of their cities in short order, then gave up. And Japan has a culture where surrender IS NOT an option.

Germany, the only city we really leveled with bombers until near the end was Dresden.

Again, my goal would be to end the thing before it really got going. For that you need a serious terror weapon with no defense, not a battlefield weapon like a tank or a fighter.

We fire bombed Tokyo pretty good and the Allies destroyed every major city in Germany and they still did not surrender. Dresden got it the worst but pretty much every city with the capacity to produce a war product in Germany got leveled.

I agree that you need an in-defensible weapon to cause terror and that would be the SSBN someone else suggested. You can't kill what you can't find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...