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

[rtbasye]

I love questions like this, and it would be awfully damned hard to argue against the Apache.

(On a semi-related note, one of my drill sergeants once told me that a TEAM of modern day MPs could take out a COMPANY of Civil War troops.)

just a note from personal experience- apaches are not invulernable to enemy ground fire--- saw it first hand in Iraq. 227 AV- 1st Cav Division got shot to sh*t flying a deep attack by Iraqi's firing AK's. Below is a similiar mishap.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct2003/1003najaf.asp

"There’s little dispute about what happened. On March 24, Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, the Army’s V Corps commander, ordered 32 AH-64 Apaches from the 11th Aviation Regiment to mount an attack behind enemy lines against the Iraqi Republican Guard Medina Division. The corridor near Najaf that the Apaches planned to fly through was modestly populated, so commanders decided against the usual suppression fire—mainly artillery—used to silence enemy forces that could threaten the helicopters. That opening gave the Iraqis one of their few battlefield victories of the war.

A fusillade of small-arms and anti-aircraft fire downed one Apache and its two-man crew. The other helicopters in the raid retreated before the mission could be accomplished."

For my vote- it would have to be some long range weapon- a decapitating attack against Hitler- via a tomahawk missile (nuclear tipped or not) would have brought an immediate halt to the war.

The same would not have been true in the Pacific- the entire country would have fought on if the emporer had perished. Carrier based F-18's or Joint Strike Fighter/Bombers could have done much to prevent the loss of American life in island hopping and toppling the Imperial Navy.

All of this being said, a Brigade of M1A2 Abrams would have been an unstoppable force against any weapon of the era- but tanks can only fight in a limited area at a time, and it is difficult to move around a 100+ 70 ton vehicles- making aircraft my choice.

[PleaseBlitz]

That depends...

If you could only take 1 technology back you could take back the B-52 but you could not take smart bombs back which is a completely different technology.

The real evolution is the smart bomb and not the carrier of the bomb.

The only difference between the B-52 and the B-17 or B-29 is the amount of dumb bombs each could carry.

Using that logic, your SSBN wouldnt be able to carry Tomahawks and cruise missiles. It would just be a boat.

[The_cavalierman]

Using that logic, your SSBN wouldnt be able to carry Tomahawks and cruise missiles. It would just be a boat.

You are right and I stand corrected,

The greater point is you cannot take any single weapon's system back to world war II without taking back a bunch of other technologies to support it.

The question I have for this thread creator is can we bring back the supporting and supplementary technologies?

What's the use of an SSBN without guided or Ballistic Missiles?

For the record I still stick with my choices:

1. Predator Drones - Killing Hitler and the gang with a predator would have ended the war early in Europe. Not so sure about Japan.

2. Spy Satellites - They would have prevented Pearl Harbor

3. C-17 Cargo Plane - If you must fight WWII this massive plane would have allowed the US to drop combat ready divisions in downtown Berlin and Tokyo if need be. These planes would have completely changed the scope of the war.

[Air Force Cane]

that is a good call on the Apaches- but you would have to worry about German 88mm artillery pieces taking them out.

and with the Strike Eagle, it would be hard to knock out hundreds of German tanks if they are moving, but I think probably the B-52 Buff with smart bombs and SBU would be the best since it would be invulnerable to flack and could salvo drop up to 150 bombs in one mission..

[Air Force Cane]

Hmm. Do you recall the name?

The Final Countdown with Kirk Douglas and Martin Sheen.

very cool movie, good soundtrack as well. highly recommend renting it

[rtbasye]

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.

eh... nah- the m-16 is nice, but not a revolutionary leap like the other weapons mentioned here-it still just shoots 5.56 rounds (sometimes a 40mm M203 rd) but still does the same thing.

[The_cavalierman]

The AK-47 is the most used...but if I were going to war tomorrow I would take the M-16.

Yes it fires a 5.56 round but it is lighter and more accurate than a AK-47.

What good is a 7.62 round if you are missing the target?

Not to mention firing the AK on auto is for show because you ain't hitting jack.

[E-Dog Night]

The question I have for this thread creator is can we bring back the supporting and supplementary technologies?

I was thinking about that - I mean, if you're going to bring back any unit, then you also theoretically bring back all the advances that come with it. But the tech only comes back for one unit and one unit only. Any armament that the unit uses comes back as well, and it works just as it would today. Its supply chain also works just as it does today, but does not carry over to any other unit.

For example, in the case if the USS Reagan, you'd get the radar capabilities that come with the ship, but the WWII era planes that would be using the carrier as a base do not get radar on their planes. (One might argue that planes could be considered the armament of an aircraft carrier, but in my view, they are separate units.)

Another example: let's say a SSBN is your choice. It gets guided cruise missiles, as many as it can carry in one load. Once it expends its full payload, it would have to go to port to reload. Magically, they'd have cruise missiles at said port circa 1940-45, but no other unit could use them.

And I don't think a satellite counts. From what I understand, satellites don't fire explosives at targets, at least not in this galaxy. Since the existing spy technology could not be used by the WWII era military, it would be pretty useless anyway.

That's how this little fantasy works, at least in my mind.

One a side note, I just got The Final Countdown in the mail & I'm going to watch it right now. It actually has some pretty good actors - Kirk Douglas, Martin Sheen. Hopefully it won't be completely lousy.

[E-Dog Night]

It's more than completely lousy. It is, at times, humorous in how bad the acting is, not to mention the directing - think 'Airport 77' for reference. Aside from Sheen and Douglas, it was as if the casting director said "give me the worst actors you can find, dammit!"

But, of course, the whole reason to get the movie was to see the USS Nimitz and her compliment of warplanes destroy the Japanese fleet. Instead, all we get to see is two lousy scout Zeros shot down - and to make matters worse, the captured Jap fighter pilot steals a machine gun and kills 4 US soldiers! Did somebody say WTF?

Watching that movie was like getting to second base at a drunken frat party, only to have the girl say "No, I can't, I have to go!" - cinematic blueballs.