world war 2 fought with modern weapons.

[papal duke]

no nukes for either side.

so how does the war go now with modern weapons?

[Ward]

For one Germany Realy would Get bombed back to the stone ages Think of a 1000 plane B-1 Bomber Raid on a german city .

[Blue Max]

Are you familiar with Orbital Bombardment?

You don't need teh nuke to nuke...

Short answer:

Stalin: They want a war of annihilation, we will give them a war of annihilation.
Lazar Kaganovich: Here's my take on the means of annihilation. Use our spaceships that are sitting around doing nothing useful, mine up some huge boulders from the moon, and liberate the farmers from their fascist masters.
Stalin: Excellent. Make it so.

And so it came to pass that Germany, while attempting to invade the Soviet Union, was demolished by a rain of meteors from the heavens. It would forever be known as the month of Red Stars over Germany.

[papal duke]

Are you familiar with Orbital Bombardment?

You don't need teh nuke to nuke...

Short answer:

Stalin: They want a war of annihilation, we will give them a war of annihilation.
Lazar Kaganovich: Here's my take on the means of annihilation. Use our spaceships that are sitting around doing nothing useful, mine up some huge boulders from the moon, and liberate the farmers from their fascist masters.
Stalin: Excellent. Make it so.

And so it came to pass that Germany, while attempting to invade the Soviet Union, was demolished by a rain of meteors from the heavens. It would forever be known as the month of Red Stars over Germany.
no Orbital Bombardments allowed.

[Jambor]

For one Germany Realy would Get bombed back to the stone ages Think of a 1000 plane B-1 Bomber Raid on a german city .
But Germany had more planes until the Lend-Lease, so they might bomb Britain back first...

[CalBear]

Depends. Parameters?

Same number of platforms as IOTL (one B-17 = 1 B-1B)?

Current generation for each system or previous (M1A2, Leopard II 5A, or M1, Leopard)

Platforms limited to those built by each nation (Russia gets T-90's not the U.S.) or those that had been bought by each nation (UK gets F-15's but Germany doesn't)?

Platforms that don't exist anymore (Battleships, Major Japanese surface units) back? If so, what version?

[Landshark]

Depends. Parameters?

Same number of platforms as IOTL (one B-17 = 1 B-1B)?

Current generation for each system or previous (M1A2, Leopard II 5A, or M1, Leopard)

Platforms limited to those built by each nation (Russia gets T-90's not the U.S.) or those that had been bought by each nation (UK gets F-15's but Germany doesn't)?

Platforms that don't exist anymore (Battleships, Major Japanese surface units) back? If so, what version?

Things are certainly going to be a bit confused.

For example Britain, Germany and Italy will all be using the same fighter and strike aircraft - the Typhoon and Tornado.

Also you could see German Leo2's going up against Polish Leo2's.

The short answer to this question seems to me to be that if you tried fighting WW2 with modern weapons you couldn't as those weapons change the balance of power so dramatically events would deviate from OTL instantly.

Take the invasion of Russia for instance. Instead of Panzer III's and IV's running into superior tanks like the T34 and KV the Leopard 2's would cruise straight through things like the T80 and T90, which are precisely what current NATO tanks are designed to fight.

[Admiral Canaris]

Is it only the equipment that changes, or also doctrine, organisation, leaders and experience?

[CalBear]

Things are certainly going to be a bit confused.

For example Britain, Germany and Italy will all be using the same fighter and strike aircraft - the Typhoon and Tornado.

Also you could see German Leo2's going up against Polish Leo2's.

The short answer to this question seems to me to be that if you tried fighting WW2 with modern weapons you couldn't as those weapons change the balance of power so dramatically events would deviate from OTL instantly.

Take the invasion of Russia for instance. Instead of Panzer III's and IV's running into superior tanks like the T34 and KV the Leopard 2's would cruise straight through things like the T80 and T90, which are precisely what current NATO tanks are designed to fight.


Which is why I'm asking the question.:)

The Japanese have no ships larger than a destroyer (not even any left overs in reserve/museum status), while the U.S. has carriers, cruisers and even a BB in mothballs. Germany, Great Britain, and Japan have no medium/heavy bombers, just strike fighters.

The other side is numbers. Can you picture the U.S. with 80 Tico cruisers, 400 Burke class destroyers, 25 Nimitz/Ford class carriers, 20 1991 layout Iowas, 51 Seawolf class boats, 250 Virginia class subs, 9,000 F-15, 8,000 F-22, 7,000 F-14 12,000 F-18 E/F, 12,500 F-35, 17,000 B-52, 15,000 B-1B, 343 B-2. 50,000 M1A1 tanks, 41,000 Bradleys, 5,000 Strykers, etc. Imagine a 1,000 plane raid by B-52 D "Big Bellies", each carrying the warload of 12 B-17s, or a similar raid by B-1B each carrying 7 B-17 bombloads. Better yet, imagine a attack launched for the 400 DDG-51 with Tomahawks, 5-6,000 missiles each with a CEP of one foot., or trying to get a strike in against a carrier escorted by a dozen Burkes and six Ticos.

[Cockroach]

The Japanese have no ships larger than a destroyer (not even any left overs in reserve/museum status)
Not quite. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa)
;)

[CalBear]

Not quite. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa)
;)


Okay, my bad.:D

Somehow I don't think that a dozen of them will swing the balance in their favor.

edit; It is surprising that some navy pilot didn't blow the bottom out of her during the last stages of the war.

[Something]

Not quite. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa)
;)


Well its not going to be much use anyways even against WW2 era ships:p:D

[August Sonereal]

I want to say Axiswank, but I'm not quite sure.

When you say fight with modern weapons, do you mean that their weapons are switched with a "modern day equal"?

[Adam]

I want to say Axiswank, but I'm not quite sure.

When you say fight with modern weapons, do you mean that their weapons are switched with a "modern day equal"?

The OP clearly states modern weapons, so there ye have it.

(and the Axis are so horribly screwed its not funny)

[Admiral Canaris]

Well, for starters the Battle of Britain will be successful, with the Germans having an overwhelmingly larger air force, but now without the drawbacks that stopped them IOTL (short range, low payload). And the Royal Navy can do jack and shit against concerted air strikes, making for a successful Seelöwe.

OTOH, this stuff will guzzle fuel mighty faster.

[August Sonereal]

How much though? You can't just say they have modern weapon tech. Unless they've been producing the weapons for a while, they're not going to have a lot.

Or, is the weapns just switched out with modern equalivants. In either case, the Axis lost anyway.

[papal duke]

How much though? You can't just say they have modern weapon tech. Unless they've been producing the weapons for a while, they're not going to have a lot.

Or, is the weapns just switched out with modern equalivants. In either case, the Axis lost anyway.
highlighted is what i mean.

[August Sonereal]

War is over in a year at worst, few months at best. Not only that, Japan has no chance at Pearl Harbor.
France isn't getting to get ran over by the Germans this time around.

[Ward]

Well, for starters the Battle of Britain will be successful, with the Germans having an overwhelmingly larger air force, but now without the drawbacks that stopped them IOTL (short range, low payload). And the Royal Navy can do jack and shit against concerted air strikes, making for a successful Seelöwe.

OTOH, this stuff will guzzle fuel mighty faster.

By july 1940 the British were actualy out producing the German's in fighters .
And By the end of june 1940 France produced over 800 Fighters herself .
Get your Facts right .

[August Sonereal]

Losing equipment is going to be a problem, considering how much a MIA1 Abrhams tank must be worth back in teh 40's.

[MerryPrankster]

Well, for starters the Battle of Britain will be successful, with the Germans having an overwhelmingly larger air force, but now without the drawbacks that stopped them IOTL (short range, low payload). And the Royal Navy can do jack and shit against concerted air strikes, making for a successful Seelöwe.

OTOH, this stuff will guzzle fuel mighty faster.

If the RN has been upgraded too, they'll have AEGIS defenses, which might make things difficult for Axis air attacks.

[Landshark]

If the RN has been upgraded too, they'll have AEGIS defenses, which might make things difficult for Axis air attacks.

The RN doesn't use AEGIS. It'd either be the Type 42 or the Type 45.

[CalBear]

Well, for starters the Battle of Britain will be successful, with the Germans having an overwhelmingly larger air force, but now without the drawbacks that stopped them IOTL (short range, low payload). And the Royal Navy can do jack and shit against concerted air strikes, making for a successful Seelöwe.

OTOH, this stuff will guzzle fuel mighty faster.


The Luftwaffe isn't overwhelming powerful, far from it. Both the RAF and Luftwaffe are limited to strike fighters (as someone pointed out, mainly the SAME strike fighters) with about a 1.5:1 advantage. The German forces still have a significant disadvantage, namely fighting over British terrain, inside of the British AAA envelope. Since the Luftwaffe no longer operates bombers that eliminates around half of the WW II Luftwaffe (yet another reason I asked my original question). Even if the we were to give the Luftwaffe bombers, the last German built bombers are WW II vintage. The British were also buying American aircraft by the time of the BoB, so that means you can drop in a few hundred F-16A fighters to replace the P-40 of our WW II.

For that matter the French will have their own Eurofighters AND Rafales (which is a nice little fighter) instead of Tornadoes as the "older" fighter/attack. The French now go agaist the Luftwaffe with only about a two hundred aircraft disadvantage, while fighting inside French AAA. The French now also have tanks as good as the German ones (with radios this time!), good anti-tank weapons, etc. There is no reason to expect that the Heer will roll over France in a month ITTL.

The Japanese are also badly hurt by the lack of significant 5th generation home design fighter being in production. The Japanese AF would be limited to the F-2, which is a nice lightweight fighter, but is also a death trap against a Eurofighter or a Raptor. They would have a very large force of DDG, but would lack the Kongo class ships as the are built with significant amounts of U.S. tech and use U.S. SAMs.

The Russians, OMG, the Russian are almost as loaded as the Americans. T-90 & T-72 tanks, and swarms of them, THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND SU-25 tank killers, 5,000 Mig-31, 16,000 SU-27/30, 6,000 MiG-29, the best mobile AAA in the world, and one of the best, if not the best infantry anti-tank weapon (although I am still a fan of the Javelin). The Russians also still have heavy bombers, meaning they get to upgrade to several THOUSAND Tu-160 and Tu-95 bombers.

In all the proposed TL would be a very bloody place, but about as far from a Axiswank as you can get

[CalBear]

Losing equipment is going to be a problem, considering how much a MIA1 Abrhams tank must be worth back in teh 40's.


$33,500, same as the M-4 it replaces. Gotta love F-22's for about $26K a pop.

[Jambor]

The war might go very similarly, because the forces are almost evenly matched. It all depends on how the new tech effects the blitzkerieg.

[Landshark]

The Luftwaffe isn't overwhelming powerful, far from it. Both the RAF and Luftwaffe are limited to strike fighters (as someone pointed out, mainly the SAME strike fighters) with about a 1.5:1 advantage. The German forces still have a significant disadvantage, namely fighting over British terrain, inside of the British AAA envelope. Since the Luftwaffe no longer operates bombers that eliminates around half of the WW II Luftwaffe (yet another reason I asked my original question). Even if the we were to give the Luftwaffe bombers, the last German built bombers are WW II vintage. The British were also buying American aircraft by the time of the BoB, so that means you can drop in a few hundred F-16A fighters to replace the P-40 of our WW II.

For that matter the French will have their own Eurofighters AND Rafales (which is a nice little fighter) instead of Tornadoes as the "older" fighter/attack. The French now go agaist the Luftwaffe with only about a two hundred aircraft disadvantage, while fighting inside French AAA. The French now also have tanks as good as the German ones (with radios this time!), good anti-tank weapons, etc. There is no reason to expect that the Heer will roll over France in a month ITTL.

The Japanese are also badly hurt by the lack of significant 5th generation home design fighter being in production. The Japanese AF would be limited to the F-2, which is a nice lightweight fighter, but is also a death trap against a Eurofighter or a Raptor. They would have a very large force of DDG, but would lack the Kongo class ships as the are built with significant amounts of U.S. tech and use U.S. SAMs.

The Russians, OMG, the Russian are almost as loaded as the Americans. T-90 & T-72 tanks, and swarms of them, THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND SU-25 tank killers, 5,000 Mig-31, 16,000 SU-27/30, 6,000 MiG-29, the best mobile AAA in the world, and one of the best, if not the best infantry anti-tank weapon (although I am still a fan of the Javelin). The Russians also still have heavy bombers, meaning they get to upgrade to several THOUSAND Tu-160 and Tu-95 bombers.

In all the proposed TL would be a very bloody place, but about as far from a Axiswank as you can get

Good points and they highlight the two main problems with this scenario.

First there are a lot of weapons in use in 1939 that no longer have counterparts in 2008, at least in the arsenals of certain countries.

Battleships are gone, as are aircraft carriers from the fleet of Japan and the only countries to field heavy bombers are America and Russia.

Second, far fewer countries produce their own weapons nowadays. It's most notable with aircraft. In 1939 Britain, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Belgium and Poland all equipped their air forces with indigenous planes, now only France produces its own planes, Britain, Germany and Italy colaberate to produce the Typhoon and The Netherlands, Belgium and Poland all buy American.

The war might go very similarly, because the forces are almost evenly matched. It all depends on how the new tech effects the blitzkerieg.

I thought of that myself but I'm not too sure if it'd be the case. Most of the modern weapons we're talking about are considerably more lethal than their WW2 counterparts. I mean one hit from a sidewinder or amraam will kill an F-16 or MiG-29 whereas a dozen hits from .50 or 20mm aircraft cannon can leave a Spitfire or Me-109 flying. This war is likely to be shorter and more intense.

[Admiral Canaris]

By july 1940 the British were actualy out producing the German's in fighters .
And By the end of june 1940 France produced over 800 Fighters herself .
Get your Facts right .

AFAIK, the German advantage in planes over the British was close to three to one when the Battle of Britain raged at its worst. Long-term production is less important there than the immediate overweight. With German pilots being better and there being parity in aircraft capabilities, they have the upper hand.

[Admiral Canaris]

The Luftwaffe isn't overwhelming powerful, far from it. Both the RAF and Luftwaffe are limited to strike fighters (as someone pointed out, mainly the SAME strike fighters) with about a 1.5:1 advantage. The German forces still have a significant disadvantage, namely fighting over British terrain, inside of the British AAA envelope. Since the Luftwaffe no longer operates bombers that eliminates around half of the WW II Luftwaffe (yet another reason I asked my original question). Even if the we were to give the Luftwaffe bombers, the last German built bombers are WW II vintage. The British were also buying American aircraft by the time of the BoB, so that means you can drop in a few hundred F-16A fighters to replace the P-40 of our WW II.

I assumed that the relative modernity of the forces would be retained, as well as replacement taking place plane for plane (IE, Germany has bombers and more modern fighters than Britain). If we take away the bombers, it isn't a fair fight.

For that matter the French will have their own Eurofighters AND Rafales (which is a nice little fighter) instead of Tornadoes as the "older" fighter/attack. The French now go agaist the Luftwaffe with only about a two hundred aircraft disadvantage, while fighting inside French AAA. The French now also have tanks as good as the German ones (with radios this time!), good anti-tank weapons, etc. There is no reason to expect that the Heer will roll over France in a month ITTL.

But won't they still have the old organisation of tanks working as infantry support? They still won't be able to match true armoured formations. Or are their tactics likewise updated?

The Russians, OMG, the Russian are almost as loaded as the Americans. T-90 & T-72 tanks, and swarms of them, THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND SU-25 tank killers, 5,000 Mig-31, 16,000 SU-27/30, 6,000 MiG-29, the best mobile AAA in the world, and one of the best, if not the best infantry anti-tank weapon (although I am still a fan of the Javelin). The Russians also still have heavy bombers, meaning they get to upgrade to several THOUSAND Tu-160 and Tu-95 bombers.

This does spell doom for the Nazis. Point conceded.

[CalBear]

I assumed that the relative modernity of the forces would be retained, as well as replacement taking place plane for plane (IE, Germany has bombers and more modern fighters than Britain). If we take away the bombers, it isn't a fair fight.

Modern version of a bomber being currently built by Germany? The most modern bomber Germany produces, to my knowledge was the Ardo 234. How long will the 234 last in a modern combat enviroment?

As was noted, the problem with this TL is that most countries don't have full lines of weapons anymore so there is not going to be anything fair about it.



But won't they still have the old organisation of tanks working as infantry support? They still won't be able to match true armoured formations. Or are their tactics likewise updated?

EVERYBODY uses tank/infantry in combination today. The problem of the Allied method wasn't the tactic, the tactic was sound, it was the resulting tank design. That isn't an issue here since the French tanks are built for tank killing. The French infantry will also have anti-tank weapons that will actually kill a tank (bizarre, but true), as will the British forces. The Brish Army will also have the supurb Challenger 2 tank, along with the Warrior IFV and their own very effective anti-tank weapons. Again, since both France and Britain bought American weapons IOTL, there is no reason the Javelin ATGM can't be deployed as well.



This does spell doom for the Nazis. Point conceded.

Yea, the Heer by itself vs the Russian Army/airforce/navy with modern equipment is not a winning proposition.

[Landshark]

EVERYBODY uses tank/infantry in combination today. The problem of the Allied method wasn't the tactic, the tactic was sound, it was the resulting tank design. That isn't an issue here since the French tanks are built for tank killing. The French infantry will also have anti-tank weapons that will actually kill a tank (bizarre, but true), as will the British forces. The Brish Army will also have the supurb Challenger 2 tank, along with the Warrior IFV and their own very effective anti-tank weapons. Again, since both France and Britain bought American weapons IOTL, there is no reason the Javelin ATGM can't be deployed as well.

This is another problem with this scenario. In 1939 Britain used lorries to transport its infantry squads, so do the lorries and other vehicles allocated to the infantry transport role get replaced by AFV's?

[Admiral Canaris]

Modern version of a bomber being currently built by Germany? The most modern bomber Germany produces, to my knowledge was the Ardo 234. How long will the 234 last in a modern combat enviroment?

As was noted, the problem with this TL is that most countries don't have full lines of weapons anymore so there is not going to be anything fair about it.

Well, I kind of assumed they got an American analogue or something.

EVERYBODY uses tank/infantry in combination today. The problem of the Allied method wasn't the tactic, the tactic was sound, it was the resulting tank design. That isn't an issue here since the French tanks are built for tank killing. The French infantry will also have anti-tank weapons that will actually kill a tank (bizarre, but true), as will the British forces. The Brish Army will also have the supurb Challenger 2 tank, along with the Warrior IFV and their own very effective anti-tank weapons. Again, since both France and Britain bought American weapons IOTL, there is no reason the Javelin ATGM can't be deployed as well.

Of course you need infantry support for the tanks, this is very basic basics. Armoured divisions did and do incorporate such. But spreading out the tanks in the forces won't help. A basic principle is force concentration; you want as large a firepower advantage over the enemy as possible at the "Schwerpunkt" where you direct your attack. For this, you use armoured/mechanised divisions. With their tanks spread out among the infantry, the British/French can't achieve or counter this. Local superiority means the Germans can still blitz through their formation.

Yea, the Heer by itself vs the Russian Army/airforce/navy with modern equipment is not a winning proposition.

Of course, if the RKKA is still primarily composed of untrained and unexperienced troops without a competent NCO corps, that's still a quite severe handicap. But in the end, sheer firepower probably wins out.

[CalBear]

This is another problem with this scenario. In 1939 Britain used lorries to transport its infantry squads, so do the lorries and other vehicles allocated to the infantry transport role get replaced by AFV's?

Good question.

What did they call the units? If they had motorized or mechanized in the title, or if their units had half tracks they should get IFV's, if not then they should get wheeled combat APCs. I do so feel sorry for the Heer though, there is not a modernized version of the horse cart. Only the Panzer grenadiers would get IFVs and everyone else is afoot.

[corditeman]

"Also you could see German Leo2's going up against Polish Leo2's"Well, in WW2, the Luftwaffe tried to give the Swiss Air Force a bloody nose and got one themselves. The Swiss had early-model Bf 109s. There was a negotiated settlement and sealed trains in the Alpine tunnels.

[Landshark]

Good question.

What did they call the units? If they had motorized or mechanized in the title, or if their units had half tracks they should get IFV's, if not then they should get wheeled combat APCs. I do so feel sorry for the Heer though, there is not a modernized version of the horse cart. Only the Panzer grenadiers would get IFVs and everyone else is afoot.

A quick look at the list of British Divisions in WW2 at wikipedia shows they were mostly described as Armoured Divisions or Infantry Divisions.

List (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_World_War_II_divisions)

I did find a formation called a Lorried Infantry Brigade though.

Being reminded of how much the German Army of WW2 was dependent on horsedrawn transport brings up another problem. Most armies of the day are going to be really unbalanced forces, you're going to have the Germans with Leopard 2's and Puma IFV's but only towed FH-70 155mm guns because they didn't have any SPA in 1939, and pretty much everyone with massive armoured corps but with miniscule support arms for those corps, not too much of a problem in 1939 in OTL but a really big one if you suddenly have to keep several thousand Challengers or LeClercs in service and you're still waiting for the ARV to be invented.

[DuQuense]

I think that the German/Italian BBs would be replaced with Aircraft carriers, as the Definition of Capital ship has changed with the Carriers being the Capital ships of today.

No One has Mentioned Subs.

Production Non-Nuclear AIP Submarines

As of 2008, some nations have non-nuclear AIP submarines:

* the Chinese Type 041 submarine Yuan (Stirling AIP) of the People's Liberation Army Navy
* the French-Spanish Scorpène-class submarine (1,700 tonnes) (MESMA)
* the German Type 209-1400mod (1,810 tonnes) (Fuel cell)
* the Italo-German Type 212 submarine (1,830 tonnes) (Fuel cell) of the German Navy and Italian Navy
* the German Type 214 (1,980 tonnes) (Fuel cell)
* the Russian Project 1650 Амур
* the Japanese Asashio (2,750 tonnes) (Stirling AIP) of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force
* the Japanese Sōryū class submarine (4,200 tonnes) (Stirling AIP) of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force
* the Swedish Gotland class submarine (1,450 tonnes) (Stirling AIP) of the Swedish navy
* the Swedish Södermanland class submarine (1,500 tonnes) (Stirling AIP) of the Swedish navy
* The Turkish/German Type 214 to be co-produced in Turkey, with 80% Turkish systems.

Sweden is going to sell its remaining two Västergötland class submarines to the Republic of Singapore Navy after they have been refitted with Stirling AIP systems like the Södermanland class submarines.

Also several shipbuilders offer AIP upgrades for existing submarines:

* German Nordseewerke (Closed-cycle diesel)
* Sweden Kockums (Stirling), owned by German company ThyssenKrupp

These all have top of the line Sonar/Radar Equipment , and except for, a 3 week deployment v a Nukes 3 month deployment, are as capable as any US seawolf class.

[CalBear]

I think that the German/Italian BBs would be replaced with Aircraft carriers, as the Definition of Capital ship has changed with the Carriers being the Capital ships of today.

No One has Mentioned Subs.


These all have top of the line Sonar/Radar Equipment , and except for, a 3 week deployment v a Nukes 3 month deployment, are as capable as any US seawolf class.


The replacement of BB with carriers makes a degree of sense, although what does that mean for countries that operated both (and in the case of the U.S. still has one in mothballs & a second laid up in museum status, but still in sailable condition)? Do they get carrier in addition to their WW II complement? This would also still leave the Germans & Japanese out of luck since they operate no carriers (unless we are going to give the IJN the helo carrier, excuse me destroyer, that is under construction) and the Italians with carriers, but no planes.

An AIP boat the EQUAL of a Seawolf? In open water? Not hardly. The sensor suite in the Seawolf & Virginia class boats is at least a generation and a half ahead of anything ever put into an AIP, with the only close equal being on the Asture RN SSN . Following them are the Los Angeles & Trafalgers with theU.S. 726 boats somewhere in the mix. Then, and only then, can you start to lok at the Russian SSN classes and the AIP boats. As far as weapons loadout the Seawolf and her sisters put everything else, including the Virginias on the beach. Seawolf was, and is, the best overall combat submarine ever built. She is also more boat than is needed in today's threat enviroment, and expensive as hell, leaving the Virginias as successors to the title. AIP boats are very good, especially in a defensive role, SSNs are great in EVERY role. A SSN is faster, (by up to 20 knots) able to dive deeper, and carries a larger sensor suite, processing node and weapon loadout. Put a crack crew in a Seawolf and a crack crew in the AIP boat of your choice set them loose in a 100 square mile patrol area and tell both crews to find/prosecute to kill the other boat. Do it 100 times. You will end up with 99 Seawolfs and 1 AIP (everyone get lucky once in a while). Do it with the 688 class and you MIGHT get back two AIP boats. AIP boats are excellent defensive weapons, even okay as limited commerce raiders; nevertheless, the deep ocean belongs to the SSN.

In this scenario Germany has 700 or so AIP boats, the U.S has 51 Seawolf and 250 Virginias, with the RN fielding 62 Trafalagers and around 80 Astures, additionally the USSR has 111 Alfa (as a direct counterpart to the WW II M class), 56 Akula, & around 60 Sierra/Sierra II. Assuming the U.S puts most of her boats in the Pacific, as IOTL, that gives the AIP boat roughly a 2-1 advantage in numbers. That isn't going to be enough, not by a LONG shot.

[Landshark]

My problems with making this work:

First there's the fact that most countries today don't produce their own heavy weapons. The most advanced aircraft available to the Luftwaffe for instance would be the Eurofighter Typhoon, parts of which are produced in four countries including one that's at war with Germany! Likewise Japan's most important combat aircraft is American (F-15) and most of the world is using an American transport plane (C-130).

At least ammunition supply shouldn't be a problem as everyone outside of Russia is using 5.56mm NATO.

Second there's the problem that many 1939 era weapons don't have direct 2008 era counterparts. The lack of battleships is much mentioned but there are other things as well, for example the Stuka. The most direct modern equivilent for this specialised ground attack aircraft would be the A-10 Thunderbolt - which isn't used by Germany. There's also things like the assualt guns used by some countries during the war. Would they be replaced by tanks?

This brings us to the third porblem, during WW2 some nations had much more powerful militaries than they do today. Take Japan, the IJN had one of the most powerful carrier fleets in the world in 1941, but today they don't have a single true aircraft carrier. Pearl Habor just became a fantasy. Similarly the RN's Ark Royal and armoured deck carriers just got replaced with Invincibles which while carrying much better planes also carry much fewer planes.

Fourth there's the problem of 2008 era weapons not having 1939 era counterparts. This may seem like a rehash of number two but it's not. In 1939 most infantry either walked into battle or travelled in lorries, today they'd travel in armoured personel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles, so are the British Army's 30's vintage lorries replaced by Pinzgauers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinzgauer_(vehicle)) or Warriors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_IFV)?

In the same vein most artillery systems in 1939 were towed, some by horses, so do you just get a direct replacement of one towed howitzer with another?

[DuQuense]

I was thinking that all Japan's BB"s and battle Cruisers get replaced by Carriers [and 1939 carriers replaced my modern -Radar -Jets-etc]
Note this would give Germany several Carriers as well.


According to the Australian Navy, their AIPs have out preformed the Seawolfs in several Games. They were suppose to have the same Seawolf sensor suites, at time of launch.

[CalBear]

I was thinking that all Japan's BB"s and battle Cruisers get replaced by Carriers [and 1939 carriers replaced my modern -Radar -Jets-etc]
Note this would give Germany several Carriers as well.


According to the Australian Navy, their AIPs have out preformed the Seawolfs in several Games. They were suppose to have the same Seawolf sensor suites, at time of launch.


Depends on the game. If the SSN is trying to penetrate a harbor, or go through a narrow strait, the AIP boat can play intelligent minefield and pick the SSN off. Same goes for an event set up in littoral waters. In the open sea, it's a very different matter. The Collins do not use the U.S. BQQ-5 or BQQ-10 sensor suite, the BYS-1, BYS-2 or WYL-1 processor node, they are receiving, as a system upgrade, the AN/BYG-1 processor which is part of the Virginia sensor suite. The SSK also uses a Thomson Sintra Scylla sonar, while the BQG sonar series.

The Collins are possibly the best SSK in the world, although the Japanese and Russian navies would be willing to debate the point. In-shore they are terrific, especially in value for procurement cost, as a defensive or littoral offensive vessel. Out in the deep blue, a few hundred miles out to sea is a different matter.

This is actually one of the great debates in naval circles. Is the added cost of a SSN justifiable or is a SSK good enough? The truth is that no one knows for sure. Countries that can afford them build SSNs because no one has ever argued that a SSK is actually better, and good enough is frequently not good enough. A Seawolf can dive 450 feet deeper, make absolutely no noise at 20 knots and still have 14-15 knots left to evade attack or cut off a target, and carry right around 2.5 times as many weapons as any SSK ever built (all figures based on the published data for types, your mileage may vary). Is that worth a 50% premium? Depends whose answering the question.

[Mike Stearns]

For one Germany Realy would Get bombed back to the stone ages Think of a 1000 plane B-1 Bomber Raid on a german city .

I think B-52s would be more effective for that kind of mission, considering that one airplane can carry all the ordnance of an entire squadron of B-17. :eek:

[DeathDemon]

Which is why I'm asking the question.:)

The Japanese have no ships larger than a destroyer (not even any left overs in reserve/museum status), while the U.S. has carriers, cruisers and even a BB in mothballs. Germany, Great Britain, and Japan have no medium/heavy bombers, just strike fighters.

The other side is numbers. Can you picture the U.S. with 80 Tico cruisers, 400 Burke class destroyers, 25 Nimitz/Ford class carriers, 20 1991 layout Iowas, 51 Seawolf class boats, 250 Virginia class subs, 9,000 F-15, 8,000 F-22, 7,000 F-14 12,000 F-18 E/F, 12,500 F-35, 17,000 B-52, 15,000 B-1B, 343 B-2. 50,000 M1A1 tanks, 41,000 Bradleys, 5,000 Strykers, etc. Imagine a 1,000 plane raid by B-52 D "Big Bellies", each carrying the warload of 12 B-17s, or a similar raid by B-1B each carrying 7 B-17 bombloads. Better yet, imagine a attack launched for the 400 DDG-51 with Tomahawks, 5-6,000 missiles each with a CEP of one foot., or trying to get a strike in against a carrier escorted by a dozen Burkes and six Ticos.
That's quite the mental image! :eek:

Excuse me, I'm gonna go change now.

AFAIK, the German advantage in planes over the British was close to three to one when the Battle of Britain raged at its worst. Long-term production is less important there than the immediate overweight. With German pilots being better and there being parity in aircraft capabilities, they have the upper hand.
Well sure, the Germans had more aircraft overall. But if I recall correctly, the numbers of Germans and British single-engine fighters weren't that far apart.

[jkochman]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the German Missile Programs. It gives them an advantage.

The Germans were the only country with a ballistic missile in service during the war. So you replace the V-2 with an conventionally armed Minuteman and you've got some interesting possibilities. Put chemical weapons or biologicals and you've got some real terror weapons. The V-1's would be the equivalant of having thousands of land based tomahawks. Western Europe would be rubble, but North America and parts of the Soviet Union that were never touched could be hit by German missile strikes.

Plus the Germans would be the only country with satelite launch capablities.

Speaking of satelites. Some of the weapons mentioned in this thread would have their abilities severly weakened without GPS guidance.

[flamelord]

OMG, I just shit in my pants thinking of what D-Day would be like, if their was one.:eek:

If this is when russia gets invaded , does russia evenb have enough people to man all those tanks?

[CalBear]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the German Missile Programs. It gives them an advantage.

The Germans were the only country with a ballistic missile in service during the war. So you replace the V-2 with an conventionally armed Minuteman and you've got some interesting possibilities. Put chemical weapons or biologicals and you've got some real terror weapons. The V-1's would be the equivalant of having thousands of land based tomahawks. Western Europe would be rubble, but North America and parts of the Soviet Union that were never touched could be hit by German missile strikes.

Plus the Germans would be the only country with satelite launch capablities.

Speaking of satelites. Some of the weapons mentioned in this thread would have their abilities severly weakened without GPS guidance.


Problem is (and it is common to the elements in this scenario) the current German military does not possess domestically produced ballistic missiles. This means they don't have a modern version to convert to (the U.S. can still deploy Tomahawks since they are the modern replacement for the Aphrodite radio controlled guided bomb, but they don't have ICBMs & the Luftwaffe can deploy Eurofighters and Tornados, but they don't have any multi-engine medium/heavy bombers becuase none are produced in Germany). They can still use V1 & V2 weapons, but the progression for the Reich ends there.

[Blizrun]

I just want to pop in and mention that the US Army hasn't completely phased out Duece-and-a-half type trucks. I was seeing them all summer at West Point, ferrying 10th ID and probes back and forth between the main campus and Camp Buckner. So, the US wouldn't automatically get Bradleys and Strykers to create a mechanized infantry force.

No idea about the Marines in the Pacific, but the terrain over there doesn't strike me as one particularly well-suited to anything other than infantry.

[CalBear]

I just want to pop in and mention that the US Army hasn't completely phased out Duece-and-a-half type trucks. I was seeing them all summer at West Point, ferrying 10th ID and probes back and forth between the main campus and Camp Buckner. So, the US wouldn't automatically get Bradleys and Strykers to create a mechanized infantry force.

No idea about the Marines in the Pacific, but the terrain over there doesn't strike me as one particularly well-suited to anything other than infantry.

The Brads would be replacements for the Half-track.

I think the Corps would be VERY happy to conduct their assault on Tawawa, Saipan, etc. in the LAV-7 instead of the original amtrack. Better armored than Sherman and like a duck to water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Assault_Vehicle