World War Two gets an upgrade

[Landshark]

The idea for this came to me while reading the World War 2 fought with modern weapons thread. Some of the problems in that thread, notably the ones concerning things like battleships or Japanese aircraft carriers really bugged me.

The ASB's want to see what WW2 would look like if it was fought with modern weapons so instead of just replacing tanks, planes and ships with their modern equivalents they upgrade the technology of 1939 by about 70 years.

What this means is society and the geo-political situation stays the same but technology and infrastructure are upgraded to modern standards.

For example the Supermarine Spitfire goes from being a single engine propeller fighter to being a 3rd or 4th generation jet fighter. Similarly HMS Hood becomes a large missile equipped "battlecruiser" like the Kirovs, Sherman tanks bulk up to 50 tons and gain guns large than 100mm and Panzergrenadiers carry Mauser assault rifles firing a small calibre bullet.

All other technology gets this boost as well, so telephone, cars, trains, whatever now resemble their late 20th century counterparts.

The one rule is no nuclear power or weapons.

So how does this develop?

[alt_historian]

So rather than trying to figure out precise equivalents, we go for a more general, HoI:2 upgrades approach? Nice... :)

And all technoloy changes, yet the geopolitics remain the same? Interesting... OK, the Middle East just became a lot more strategically important: modern militaries use far, far more oil than their OTL 1940 counterparts.

Other than that, um... sorry! :o

[Admiral Canaris]

As noted, the strategic resources situation of the Axis becomes that much worse. In fact, I doubt Germany can manage unless they store humongous amounts of fuel beforehand. Synthetic fuel plants can only compensate for so much.

[Mike Stearns]

As noted, the strategic resources situation of the Axis becomes that much worse. In fact, I doubt Germany can manage unless they store humongous amounts of fuel beforehand. Synthetic fuel plants can only compensate for so much.

I agree. The Axis powers would also be supremely screwed in another away: air power.On an average mission a single can B-17 roughly 5,000 pounds of ordanance. On an average mission, a B-52 can carry all the munitions of an entire SQUADRON of B-17s, which comes to approximately 60,000 pounds of bombs. If the United States and Greate Britain are still conducting 1000 bomber raids, then the firepower of those raids has just increased by an order of magnitude. Not very nice for the Nazis. :eek:

[alt_historian]

I agree. The Axis powers would also be supremely screwed in another away: air power.On an average mission a single can B-17 roughly 5,000 pounds of ordanance. On an average mission, a B-52 can carry all the munitions of an entire SQUADRON of B-17s, which comes to approximately 60,000 pounds of bombs. If the United States and Greate Britain are still conducting 1000 bomber raids, then the firepower of those raids has just increased by an order of magnitude. Not very nice for the Nazis. :eek:
Ah... even worse firestorms, then? Would make Dresden look like a picnic :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

That is, if the bombers can get through the dense AA network, which has just been upgraded to SAMs...

[Admiral Canaris]

That's what you have the 1,000-bomber B-2 raid for... missiles can't target them.

[Mike Stearns]

That's what you have the 1,000-bomber B-2 raid for... missiles can't target them.

That's a good point, but I think I'd save the B-2s for precision bombing and for Pathfinder missions.

EDIT: And yes, Berlin, Rome and Tokyo are going to be utterly anihilated.

[Landshark]

The B-2 is a "stealth" bomber not an "invisbile" bomber and 1000 or the things are certainly going to be visible. Besides the USAAF isn't going to have B-2's it's going to have B-17 jet bombers.

[Mike Stearns]

The B-2 is a "stealth" bomber not an "invisbile" bomber and 1000 or the things are certainly going to be visible. Besides the USAAF isn't going to have B-2's it's going to have B-17 jet bombers.

Read the OP again. All the technology gets a 1 to 1 ugrade. If Spitfires and Mustangs become Eurofighters and F-22s, then Flying Forts and Superforts are going to become B-1s and B-52s.

[Landshark]

Read the OP again. All the technology gets a 1 to 1 ugrade. If Spitfires and Mustangs become Eurofighters and F-22s, then Flying Forts and Superforts are going to become B-1s and B-52s.

I wrote the OP, you are thinking of the other thread.

[alt_historian]

The B-2 is a "stealth" bomber not an "invisbile" bomber and 1000 or the things are certainly going to be visible. Besides the USAAF isn't going to have B-2's it's going to have B-17 jet bombers.

I wrote the OP, you are thinking of the other thread.

:confused:
If that's the case, how can the Spit become a "3rd or 4th generation jet fighter"? If it just has new engines but the same shape, then it would have to be a first generation similar to the OTL Meteor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor)... if it tried to go significantly faster it would fall apart due to lacking swept wings, the right materials etc.

[Fenwick]

Well a looong time ago I had an idea of time travelers and WWII, and what I ende dup with was a bunchy of weird weapons impossible for the 1940's but seems to fit the tone of this thread.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/769/afewmoreweaponsdj8.jpg

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1674/paxgunconceptshl3.jpg

[Blue Max]

Well, there is the question of nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion, neither of which can really work without the principles to create the other. And the thing is that in 1940, the middle eastern oil was not known to be anywhere near the amounts known today.

We would see carnage in the sky with extremely advanced aircraft; but the ground might be absent the MBT because the oil just isn't there. The Soviets would surely field some, but its hard to imagine Germany building up a pile of Panzer MBT when the fuel is simply unavailable.

Aircraft Carriers would be unlikely to survive missile strikes, and the world would have large numbers of ICBMs and ABMs available. Pearl Harbor would not happen, indeed, because a Japanese attack against the USA would mean that the USA and Japan would trade ICBMs against each other, possibly with nuclear warheads; but even without them the damage would be huge.

WW2 was fought as it was because that's what technology was available. Introducing Computers, ICBMS, Nuclear Weapons, and Helicopters is going to change the war. And the lame way for this to happen is that Germany attacks Poland, Poland, France and the UK respond with Nukes, and the war is over. Meanwhile, Stalin is too paranoid to attack even a devastated nuclear power. Japan can't make the moves on Chiang because he's got the bomb, too.

[Landshark]

:confused:
If that's the case, how can the Spit become a "3rd or 4th generation jet fighter"? If it just has new engines but the same shape, then it would have to be a first generation similar to the OTL Meteor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor)... if it tried to go significantly faster it would fall apart due to lacking swept wings, the right materials etc.

In this (http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=102455) thread all weapons are replaced with their 2008 counterparts. So a Supermarine Spitfire becomes a Eurofighter Typhoon, and so on and so forth with every other tank, plane and ship.

In the thread you're reading now the ASB's change the world of 1939 so that while the political situation stays the same all the technology and infrastructure are boosted to 2008 levels (or more probably late cold war levels).

So when we're talking about a Spitfire we're not talking about a plane powered by a single Rolls Royce Merlin piston engine and armed with eight machine guns, we're talking about a jet fighter in the same weight class as an F-16 or MiG-29.

It's still called a Spitfire, it's still designed by R J Mitchell, it's still built by Supermarine, it's still one of the most deadly air superiority aircraft in the world but everything about it has been upgraded by 70 years.

The Merlin is Rolls Royce's finest "jet" engine of the period.

The Garand is a fully automatic assualt rifle firing a 5.62mm calibre bullet.

A T-34/76 is now a T-34/107, a fifty five ton tank armed with a 107mm gun.

Instead of half-tracks and lorries infantry now have APC's and IFV's, instead of anti-tank rifles and guns they now have RPG's and ATGW's, heavy AA guns become long range SAM's and battleships become large cruisers armed with cruise missiles.

[Landshark]

The one rule is no nuclear power or weapons.


Well, there is the question of nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion, neither of which can really work without the principles to create the other. And the thing is that in 1940, the middle eastern oil was not known to be anywhere near the amounts known today.

We would see carnage in the sky with extremely advanced aircraft; but the ground might be absent the MBT because the oil just isn't there. The Soviets would surely field some, but its hard to imagine Germany building up a pile of Panzer MBT when the fuel is simply unavailable.

Aircraft Carriers would be unlikely to survive missile strikes, and the world would have large numbers of ICBMs and ABMs available. Pearl Harbor would not happen, indeed, because a Japanese attack against the USA would mean that the USA and Japan would trade ICBMs against each other, possibly with nuclear warheads; but even without them the damage would be huge.

WW2 was fought as it was because that's what technology was available. Introducing Computers, ICBMS, Nuclear Weapons, and Helicopters is going to change the war. And the lame way for this to happen is that Germany attacks Poland, Poland, France and the UK respond with Nukes, and the war is over. Meanwhile, Stalin is too paranoid to attack even a devastated nuclear power. Japan can't make the moves on Chiang because he's got the bomb, too.

I think given the tech increases it would be allowable to let oil exploration advance too. So Italy would have oil fields in Libya and the Germans could stock pile supplies from the Soviet Union (pre Barbarossa anyway).

[Wolf]

That's a good point, but I think I'd save the B-2s for precision bombing and for Pathfinder missions.

EDIT: And yes, Berlin, Rome and Tokyo are going to be utterly anihilated.
And Plostei too. Remeber the oil fields there.

[alt_historian]

In this (http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=102455) thread all weapons are replaced with their 2008 counterparts. So a Supermarine Spitfire becomes a Eurofighter Typhoon, and so on and so forth with every other tank, plane and ship.

In the thread you're reading now the ASB's change the world of 1939 so that while the political situation stays the same all the technology and infrastructure are boosted to 2008 levels (or more probably late cold war levels).

So when we're talking about a Spitfire we're not talking about a plane powered by a single Rolls Royce Merlin piston engine and armed with eight machine guns, we're talking about a jet fighter in the same weight class as an F-16 or MiG-29.

It's still called a Spitfire, it's still designed by R J Mitchell, it's still built by Supermarine, it's still one of the most deadly air superiority aircraft in the world but everything about it has been upgraded by 70 years.

The Merlin is Rolls Royce's finest "jet" engine of the period.

The Garand is a fully automatic assualt rifle firing a 5.62mm calibre bullet.

A T-34/76 is now a T-34/107, a fifty five ton tank armed with a 107mm gun.

Instead of half-tracks and lorries infantry now have APC's and IFV's, instead of anti-tank rifles and guns they now have RPG's and ATGW's, heavy AA guns become long range SAM's and battleships become large cruisers armed with cruise missiles.
Ah... that's a lot clearer now. Thanks.

[Admiral Canaris]

The B-2 is a "stealth" bomber not an "invisbile" bomber and 1000 or the things are certainly going to be visible. Besides the USAAF isn't going to have B-2's it's going to have B-17 jet bombers.

It's not, but it can't be locked on by guided weapons (radar shadow's about the size of a child's bicycle). They'll have to shoot them down the old-fashioned way. And that's where the Raptor escorts come into play...:D

[alt_historian]

It's not, but it can't be locked on by guided weapons (radar shadow's about the size of a child's bicycle). They'll have to shoot them down the old-fashioned way. And that's where the Raptor escorts come into play...:D
Read Landshark's clarification post... no such thing as B-2s. Or Raptors, for that matter...

That is, each unit is upgraded to the nearest modern-tech equivalent.

So the B-17 - a four-engined, heavy bomber - becomes something similar to the latest version of B-52 - a multi-engined, heavy bomber. Although not exactly the same, just something equivalent in role and capability.

All of the fighters become modern-tech equivalents: things like F-15s, -16s, -18s... possibly F-22s. Again, they are not exact matches, just using modern technology.

[Landshark]

So the B-17 - a four-engined, heavy bomber - becomes something similar to the latest version of B-52 - a multi-engined, heavy bomber. Although not exactly the same, just something equivalent in role and capability.

That raises an interesting question.

The B-17 was one of the most advanced bombers in the world in 1939, designed to penetrate enemy defences and deliver precision attacks using the Norden Bomb Site.

So in my scenario would the B-17 be the equivalent of the 50 year B-52, the 30 year old B-1 or the 15 year old B-2?

I suppose technically the B-17 would be closest to an updated B-52, high flying, rugged, well liked by it's crews, while the B-24 would be closest to the B-1, faster and more modern than its predesesor but more of a handfull to fly, and the B-29 would be a B-2 on steroids, the most advanced bomber in the American arsenal but, reflecting the B-29's size and presence, a bit more in your face than the stealth bomber.

[Vault-Scope]

That's what you have the 1,000-bomber B-2 raid for... missiles can't target them.

Only relatively primitive missiles.

[Landshark]

Bump.
.............

[CalBear]

Okay, I'm still a bit confused here, but I'll give it a shot.

Upgrades make the battlefield almost unimanginably lethal. You have the WW III scenario without nukes.

Modern weapons are way more than just scaled up versions of their WW II ancestors. A F-15E fighter bomber, which would, I suppose, be the 1:1 replacement for the P-38 (2 engine U.S. built fighter) can carry more than the Lancaster or B-29 or the same war load as 11 of the WW II version. Each bomb is also much more deadly, with cluster muntions and FAE mostly replacing regular fragmentation and napalm weapons. A single SU-25, the scenario's replacement for the IL-2 can wipe out 25-30 tanks or IFVs in one pass, while a heavy bomber (which I would suggest being B-17 = B-52, B-24 = B-1, B-29 = B-2 for U.S. aircraft since this reflects the same progression in models and reduces the number of B-2s) carries 40,000 - 80,000 pounds of bombs over continental distances. This means that a 1000 plane raid puts between 20 & 40 KILOTONS (40,000 tons) onto a target, assuming they aren't using something REALLY nasty like 20,000 pound FAE/Thermobaric bombs, which would increase the explosive power 4X.

That leads naturally to the increase in lethality of a weapon. A single 2000 bomb will flatten everything within 750 ft of point of impact with a frag kill radius to 3,000 ft/1km while a CBU-87 will create a lethal area roughly 400x400 feet. In WW II a fighter bomber MIGHT carrier a single 2000 bomb, although 2 x 500 pound was general. Now each aircraft will carry between 4-8 of these killers. FAE weapons (e.g. overpressure weapons), depending on filler, increase blast (although not fragment) effect 3X-6X. Overpressure weapons are so powerful that they have actually replaced the tactical nuke in many military applications.

A single load of Katyusha rockets was a frightening experience, raining random death over up to four acres, but its modern replacement, the MLRS kills a square kilometer at a time (The Iraqis called it steel rain), and can reload in about two minutes. Tube Artillery has also become even more deadly thanks to cluster minuitions and advances in filler and shell design.

Grenade launchers have jumped from the simple rifle grenade to M-203 single shot and the M-19 40mm Automatic Grenede Launcher, a weapon that can fire a 40mm frag/DP or WP grenade every second & a half all day long. Each grenade has a FIVE meter KILL radius, X3 wound, with the ability to penetrate 2" of steel armor or around a foot of rock. (The Marine Corps loves the damned things) Unlike WW II infantry actually has anti-tank weapons that WORK, a Javelin Team can kill three tanks & be gone before the enemy knows they're there (low observable launch & fire/forget is a GOOD thing). Javs will also do a number of just about any bunker you can design, those it can't kill you use a TOW right into the firing port or a M-19 until a couple DP get into the interior. The Corps and the Russians also have a thermobaric rocket that is supposed to be a sight to behold.

On the other hand, tanks (at least UK & U.S. models) can hit a coffee can sized target 1.5 miles/two kilometers away 90% of the time (while traveling at 35mph/50 KPH), not to mention that the Abrams can hit 40+ mph (how much + is an open question) on pavement or hard ground. IFVs can run right next to the tanks and can kill a tank at 2,500 meters. That is quite a bit better than the WW II Halftrack.

Troops on a modern battlefield die at a rate that is almost unimaginable. The "big" countries (NATO/Russia/China/India) haven't fought an equal since the lethality revolution (and a good thing too). A modern WW II wopuld be over in a year. There just wouldn't be anything left to blow up or anyone to kill.

[CalBear]

Only relatively primitive missiles.


Uh huh.

That is a VERY dangerous assumption.

[Vault-Scope]

Uh huh.

That is a very dangerous assumption.



Nope, anti-aircraft missiles with sufficiently advanced systems would simply ignore all these nice counter-measures and make short work of a thousand B-2 aircafts, one single supersonic warhead impact and bomber is disabled.
Back in 1999, one supposedly "stealth aircaft" was shot down using an anti-aircraft missile from Stalin´s era...

IOTL WW2 was it not Germany which was closest to having effective anti-aircraft systems? In that case, they are likely to receive the most advanced anti-aircrafts missiles.

[CalBear]

Nope, anti-aircraft missiles with sufficiently advanced systems would simply ignore all these nice counter-measures and make short work of a thousand B-2 aircafts, one single supersonic warhead impact and bomber is disabled.
Back in 1999, one supposedly "stealth aircaft" was shot down using an anti-aircraft missile from Stalin´s era...

IOTL WW2 was it not Germany which was closest to having effective anti-aircraft systems? In that case, they are likely to receive the most advanced anti-aircrafts missiles.


Were, I have to ask, do you come up with some of this stuff?

B-2s do not use "counter measures". They, like all current generation stealth aircraft (at least those in open service, God knows what is hiding out at Tonapah and in central Siberia) use design and materials to avoid detection. Is it possible to detect their presence? Yes, the French have demonstrated that capacity, and the Russians claim the same. Is it possible to find a firing solution? No one has ever demonstrated the capacity to do so.

The F-117 that was hit over Kosovo was NOT a B-2, rather it was 1st (some would argue 2nd) generation stealth aircraft, with a design dating back to the late '70's. It is no long even in service, having been overtaken by both detection technology AND more modern, far more stealthy systems.

The SA-3 upgrade that picked off the the F-117 in Kosovo had extremely modern sensors. Even without discussing the sensors, which post date the late, unlamented USSR, the very earliest SA-3 was deployed in 1963. If memory serves, Stalin died in 1953 (may he suffer an especially horrible eternity in Hell).

For that matter, in any modern weapon version of WW II their would be a rather poor survival rate for SAM operators. To kill targets, SAM sites have to radiate, to track a stealthy target, they would have to radiate at a very high power setting. SAM sites radiating at high power levels tend to be destroyed by anti-radiation missiles like the AGM-88 with depressing regularity.

[Vault-Scope]

Were, I have to ask, do you come up with some of this stuff?

B-2s do not use "counter measures". They, like all current generation stealth aircraft (at least those in open service, God knows what is hiding out at Tonapah and in central Siberia) use design and materials to avoid detection. Is it possible to detect their presence? Yes, the French have demonstrated that capacity, and the Russians claim the same. Is it possible to find a firing solution? No one has ever demonstrated the capacity to do so.

The SA-3 upgrade that picked off the the F-117 in Kosovo had extremely modern sensors. Even without discussing the sensors, which post date the late, unlamented USSR, the very earliest SA-3 was deployed in 1963. If memory serves, Stalin died in 1953 (may he suffer an especially horrible eternity in Hell).

For that matter, in any modern weapon version of WW II their would be a rather poor survival rate for SAM operators. To kill targets, SAM sites have to radiate, to track a stealthy target, they would have to radiate at a very high power setting. SAM sites radiating at high power levels tend to be destroyed by anti-radiation missiles like the AGM-88 with depressing regularity.


Extremely modern censors? It is true Serbia have some good technologies when it come to infrared censor but not that much compared to other countries and the missile model was an antiquity.
Even despite their design, composition and propulsion system (Reactors producting little heat), B-2s are not completely undetectable.
Sovietic military knew how to detect anything "stealth", not just by using radars or infrareds but using "quantum generator scanning", "quantum generator" which is an another name for lasers.
Such system can also be used destroy swarms of insects and could easely be uppdated to destroy future US army mini-drones.
Not only can the aircraft itself be detected but the effects of its passage throught the atmosphere.
Hitting a target once it is detected is a simple matter with not-too-simplistic technologies, even if exact location not known.
Even without real onboard calculation systems. A bomber can deliver a cluster bombe? Then, same principe can work for a missile, with the correct engineering.

1963 ?!? Do you not know what happened to that U-2 spyplane above Cuba in 62´? It was shot down by a single anti-aircraft missile!
In the SU itself, first researchs on SAMs would have started in 1937, if it hadn´t been for Stalin´s purges.


SAM sites of such places as Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq are hardly among the most advanced (or known for having any well-trained operators for that matter).
That they cause little to no problem is no surprise, missile launches hovewer, are hardly a step toward more stealth...

[Berra]

I'm not sure exactly how to handle the upgrade but even things like typewriters and telephones would translate to things like faxmachines, copy machines or even computers, maybe with some kind of network attached.

Something like that will come and that is just the technology that came in handy during the fall of the Soviet union. They would have some repressive countermessure to BUT it might not even come to a war.

So Japan, Italy, Germany and the Sovit Union might see political change.

Edit: Imagine CNN (the equivalent to the radio shows of the era) reporting from the Holocaust.

[Dungeon Dwelling Dragon]

The real question is what would it be like to have these modern systems fighting each other. We all know how deadly advanced first-world systems, manned by highly trained warriors are against third rate technologically and poorly trained enemies.

But would the quick, decisive, battles we've come to expect from watching the rather lop-sided conflicts of the recent past really hold true in this scenario?

[CalBear]

Extremely modern censors? It is true Serbia have some good technologies when it come to infrared censor but not that much compared to other countries and the missile model was an antiquity.
Even despite their design, composition and propulsion system (Reactors producting little heat), B-2s are not completely undetectable.
Sovietic military knew how to detect anything "stealth", not just by using radars or infrareds but using "quantum generator scanning", "quantum generator" which is an another name for lasers.
Such system can also be used destroy swarms of insects and could easely be uppdated to destroy future US army mini-drones.
Not only can the aircraft itself be detected but the effects of its passage throught the atmosphere.
Hitting a target once it is detected is a simple matter with not-too-simplistic technologies, even if exact location not known.
Even without real onboard calculation systems. A bomber can deliver a cluster bombe? Then, same principe can work for a missile, with the correct engineering.

1963 ?!? Do you not know what happened to that U-2 spyplane above Cuba in 62´? It was shot down by a single anti-aircraft missile!
In the SU itself, first researchs on SAMs would have started in 1937, if it hadn´t been for Stalin´s purges.


SAM sites of such places as Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq are hardly among the most advanced (or known for having any well-trained operators for that matter).
That they cause little to no problem is no surprise, missile launches hovewer, are hardly a step toward more stealth...


The U-2 was, in fact, taken by an SA-2 "Guideline", a telephone pole sized weapon that entered service in 1959 (oops, guess Stalin is still roasting in hell by that time). If you are talking the underlying tech, the SAM was being fielded by the Luftwaffe late in WW II.

I find it fascinating that the Soviets knew how to track and engage targets using technology that did not exist while the USSR was in existence. By all means, please expand. It will be of great interest to the NATO militarily to learn how the USSR developed the time machine.

I am, however, slightly puzzled regarding the overall outcome of the Cold War. If Ivan was so advanced militarily, why is the USSR an example of a failed state. For that matter,why was the late Red Army unable to handle a bunch of Muj in Afghanistan and Chechnya?

[CalBear]

The real question is what would it be like to have these modern systems fighting each other. We all know how deadly advanced first-world systems, manned by highly trained warriors are against third rate technologically and poorly trained enemies.

But would the quick, decisive, battles we've come to expect from watching the rather lop-sided conflicts of the recent past really hold true in this scenario?

Actually it would be far from one sided, even decisive is an open question, but quick? Oh, very yes.

The ability of modern weapons nto make first hit kills, and the rather awe-inspiring amount of destruction that can be dropped from modern aircraft would reduce ALL the industrial powers to 1885 tech in a few months.

The 1,000 plane B-2 raid, or even a 1,000 B-52 raid, with the proper ADS effort, as has been discussed would, in a single mission, turn the industrial base of any site into plowed dirt, albeit with LOTS of rocks interminged with the loam.

Since ALL the combatants will suddenly have intercontinental bombers in this scenario, everybody loses. The scenario converts a He-111 into a B-52 equivalent raising the bombload by 30X and increasing range by 5X the same is true for all other systems. It is exceptionally doubtful that there would be anyone left to fight in an organized manner by Day 180 of the war.

[alt_historian]

Extremely modern censors? It is true Serbia have some good technologies when it come to infrared censor but not that much compared to other countries and the missile model was an antiquity.
Even despite their design, composition and propulsion system (Reactors producting little heat), B-2s are not completely undetectable.
reactors, you say?
Sovietic military knew how to detect anything "stealth", not just by using radars or infrareds but using "quantum generator scanning", "quantum generator" which is an another name for lasers.
Such system can also be used destroy swarms of insects and could easely be uppdated to destroy future US army mini-drones.
... what the hell?

I'm not even going to bother with the rest, since what you've got there already is so bizarre...

[Admiral Canaris]

Extremely modern censors? It is true Serbia have some good technologies when it come to infrared censor but not that much compared to other countries and the missile model was an antiquity.
Even despite their design, composition and propulsion system (Reactors producting little heat), B-2s are not completely undetectable.
Sovietic military knew how to detect anything "stealth", not just by using radars or infrareds but using "quantum generator scanning", "quantum generator" which is an another name for lasers.
Such system can also be used destroy swarms of insects and could easely be uppdated to destroy future US army mini-drones.
Not only can the aircraft itself be detected but the effects of its passage throught the atmosphere.
Hitting a target once it is detected is a simple matter with not-too-simplistic technologies, even if exact location not known.
Even without real onboard calculation systems. A bomber can deliver a cluster bombe? Then, same principe can work for a missile, with the correct engineering.

Were are you getting this all from? It sure doesn't resemble anything I've read, and others look about as confounded.

[Ferdinand Koenig]

The most important thing is that all sides start out with radar, which means the British wouldn't be able to confound the Germans during the Battle of Britain. Thus Britain is likely defeated in 1940 or '41.

[Ferdinand Koenig]

I am, however, slightly puzzled regarding the overall outcome of the Cold War. If Ivan was so advanced militarily, why is the USSR an example of a failed state. For that matter,why was the late Red Army unable to handle a bunch of Muj in Afghanistan and Chechnya?

For the same reason we're having a hard time; because technology doesn't defeat insurgencies.

Soviet technology was great; it was their ability to mass produce it which was lacking.

[CalBear]

For the same reason we're having a hard time; because technology doesn't defeat insurgencies.

Soviet technology was great; it was their ability to mass produce it which was lacking.


The posts I was responding to indicated that the Soviets could detect intrusions the size of INSECTS (partly be detecting the REACTORS on USAF bombers). If that was the case, finding Chechen IEDs sould have been child's play.

Soviet tech was GREAT?:confused:

GREAT?:confused::confused:

We are talking about the Soviet UNION, correct?:confused::confused::confused:

The soviets managed, almost despite themselves, to produce some excellent weapon systems. In virtually every case, this was done via brute forcing the system. There are rumors that the Sovs managed great things, in the area of lasers particularily, but as a practical system? Little to no evidence exists.

Soviet equipment was, from a technological standpoint at least two, in many cases, three generations behind NATO. The USSR managed to build in massive quanitity, thereby presenting NATO with a serious challenge, but from a quality/technology perspective the USSR was, again, generally, seriously deficient.

[Admiral Canaris]

The posts I was responding to indicated that the Soviets could detect intrusions the size of INSECTS (partly be detecting the REACTORS on USAF bombers). If that was the case, finding Chechen IEDs sould have been child's play.

Soviet tech was GREAT?:confused:

GREAT?:confused::confused:

We are talking about the Soviet UNION, correct?:confused::confused::confused:

The soviets managed, almost despite themselves, to produce some excellent weapon systems. In virtually every case, this was done via brute forcing the system. There are rumors that the Sovs managed great things, in the area of lasers particularily, but as a practical system? Little to no evidence exists.

Soviet equipment was, from a technological standpoint at least two, in many cases, three generations behind NATO. The USSR managed to build in massive quanitity, thereby presenting NATO with a serious challenge, but from a quality/technology perspective the USSR was, again, generally, seriously deficient.

That's something of a generalisation, though, is it? It depends on what period you're talking about; Soviet tanks mostly compared favourably to the Patton, for example. But as a rule, you're right, Soviet stuff was worse, and the gap tended to get worse with time. I do believe "three generations" behind would be an overstatement, though.

[Ferdinand Koenig]

Soviet equipment was, from a technological standpoint at least two, in many cases, three generations behind NATO. The USSR managed to build in massive quanitity, thereby presenting NATO with a serious challenge, but from a quality/technology perspective the USSR was, again, generally, seriously deficient.

My point was simply that Soviet science was very advanced. I wasn't really extrapolating that into their ability to produce weapons system equivalent to those of NATO. Clearly, we had a much better military-industrial complex, but I'm not sure we were really that far ahead of them, in terms of scientific discovery.

[The Militant One]

The best way I can think of this entire scenario is WW2 becomes Diesel Punk. Similar to that of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, without the huge ass robots of course.

[Alexius]

reactors, you say?

I suspect Vaultscope is French- reacteur is French for jet engine, something that worried me the last time I got on a flight with announcements in French. "Do not use your mobile phone until the aircraft is at the gate and the reactors have been switched off"...

[alt_historian]

I suspect Vaultscope is French- reacteur is French for jet engine, something that worried me the last time I got on a flight with announcements in French. "Do not use your mobile phone until the aircraft is at the gate and the reactors have been switched off"...
Ah... well, then that particular sentence would make more sense.

Not the rest of his post, though...

[Fellatio Nelson]

Also, if we're talking modern Western diesel-electric subs against modern convoy escorts (frigates, destroyers), then submarines have an even bigger advantage than they did during WW2.

Unless you had sufficient submarines of your own - or else nuclear ones - to have 'policemen' waiting along the course, you'd be in a lot of trouble.