1955, not 1965
Assault rifles? Not yet. The AK is not in general use.The early models has serious issues with the receiver (among other things). They didn't start to reach the field in any number until '56/'57 onwards. The Eastern block is still using the SKS and Bolt actions (along with the PPsh-41 SMG). U.S. is still using the M-1 (M-14 didn't enter service until 1957). The FN-FAL is entering service, but there are still LOTS of bolt action rifles on the continent
1955: The AK-47 is being distributed to USSR troops en masse as the design is being refined, and as this is peace time in OTL there is no incentive to get the weaponry into the field as quickly as might be done in wartime
APC? Sort of. The BMP 50 is replacing the BMP 40 halftrack, but it is till open topped and the armor is more than suspect. The U.S. is beginning to deploy the M-59, but it is not in full use, most troops are still in 6x6s or on foot.
They are still more mobile than the animal-drawn transportation used by many countries in WWII, never mind that as the war progresses APCs are likely to get deployed in greater numbers.
Improved Spy planes? Compared to WW II, a bit, but not very far. The Mosquito was just as capable as a RF-94 & the wooden plane had longer range. The pictures are better, but the tech to use them is barely advanced from VJ Day.
The U-2 is flying by the end of 1955, the Canberra is up and running, and several other improved spy planes are in the air. Even the planes in 1945 are better than those in 1939, but by 1955 the designs are improved and another generation of telecom technology would refine the equipment inside them as well.
Aircraft? I would rather be in a F-86 than a Bf-109 as well. Problem is that BOTH sides are equipped with 1955 gear, so the other side has Mig -15 & -17, with the American Century series just starting to come on-line with the F-100 SuperSaber. With the early jets you didn't have the range of the Mustang and air-to-air is still a gunfight. Jets (well,second generation jets) can carry a heavier load, but they also take longer to build & there aren't as many jets around, the lethality jump just isn't there, not compared to the damage that could be wrought by the swarms of JagerBomber or Il-2s of the war years. The great changes will come later, with guided weapons and sub-munitions.
The AIM-4 will be operation in the US in less than a year, the USSR might be on its way with its own counterpart. The air war gets really interesting for a while...
Night vision? Not yet. The first practical starscopes made there combat appearance in Viet Nam. The IR of the era was crude, unrealiable and thin on the ground.
The US was using IR before the end of WWII and Germany was working on (deploying?) a man-portable system called "Vampir".
Transistors had barely begun to enter the battlefield in 1955. Virtually all radios and radar scopes still used tubes (hell, the Mig-25 IIRC had some tubes in the electronic suite up to the '70's). The miracle of modern tech, the guided weapon, has just begun to take it's first baby steps.
I was thinking more for radios, computers, and other telecom tech. That 40lb radio might now weigh 20. Guided weaponry is still a while away, though, you are right.
The biggest thing that hasn't changed in any significant way is the true killer of the battlefield; artillery. The majority of tubes are still towed, the supply train is still weak (even most of the weapons are WW II holdovers) There are still lots of 75mm in the park, with the 152mm & 155mm still semi-rare. The MLRS system is decades away, even the sub-munition won't be introduced until the late 60's (well the M-444 did come into use around 1962, but it wasn't really a DPICM).
No argument there. I wonder if a Skysweeper could be used as a nasty arty combo against large tank formations?
It was only in the late '60's and later, generally much later, that the modern, almost impossibly lethal, battlefield developed. A non-nuclear war in 1955 would have been bloodier than the 1942 version, since tactics had evolved, but it would, as the original question asked, be just as sustainable in terms of ground and air combat and the ability to resupply.
I think it would depend on the battlefield, especially as submarine technology would make the Atlantic a much more dangerous place in 1955 than 1940. Heck, Type XXIs would have made the Atlantic much more dangerous, never mind the Romeo, Whiskey, and Zulu-class subs the USSR would be running at the time.
This is the difference from today, where a major ground war between the major powers would be over in weeks, possibly two months at the outside. After that, the modern battlefield would be swept clean of the living and there would be no way to get new troops trainedand equipment built fast enough to make good losses.
Oh I think it would be bloody under this scenario, don't get me wrong, but the 1955-tech scenario (which, without WWII, is more like a 1970 scenario because of the tech leaps made during that time) would prove devastating. Also, if the tech differences like that of WWII are in place, and the US is 1955, where is everyone else?
The naval part of the battlefield was intentionally omitted by the original poster. This is, to a degree, regrettable, since it is in the naval arena that warfare actually evolved the most in the post WW II decade (and with the introduction of the SSN in 1954-58, was revolutionized).
Agreed, and I think that this could also make a major difference but we will leave it alone for now.
WW2 with 1950s weapons?
- Thread starter aktarian
- Start date
If we are talking about a WW2 style war any deficiences will be made good by increased prodcution; if there are lots of 75mm guns the 105/155/4.5/5.5 guns will get prodction priority. Also during Vietnam the F4 was being produced at the rate of 72 per month, so big numbers are possible. If it is like WW2 there will be time to put prouction increases into effect because the fighting won't end with a UN ceasefire, it will be fought until conquest detirmines a winner.
In the naval sphere have a look how many carriers the British have just or are about to fininsh in the mid 50s, and how many the US have mothballed.
In the naval sphere have a look how many carriers the British have just or are about to fininsh in the mid 50s, and how many the US have mothballed.
I wonder what would have become of the .280 British rifle round if there had been a WWII style conflict in the 50s. I mean it was overall better than the American 7.62 (comparable ballistic report with much less recoil) and not to mention the EM-2 rifle is just plain cool. Perhaps the Americans would have agreed to adopted the .280 as the standard NATO round instead
Kaptin Kurk
Banned
Well, at least evac helicopters and M*A*S*H units would be available. Old Hawkeye and Honeycutt would have their work cut out for them, eh? More soldiers would survive their intial wounds though...so maybe the war would drag on a bit longer due to higher trickleback rates.
pacifichistorian
Banned
It's alive!!
Important for strategic recon, not so much for battlefield. Or am I misreading use of the PR Canberra? Could also see introduction of BQM-134s for tac recce.
Are you presuming WW2 happens, or butterflying it away? I can picture copying Felix into an AAM.
Actually not. Fritx-X (FX1400), Azon, Felix, GB-4, GB-8, VB-6 Felix, & Bat had all been developed (FX1400 & Bat used operationally by 1945 OTL), Razon in development... Why they weren't used, I don't know. Low demand, I imagine. And X-7 (an AT variant on X-4) had appeared in small numbers OTL by 1945. I can see it being copied & used.
Agreed. Tho the answers had begun appearing before OTL 1945: sonobuoys & helos. OTL, S-51s were flying; a need for ASW might have seen an R1340-powered version able to lift an improved Mk27 homing fish or 2 by 1955, especially given Nautilus entering service.
Interesting.
K 98s are a very cheap rifle IIRC, especially since by '55 they are everywhere. The AK 47 would of course, make a splash along with other SMGs but the K 98 would be that rifle that isn't the glory-hog but the thing that was actually most common.
I don't know what everyone is talking about with the Panzerfaust. They are cheap, and don't take too much space. They would be very big weapons on the battlefield vis a vis tanks.
It gets interesting if Germany is still in the running; They would probably still be ahead tech-wise but not too much. They would have the larger force of jets, what with Me-262s and the Arado Ar 234 bombers being produced in '44.
Also, if the Axis is still there, what about Japan's wacky submarine carrier? They were planning to make a run on Panama '45 but it wen't nowhere.
Guided missile tech is there, but baby stuff. The Germans used radio controlled missiles to sink the Italian fleet surrendering IIRC.
Tanks would be king, of course. By now, however, everyone should be realising heavy tanks and light tanks are going out. Light tank can get it's job done by APCs and other light vehicles, AFVs especially.
Space, rocketry. There are no nukes but what about V-2 style rocket bombing and such?
And if stuff drags on won't we have some space stuff? '57 is the year we get Sputnik. While it may be worthless tactically it's good propoganda.
Navy-wise, it's either subs or carriers. Battleships are out. Submarines will wreak havoc, serious havoc in that regard.
K 98s are a very cheap rifle IIRC, especially since by '55 they are everywhere. The AK 47 would of course, make a splash along with other SMGs but the K 98 would be that rifle that isn't the glory-hog but the thing that was actually most common.
I don't know what everyone is talking about with the Panzerfaust. They are cheap, and don't take too much space. They would be very big weapons on the battlefield vis a vis tanks.
It gets interesting if Germany is still in the running; They would probably still be ahead tech-wise but not too much. They would have the larger force of jets, what with Me-262s and the Arado Ar 234 bombers being produced in '44.
Also, if the Axis is still there, what about Japan's wacky submarine carrier? They were planning to make a run on Panama '45 but it wen't nowhere.
Guided missile tech is there, but baby stuff. The Germans used radio controlled missiles to sink the Italian fleet surrendering IIRC.
Tanks would be king, of course. By now, however, everyone should be realising heavy tanks and light tanks are going out. Light tank can get it's job done by APCs and other light vehicles, AFVs especially.
Space, rocketry. There are no nukes but what about V-2 style rocket bombing and such?
And if stuff drags on won't we have some space stuff? '57 is the year we get Sputnik. While it may be worthless tactically it's good propoganda.
Navy-wise, it's either subs or carriers. Battleships are out. Submarines will wreak havoc, serious havoc in that regard.
Improved air tech might very well make life a lot more difficult for the Soviets. The Soviet jets would need a longer concrete runway, so when the Germans jump them in Barbarossa the Soviets won't be able to hide when they're rebuilding their air force. IOTL they could pull their IL-2s back and do harassment missions from hidden grass runways, but not with more modern tech.
Increased range and payload of aircraft would have revolutionized the air war and thus the military geography of the conflict. United Kingdom, for example, would not have been the unsinkable aircraft carrier of 1940-1945 but a forward base very vulnerable for air raids. The Mediterranean conflict would have been completely different.
Add the fact that ca. 1955 the cargo aircraft were different animals from WW2 vintage C-47's and Ju-52's and the result is that one is able to pull out a Sealion with an airborne effort of massive scale.
That has changed too. By 1955 VT-fuzes were in widespread use not only for AAA but also for field artillery. Add the improved communications developed during and after Second World War and the lethality of artillery has increased significantly. This is not taking account the increased amount of medium and heavy field artillery in ca. 1955 compared to 1939.
What does the Maginot line look like after being pounded to death by Germany's Super-Heavy Artillery?
If we are assuming Korean War level technology, not so much. The B47, for example, was nearly as fast as the F86 and Mig-15, and quite maneuverable, too.
pacifichistorian
Banned
Also, presuming jet development roughly OTL, flight fuelling has probably come in service, too, granting enormous tactical & strategic flexibility.