It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WW2 But With Todays Technology??

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by uuhelpus
Who need an F-22? There asses could be kicked with mig-21s and f-4s BVR
The F-14 with the phoenix missile. Each AAM could destroy several bombers, maybe even a small formation.

A 24/7 strategic bombing campaign( no nukes). Raids that used to take 12 hours would run 1/3 that. They would quit very fast
Hitler would # a brick if he saw a formation of B-1s doing a .92 mach bombing pass at 500 ft


[edit on 28-3-2006 by uuhelpus]


Why?

Are you saying that the US would actually enter the war in 1940? Are you trying to re-write, the re-written history of WWII?

The Anglo-French alliance would, using the weaponry of 2006, give Herr Hitler such a bloody nose, that he would capitulate and would probably, be held to account.

It would be the Anglo-French alliance that would be victorious in WWII, the Americans would not be over here, and Hollywood would still have to rely on 3rd rate cowboys and indians films and would not be able to
re-write the original screenplay for WWII.




posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Delete
Good point. If we knew what we know now, would we not prevent the whole thing by stopping the spreading of Nazism?
Or would preventing the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand have prevented WWI, while removing the social environment that led to hitlers rule?


[edit on 29-3-2006 by uuhelpus]

[edit on 29-3-2006 by uuhelpus]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
There is mounting evidence that with or without Hitler, war would have come to Europe in the 1940s. Right wing militant movement was well on its way by the mid 1920s. So removing Hitler or indeed the Nazis would not prevent a European war. Von Blomberg made a 'faustian bargin' with Hitler in 1933, where by Hitler was given control of the rearmament process and the Wehrmacht but garranteed continued rearmament programs as the highest priority. Thats why they swore an allegiance to Der furher after that.

Having suffered through the 20s on a shoe string ,Hitler must have looked like a 'god send' to the high command. The problem was moving from Groeners demand of a 'combined armed forces', that could defend against an attack from Poland on a shoe string, the high command quickly expanded their wargaming to include defensive war with both Poland and France leading to offensive war against both opponents. The socalled 'risk armed forces' to the "armee de converture".

The problem was given the penny pinching back drop of the 1920, they could not figure out how to get the budget to afford the production needed and ram through conscription as well to get the man power needed. Even their most optimistic plans saw the late 1940s as the most likely target for action. Hitler radicalised and hyjacked the entire process, by setting each branch off against the others including their elite paramilitary force to keep the General on their toes. This allowed him to better control the Wehrmacht and fashoned into a tool that he could use, not as much for Germany's security , but for completion of his racial world dreams.

I suspect that had Blomberg and the High command , known what they did in 1938, they would not have made such a deal. Even the Liberal defense minister Groener had a better approach in late 1920s and would have been a preferable alternative.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I think you are missing the point.

St3ve_o posed the question - with todays technology (allied forces) how long would it take to beat the nazis with (1945 technology)?

Now you guys have taken a pretty decent thread and turn it in to something else. This thread was about weaponry - pure and simple. It is not about political will, power stations carrier battle groups and all the other demogogs that some of you want included.

It is about Hitler invading Poland in 1940, England and France declaring war on Germany and whether or not Germany could be defeated by (I presume) Anglo-French weaponry from 2006.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
I think you are missing the point.
St3ve_o posed the question - with todays technology (allied forces) how long would it take to beat the nazis with (1945 technology)?


Well if your still not sure what the question was.....



Now you guys have taken a pretty decent thread and turn it in to something else. This thread was about weaponry - pure and simple. It is not about political will, power stations carrier battle groups and all the other demogogs that some of you want included.


Weaponry available would have changed the political choices aswell and thinking that you can just ignore that to simplify the original ( pointless) premise is just wanting it more so. You should thank the posters so far for at least trying to flesh out the original idea thus giving us something interesting and informative to read.


It is about Hitler invading Poland in 1940, England and France declaring war on Germany and whether or not Germany could be defeated by (I presume) Anglo-French weaponry from 2006.


Hitler would not have invaded Poland facing such weapons on the Allied side anyways. It is doubtful if Hitler could have managed to easy political coup's he did when the allies had such powerful weaponry on his borders.

ANYWAYS!

Stellar



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
We seem to be implying olny the allies have modern tech, what about the axis?

What if they had stealth bombers, and radar?

Its realy hard to compare because different countrys had different technologys (allies had radar, US gave it to the allies who otherwise would be helpless). Who would have what modern technologys?



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jazz_psyker
We seem to be implying olny the allies have modern tech, what about the axis?

What if they had stealth bombers, and radar?

Its realy hard to compare because different countrys had different technologys (allies had radar, US gave it to the allies who otherwise would be helpless). Who would have what modern technologys?


WRONG! The US did not give the allied forces radar. Whatever made you think they did?

In case you did not know, here in the UK, we had two radar warning systems. I think they were called the Chain Home Line and were basically two seperate lines of radio RF/DF pylons, one of which stretched from Dover to Cornwall and the other further inland just below the Thames estuary to Liverpool.

Apart from that fledgling Radar system, there were many, many projects bumbling along but it was not until the Bruneval raid by our parachute Bde where they captured a complete radar system, dismantled it completely and shipped it back to the Uk.

So no my friend, I don't think the US gave us radar. They might have given us Sonar. Could it be that you are confusing the two?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join