I haven’t read that series but I have read capsule summaries of the plot, and it was sort of what I had in the back of my mind when I envisioned the cultural divide between the two parties.
Which side gets the 1920s-style “death rays”?
Since we are assuming the 2008 era forces are all using the latest technology, ,ight use the best of the 1945 era technology to make it more fair a comparison. Shermans were mediocre; at least give them King Tigers & IS2s. A king Tiger might have a chance at surprising a modern armored vehicle.
The 1945 troops were more patriotically unified and might have had more political support. Other small advantages, the WWII troops had more experience in repairing their own vehicles, whereas today’s soldiers aren’t as likely to work on their own modern cars.
Us.
Not really. Look at how Iraq’s much more recent armor of Soviet design fared against top-notch modern mechanized forces. Anti-tank missiles are going to shred any formation of the best 1948 armor you can field, even before we start talking about Abrams and Apaches.
True, but the 1945 era people would not be fighting mass tank battles in the desert. If they were smart, they would be protecting their armor, burying it, saving it for urban operations, etc.
Also at least a KT might have a chance at knocking out a modern light armor vehicle; although even a sherman, hidden, could rock the world of the Humvees.
My guess is if a KT could sneak up behind, at point blank range, it could take out almost any vehicle except for a main battle tank.
I’d guess the only way the 1945 people can prevail is by encouraging 2008 soldiers to defect and bring their equipment and vehicles. They could say “Come to us and get all the tail you can handle! It’s 1945! AIDS doesn’t exist yet! Our girls can’t say no to a (futuristic) soldier!”
The only way the 1945 people could “prevail” would be to blow up all the nukes synchronously in their own terriroty and hope that fallout and nuclear winter took out the 2008 people.
No winner in this scenario, really.
Check them out. Once of the things I liked most about the series was how much attention the author paid to the cultural difference between the 1940’s and our own near future.
The future sailors and marines are shocked by the casual racism and sexism they encounter everywhere they go. And the people from the past are shocked by how ruthless and cold-blooded the Americans from the future are.
There’s a great scene where three future marines (one of them black) wander into the wrong bar in Hawaii. The black marine isn’t welcome and they get into a fight. The 1940’s marines are looking for a good old-fashioned brawl, but instead the 21st century marines brutally and systematically cripple a dozen men using their superior martial arts training.
One more option: Let the 45’ers load their bombers with nukes, shoot them down over water, recover the bombs, use them against the 45’ers.
Then nuke them from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
I’ll 3rd Weapons of Choice.
Dang good books, and the bang it starts out with is pretty nice. And some nice asides for technothriller fans too!
If the '45 side had the chance for a first strike and there are no major resource buildups beforehand, it could use its nukes to deny all major petroleum/natural gas/coal deposits (and refineries, if possible) to the 2008ers. 2008ers must then devote all fuel reserves to the war, which will cause extended rioting at best and total domestic breakdown at worst.
The only way 1945 wins is if, for some reason, 2008 has limited military supplies with no way of readily replacing them. A 2008 power with full industrial capability wipes the floor with 1945, nukes or not.
Is this important? It was my understanding that the only advantage of nuclear-propelled subs was that they could stay submerged for way longer, and that even that came at the cost of being less silent than a modern non nuclear-powered sub.
I can’t see how a different propulsion system would make a non nuclear-powered modern sub any less lethal, anyway. It’s not like they’re using outdated weapon systems on regular modern subs.
Although the 2008 side probably wouldn’t need them, being able to stay underwater indefinitely has enormous advantages. You avoid enemy radar and air patrols, and anyone hunting you can’t wait for you to surface. Weather or sea conditions mean much less. And nuclear-powered vessels have global range without refueling.
Yes, I know that it has advantages (even though I understand that it depends on circumstances, and that being more undetectable is also an enormous advantage over a nuclear propelled sub, for instance if it’s used in a defensive role)
But in the context of the OP, it didn’t seem very important. The poster I was responding to seemed to assume that a non-nuclear sub wouldn’t be as much of a threat for the 1945-era vessel while it seems to me that attack would be equally devastating and I doubt the vessel would be able to track the sub and wait for it to surface, for instance. Would it have the slightest chance of even detecting a modern sub at close distance?
Would make no difference at all. You’re talking a difference of a few more horsepower, a centimetre or two of armor, a slightly bigger main gun. They would still be penetrated by any modern dedicated anti-tank weaponry, or even ancient old gear like LAWS/RPGs. In Desert Storm APCs took out a T55s (a generation later than the IS2s) using 25mm cannon - the APDS rounds penetrated the tank armor.
In urban ops the deciding factor is usually the matchup between infantry AT weapons and armor, since they will be clearing the streets of just such ambushes. Again, not good for the '45s. Also bear in mind that modern recon gear like FLIR/SLAR would see any WW2 armor light up like christmas tree as soon as they started moving.
Militarily it’s just a hopeless matchup - all the '08s need to do is focus on fighting at night or at distance, and they would slaughter an enemy with no night vision, no guided weapons, no notion of IR or image intensifiers.
Hmmm. I don’t foresee much difficulty for ersatz-08 in mobilizing support against a bunch of oppressive backward thugs who do literally hate their freedoms, who regard the majority of the population as second-class humans, and explicitly aim to oppress them.
The civilian population of '08 would likely be utterly committed to a war of defence of their own freedoms and liberation of the oppressed '45 minorities, whereas the '45s would probably need to spend considerable energy keeping control at home.
Also, I agree with clairobscur - nuclear subs/carriers are a nice extra edge to have, but a Kitty Hawk class carrier or a Type 209 sub would still be utterly superior to anything of WW2 vintage - as in, the 45’s would be dead before they even knew they were under attack.
If the 2008 military was limited to diesel vessels, then, no, I don’t think these vessels would pose as much of a threat to the 1945 Navy. It doesn’t really matter, of course, since instead of a billion-to-one edge, the non-nuclear 2008 would have a mere 750-million-to-one edge, if all else was intact - including satellite surveillance, digitally encrypted communications, GPS-targeted ICBMs with non-nuclear payloads, laser-guided and heat-seeking munitions, depleted-uranium tank armor, attack helicopters, jets, AWACS, Kevlar…
Ok, let’s modify the premise of the OP slightly: what situation do you envision in which having nukes would give the 1945 force parity, or at least a fighting chance?