# Minimal amount of (non-nuclear) modern military tech required to win WWII **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 19, 2017, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528 "2017-03-19T04:37:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2017, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/41 "2017-03-20T15:34:18Z")
> [@bump](#): > > WWII was on a scale we really haven’t seen before or since. A handful of gunships or ships or anything like that isn’t going to make too much of a dent in things. I disagree about what a few [del]ships[/del] boats will do. You have to remember that the Pacific theater was much smaller than the European one and that there weren’t _that_ many ships. It’s outside of the time frame of the OP, but I think one possibility of time-traveling weapons making a difference would be if the Germans had some modern fighters in the Battle of Britain. Arm them with anti-radar missiles and use precision bombs to knock out the command and control centers and the Luftwaffe could defeat the RAF. Target British aircraft factories, and the RAF isn’t going to get sufficient replacement fighters. The modern fighters could also target RN surface ships, allowing German subs to be that much more effective against the convoys. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/42 "2017-03-20T16:53:40Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > S > Japan:\*\* ISTM that a pair of modern nuclear-powered submarines, such as the Seawolf-class or Virginia-class, in the hands of the Japanese navy, could turn the tide in the Pacific. Assuming it can be resupplied - we needn’t go as fa as a Virginia-class, an existing LA or Trafalgar-class submarine is fine - the vessel could sink the entire US Navy. The only limitation on it would be how many ships it could sink in a single sortie. As yu note, finding ships in the Pacific in WWII wasn’t easy… but that problem is rather easily solved by making them come to you. The Japanese knew where the US fleet was quite a lot of the time, since the Americans were on the offensive from late 1942 on. Once lured into the submarine’s own detection range, the slaughter would begin. As has been pointed out, the land war is too big a matter to settle with a few airplanes. But big ships are hard to replace, and a nuclear submarine - which is, by the way, very fast by WWII standards and has no need of resupply away from port - could sink ten capital ships on every mission and never be in serious danger at any point. The United States in the Pacific War didn’t lose ten capital ships\*\* in the entire conflict.\*\* It lost the battleships Arizona and Oklahoma, both at Pearl Harbor, and then lost five carriers in 1942; Hornet, Lexington, Yorktown and Wasp. In the entire rest of the war only one carrier was sunk, Princeton, at Leyte Gulf. A nuclear attack submarine could do more damage than that in one outing. It would be a devastating blow to the US Navy’s ability to keep up the offensive and would dramatically improve the Imperial Japanese Navy’s operational effectivess. The Falkland Islands war illustrated well what an old navy can do against a nuclear attack submarine; nothing at all. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2017, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/43 "2017-03-20T17:20:52Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Hercules gunships would be dead meat against any WW2 fighter. If your interest is killing tanks and the like, then why not go for the Warthog? > > And I thought you were excluding nuclear technology? I thought the Hercules had air to air missiles. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2017, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/44 "2017-03-20T17:26:10Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > As has been pointed out, the land war is too big a matter to settle with a few airplanes. But big ships are hard to replace, and a nuclear submarine - which is, by the way, very fast by WWII standards and has no need of resupply away from port - could sink ten capital ships on every mission and never be in serious danger at any point. > > The United States in the Pacific War didn’t lose ten capital ships\*\* in the entire conflict.\*\* > The Falkland Islands war illustrated well what an old navy can do against a nuclear attack submarine; nothing at all. Can you tell with passive sonar the difference between a capital ship and a cheaper one? That’s crucial, you obviously do not want to ascend to periscope depth with an irreplaceable asset. And using active sonar can be heard even with ww2 technology and they only have to get lucky with a depth charge once. Though the speed and maneuverability of a nuclear submarine…wow. I would assume it could probably outrun everything but a PT-boat while remaining at several thousand feet of depth. Fire it’s torpedoes, which don’t miss, from miles away. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/45 "2017-03-20T17:33:21Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Assuming it can be resupplied - we needn’t go as fa as a Virginia-class, an existing LA or Trafalgar-class submarine is fine - the vessel could sink the entire US Navy. The only limitation on it would be how many ships it could sink in a single sortie. > > As yu note, finding ships in the Pacific in WWII wasn’t easy… but that problem is rather easily solved by making them come to you. The Japanese knew where the US fleet was quite a lot of the time, since the Americans were on the offensive from late 1942 on. Once lured into the submarine’s own detection range, the slaughter would begin. > > As has been pointed out, the land war is too big a matter to settle with a few airplanes. But big ships are hard to replace, and a nuclear submarine - which is, by the way, very fast by WWII standards and has no need of resupply away from port - could sink ten capital ships on every mission and never be in serious danger at any point. > > The United States in the Pacific War didn’t lose ten capital ships\*\* in the entire conflict.\*\* It lost the battleships Arizona and Oklahoma, both at Pearl Harbor, and then lost five carriers in 1942; Hornet, Lexington, Yorktown and Wasp. In the entire rest of the war only one carrier was sunk, Princeton, at Leyte Gulf. A nuclear attack submarine could do more damage than that in one outing. It would be a devastating blow to the US Navy’s ability to keep up the offensive and would dramatically improve the Imperial Japanese Navy’s operational effectivess. > > The Falkland Islands war illustrated well what an old navy can do against a nuclear attack submarine; nothing at all. AS I say upthread, two or three Soryu’s, AIP equipped SSK’s could devastate the USN of 1945 “_Mr President_, _all our fleets have disappeared_”. _Will you and your boat stop hogging all the kills Harada-san!_ Modern submarines, nuclear or otherwise are a different beast from WW2 vessels. Those were basically surface ships which could submerge. Navies of that era have no inkling on how to detect, never mind sink modern subs, which spend all their operational time submerged. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2017, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/46 "2017-03-20T17:39:17Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I thought the Hercules had air to air missiles. AC-130H and previous definitely did not. Per wiki, the current AC-130U & W also do not. There may well have been some test effort at some time to try it out, but that hasn’t been adopted. Even if it had been, that would give the aircraft 2 or maaaybe 4 AIM-9 IR missiles. Given the fact that WWII fighters fly at reasonably comparable speeds to the AC-130, there’d be no reason the fighters couldn’t easily avoid getting out front of the AC-130 where the missiles are dangerous, To be sure, the first few fighters will learn this the hard way. The rest will drive in behind / alongside / above / below the AC-130s and strafe them with impunity. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/47 "2017-03-20T17:41:31Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Can you tell with passive sonar the difference between a capital ship and a cheaper one? That’s crucial, you obviously do not want to ascend to periscope depth with an irreplaceable asset. And using active sonar can be heard even with ww2 technology and they only have to get lucky with a depth charge once. > > Though the speed and maneuverability of a nuclear submarine…wow. I would assume it could probably outrun everything but a PT-boat while remaining at several thousand feet of depth. Fire it’s torpedoes, which don’t miss, from miles away. Passive sonar these days can easily discriminate between Carriers, Destroyers and merchantmen of various sizes from very far away. Those guys on the \*Essex’\*s or BB’s and their Japanese equivalents will know something’s amiss, when their ship suddenly breaks in two. So, basically like their modern counterparts, except those then have some hope and capability to find and destroy the offending sub; unlike these guys. Of course an Oscar class SSGN is probably the best you have around; the massive 12-16 AShM’s it carries will put paid to basically all the capital ships in any WW2 Fleets. Then Torps for the survivors, smaller ships. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2017, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/48 "2017-03-20T17:53:04Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > AC-130H and previous definitely did not. Per wiki, the current AC-130U & W also do not. > > There may well have been some test effort at some time to try it out, but that hasn’t been adopted. > > Even if it had been, that would give the aircraft 2 or maaaybe 4 AIM-9 IR missiles. Given the fact that WWII fighters fly at reasonably comparable speeds to the AC-130, there’d be no reason the fighters couldn’t easily avoid getting out front of the AC-130 where the missiles are dangerous, To be sure, the first few fighters will learn this the hard way. The rest will drive in behind / alongside / above / below the AC-130s and strafe them with impunity. Thanks, LSLGuy. How about escorting the gunships with P-61s? ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2017, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/49 "2017-03-20T17:53:47Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Of course an Oscar class SSGN is probably the best you have around; the massive 12-16 AShM’s it carries will put paid to basically all the capital ships in any WW2 Fleets. Then Torps for the survivors, smaller ships. So that gives Japan a strategic victory. As long as it has a few of these subs, USA is unable to cross the thousands of miles of open ocean. It could then crush China, the Philippines, Australia, and essentially settle in to an empire, per it’s goals at the start of the war. It might be 20 years before advancing technology give the USA something to counter the super subs. So what’s good for the goose… Wouldn’t a few of these subs in the Atlantic be enough for Hitler to win his side of the conflict as well? The key targets for the super subs to kill are the escort ships. Once all the escorts are dead for transatlantic convoys, German’s regular U-boats can kill all the freighters. That leaves him in a matchup against Britain and Russia, which combined Fleet says is slightly in favor of the Allies. It’s so close, though - just a few hints delivered with a sub to avoid certain mistakes might be enough for a Nazi victory. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/50 "2017-03-20T17:54:15Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Though the speed and maneuverability of a nuclear submarine…wow. I would assume it could probably outrun everything but a PT-boat while remaining at several thousand feet of depth. Fire it’s torpedoes, which don’t miss, from miles away. Can’t a SSN launch Tomahawk cruise missiles from a significantly longer range? The American carriers won’t know what hit them. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2017, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/51 "2017-03-20T18:08:02Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > Can’t a SSN launch Tomahawk cruise missiles from a significantly longer range? The American carriers won’t know what hit them. Tomahawk guidance systems are not designed to target moving ships. Though this is obviously a [possible upgrade](https://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/west-u-s-navy-anti-ship-tomahawk-set-for-surface-ships-subs-starting-in-2021). There’s a missile for that called the Harpoon with 70-134 miles of range, which is still incredible. The main problem is that against a full American fleet circa 1940s, there’s a lot of targets. Without satellite intel, it would be difficult to program the missile to target a capital ship because you don’t know where it is. It would probably kill an escort. With unlimited missiles you can obviously sink a whole fleet, but this exercise assumes a small number of submarines and they have to return to port to reload. What you would need would be a guidance system that optically inspects each ship and flies by less expensive ships if the missile has fuel remaining. It would be programmed with photographs of an aircraft carrier from various angles and use some type of image comparison to detect it. As near as I can tell from[this page](http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/harpoon-block-ii-anti-ship-missile/), you spot targets with some other sensor source and launch a Harpoon with a GPS target zone programmed in. Once it gets there, it will home in on the best/first radar contact it sees. You can use inertial navigation if the GPS signal is not available, but the accuracy is going to be less. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/52 "2017-03-21T13:23:44Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > If you pitted the entire modern non-nuke USAF against the Nazis in the opening days of Barbarossa the carnage would be tremendous. But the numbers on the German side were so large we simply don’t have the numbers to prosecute all the targets. They’d bring a thousand vehicles and 5000 men as against just one of our aircraft. You’d wear the jet out, even given unlimited munitions, before you’d plinked even 10% of the assaulting force. > > Sorta the inverse of the old saying that “nine women can’t make a baby in a month”: a vastly outnumbered force can’t be everywhere it’s needed even if one-on-one it’s vastly superior. This is why you need to do something which is a force multiplier for your side. Do something about the British radar, for example. Or kill their communications. There were critical times or situations which the right kind of modern weapons would have turned the balance. For example, at the beginning of the Battle of Britain, the RAF only had about 650 fighters. It wouldn’t have taken many modern fighters to win that battle. > [@](#): > > If, \*a la \*the Nimitz versus Pearl Harbor scenario, you also grant the modern force the power of clairvoyance, to know how the battle really unfolded the first time, well you’re just engaging in teenage “I’m an invincible bully” scenarios. Assuming the actual fog of war you don’t know where or when the enemy will do what. Even taken that things would be different than the real history, there are certain things which can’t change. The US couldn’t suddenly build hundreds more aircraft carriers, for example. You would have a better sense of the enemy’s tactics and strategies so some of the fog of war would be lifted for you. OTOH, the enemy would be fighting “magic” as far as they are concerned, so it would make it all that much more difficult. I actually like your idea the best. Refreshingly new. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/53 "2017-03-21T14:03:42Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > There were critical times or situations which the right kind of modern weapons would have turned the balance. For example, at the beginning of the Battle of Britain, the RAF only had about 650 fighters. It wouldn’t have taken many modern fighters to win that battle. I’m not sure that’s quite correct: the most critical resource was pilots, and one of the key things was that allied pilots could be recovered after their aircraft were shot down whereas Luftwaffe pilots were captured and thus lost. Modern fighters would still be shot down by flak, lost to breakdowns, lucky shots etc. Perhaps a more subtle means of interference would be to send a letter to one of the early developers of the jet engine - e.g. Frank Whittle - nudging them on by suggesting solutions to key problems? Or one to an Italian oil company suggesting they explore in particular places in Libya? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/54 "2017-03-21T14:58:24Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > If you pitted the entire modern non-nuke USAF against the Nazis in the opening days of Barbarossa the carnage would be tremendous. But the numbers on the German side were so large we simply don’t have the numbers to prosecute all the targets. They’d bring a thousand vehicles and 5000 men as against just one of our aircraft. You’d wear the jet out, even given unlimited munitions, before you’d plinked even 10% of the assaulting force. ? The USAF has around 2,000 aircraft with ground-strike capability (F-15Es, F-16s, B-2s, B-1s, AC-130s, etc.) Did the Wehrmacht field 2 million vehicles and 10 million men against the Soviets? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/55 "2017-03-22T03:12:55Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Can you tell with passive sonar the difference between a capital ship and a cheaper one? Absolutely. A 35,000-ton battleship doesn’t sound like a 5,000-ton destroyer. > [@](#): > > That’s crucial, you obviously do not want to ascend to periscope depth with an irreplaceable asset. A modern attack sub need not use its periscope to fire. That’s for chumps. Against old school ships a fast attack submarine is invincible - again, we’ve seen this, when HMS Conqueror stalked, and eventually destroyed, the Argentine cruiser ARA General Belgrano, completely without being noticed for two whole days, during the Falklands War. (General Belgrano was actually a WWII-era American ship; it was formerly USS Phoenix, though obviously it had gotten some upgrades.) The Argentine navy simply went right into port; they had no defense at all. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/56 "2017-03-22T12:51:52Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I’m not sure that’s quite correct: the most critical resource was pilots, and one of the key things was that allied pilots could be recovered after their aircraft were shot down whereas Luftwaffe pilots were captured and thus lost. Modern fighters would still be shot down by flak, lost to breakdowns, lucky shots etc. The numbers are correct. [Cite](http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zgs34j6#zq9wmnb). The RAF had 640 fighters in July, 1940. As I stated, at the beginning of the battle, Britain was critically short of fighters. They were able to manufacture more as they progressed. They also trained more pilots. Yes, the Luftwaffe pilots were lost when their planes where shot down, but that doesn’t invalidate my argument. Given even a relatively small number of modern fighters, say 50 or so, Germany would have won the Battle of Britain. The modern fighters would eliminate the RAF fighters and thus the number of Luftwaffe pilots shot down would have drastically decreased. In addition, Britain had the [Dowding system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowding_system) which made the critical difference in the early stages, well before the shortages of German pilots became a factor. As as example of [force multiplication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_multiplication), the RAF was able to achieve an average of over 90% interception rates for its fighters while the Luftwaffe had much lower, between 30% to 50%. What’s more, because of the radar system, the RAF fighter command was able to send up an appropriate number of fighters, rather than waste having too many in one area and not enough in another. Also, because of the distances, German fighters only had a limited time over target before having to break contact. Using modern fighters to destroy the RAF fighters and the radar system and attack the command and control and the aircraft industry (with the help of WWII bombers) would simply drastically reduce these problems. The modern fighters could catch most of the WWII ones on the ground. There would be little real risk. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/57 "2017-03-22T13:38:29Z")
I thought from reading Len Deighton’s _Bombe_r that German night fighters were guided by ground RADAR. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/58 "2017-03-22T14:16:20Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I thought from reading Len Deighton’s _Bombe_r that German night fighters were guided by ground RADAR. Later in the war. This is concerning the Battle of Britain. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/59 "2017-03-22T14:25:05Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Later in the war. This is concerning the Battle of Britain. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528/60 "2017-03-22T15:33:24Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > The numbers are correct. [Cite](http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zgs34j6#zq9wmnb). The RAF had 640 fighters in July, 1940. I’m not disputing the numbers of fighters, just pointing out that keeping trained pilots was even more critical. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimal-amount-of-non-nuclear-modern-military-tech-required-to-win-wwii/782528.md?page=4)