Perfect knowledge doesn’t let you win if the enemy outnumbers you 10:1 though. The ultimate war making potential of the USA is estimated at 4:1 over germany, plus the UK, and Russia. So 6 to 1. This scenario has to be a loser in the war managing to win or it’s not all that interesting.
To win as the Nazis or the Japanese, you not only need to hold the Allies back - which you could probably do if you knew the time and place of every attack - but you have to also somehow develop nuclear weapons of your own or stop the Allies from eventually getting them.
If WW2 drags on long enough, it’s going to be nuclear. Whoever has them is going to use them as often as they can in the most effective location they can reach with bombers.
It has to fly much lower to see the target. So it’s vulnerable to ground fire. It also doesn’t just take 1 quick pass over the target, but is meant to loiter in a continuous turn over the target. It has no defensive gun turrets to protect itself from fighters.
It’s meant for slaughtering people who don’t have easy access to SAMs and fighters and flak. That’s one reason they didn’t build very many of them, it’s not meant for use against a peer opponent.
This is really the bottom line. As the saying goes, amateurs discuss tactics, pros discuss logistics.
Germany was simply too small to defeat the US or the Soviets separately, much less together and with the Commonwealth to boot. They lost the day they opened hostilities. Yes, absolutely the Nazis could run roughshod over the opposition for a few years. But they put in motion a process that was doomed from the start to lead to their utter defeat.
Much as Yamato’s fateful comments had it before Pearl Harbor. Given the tech of the time you can’t fight a country 10x your size that’s totally beyond the reach of your weapons. They will simply crush you like a grape. Eventually.
If we grant the Nazis some non-nuclear 21st Century super weapons or super intel or super-whatever in relevant quantities from the git-go in 1937, they might well have been able to take and hold continental Europe for a couple decades. But even then they continue to exist solely at the forebearance of the Soviets and the US.
By contrast the Japanese couldn’t even have had that much success; the non-contiguous nature of the Pacific theater and their possessions ensures that. They can take and hold for awhile, but unlike the Nazis’ they can’t meld their perimeter into a defensible economic whole. It’ll get ground up, guerilla’ed into ungovernability, or blockaded into submission eventually.
They only went after Russia and ignored France, Britain, Netherlands, Belgium, etc. (Of course they would have to go through Poland to get there)
Russia got no support from the Western Allies (no lend-lease, no 10 000 Studebaker trucks)
Instead of enslaving the people of the Ukraine, they got them to side with them against the rest of Russia.
They utilized the entire economy and went on a full war economy from the start of the war.
They didn’t waste huge amounts of resources on things were of limited usefulness (V2 rocket, 262 jet plane, King Tiger, Bismarck, Tirpitz) Note: I am not saying that any of these were not useful, just that amount of spending and resources on them for their limited gains were not worthwhile.
They had planned for a longer war with Russia than 6 weeks and were better prepared for the Russian winter. (I am always amazed that despite Germany and Russia at the same latitudes, just how much colder Russia really is in the winter)
They should have been better prepared for the lack of all season roads in Russia. Considering, they had just fought (and won) a war with Russia 25 years previously, they should have had a better preparation for this one.
Although the construction took 6 years, they had spent the previous 20 years surveying it and planning the construction so it would take a little longer than the 6 years to build and not only would the boring machines have to be transported back but also the knowledge how to use them.
The 2 tunnels are 25 feet in diameter (plus a service tunnel). Equipment and people could be transported through it but each side would have to be secured or there would be a single point where people and equipment could be stopped.
It looks like 20 million people are transported through the tunnel each year (plus equipment) so a good amount could be transported.
So would it work ?
A definite maybe:D
The disadvantage is that it would take a long time to build and having a single point of entry in France would make it a tempting target for any German bombers (or the V2) to stop the operation.
LSLguy, the guy who did the Combined Fleet page estimates the USSR had about the same amount of warmaking potential as Germany. So if Hitler had just not attacked Russia, keeping his troops ready to defend as necessary, he might have been able to hold out far longer. Russia on the offensive would be at a disadvantage, and Germany is at about the same size. Also, it’s possible that Stalin would have wanted to stay out of it, given that it’s not like he needed any more territory.
Now, yes, eventually America gets all it’s ducks in a row and is ready to attack. Harder to establish a beachhead if there’s 3 times the defending German troops or more, but eventually America would get nukes, and would probably be able to win one way or the other.
Again, this isn’t completely correct. AC-130’s in Vietnam, when the plane was introduced, flew mainly against trucks over the Ho Chi Minh trail where the enemy did have WWII+ technology flak in fair concentrations, and eventually SAM’s, but the loss rate was not high. Six AC-130’s were lost in that war over ~4 yrs of operation from 1969-72. One was shot down by an Sa-7 in daylight in 1972, one by an Sa-2 at night that year and the other four by 37/57mm AA guns at night. In the 1970 ‘hunting season’ v trucks from example one AC-130A was lost to 37mm AA in over 700 anti-truck sorties over the Trail, a very low combat loss rate by WWII standards. But the a/c were engaged by those weapons all the time. Besides it being harder to hit a/c at night with AA than some posts seem to assume, even if you can spot muzzle flashes, the a/c also carried electronic countermeasures gear to use against fire control radars at least as sophisticated as any in WWII.
On fighters the point is more correct. The best WWII night fighters would have been a serious threat to AC-130’s as they were to bombers. However there are still some caveats there also. Some combatants had much less effective night fighters (and radar control of them) than others. It would have possible to down AC-130’s ‘wild boar’ style non-radar equipped a/c attacking visually using searchlights or moonlight. But it wasn’t easy, and very difficult in the dark of the moon or overcast, even with muzzle flashes it would be. As well, the combatants with the best radar equipped night fighters generally used them for strategic warfare, the Germans to defend against RAF bombers, the RAF first to defend against German bombers over Britain, later to support RAF bombers over Germany. The US was really the only combatant to lavish first rate night fighters on defending their army in the field, which is basically what 9th AF P-61’s did in the NW Europe campaign: they intercepted German night ground attack a/c (including German night fighters being misused and wasted that way) over the front. AC-130’s would have been vulnerable to them, it’s true.
Your stated time, does not take into effect the mindset of a combatant. Jump in too soon with your tech advantage, and a smart enemy would sue for peace relatively soon. Obviously too late, and its not worth it. You might as well be aiming to take down the soviet union. These people had lost several generations to the trenches in WW1, survived the great depression and about to do WW1 redux, in their opinion, while only delaying the return of the depression.
Painting the Germans and Japanese as stupid, does not seem right. A couple of B52 cells doing arc light runs in Tokyo and Berlin, at the right time would decapitate both nations, the surviving members of the govt would in all likelyhood would accept terms, and simply postpone the war by 10 years.
I don’t see any way to shatter the populations of both nations, with a minimum of non nuke tech.
I think a few modern nuclear subs (Virginia class, I guess?) would be more than enough for the USA to defeat Japan. The Japanese supply lines would be ruined, along with their navy. Also the SSNs could rain down missile hell on the Japanese mainland to augment the U.S. aerial attack that would be devastating enough on it’s own thanks to unfettered aircraft carrier movement made possible by the IJN being hobbled by the SSN’s.
I wonder if the island-hopping could be made unnecessary since it was mostly about establishing airstrips. Perhaps with the IJN being no threat the USA could build even more carriers and do away with the need for any land-based aircraft? (Probably not as heavier bombers than a carrier can handle would be called for). In any event, the subs would be a useful aid in the assaults on the islands. The Japanese airbases would be destroyed faster than they could rebuild them (hmmmm… maybe we’re going to need more subs here).
As for the USA over the Nazis… did most of the German supply go overland? I guess subs couldn’t help out too much with that. I think modern air-power would probably be the answer against them but I can’t say what the most economical/efficient use of modern air-power would be best.
Does time travel count as modern technology, since you have it? Otherwise, it’s going to be pretty damn difficult to save France.
Taking out Hirohito would actually prolong the war. As I’ve argued in a current thread, the military would actually fight to the bitter end.
Not really. There were a number of things German could have done to have defeated the Soviets. However, doing the way they tried wasn’t one of them.
As someone mentioned, at the beginning of the war, Germany had about the same war making potential as the USSR, in addition, they expanded that capacity through the conquest of France and other counties. They simply didn’t do manufacturing smart, though. For example, the US and USSR both had assemble lines for their tanks, where Germany was making one at a time.
Japan simply couldn’t defeat the US, but neither could the Vietnamese, either. You can if you can somehow make it too costly and too long.
As given in the OP, you go back in time. That itself may be as valuable as any technology.
If you took enough weapons back, you could “win” as Japan if you could last until the cold war and then allied yourself with one of the powers. Taking back the entire US Navy would save you, of course.
It may be possible to win with just the knowledge of what happened in real history and taking alternative steps and having them develop WWII technology faster. As it was the Japanese were absolutely insane in their methods. They could have make it a much bloodier war.
However, to ensure winning, take back six nuclear powered attack subs and wipe out the Allied navies, including the US aircraft carriers and subs ASAP. Starve out Hawaii. Develop proximity fuses and radar controlled fire solutions, like the US did later in the war. Isolate Australia. Train many more pilots. Etc., etc.
Without a navy in the Pacific, the US would simply revert to existing war plans and concentrate completely in Europe. Build up the fortifications of the Pacific islands (and stop the banzai charges, if the US ever was able to invade).
As you say, taking back a few SSNs would cripple Japan. As an island nation with the wrong kind of natural resources, you simply target the war materials such as oil, rubber, tin, aluminum etc, and their ability to fight goes down to zero.
This is another case of post war knowledge actually being extremely useful. Going back in time, you could tell the Bureau of Ordnance to get its ass in gear and solve the torpedo problems, as well as having the existing subs help target tankers.
That all said, going back in January, 1942 would allow the US to stop the Japanese from advancing as far as they did. Singapore could be saved. US forces in Bataan could be supplied and they could hold out. The DEI would not fall. Japan without war materials ain’t gonna last very long.
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.
Where a minimum level of tech would have made a big difference is in the strategic bombing role. Aviation technology advanced very quickly after the war- I suspect a handful of B-52 or even B-47 bombers would have made a massive difference. Or hell, even having B-29s and P-51s w/drop tanks in 1942 would have been a massive game changer versus unsupported B-17s.
If you have computer controlled aim and IR sights, I don’t see how you could possibly fail to shred an AC-130 if it wanders into range of several AA batteries simultaneously. It does not sound like the NVA was particularly competent if they couldn’t take the AC-130s down.
Now, the Allies didn’t have that, but they did have solidly constructed mathematical tables, skilled gunners, tracer rounds, and various spotting methods that were not vulnerable to radar jamming. It might take them a few months but I predict they would eventually be able to set up an ambush and take the AC-130s out.
If they don’t just send a swarm of their fastest, most heavily armed fighters and take it out in a single pass.
Thinking on this more I’d say the one tech I’d choose for the Americans is the Harrier. With the right buildout it can replace every role in the navy except ASW. US wins every single carrier action, as well as the Allies not losing the Phillipines and SE Asia in the first place, and then can ship 100 or so of them to assist the Russians while keeping the remainder to island-hop toward Tokyo and start the bombing campaign earlier (with actual bombers, the enemy fighters having been eliminated), hopefully forcing the Japanese to sue for peace when they are starving (and of course the US would have to be ready to accept a conditional surrender.)
Right, WWII AA forces didn’t have IR sights, so that’s entirely irrelevant. The directors of WWII AA guns were computers, but mechanical ones not comparable to electronic ones now. It seems in general the reaction ‘but AC-130’s would be helpless in face of peers AA’ is based on now. But this is a silly fantasy about modern weapons used in WWII, not now :).
So no there’s no basis except your assertion for either ‘NVA must not have been skilled’ or your predicted ‘ambushes’. We have a historical test of AC-130’s in a prolonged campaign at night against AA technology equal or better than WWII*. The AC-130’s were not invulnerable but suffered a modest loss rate by WWII standards.
Again with night fighters it could be different. When the German night fighter and direction system was firing on all cylinders (at its peak in early 1944) it made RAF bombing raids deep into Germany of questionable viability even with huge production of bombers and crews. The RAF focus tended to shift to shallower targets (with also the convenient need to bomb in preparation for D-Day) until certain reversals in the electronics/countermeasures battle shifted back in the RAF’s favor and the outer rings of the German defense system were stripped away by Allied field armies, by ca. Sep 1944. And as was mentioned directly by AK84, an AC-130 isn’t a fundamentally different target than a Lancaster (which didn’t shoot down night fighters that often, most of the victims of the night fighters never saw them as far as the night fighter pilots could tell, so defensive gunners even just as extra lookouts not a big factor).
But AA especially that available to field forces in WWII probably wouldn’t have been devastating against AC-130’s, based on comparing real results against pretty good AA by WWII standards. Although depends somewhat on the electronic balance. For example if we consider the most capable all-weather AA ground units of WWII, US Army 90mm batteries in 1944-5 with SCR-584 radars*, M9 directors and proximity fuses (several times as effective as contemporary German heavy flak), those fuses were easily defeated by electronic countermeasures. This was a worry on the Allied side, but the Axis never realized, or not fully or soon enough, such fuses were being used. Going back in time the force using night vision equipped gunships would fully realize the opposition and add simple anti-fuse ECM if facing the Anglo/US.
In general I agree with the post noting hindsight as the most relatively powerful weapon to bring back in time to WWII. Recent decades have featured more and fully two-side document accounts of WWII combat. That’s good compared to war time and even post war accounts emphasizing one side’s version of things. But the fully two sided very technically detailed and accurate accounts of recent years can IMO dull the reader’s sense of how much the war was affected by things the reader knows which participants didn’t, and the opponents varied in their ability and interest in finding out. The late war Anglo/US for example would have been a lot less likely to never realize radar proximity fused AA shells were being widely used against their a/c. OTOH Anglo/US ignorance of Japanese capabilities in 1941 was profound and important to the early course of the Pacific War.
*the radar in the SON-9 fire control system of 57mm batteries firing at AC-130’s over Laos was basically SCR-584.