Saddam Hussain had a military of around 650,000 before the gulf war and the US beat them with a loss of 147 soldiers to enemy action vs 20k - 35k kia for the Iraqis. I can’t imagine there was ever such a lopsided war in human history.
Today’s Army is even more effective than it was then. I have to wonder if the modern US military invaded Europe in 1944 how many weeks it would take for berlin to fall.
Assuming we have the Air Force and Navy too, then the only US casualties should be from friendly fire and accidents. Our strike and artillery capabilities are orders of magnitude greater than anything the Nazis had ever seen, as are our tanks and mobile infantry.
Our WW2 command structure was better than the Nazis too, (IIRC, generals reported to different people, there was no straight line hierarchy, etc) so that probably had a lot to do with why we beat them.
Technology, nowadays…no question. It would be over before they set one toe in Poland.
When the war broke out, the Nazis were still using horses to move supplies. I don’t think they could hold up too long (especially since modern weapons can kill before the troops get in sight of each other).
Hitler’s army relied on the Panzer divisions to punch holes in the allied lines. Today’s all weather fighters would totally eliminate the Panzer divisions in short order.
We would have some casualties in infantry combat, but even there we have huge advantages. All our offensives would occur at night, with night vision making it a turkey shoot for our troops.
Our spy planes would have everything the Nazis had deployed tracked down in a few days and our bombers would be able to take it all out in a few more days. Our tanks would roll through and clean out the rest.
Well…and the Russians, and all the British intelligence, and the fact that the Nazis ultimately followed a pretty stupid war strategy. (It’s basically pretty impressive that the Germans succeeded to the extent that they did. I assume it’s largely thanks to what must have been a massive and impressive manufacturing capability. But the US contribution to the war was, at best, tertiary so far as I’ve come to understand the issue.)
Airpower is crazy better than it was; for example, a B-17 Flying Fortress carried 6000 lbs of bombs 2000 miles at 182 mph. A B-1B Lancer (our highest bombload long range bomber) can carry 42,000+ lbs of bombs some 5900 miles at 340 mph.
In other words, one B-1B carries the bombload of 7 B-17 bombers twice as fast and three times as far. And those bombs could be precision-guided as well. So put simply, we could drop more bombs more accurately than the WWII bombers, and we could do so without putting our aircraft or aircrews in nearly so much peril as in the real war.
I suspect that the strategic bombing campaign would hamstring the Nazis before we’d even need to land troops on the European continent.
25ish min to nuke berlin. Less if launched from a sub.
Of course. I didn’t mean to imply it was USA USA USA only.
The late military historian Trevor N Dupuy had a method of quantifying the effectiveness of 20th century armies combat power for combat power (IOW correcting for difference in not only numbers but effectiveness of weapons). It’s not provable or universally accepted, but he applied it to many WWII campaigns/battles with what he claimed were pretty consistent results. And the average result for the Anglo/American armies v the Germans in the second half of the war was that the Germans were still more effective by this measure by around 25%. In some later work he revised those findings to closer by the time of the Ardennes counteroffensive in December 1944, but Germans still generally ahead even then with massive problems of an enemy right on their border, war industries beginning to collapse, and a lot of their units (re)built from the remnants of the large number of German divisions destroyed in the Soviet ‘Bagration’ offensive and the Allied landings and campaign in France from ~June-September.
So how much more/less effective are US Army units now than 1944, again per unit of combat power? That’s an interesting question, whereas I know some people have an interest but I have none in thinking about how 2016 weapons would fare against 1944 weapons. But it’s impossible to gauge IMO. Wars since Korea have never put enemies in a position to seriously threaten the integrity of large US Army units. Smaller US units have fought well even in disadvantageous situations but that doesn’t answer much of the question of how well modern divisions or brigades would stand up to the stress of situations like the opening of the Ardennes counteroffensive, or Kasserine counteroffensive in Tunisia, in WWII or the opening North Korean offensive in summer 1950 or the Chinese entry into Korea later that year.
Dupuy’s general assumption, during the Cold War, seemed to be that NATO forces, including the Bundeswehr, might be on the level of the western Allies in late WWII and Warpac on the late WWII Soviet level (somewhat in favor of NATO) but that the Germans in WWII were something special in that regard, as to mixture of dedication of the individual soldier (though they couldn’t match the Japanese in that respect) and typical effectiveness of officers and tactical command structure (superior to that typical of the Japanese). Note this was tactical and/or ‘operational’ level. The Nazi regime, obviously, committed fatal strategic blunders. But that’s not what he was trying to analyse. And again nobody is saying his findings are gospel. But AFAIK it’s still the most extensive effort to quantify this question in WWII, some other wars (eg. the Arab-Israeli wars), and speculate at least how it applied to later hypothetical wars.
“Numbers, Predictions and War” was a key book of his.
There is only one example I know of where a bombing campaign won a war–the nuclear strikes on Japan. I doubt the US would go nuclear on a non-nuclear Germany. There might need to be boots on the ground. Though it’s also possible that bunker-busters might get Hitler and the Prussian generals would sue for peace.
Weeks?
I’d estimate it would take about forty-eight hours.
Drones.
For Recon and Strike applications.
We were planning on nuking Germany, but they surrendered first.
This is an overly simplified statement, at best. My oversimplified statement would be to say they (nukes) helped end the war. Anything less really ignores the tens of thousands of people who fought and died for years to get us in a position to even use the bombs.
Yes, but the question is abut the modern US military versus the WWII German military. So I’m assuming no first use of nukes and the Germans don’t have them to use.
Without the bombs, the war would have gone on. With the bombs, the war ended. The Japanese had resolved to fight on through the horrible aftermath of the firebombing of Tokyo, but the atomic bombs ended it.
This is disputed. I’m not saying you are necessarily wrong, because the bombs were certainly a big factor, but it also coincided with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. But the topic at hand is about Nazis!
To the OP:
At what point are we hypothetically transporting the modern US military into WWII? As soon as Nazi’s invade Poland? Or say later, on D-Day? I’m not sure I have an answer to either (except the nuke Berlin answer I gave above), but I’d love to read others answers for either case.
Oh sure, we’re wandering. My real point was that bombing alone wouldn’t necessarily cause the Nazis to surrender. Massive air campaigns didn’t cause Iraq to surrender either time, it took a ground war.
There’s also the timing question as you say–do the modern Americans have time to rebase planes and move aircraft carriers in 1938, or during the sitzkreig? For that matter how can our planes refit and refuel if based in WII Britain or France? Is modern America now sitting between 1940s Canada and Mexico, or what?
Related question–if contemporary America is fighting in WWII era Europe, how vulnerable are modern supply ships to German subs?