Today vs WWII military power

In My Humble Opinion
1

In the Complete Wargames Handbook, James Dunnigan makes the assertion that combat of today can be modelled largely the same as world war II combat. Of course, we don’t know alot about how a war between near equals would happen today, because the US has had air superiority in every recent confrontation.

So that leads to my question of how dominant is the military technology of today over WWII technology? Do 2004 tanks have a huge advantage over WWII tanks. What about subs, ships? Have there been big improvements in infantry?

If everything in the US right now, including territorial waters was transported back to just before pearl harbor, how quick could we win WWII?

2

Modern tanks are far faster and more heavily armored than their 1945 counterpart. They fire accurately while moving at speed, and their depleted uranium round would make mincemeat of that old tank and anything in it.

Old subs were diesel powered, meaning they primarily remained on the surface. They only submerged to attack. All modern US submarines, by contrast, are nuclear powered, which means they cannot be as easily detected while in transit to the operating areas. Those old submarines were also noisy while operating, and easily tracked by air and by sonar in the sea. They, likewise, would be toast today.

Older ships had combat data centers that relied, not on computers and digital displays, but on old radar sets and sailors writing backwards in grease pencil on a Plexiglas screen. Instead of missiles, these ships had antiaircraft guns, which had far less range and accuracy. Gunfire support to the shore was provided by, well, gunfire. Today the Navy supplements this with Tomahawk cruise missiles that can fly better than a thousand miles.

In ship-to-ship engagements, the older ship would be engaged with a helicopter carrying antiship missiles, or by the other ship’s Harpoon battery. It would be sunk without ever knowing the other ship was there.

Modern aircraft carriers would be launching jet fighters as opposed to radial propeller fighters. And they would be doing so from an angled deck, to permit simultaneous launching and recovery of aircraft, something that didn’t exist in 1945.

These ships, and computers on them, are linked in encrypted communications networks over satellite circuits. Communications catellites weren’t invented in 1945. Neither were surveillance and imagery satellites, which would also give the modern force a huge advantage.

The only advantage the 1945 force would have would be in sheer numbers.

3

Obviously we’d go through any WWII-era force like a hot knife through butter, just the same as the WWII era force would whip any WWI force, and the WWI force would pummel a Civil-War era force.

Let’s use tanks as an example. Your standard medium WWII tanks were:

US: M4A4 Sherman. 31600 kg(34 tons), Max speed of 32 km/h, 75mm gun, 60mm penetration @ 1000 meters.

Germany: Panther. 45500 kg(~45 tons), Max speed of 24 km/h, 75mm gun, 111mm penetration @ 1000 meters.

USSR: T34/85. 32000 kg(~32 tons), Max speed of 55 km/h, 85mm gun, ~100mm @ 1000 meters.

Now let’s compare to today’s tanks.

US: M1A2 Abrams. 69.54 tons, Max speed of 67.6 km/h, 120mm gun, at least penetration of 200+ mm @ 2000 meters (many reports of Iraqi T72s being destroyed at these ranges by M1A1s during Desert Storm) Probably much more, considering Russian 125 specs.

Russia: T72. 44.5 tons, 44.5 km/hr 125mm gun, penetration of 590+mm @ 2000 yards.

This isn’t taking into account other technical improvements such as gun stabilization, laser rangefinding, laminate and composite armor, much higher horsepower to weight ratios, etc…

Aircraft and ships are similar- if anything, the advancements in those areas are even greater than in tanks. For example, a single F-15E carries 2/3 the bomb load 3/5 of the range of a B-29 Superfortress, which was the heaviest bomber in WWII. B52, B1 and B2s carry many more bombs further and faster than any WWII bomber, and deliver them with more accuracy as well.

The only area that the WWII soldier would stack up decently vs. his modern counterpart would be in the area of infantry combat. For most purposes, the weapons haven’t changed that much, and realistically speaking, the differences in cartridge (.30-06 to 5.56 NATO) aren’t that significant. What would count would be the differences in training and/or combat experience. Again, modern communications would still give the modern guys a leg up even if armed with WWII era equipment.

What Dunnigan was trying to say is that the basic combat paradigms haven’t changed much since WWII. In other words, the statistical models and gaming mechanisms are still valid, since after all, we still fight with airplanes, tanks, ships, submarines, etc… They just happen to be bigger, faster, and more powerful than those of the past. And the strategies and tactics employed are the same for the most part. The “Shock and Awe” part of Iraqi Freedom was just a variant on the Blitzkrieg, and same goes for Schwarzkopf’s strategy in Desert Storm.

Read Dunnigan’s “How to Make War”, and especially the chapter on statistics. They explain how to size possible opponents up vs. each other, and even the 1980’s version would have predicted the crushing US/Iraq victories based on WWII statistics.

4

I agree that coventional combat models haven’t changed much since WWII - basically we just have “better” versions of WWII equipment, but there has been one MAJOR paradigm shift in warfare, that was only barely touched upon in WWII - nuclear weapons. Enough nuclear weapons would allow a country to devestate an enemy’s industrial & population base much more easily than the mass bomber raids used in WWII. Of course, in the wars since then, no one has been in the position to use them effectively, as the cost of using them has generally been higher than the benfit, but nuclear weapons usuage can’t be ruled out for the future.

5

Aside from the same type of weapons systems getting bigger/faster/more powerful, I’d say the single biggest difference is battlespace awareness.

Not that I’m any kind of military tactician, but someone offered me half as many troops with WW2 equipment AND a JSTARS, AWACS, real-time satellite coverage, and modern communications (including a sophisticated command-and-control system), I’d probably take that. Throw in a modern logistics system – including C-17s instead of C-47s – I think it’d be a no-brainer.

6

Re. infantry combat:

Modern soliders have Kevlar/ceramic body armor and helmets; the WWII soliders a steel helmet and maybe a borrowed bomber crews’ flak jackets. Would mean that the modern soliders would have a much lower killed/wounded ratio. Modern body armor would allow a soldier to continue unharmed after taking a shrapnel or small arms hit to the torso that would kill or disable a WWII soldier.

In WWII, a “grenade launcher” was a grenade on the end of a stick; you would put the stick in the barrel of a rifle and fire with a special blank cartridge. Modern 25mm grenade launchers give infantry a much greater firepower option.

WWII saw the limited use of infrared scopes for special forces. Modern forces have amplified-light goggles standard issue, and have trained to use them for round the clock operations. The ability to not just fight but to march and work in darkness is a tremendous advance.

Airborne Troops: WWII paratroop drops were risky, often went off-course and had little or no retreat option. Helicopters were just being invented. Modern air cavalry can lift troops and their weapons rapidly in and out of a secured LZ.

Amphibious Landings: Hovercraft provide a much more rapid means of getting troops through the dangerous shallows/tideline zone.

7

Modern amphibious craft are also capable of carrying more and are better armed/armored than their WW II counterparts.

8

Well, you could win it in about 20 minutes, since that’s how long it would take the nukes to level Berlin and Tokyo.

But let us assume you can only use conventional weapons. Your first problem is bringing power to bear on the enemy; Germany owns Europe in 1941, and Japan will take the Philippines and much of southeast Asia before you’re ready to fight. Presently the United States doesn’t have a LOT of troops in the United States (since you stated you were transporting only the United States and territorial waters, you lose all the troops and gear overseas. Sorry! You just lost half your crack troops.)

Okay, let’s take Germany. Your main problem with Germany is that they have hundreds of divions occupying an enormous land mass; an Abrams tank is great but it can’t singlehandedly take down a whole continent. First you’ll need to stage what combat power you do have - if you call up all your reserves you might be able to send 6-7 divisions in a few weeks. It will take some time to get them into position in England.

However, you’ve got hundreds of jet fighters that can go to work on the Luftwaffe, and believe me, the USAF will wipe out the Luftwaffe in very short order. Nothing Germany could do could possibly stop you from destroying their air force; your planes will shoot theirs down at their leisure and you can deny them a large pecentage of their airfields more or less in perpetuity. Within a month, that’s done. US Navy ships and subs can clear the Channel easily, so by June 1942 you should be able to land a division or two (you’ll lack the amphibious ships for more than that) in Normandy. Or Pas de Calais. Wouldn’t much matter.

On whatever front your divisions could offer the Germans will be unable to stop you. Their armor will be helpless against modern tanks and helicopters. Their artillery and infantry weapons are vastly inferior. You can also fight at night, which in WWII was not the strength of any side. However, 2-3 divisions can only carve up so much ground; it’ll take you some time to grind up the entirety of Army Group West. Furthermore, the Germans are not stupid; they will adapt to the sudden arrival of a superarmy by digging in even deeper and using ambush and avoidance techniques and finding innovative ways to kill your tanks and your men. Determined infantry in dug in positions are really hard to kill no matter what weapons you have; it will take time to root them all out and you will take casualties. If you have as many divisions as the US Army had in 1944 you’d take France in a few weeks, but you don’t have nearly that many so you will have to be careful. (You also can’t count on the British/Canadian side sending a huge army like they did in 1944, because this is 1942 and you lack the amphibious capacity.) You can ferry troopies by chopper in the initial stages but no chopper carries an M-1. You won’t have ten modern divisions in France for months. And even if you do they won’t be as heavily equipped as the originals. You can’t just paste a thousand M-1s together out of currently available spare parts.

However, Germany will be suffering on the bomber front far more than they did in 1942. Your B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers are more or less invincible and can bomb at will with more precision than was the case in 1942. Since your air force wiped theirs out, British bombers will also be bombing at will and British fighters will be swarming over German troops with complete impunity. By the end of 1942 I expect Germany will have collapsed entirely on the Western front. They can try to switch divisions from the Eastern front, but your air power will start reducing their transportation capacity almost immediately. Moving trains will be easy targets for your jets. And if they transfer too much they’ll just start losing the war against the USSR, which is just as bad.

Japan will be a tougher nut to crack. You need amphibious forces, and a lot of those didn’t go with you. Getting together your amphibious ass-kicking force will take awhile because the U.S. doesn’t have a lot of that now and anyway you need some of them in Normandy. Once you’ve got it built up, though, the Imperial Japanese Navy will already be decimated by your sub force, which can attack and sink their ships at will. Then you can forget the southern Pacific and just proceed directly to Japan; they can’t possibly stop you on the high seas. Once there you’ll face the same probles as in Europe; the Japanese aren’t idiots, and will dig in against you and be hard to kill. You’ll get them eventually, though.

9

Not only that, but WW2 submarines could not effectivly attack submerged targets(and by submerged, I’m assuming that’s a depth comparable to U-boats, not the greater depths that modern nuclear subs can effectivly operate at). A single nuclear attack submarine would easily wipe out an entire wolfpack(who could do little but try to run). The only thing that would limit the nuclear attack sub would be the supply of torpedos(I’m not sure how many of those a modern attack sub carries at a time).

10

As a recent real-life example, look at the active combat phase of the recent Iraq war.

The U.S./Allied forces invaded Iraq with about five divisions of land forces, mostly heavy and light infantry. Iraq had about 30 divisions in defense, including infantry and armored divisions. (These are off the top of my head numbers, so I may be off). The Iraqi forces were not as well armed or trained as a contemporary first-rate Western army, but they certainly had better equipment (tanks, personal weapons, communications, etc.) than WWII armies. Although Iraq had no air or naval forces to speak of, WWII propeller-driven, gun-armed air forces would be swept from the skies (and the gun navy swept from the seas) almost instantly by a modern jet and missle air force with AWACS support along with missle equipped ships.

In Iraq, the five U.S./Allied divsions routed the Iraqi forces, driving toward Baghdad with virtually no effective interference. Although a 1:6 division ratio vastly oversimplifies things, and isn’t really a proper comparison, it gives some idea about how effective a modern Western army would be against a WWII force.

11

Thanks everyone! I knew about the air force, and submarine advancements, but I didn’t know that we’ve been upgrading tank power, and all the other things.

12

I overlooked the obvious: the infantryman’s main weapon. Today’s soldiers are universally equipped with automatic or multiround mode assault rifles. In WWII, most infantry were equipped either with semi-automatics or even bolt-action rifles. Special forces at the start of WWII might have submachine guns /machine pistols or automatic carbines; and by the END of the war had the first generation assault rifles. But up to the end of the war they weren’t general issue.

13

Somewhat relevant to this topic is Harry Turtledove’s WorldWar series, in which, in the middle of WWII, aliens invade. The alien technology is suspiciously similar to present-day earth technology.

It’s an interesting read, although he focuses more on social aspects of things than precise military balances.

Fortunately for the earthlings, they develop nukes in time to achieve a Mutually Assured Destruction standoff, with the aliens owning large portions of earth, but the major Allied and Axis powers remaining independent

14

Much worthy comment has been offered, but let me reiterate what has been touched upon about battlefield awareness. While radar was a known technology at the beginning of WWII, it was in its infancy. Remember that radar station on Oahu that picked up the Japanese attack force on December 7th, 1941? The report was dismissed, as radar was not really trusted yet.

While much good sleuthing had gone into our preparations for the pivotal Battle of Midway, we still had to send up the Catalinas to fly around in big circles until somebody actually saw the Japanese invasion fleet. Lysanders flew “under cover of dark” missions in to occupied Europe.

During most of the Cold War, or, at least, the later stages, we knew where each other’s assets were most of the time.

Remote sensing is a huge part of what modern armies have at their disposal that was almost nonexistent at the start of WWII.

15

i know one weapons type of WW2 technology that will still work today: massed artillery, and the productive capacity to produce guns and ammo in large numbers.

when the russians launched the final push towards berlin, they had enough artillery to provide one cannon for every 13 feet of front. now what M1A1 abrams or kevlar vest can withstand that?

16

Massed WW2 artillery wouldn’t survive very well. The combination of radar, computers, communications improvements, longer ranged guns, missiles, and fast aircraft mean that counterbattery fire is really deadly now. Any artillery firing near or at a modern western ground unit is going to be hammered hard within a few minutes. It’s analogous to the way that most current opponents are nervous about turning on radars when facing Americans - that radar set and whatever it’s attached to will probably be gone in minutes.

17

and you know how that set-up will go haywire? when nukes (also ww2-available) are involved. when nukes go off over a battlefield, most of your state-of-the-art electronics will be rendered useless and the metal elephants will be left to wrestle with each other.

18

Nukes cannot be involved. They’d be undeliverable and the ability to manufacture them would be destroyed instantly.

19

A couple of A10’s against a wave of Panzers would go well past simply humorous into the absurdly horrific.

20

so far the only purposeful development program for nukes that has been frustrated by US efforts is iraq’s. aparthied south africa, communist north korea and volatile pakistan managed theirs despite being unpopular.