Fast air. Any. The amount of damage a F35 could do would have only been limited by the amount of ammunition it could carry.
At last a theatre where the F35 will be useful 🙂
Mind you, that would depend on whether it got there and back without running out of fuel, return trip from London to Berlin with a bit of "engagement" and it'd be on fumes.
Well since the Germans invented the Euro and encouraged all to join, they do seem to have invaded Europe by stealth anyhoo's up.
So another thing I'd send back is.. erm...
Sterling...££££'s and buy up German stocks with it.
For all those saying the MG is a good weapon I advise you try firing that or an AK. Both are similar and very poorly designed.
I mean giving our guys M16s. The personal weapon during the war was a bolt action rifle on both sides, compare that to the personal weapons now and there is a massive difference in ability. There would be one SMG or LMG per section those days as there often is now and even in that sense the newer weapons have greater accuracy over longer distances.
I would drop a modern computer back so that they could decode enigma messages quicker.
Enigma and the inteligence it provided was a true war winner.
i gotta agree with whoever said 'fast air'
and modern laser guided bombs.
i vaguely remember a quote from the first gulf war when someone official pointed out that they would aim for a particular window in a building, as opposed to ww2 when they would aim for 'hopefully' the correct side of town.
MG? do you mean the MG car?
You could send the whole of British Leyland over there, the Germans would be too busy fixing the whole sorry shambles that they'd quickly give up on any invasion.
Nothing wrong with the AK. Simple, reliable, good rate of fire, pretty accurate with a modern sight. What's not to like?
Air power has one limiting factor. It cant capture and hold ground. It can contribute but never win a war.
Mobile 'phones.
Apache
'Now if there's one thing you can be sure of, it's that nothing is more powerful than a young boy's wish. Except an Apache helicopter. An Apache helicopter has machine guns AND missiles. It is an unbelievably impressive complement of weaponry, an absolute death machine'
Too be fair plenty of WWII technology would have proved decisive for the Germans if they had a) had it early enough or b) had enough of them.
The battle of Britain with the Germans able to field 1000 Me262's might have had a different ending.
How about something simple like night vision goggles? Being able to fight with IR would be an extremely potent weapon
No one's mentioned Thatcher yet have they..
Air power has one limiting factor. It cant capture and hold ground. It can contribute but never win a war.
No single weapon (less A-bomb) can win a war. Some can make things a lot bloody easier though.
[img] 
[/img]Cat Poo!
American A10 Warthog.
I think a lot of you are forgetting the numbers game here...
The Germans had any amount of technologically advanced weapons systems that were way ahead of the equivalents fielded by the Allies.
But WW2 was a war of total mobilisation. A handful of modern weapons isn't going to help a hell of a lot - and a good job too, because the Germans were way ahead...
ETA - Just read a book about the 1943 tank battles around the Kursk salient. As effective as the German panzer corp was (in terms of discipline and weapons), it was the numbers of troops / tanks that the Soviets could commit (plus as much again held in reserve) that made it a strategic victory for the Soviets, even if post Cold War analysis awards the tactical win to the wehrmacht
Political correctness
I imagine a [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS ]Phalanx[/url] on US warships would have stopped a lot of kamikaze planes.
But yes, a decent nuke powered submarine fleet would have stopped Japan and Germany in their tracks.
Infrasound
*puts on tin foil hat*
But WW2 was a war of total mobilisation. A handful of modern weapons isn't going to help a hell of a lot - and a good job too, because the Germans were way ahead..
.....so there's no substitute for a good supply of old fashioned tough bastards?
The Berlin Wall, . . that would have stopped them pesky huns . . .
or Beckham? . . . . . everyone loves David the peace bringer . . .
Jerry was working on [url= http://www.achtungpanzer.com/german-infrared-night-vision-devices-infrarot-scheinwerfer.htm ]IR in the latter stages of the war[/url].
Sat Nav and [u]real time[/u] aerial reconnaissance would have made a huge difference.
martymac
i vaguely remember a quote from the first gulf war when someone official pointed out that they would aim for a particular window in a building, as opposed to ww2 when they would aim for 'hopefully' the correct [s]side of town[/s] country, army.
FTFY
But returning to the air to mud theme, how about A10 Warthogs?
[edit] beaten to it by SBH
[i]I think a lot of you are forgetting the numbers game here...
The Germans had any amount of technologically advanced weapons systems that were way ahead of the equivalents fielded by the Allies.
But WW2 was a war of total mobilisation. A handful of modern weapons isn't going to help a hell of a lot - and a good job too, because the Germans were way ahead... [/i]
except in one win the war at one stroke way. Its always good remember the atomic bomb was built to be dropped on Germany.
so there's no substitute for a good supply of old fashioned tough bastards?
More the political systems and industrial base to "keep em coming". In the East, the Soviets had uncountable numbers of men to just throw away (indiscrimately). IIRC the Red Army losses were circa 20M?? And those that decided to "retreat" were shot.
On the other side, the Yanks manufacturing capacity sealed the end of the war as soon as they entered. In Normany the M4 Sherman was hopelessy outclassed by German armour, but the Yanks could just keep them rolling off the production line
I would drop a modern computer back so that they could decode enigma messages quicker.Enigma and the inteligence it provided was a true war winner.
This... It's intelligence that wins ANY war... Not the machines you're fighting with. In over 10 years we've not been able to defeat the Taliban with their very primitive weapons in Afghanistan, simply cos they're one step ahead of the game all the time and have better intel.
The machine that cracked the Enigma code was iirc capable of doing one calculation per second, or therabouts. A high end consumer PC CPU such as an Intel Core i7 can carry out 100,000,000,000 calculations per second or more these days! They'd have cracked the code in seconds...
Satellite surveillance would have been useful too, though strictly it's not just one machine and would require a whole network of them to look after and support a fully functional 24hr surveillance setup. So in it's place, I'd take the SR-71 Blackbird instead...
And if we have to get physical, forget any assault rifle or machine gun making a big difference. It's all about effective, tactical bombing. So a modern day stealth bomber, with high flight ceiling, long range, and invisibility to radar would be well suited... How many Lancasters and the like got shot down on route to delivering their payload? I bet it was a lot more than made it home safely... In fact, to be honest, you wouldn't even need a stealth bomber, a fleet of Vulcan's would have sufficed nicely, or B52's if you're American.
More the political systems and industrial base to "keep em coming". In the East, the Soviets had uncountable numbers of men to just throw away (indiscrimately). IIRC the Red Army losses were circa 20M?? And those that decided to "retreat" were shot.On the other side, the Yanks manufacturing capacity sealed the end of the war as soon as they entered. In Normany the M4 Sherman was hopelessy outclassed by German armour, but the Yanks could just keep them rolling off the production line
Well you can prove anything with "facts" but you can't beat a good soundbite so I'm sticking with my version. 😀
DP
STW has just reached a new nadir of juvenile ****ery. You lot are pathetic!
😀
Anyway...
Fast jets would likely only have been useful for bombing; the speed difference makes it very hard for them to engage prop planes.
Better anti-sub detection would have been a big help to the Brits. So equipping the convoys with sub-killing helicopters could have made a big difference.
Europe would look very different today if smart bombs had been available then...
Fast jets would likely only have been useful for bombing; the speed difference makes it very hard for them to engage prop planes.
???? I'm pretty sure the weapons system would have sorted that out.
How about a jumbo jet then? Safe and quick transport of troops and materials from the states.
Wrecker - Heat signature from a prop plane too maybe too small to pick up with a heat seeking missile. Would be hard to get a shot in with cannon as the jet would overtake so quickly.
(During a dispute over Belize, it looked like RN Phantoms might have to engage Guatamalen P-51s. The Navy reckoned they'd have to get a very lucky shot from a spray of SNEB rockets in order to shoot one down)
I'm torn between
i) helicopters
ii) tomahawk cruise
iii) a decent, reliable modern AEW/ISTAR equipped platform - the difference that Nimrod AEW3 could have made to the battle of britain and the blitz, or that or MRA4 might have made in the battle of the atlantic.
I've got to go for iii) then (hell, would be nice if we had it now 😉
Satellites (spy and GPS) would provide a decisive advantage.
If you want something that goes bang then either nuclear attack submarines or modern main battle tanks.
The UK will eventually have seven Astute class attack subs each of which can carry 38 weapons (torpedoes or Tomahawk missiles). This force could eliminate the German U-boat and surface ship threat, scour the Med of Italian ships and then blockade Japan. The freedom of movement for supplies, troops etc. that this would provide would make a massive difference to the allies.
If one side had modern tanks (Challenger 2, Abrahms, Leopard 2) then they would have a decisive advantage as they would be effectively immune to the opposing sides weapons. Used decisvely they would be decisive (assuming they have supporting units, supplies etc.)
My history teacher at school reckoned Ze Germans had terribly unreliable tyres/seals/gaskets and could/would have won the battle of Britain if they had just a better supply of rubber. 😯
If you had proper runways available C5 Galaxy, if not then C-130 Hercules . You gotta have good logistics.
Satellites. Modern armed forces would literally come to a standstill without satcoms, remote sensing, imagery and GPS. This capability would have made the Allies virtually omnipresent - the unblinking, all-seeing eye which would make strategic surprise very difficult for the Axis powers to achieve. Knowledge is power.
Other have said computers to break enigma/lorenz. I'd add a team of hackers. Break into the high command communications system and send wrong/misleading information. How long can a army run with no supplies? Direct orders that appear to come from command for a commander to take his troops east when they should go west, and so on..
[img] 
[/img]
Send in these two, and the Hun would probably shoot themselves in the head.................
[img] 
[/img]
Send in these two, and the Hun would probably shoot themselves in the head.................
Or do the world a favor and execute them. 😉
Codebreaking, without a doubt- we got there eventually, imagine if we'd had the tech and the wherewithal to use it effectively from day one.
Ah but actually, that'd be a bit awkward,for the same reason as:
breatheeasy - MemberI imagine a Phalanx on US warships would have stopped a lot of kamikaze planes.
Need to figure out some other way to get them into the war I guess!
How about simulators? Training sims, tactical sims. Get everyone playing Civilization and Company of Heroes 😉
If it's got to be a physical thing rather than an idea or practice, then how about high-level bombers. Very old tech now but being able to get above interception and air defence, and drop payloads anywhere would have totally changed the air war.
And it's not such a gigantic tech leap either, the B52 came along in the 50s. Even if you have to drop iron bombs out of them, it'd be a terror weapon, a logistical win (since you don't need to constantly replace your bombers and crews as they get shot down...). Not unlike the gotha raids in WW1, though more effective. Wonder if you could build 500 Bears instead of 7500 Lancasters?
It's a pretty common trope, though. Anyone who likes the ideas in this thread could maybe check out Guns of the South.
[img] 
[/img]
Number 5 doesn't like totalitarian aggression....
Send in the Reaper. Maybe an MC130J or AC130 to help.
FIFY.....
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
