Send a weapon back to WW 2

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..

Send in these two, and the Hun would probably shoot themselves in the head……………..

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 – Member

I 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.

Number 5 doesn’t like totalitarian aggression….

Send in the Reaper. Maybe an MC130J or AC130 to help.

FIFY…..

…..so there’s no substitute for a good supply of old fashioned tough bastards?

Yep, and also one’s who’d go into a situation knowing they were pretty likely to be shot.

To put every war since into perspective, Germany was losing upwards of 50,000 troops a week in the latter stages of the war… The numbers at the bottom of this link are quite staggering. And don’t include 1945, which was worse (for the military and civilians).

http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

And yet the guys with the AK47s seem to winning, or at least certainly not loosing.

They’re shooting at big, slow ex-Soviet choppers, not a SOTA attack helicopter like the Apache.
The Germans had a wooden stealth jet that had a remarkably low radar signature, with plans to build a six engined monster that could theoretically reach America, and if it wasn’t for Adolph’s insistence on hamstringing the ME262 by using it as a bomber, it would have had a major air-superiority advantage. We didn’t get the Meteor until right at the end of the war, because the traditionalists refused to see the advantages of jet aircraft.
Someone mentioned using modern jets against prop driven; as pointed out, speed differentials would render it almost impossible for a fast jet to engage a prop plane, even a fast one like a Typhoon or Tempest or Fw190.
The Americans used this to advantage in Vietnam, using Skyraiders and Stallions for close support ground attack.
The Stallion was a P-51 Mustang with a RR turboprop engine; made it fast and manoeuvrable, but to slow for fast jets to properly get to grips with, and the SAM emplacements were set up for launching against a fast jet when getting a signal, so launched too soon to hit the significantly slower Stallion.
What would have given an advantage? Gunships, both fixed-wing and rotary, and, referring to the Cold-war jets thread, the Buccaneer, fast, extraordinary low-level performance, and the ability to carry a weapons load only fractionally smaller than a Lanc, and phenomenal range and endurance, being able to carry enough fuel to fly to Germany, bomb a target, then fly back with enough fuel to stooge around and pick off attacking enemy aircraft.
Imagine the havoc a squadron of Buccs could wreak on Germany’s manufacturing infrastructure, appearing out of nowhere at 550knts practically able to fly down streets, A-A would be utterly useless, small arms almost the same. Highly effective against shipping and submarines as well.

GPS and the associated weapon guidance systems. A huge amount of lives and munitions were wasted by merely ending up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Better diplomats and a well researched history text detailing the geopolitics of the world post 1939.

If we’d have rearmed earlier, Germany would have avoided war with Britain at all costs and could have been coerced into peace and avoiding genocide.

Truth be told, in exchange for US assistance, we dismantled our empire and allowed a lot of dominion nations the opportunity to decide their own destinies. I’d rather not contemplate the British Empire lasting any longer than it did.

I would imagine modern communications devices would be more useful than weapons to the troops on the ground the generals.

A robotic assembly line, while not a weapon, would have been pretty useful i’d have imagined. Although women’s right might be a bit different today.

I chose a harrier as it is capable of flying slow and could easily pick off any bomber heading over the channel and then go finish off tanks over in France.

Talking of tanks, a fleet of modern Challenger 2 or Abrams tanks would be pretty handy too in saving lives on the battle field as they would be pretty much unstoppable.

If you had proper runways available C5 Galaxy

Just done a bit of research on the C5 to see just how big it is, and how effective a range it has… Superb bit of kit for getting things from A to B, but my god at what cost!

It holds 193,600 litres of fuel, and has a max range of 2760 miles… That equates to more than 15 gallons of fuel burnt per bloody mile!!! 😕 Doesn’t bear thinking about!

Still reckon a single modern computer (and someone who knows how to use it) would have made the biggest difference to the whole war. Cracking of the enigma code would only be the start, could then be used to send all sorts of confusing intel back to the Germans, as well as many many other things of course!

On the ground, modern tanks like the M1 Abrams and Challenger 2. No guns of the time would penetrate their main armor, and their fire control systems, thermal sights, and sheer speed would be an order of magnitude above the tanks of the time. I would think that one could probably take out a battalion’s worth by itself.

Their limiting factors would be fuel, ammo, and sheer weight (you can’t drive a 70 ton tank across a 40 ton bridge).

Joe-G: I reckon a Stuka would still make a mess of one though

a cyanide pill plus the promise of a lifetimes supply of jellybabies to the prison guard that could slip the pill to adolph while he was locked up.

or satellite technology.

or a set of bollox for chamberlain in 1938

slightly off topic, but what would the world be like if we hadn’t had the war?

edit: from the germans point of view, hitler would have been more successful if he hadn’t been nuts.
good job for us, huh?

or a set of bollox for chamberlain in 1938

Explain???

For all of you saying that fast jets can’t engage slow flying targets…
Fantastic footage of a MiG 29 shooting down a Georgian drone in the recent conflict.

good winter kit would have saved loads of troops on the eastern front

Goretex jackets/trousers/boots all round

and if it wasn’t for Adolph’s insistence on hamstringing the ME262 by using it as a bomber, it would have had a major air-superiority advantage.

simply not true. the US soon work out their weakness and bounced them on take off and landing. Also with an average engine life about 4hrs weak landing gear highly dangerous to their pilots. Fast and impossible to intercept at altitude yes, war winning no.

bikebouy – Member
No one’s mentioned Thatcher yet have they..

Against the Geneva convention.

Asides from TJ and possibly some of the other “big hitters” (odd to refer to some forum members on there substantial fecal deposits but hey ho..

Would it not be best to send something back they could actually maintain and build.

Centurion Tanks for example

Would it not be best to send something back they could actually maintain and build.

Centurion Tanks for example

was already there.

Apologies, too lazy to read the thread properly

Centurion Tanks for example

was already there.

Korean era, surely??

designed in 1943 manufacturing started jan 45. reach belguim by the end but saw no action.

from wiki…

Development of the tank began in 1943 and manufacture of the Centurion began in January 1945, six prototypes arriving in Belgium less than a month after the war in Europe ended in May 1945.[1] It first entered combat with British Army in the Korean War in 1950, in support of the UN forces.

a couple of pc’s

How about a stack load of miniguns

put one of these into the rear of a Lanc, combined with some night vision tech.

and if it wasn’t for Adolph’s insistence on hamstringing the ME262 by using it as a bomber, it would have had a major air-superiority advantage.

simply not true. the US soon work out their weakness and bounced them on take off and landing. Also with an average engine life about 4hrs weak landing gear highly dangerous to their pilots. Fast and impossible to intercept at altitude yes, war winning no.

…and not enough metals to make enough engines for all those replacements, and not enough experienced pilots, compounded by a lack of fuel for training…

Ein Friedenspanzer.

Balls to American heavy lift, you want Russian The Antonov An-225 – That is quite literally the ability to provide battle group sized assets long distances.

Still, i think no one modern weapon/asset would do it, as for ground i’d go with a GMG – soooooooo much fun GMG

The Me262 was aerodynamically extremely advanced for it’s day. The swept wing was largely the result of the need to balance the jet’s centre of gravity rather than to delay any subsonic buffeting but the design was years ahead of it’s time. Germany was way, way ahead when it came to wind tunnel research

However, the correct grade of materials required for the engines were very scarce in Germany at the time, moreover using forced labour on such strategically important weapons backfired as plenty were sabotaged on the production line.

The Gloster Meteor may have been not nearly as adventurous a design, but the Rover built engines were far better designed and built.

The 262 was invariably slow to respond to throttle inputs and acceleration at low speed was very poor. Allied fighters were more agile and had the edge in low speed hit and run attacks, indeed late mark Spitfires, P-51s and Tempests more than held their own against the early jets.

A-10 Thunderbolt (warthog). That is some plane with fierce gatling gun!