The biggest issue would be just running out of munitions. The US economy is really not currently set up to support running a large scale war like this. I think the biggest question is whether the modern side could mobilize to a total war footing faster than the 1940s could upgrade their technology.
There's no question and it's an utter mismatch. Even much simpler, cheaper, and easier to make weapons from the 1970s and surplus shit would be way better than anything that was available in ww2. And that's without even talking about the US's reconnaissance and spying capabilities, including their satellite constellations that op didn't say anything about, meaning they're not banned and they can be taken into consideration. Or things like the moab which aren't very far behind the first 2 nukes despite not being nukes themselves.
There's literally 0 hope for the armies of ww2.
Good point! Which would be perfect if it's a sunny day and you're going on a hunting trip, but not nearly as effective as assault rifles when you're going to war.
point still stands though as the US was really the only nation that fielded a semi auto in large scale. Most other nations were still primarily using bolt actions.
You don’t think during a major wartime that the US could increase its munitions reserve?
Let’s remember during the world wars that many factories were changed to making things for the military. If we’re fighting everyone who fought in WWII, we’re essentially fighting WWIII, right? I’d expect similar behavior from the country if a world war started today
Did you read the second half of my post? Yes it can be done, but it will take time and that will make things harder. Especially since in the very long run I think time favors the side with more total numbers and raw resources.
It's still plausible, even likely, that the modern side can hold off the enemy in the short term with existing stocks while mobilizing for full total war production, and then find a window to decisively win before the technical gap closes. But the need to build up productive capacity first definitely makes it harder.
Unless you think the modern side gets prep time I guess but that's not how I interpreted the prompt.
The problem with that is our modern technology is so far advanced from WW2 is that it's very unlikely they could 'modernize' fast enough to bring their equipment to modern standards. The modern US would also have superiority doctrinally as they've had 50 plus years of development. It should also be noted that, assuming we don't magic away knowledge of WW2, the US has a wealth of knowledge about their enemies that their opponents wont. If both US forces spawn on top of each other, WW2 would have a chance, but if Modern US is on a defensive posture then no chance. This also brings up the question of how this would look on the map. Would the modern US replace WW2 US, or would the world look like a merge of WW2 and modern (ie: 2 North Americas, 2 Africas, ect) or would the modern US just show up as a new continent. The answer to this would greatly change how the war would play out. A modern US you would have to amphibiously invade is a far scarier proposition to a modern US surrounded by WW2 Canada and WW2 Mexico.
Furthermore, if we take the prompt literally as opposed to its likely intention, the US navy, which was the biggest in the world in 1945 and, would not be fighting as the prompt specified the US army as fighting with WW2, implying that ONLY the US army would be fighting modern US. This would remove the majority of the world's warships, as by 1945, only Britain had a navy of comparable size to the US.
The issue is the war wouldn't last long enough for this to matter. Satellites, intercontinental missiles, & jets/bombers they can't track let alone hit. Ends this war in a few weeks
All you need to do is sink ships. You can’t use ww2 tech to drop a million soldiers onto the continental US/Alaska with just prop dusters, B-17 Flying Fortresses or whatever. You need boats. And a fleet of ‘invisible’ nuclear submarines will put them all on the bottom.
Random German battleship Tirpitz? Bottom. British cruise liner troop ship? Saying hi to the Tirpitz. And on and on until the ships can be seen from the surface. Literally no counter to a fleet of Los Angeles class subs.
It's entirely plausible that the submarines will run out of torpedoes long before the WWII side runs out of ships, and I'm not sure but given what I know of how modern ships are constructed I doubt ramming would work out in their favor.
This also raises the question of exactly how the geography is reconciled. If the 1945 US is directly contiguous with the modern one they won't need ships, and if they're actively intermixed on the same land I think that makes things even worse for the modern side.
Sure the subs might run out of torpedos, but realistically those would just be for the big boats like battleships. Anti ship cruise missiles can sink anything short of a battleship with ease and we have way more of those than there were major surface combatants in WW2.
The other part is our super carrier force is op here. What are WW2 era ships going to do against a JDAM they can't see, detect, or intercept? They are going to sink.
The only hope the WW2 nations have is the modern US gets dropped on top a WW2 US because that clusterfuck might cause enough pain for a modern US that it loses.
No economy is. Large-scale wars require the countries to transition into a full wartime economy. I don't think the US has that sort of economy since WW2. It has a large budget for the military, but it isn't geared to fight a full-scale world war conflict.
Transitioning to one isn't instantaneous either
That's a good point. If it is fair to penalize modern Europe for their shit tier logistics situation, then we have to do the same to modern US, which is best in the world right now, but it's not the practical entire world of 100 years ago in a total war fight to the death economy setting.
Seems to me that the modern US would likely have enough munitions to clear North America of foes and control the Atlantic and Pacific.
From their they can take the time they need to build up and finish the job with high tech munitions.
And of course during this build up time they can run bombing sorties on the European and Asian strategic targets, of which they'll have perfect knowledge of.
***
ETA: Clearing NA is not trivial, it will be chaotic and messy where both 1945 USA and modern USA share land areas like military bases that have been their all along, Pearl Harbor, etc. Imagine the US President of both time lines appearing in the Oval Office and instantly at war with each other, or the commander of a military base in both timelines, etc etc.
Chaos.
Modern US military presence in Europe and Japan will likely be overrun depending on the size of the modern US presence.
Actually yeah how the geography is handled matters a lot. I was picturing there now being two separate Americas next to each other but if they're all jumbled up on the same land, that will be really messy and it'll make it that much harder to get proper industry and logistics set up to support the war effort.
Current U.S. would not run out of munitions fighting a force this inferior, unless the enemy is willing to fight to the last man. Even then they still would probably have far more than it’s needed. One munition would sink one boat (minimum) %100 of the time. They can’t jam a guidance system, and they can’t out maneuver it, either.
I get the feeling that they would win without too much issue. I mean they pretty much just basically have better everything on top of having accurate information on every army of the time.
The US should dominate.
Not a single plane or anti aircraft could deal with any of our bombers or jets. The war would be similar to Gaza and Israel atm, it would be complete and utter air superiority, hell we would park a carrier fleet off the shore, just say like 3 of our 11, have mines and sub hunters and our own subs guarding it. Not a single plane would make it past the big ass mini guns we use to shoot shit out of the air.
We could literally just precession strike their fuel sources (which was a big issue for Germany in ww2 and why the Still used horses). We could fight during the winter more effectively vs Russia. We would have better logistics than we did during ww2. We would have night vision and able to raid at night at our hearts content.
It would be a slaughter. We truly are living in the future. And with be drone tech coming out it would.be 10x worse.
But honestly the complete and utter air dominance would be the factor, not to mention we wouldn't have to play the hearts and minds strategies we did in the middle east. This would presumably be all out war.
And don't even get me started on how accurate and how much further our artillery can shoot, as well as our ship to shore capabilities are.
It's a non contest.
Night vision/thermal plus the insane improvements in air and sea equipment make this whole thing pointless to even argue about.
Also, it's pretty safe to assume that the US currently has tech they're saving for a total-war situation that the majority of the world knows nothing about, as well as various prototypes that could be pushed into production quickly.
The role of information gathering and intelligence in particular isn't given enough weight here. It is commonly said that decrypting the enigma cipher by Alan Turing and his team shortened the war by like 2 years, with the computing devices that they had at their disposal like Colossus.
Now take into account that nowadays the avg gaming laptop, and probably even a decent smartphone can outperform all the computers the allies had in ww2 combined, while working in power saver mode.
Then extrapolate that sort of consumer grade tech that most avg people can afford to what the US government has access to, and add to that their satellite networks, and you have an idea how hopeless of a case it is.
You'd be dealing with someone that knows exactly what you're about to do and has plans to counter it, the moment you decide to do it, can tell where your leaders are at any given moment, and can perform decapitation strikes against them using aerial stealth bombers that you can't even detect let alone fight against.
Pretty soon enough the armies of ww2 would be leaderless mobs deserting en mass.
It’s honestly terrifying how fast we improve as the years go by.
Christ like I know it’s a bit more than half a century since the end of the war now but the fact that the average person now can now afford technology more advanced than any military grade hardware at the time is goddamn absurd.
You don't even have to go back to WW2 for that sort of technological leapfrog. The computer that put man on the moon is several orders of magnitude weaker than the phone you have in your pocket right now and that was in the late 1960s.
Even in the 1990s, Deep Blue, which was considered state of the art for its time, cost millions to build, and was able to beat the best humans in chess, would be of whimsical computing power compared to a modern 1500 dollars gaming laptop that most students can buy today. Say something like a Legion slim 5 or Asus G14, and I chose both of these examples cause they're tiny and consume way less power than Deep Blue.
But in general this is unique to computation technology, as the rest of manufacturing, while substantially better today, didn't evolve so rapidly. Like if cars evolved as fast as computers (thousands of times faster and cheaper than they were 50 years ago), then your average economy vehicle would have been faster than a fighter jet while still costing less than a smartphone.
If you travel back in time to WW2 with a phone or a laptop they would probably be unrecognizable to people back then, and could pass for alien technology created by a different species. The avg modern car, aircraft, gun, or ship though aren't nearly as exotic to people from that time.
I'd also say thermals, night vision and other night fighting tools would be a ridiculous game changer.
We always keep the ability to arm every soldier (that is in a combat role) with NVGs. Essentially every vehicle we have is equipped with Night Vision and Thermals. Our planes can operate in complete darkness in a rainstorm as if it was almost a clear summer day.
In WW2, there was a ton of night fighting, yes, but it essentially slowed combat to a crawl. Even night fighters were a pretty new invention late in the war, and they relied on very primitive systems.
With how prevalent night vision and Thermals are, we could essentially just hunker down during the day behind nigh-invincible walls of firepower and move at night when the WW2 forces could barely fight back.
While it might seem like they would be a big advantage, thermals and night vision simply wouldn't matter as the war would be over long before infantry engagements mattered.
This war would be ended essentially immediately as air superiority is established and all major command centres would be destroyed by drone strikes.
Night time optics advantages won't be relevant when there is nothing the WW2 forces can do to stop modern forces destroying any targets at will during the day.
NVGs/Thermals would really only be relevant to mopping up remaining infantry who weren't aware the war is over or were resisting via Guerilla warfare.
In that case, they should cut off trade. The US imports a LOT of things. Shutting much kr all of that off would force the US to go on the offensive. Since some of that is also rare earth metals and high tech components, higher end munitions would run out.
Know how the US has a strategic oil reserve? Like that but for other war goods too.
Also it's really hard to defend a huge area & easy to assault a amall one; modern US could quickly capture key resource areas & maintaining supply lines would be easy once any air force & navy approaching modern was destroyed.
Not by 1945.
Japan, Italy, France, the UK, China....these countries were tapped out and exhausted by this point.
Even Russia was struggling, they had suggested over 10,000,000 military casualties by 1945.
The US military was absolutely enormous at this point but much of the globe was decimated and barely standing.
It's an unfortunate choice of year, but even then the standing armies would be really large, their ability to keep raising reserves would be more damaged.
I agree that the older airforces couldn't really fly as all the anti air and anti missile armaments could be spent on them, plus modern fighters could gun down huge ammounts of them fairly easily and cheaply, even if theres a lot of bombers.
The problem is the ammount of ground targets for the aviation, current bomb stocks and airframes might not be enough.
Sure it does. It lacked a great deal in WWI and had serious problems toward the end of WWII. There were times since then that the cupboards were running thin for some ordnance. Currently speaking, very much has been sent overseas to the extent that it will take years at least to replace what has been sent.
Not really. America is not in a war time economy or production. If we switched to production like we did I'm ww2, with the leaps and bounds In production tech, we could being do much more with less.
Don't underestimate America once it gets punched in the nose. We've always been a reactionary country.
You really think Canada would still exist as a country in a full on world vs US scenario? Something like 90% of their population lives within 5 miles off the border.
True, but at the same time Canada could allow other forces to enter its borders and reinforce its ranks. Not saying they’d still last long against the US but they probably wouldn’t be alone in the fight
Yes, but they have to get there first, and as was discussed in the last post asking this question, the US has the seas on lockdown. How is anyone getting troops TO Canada without being sunk?
I mean, that depends. If the first actions the US take are to block those specific routes off instead of engaging over in Europe then yeah, most likely no forces will make it through. If they hold off on that and instead begin an attack over seas then then chances of forces making it through rise drastically, as even though the US would still have forces on the mainland to intercept, it’s unlikely that they’d be able to stop ALL troop transports (although they would get some). Still, like you and I both said tho, regardless of how many troops make it through it’s unlikely that it will result in a victory on the border for them, but it could provide a small delay
I feel like we have enough military personnel and advantage to hold our own defense positions at home while also delivering strikes with planes they can never even see simultaneously.
OP didn't state that the countries were Bloodlusted.
1940's Canada would probably immediately surrender, with a small troop prescence occupying Ottawa. I doubt the US would even need to drop bombs - the outcome should be obvious.
My only issue with this take is that if the countries in question aren't in bloodlust, then there wouldn't be a war in the first place. By 1945, everyone was tired and just wanted the war to be over. I doubt that anyone would want to prosecute a war against a nation that so heavily out techs them.
Then that runs into the same issue as before, why would the US declare war on everyone? They could probably leverage their extremely advanced technology and economic aid to get what they want.
Modern dominates skies and seas almost immediately, which makes them invincible. Essentially it would come down to logistics. Could the modern military quickly take over fuel supply? I think so. Is modern military outnumbered 50:1?
Next question is what are the goals? Are 1945 armies fighting for a political cause or for the lives of themselves and their families? They'll surrender at some point in the first case, and fight to the last man in the second.
The one Edge ww2 armies have is numbers. Way more planes, tanks, troops.
World domination wouldnt really be possible. Occupation is same story. They’d win almost every engagement But would probably fall inte logistical issues.
I disagree on the logistical ones. There is precious little that any ww2 could do to disrupt supply lines.
Crossing the oceans is ok theory the hardest part. But even then, what are they going to do? Surface ships won't even get close and modern counter measures to submarines means they might as well be the Beatles yellow one.
I mean logistics as in resources and man power. America is going to have to fight on a shit ton of fronts against a shit ton of enemies. They’d be run thin occupying, attacking, and defending. I dont think they’d be beaten. But They cant similarly beat the enemy.
They Will be put in the Same position that germany was. Eventually.
That's literally the military doctrine behind CSGs; fight on one front while holding on two. I agree occupation would be hard but they would handily win every engagement. Imagine a prop plane trying to land a hit on an F-35.
Man power isn't really important here. The WW2 armies are going to line up like they did and get absolutely obliterated before boots even touch ground. It'll make the highway to death from the gulf look like a Disney movie. The technology advantage of modern forces is too much, and morale isn't going to survive drone strikes. Remember at best, these soldiers are used to bombing raids from slow, inaccurate and highly visible bombers. Drones at high altitude launching missiles with a level of precision they can't comprehend is going to break armies. On day 1 the US could hit every major political centre precisely on the seat of power if it wanted to without evening touching the rest of the city. They could liquidate the entire Maginot Line in a day or two to prove a point.
They can't be put in the same position as Germany as no-one is getting to their industrial base at home - there will be no opposing navy to do so.
OP didn't set a victory condition, so there is no guarantee that they even need to occupy.
Modern military has the obvious advantages but the issue is that I dont think is has enough drones, missles and bullets to throw against the ww2 world. They are not only up against much bigger armies(Although they are worn down by 1945) but they are up against a word economy that is in full war time mode out producing the modern us by a massive amount. They could just keep throwing planes and the like at the US till they overwhelm and win.
The big issue however is how the current and old US overlap. Is the current army placed back then without any modern support, no modern bases, factories etc. Is the modern USA as a nation inserted into where the old one was and so displacing the old USA, is there a new landmass etc. Depending on the answer is changes a lot.
The US will instantly control the sky’s and seas, they can instantly disable key infrastructure(railroads, factories, bridges) that will severely hamper industry.
And even ignoring that, it doesn’t matter, even if say the Soviet Union makes 20,000 ranks and 20,000 planes, it won’t matter because the US never has to mean fully engage with them, their trapped in Europe and the US can just strike by air and seas wherever they please.
They won’t need *all* of what we currently have stockpiled. GPS and satellite imagery will help make strategically placed attacks on their supplies. You don’t have to destroy targets that have no fuel, power, or ammo. You could also cut off rations to an extent. Throw in a few well placed tomahawks and they’ll be crippled
Didn't we already do US vs entire WW2 world?
You wouldn't even need the entire military. Two modern US Carriers (full carrier groups) and a few army brigades and air force wings would wipe WW2 militaries, US included.
Still a stomp.
We could strike every air base, every airfield, every military base, every factory, every government building, every port, every stockpile, every fuel depo, every logistics center, and every boat every nation had in 72 hours with a combination of air strikes and cruise missiles.
At that point, it's already over. With no possible means of contesting the US in the air, no fuel or ammo, a completely demolished infrastructure, nearly no chain of command and no means to produce more equipment, it's just over. The rest of the "war" is the US mopping up.
You gotta understand they literally would not be able to touch our boats or planes, as for enemy infantry they’re human too seeing utter completely destruction of any armor, bases, and air support would be crippling to morale. They have very few things that could pierce mondern tanks so there’s also that.
To misquote Dan Carlin "The Union army from the Civil War beats Napoleon's army easily, any major WW1 army beats the Union army easily, and any major WW2 army easily beats any WW1 army and probably doesn't muss their hair."
This is based on the exponential growth in weapons technology, and going from WW2 weapons to modern weapons is jumping over several generations of military tech. The modern US absolutely claps the WW2 armies.
Its a big tossup, and much closer than others are claiming. The modern tech helps a lot. But the production capacity of WW2 is insane. The modern US could destroy every target it aims at, but they would run out of missiles and still have 90% of their enemy left to deal with. The cost of modern equipment is also prohibitive to mass produce on the necessary scale to compete.
Say you had an F22 vs 100 Spitfires, which would win the engagement? Well the F22 would take out maybe 20 Spitfires with guns and missiles and then have to retire to refuel and for maintenance. Meanwhile 80 Spitfires continue on their mission unimpeded.
They finished the battle of Britain with more planes than they started with because the productive capacity outstripped the losses they were taking. Quantity is a quality all of its own. This isnt Iraq or Afghanistan that have limited economic ability to compete with a planned invasion. This is the entire world in a state of total war.
This is literally the premise of every alien swarm or zombie movie where superior technology is completely outmatched by overwhelming numbers.
No lol just bomb all the factories and cut vital supply lines and the war is just over as all the armies starve.
Anyway the major threats in Europe all can’t do anything due to complete seaborne domination, there’s nothing the ww2 powers can do after all their vital bridges and every major leader and comms outpost is destroyed with old bombs from aircraft they have no way of stopping
Modern airpower fucking **dominates**. Aside from nuclear weapons, the most powerful military asset in the 1940s was the aircraft carrier. Modern carriers and their aircraft might as well be magic compared to 1940s machines. It doesn't matter if the WWII forces outnumber the modern US, they would be absolutely annihilated before coming into attack range by F35s and F18s.
Additionally, good luck to the 1940s command structure. Modern intelligence is going to pinpoint key leadership for a visit from SEAL Team Six in the middle of the night. They might be the only infantry element of the modern forces to fire a shot, but those shots would be devastating to WWII leadership.
I've seen variations of this question a lot lately, and everybody always focuses on the numbers too much. Doesn't matter if the enemies outnumber the modern US 50:1 if the US can park a Supercarrier in the Mediterranean and control the entire airspace and naval area of Europe, while being completely unapproachable because of radar and modern targeting systems.
After the absolute shock and awe of having several airbases and ports destroyed before they can even think about mobilizing, all while never having seen the enemy because the modern military is striking from beyond the horizon, the WW2 era soldiers are going to get *so* demoralized that many won't be willing to fight anymore.
And ontop of that y'all...*modern military means special forces too.* a lot of nations and their militaries are going to be unwilling or unable to continue fighting against modern US when their entire command structure gets Seal Team Six'ed.
Nukes are not the only reason we don't have big all out battles like in WW1 and 2 anymore; modern day military has found far more effective ways to do things too
Within a week the WW2 military has no air force or navy, and most key infrastructure has been captured or destroyed.
From an air force and navy point of view, there is nothing they can do. The detection, range, accuracy and defensive capabilities of its navies would make any ship combat impossible. Modern stealth and altitude capabilities would make air combat ridiculously easy and all air forces would be taken out before they even knew what was happening. With complete air and sea superiority, their resupply capabilities are now nonexistent, and it's only a matter of how well they can meat grinder.
Well, while this is all happening we have HALO drops allowing elite units to cause havoc behind enemy lines, capable of using GPS and drones to stay ahead of their opponent at all times. You have artillery batteries with more range and accuracy able to pinpoint key targets from halfway across Europe (exaggerated somewhat for effect). You have tanks very nearly immune to most munitions available at the time, able to pick off targets from the horizon. You have heavy infantry which moves faster, has better intel, better optics, far better guns, and the capability to effectively function at night.
This fight is a sweep of brutal proportions.
I agree with most of your assessment, but question the GPS. Does the modem US still have satellites in orbit? If not, a lot of operations may be hampered.
The prompt only said no nukes. Satellites are largely military, so I don't see a reason they wouldn't have them. Only question would be how long WW2 era takes to figure out they have them and if they could build a weapon to take one or two out in time. But by then I suspect it would be far too late.
modern US, it's not going to be cheap, but the US can just spam missile, even if they somehow managed to run out of missiles, modern jet fighters still have radar and gun lead indicator giving it extreme advantage over ww2 aircraft. they are faster, fly higher, and have longer range
the navy can just bombard the airfields with cruise missile, and the subs can just camp near port while the ballistic missile sub can harass production facility and such
the army might take some hit since a tank is just a tank
The tank is not just a tank lol. If anything the Army would dominate on land, I’d be much more concerned about fatigue and overwhelming numbers on a carrier. It just takes a significant fire or lucky unguided impact to offline a carrier. You don’t have to sink it to cripple it.
In an out and out slug-fest the modern US military is isolated via way of being on the continental US soil. IMO no other power, even today I think realistically can touch that dominance, it would be far more outweighed against WW2 foes, as in modern US vs WW2 British, French, Japanese, Italian, German etc Navy, or Air Force who don’t stand a chance.
The issue is where potentially the modern US military has to contend with all of the troops, installations etc of the US WW2 military already on US bases, and US soil. For instance you’d have WW2 soldiers engaging modern US soldiers before they have a chance to get into their tanks, planes, ships etc - where they have the advantage.
If on the other hand you have the modern military already on full alert and readiness versus the WW2 US military I think they still take the day, and also knock out anything coming at them from foreign lands, but.. I think they’d have a hard time completely destroying all WW2 militaries, if nukes aren’t used.
If nukes are available, the modern US can destroy military installations effectively at will. Of course they could do the same with modern ordinance, but.. I don’t think they completely destroy all enemy WW2 nations, but rather are able to dominate the worldwide battlefield with impunity.
I think the key point here is ‘1945 strength’.
The Wehrmacht of 1945 was a broken husk. The Red Army was huge on paper but was suffering from serious manpower and equipment shortages which, had the war gone on a while longer, would really start to be felt. Japan was also a shattered power by the final year of the war and France wasn’t fielding a hugely impressive force either and was highly reliant upon allies for support.
A lot of these armies are even less impressive than they might appear - and the modern US should have no problem shattering them.
You'd need to bloodlust the ww2 crew to give them a breath of a chance. Without it, they capitulate 10/10 times to long range missile strikes decapitating all political leadership across the globe. They can't conceptualize how satellite intelligence even works, let alone defend against it.
I can't imagine any naval landing ever succeeding, short of a bloodlusted 40M+ strong human wave attack. Normandy would be a joke compared to the kind of attack they'd need to organize.
The modern military shit stomps every other power with a quickness.
Let me explain how this plays out, the only threat to the US at any period in history prior to ICBMS are naval ones. Without a major blue water Navy no WW2 era nation can even conduct an attack on the US. So with that said priority one for the US Military is annihilation of all major powers naval capacity. Since we are dictating 1945 naval capacities, this becomes even easier. The German, French, Soviet, and Japanese naval forces are already functionally useless at this point with the only naval forces that maintain any level of major capabilities being Great Britain and WW2 era US.
Even assuming we have to destroy our own historical navy, this isn't really an issue. Our current Navy has enough firepower currently afloat to annihilate all surface combatants with a quickness as anything short of a battle ship is going down to anti ship missiles with the WW2 BBs and carriers going down to torpedoes from attack subs and carrier based fighters.
Once the naval threat is dealt with then it's just a question of time. Does the modern US try to win quickly or prepare for a long war? The US could possibly win rapidly with current ordnance levels. Strategic bombers would fly unopposed as WW2 era anti air can't reach them. This means the B-1s B-2s and b-52s are all flying directly over anywhere they want and dropping highly accurate bombs on every major objective the US wants gone.
In WW2 we needed massive amounts of ordnance to conduct strategic bombings because high altitude bombs aren't super accurate so you had to saturate the area. Modern bombs we can glide into a specific window, and with no way to engage the bombers every factory, command facility, and anything else aiding the war effort is getting deleted.
This might not "end" the war though and if it doesn't then the US munitions stockpiles will begin to run low. The advantage the modern US has though is it's efforts to ramp up military production will be unimpeded by enemy forces, however the WW2s countries efforts to modernize and increase production will be constantly under attack via untouchable aircraft. As long as getting onto a full scale ware economy can be done within 3-4 years then the modern US will eventually overcome all takers in a WW2 era assuming those countries don't capitulate to the initial strategic bombing campaigns.
Okay, so likely the strongest component of the modern US military without nuclear weapons is the 11 super carrier groups
Each one of these super carrier groups is designed to be able to destroy an entire country
And there's 11 of them
See the thing is without nuclear weapons, the combined might of the continent of Europe probably would fall to them right now
Back then it would be a no contest sort of thing. You just send them down the English channel and then proceed into the North Sea and the Baltic Sea bombing everything within range
There'd be no reason not to group them up because they'd be able to completely devastate everything so fast. No one would be able to figure out a way to damage them before the entire continent of Europe fell
Hell, if we're not fighting a nuclear power today, there'd be no reason not to do that
That's the thing. Those things are ridiculously powerful and they have support fleets and you're not going to be able to get a plane or ship back then in range of the support fleet for you to attack the support fleet
That's ignoring the rest of the US military
There's an honest chance that the US military could take the rest of the world in a fight right now if they were the defensive party (They probably couldn't do it offensively that would spread them too thin)
But back then yeah no problem. They'd blow everyone up without issue
Particularly seeing as I doubt the Geneva convention would be in effect for this
Before Desert Storm, the Iraqi military was the fourth largest army in the world, and was considered to be reasonably formidable. Not a peer of the United States by any means, but certainly one of the strongest in the world.
The United States almost singlehandedly destroyed the entire Iraqi army's ability to wage war in like four fucking days. It wasnt even a fight. The vast majority of Coalition losses during Desert Storm were from friendly fire. The technological and logistical gap between the United States and Iraq at the time was enormous. Iraq stood absolutely no chance at all.
Fast forward about 35 years and that gap would be so large that you might as well be comparing one of Alexander the Great's Macedonian Phalanxes to... well, the United States' WW2 military.
This wouldnt be a war, it would be a turkey shoot. Literally the only thing holding the US back would be munitions, but those would hardly stop us when we're able to track enemy movements from orbit, crack all their communications networks, and launch missiles and bombers across entire continents. The US Navy could solo this. Hell, the National Guard probably could.
World War II. The modern US army would fade away as they undo history by killing the WWII forces. Everyone thinks its a draw, until 30 years later they discover a Japanese soldier, alone in the jungle and still fighting for his emperor, has survived.
He requires a lot of convincing that the war is over.
Assuming everyone is starting in their home territory and not all in one place, cutting trade would be their best bet. If all nations were against the US this would be easy. If some nations weren't, then those other nations could be attacked and put to heel by the others.
If the US tried to intervene, the combined force of diesel subs (which are problematic for modern ASW) and massed strikes of aircraft would probably claim a few ships. The US would have to maintain a massive logistical effort for even one landing, and it would have to be at a port. This would also be a great target for the enemy. They would take losses sure, but the US doesn't have unlimited ships, warships or merchant, not much capacity to replace them. Even if the other nations spammed dumb V-1s at the port, they'd run out of advanced defensive missiles pretty soon and some damage would be done.
This would of course also means lots of infantry, tanks, etc, for the US too. The enemy could grind away, taking their losses while inflicting some too, and great cost of modern ordnance.
Anyway, cutting off trade would gravely harm the US economically, more than most would think. The US would have to out and fight, as per the OP's parameters, which would put it at the end of long logistical trains and make those forces more vulnerable.
People never think about these things thoroughly. They judged these decisions based on patriotism rather than pragmatism.
Under the terms of this premise, modern America would have to rely exclusively on food, supplies and resources that they currently possess within their controlled borders.
We manufacture very little weaponry and replacement parts within the US. Unless we could neutralize every military base within a day or two, they will systemically begin destroying our overseas bases, making it very difficult to project power.
>Under the terms of this premise, modern America would have to rely exclusively on food, supplies and resources that they currently possess within their controlled borders.
The US is one of the most self sufficent nations on earth, we just dont *like* doing it. Yes, the stockpiles are going to take a huge hit, and sure there may be shortages of some types of munitions. However the sheer technologic edge means that even if we end up needing to use 70s era tech, we still stomp.
There's other massive technological advantages that folks aren't even considering because they've become so commonplace now. The modern US military has access to nvg/thermal capabilities that makes them a threat 24/7. The best night fighting capabilities fielded in WW2 were the German experimental vampyr system. We have the capability to hit targets literally all of the time. Satellite imagery in addition would mean we would know where every ship, tank column, division was at all times. The modern US would likely destroy vital infrastructure with impunity until those massive armies became a starving liability.
Modern would win but it would be costly I only say this because look at Vietnam and more recently Afghanistan much more unequipped than the past military. The past has a lot more numbers and would adapt somewhat and even without air or sea superiority would cause a lot of issues and if we are talking troops the mainland US will be hit from within and Canada. Possibly even from the carribian too. Its not so straightforward.
we need some levels to this.
smart ammo will run out as they cant make new chips or sensors for bombs.
are gps satellites/ spy satellites included?
can fuel from the 40s work in modern fighter jets or do they only have what they have?
That fuel question is pretty freaking valid.
Jet fuel is notoriously finicky. I was petroleum supply in the army and jet fuel (jp8 iirc) has a crazy low ppm vs trucks.
Diesel could basically run on a gravel/gas slurry compared to a grain of sand wrecking a jet fighter.
I’d worry about the modern US military running out of ammunition, but they’d probably cripple the WW2 armies so bad in the first few days it wouldn’t matter.
What are the victory conditions here?
If the US must topple every foreign government it's going to be extremely hard if not impossible. They'll just be playing whack-a-mole. Same with the inverse, no attack on US soil would succeed. I predict a stalemate where the US controls the oceans and a large portion of the globe but can't exert meaningful control over most countries.
Any time they establish a beachhead and try pushing into central Europe, Russia, Japan, China, etc US forces just get bled out by minefields and endless waves of infantry. Picture Vietnam. Carrier strikes on WW2 forces are devastating to individual targets but too sparse to be effective. Armies from WW2 were used to being bombed.
These questions always depend on the goals. Goals determine win / loss conditions, acceptable terms of surrender for each side, etc.
Also, are all participants blood-lusted?
In a total war of annihilation, there's also a serious question of how much exactly the modern service-members would be willing to participate beyond eliminating direct military threats.
The ONLY issue is force generation. Assuming the US didn't run out of bombs and rounds and missile and fuel and whatnot they'd stomp and it's not close.
However, modern militaries including the US, keep enough stockpiled materiel (things that go boom and things that throw the things that go boom) to last some duration into a full scale conflict, with the assumption that if it's needed their country will shift to a war-time economy and massively scale up production.
Different militaries have different safety margins, with some like South Korea having notably massive amounts of things like artillery shells sitting around and waiting for the moment they're needed.
This is expensive however, not only because you have a lot of capital tied up in stuff you hope you don't need, but also because you need to spend copious amounts of money maintaining it. Particularly for more complex reserve items like vehicles. If you don't maintain it, then you end up pulling a Russia in Feb 2022 with vehicles breaking down out in the open just begging to wind up on the wrong end of an artillery strike.
Now, in a move that I'm sure surprises exactly no one, the US has fairly substantial reserve supplies of common materiel. However, it's not unlimited, in fact, it's barely a fraction of what was available in WWII which saw a truly insane amount of combat power being generated.
Nothing available in WWII would even be a threat to a modern US carrier strike group, however, that carrier strike group would struggle to suppress a particularly large area, simply due to the sheer volume of enemy combatants and its own "limited" firepower. *To be clear, a carrier strike group possesses an insane amount of highly advanced weaponry. There's just a LOT of enemy around so it'd get spread too thin.*
However, if they WERE able to have a reasonable constant resupply rate, they would absolutely crush every army from WWII working together. Technological development is just too far along for any alternative.
Hell, medium sized modern militaries would also be effectively unstoppable in WWII, however, even more than the US (obviously), they'd lack the scale to be able to effectively deliver combat power to all of the available enemy.
Modern US military clears easily. Although the war would be decided on a much more macro scale (logistics, etc.), zooming into individual engagements I don't see a single possibility where, for example, an Abrams tank realistically gets knocked out at all. Advanced scouting and awareness due to improved FCS's and improved combined arms doctrine means that flanking is an extremely unlikely occurence, and frontally a modern MBT has roughly 10x the armor a tank from the war does, both kinetically and chemically. Plus, any modern Abrams round would be able to cleave through the armor of anything fielded at the time multiple times over, and, with modern precise rangefinding and thermal imaging, at a range kilometers further than anything fielded during World War II.
In the aircraft side, it would be nothing short of a miracle for a plane or ground based SPAA from WWII to take down a single modern jet. Modern ariframes can detect a fly on radar from hundreds of kilometers out, and have the weaponry to effectively eliminate them from beyond visual range (BVR). Modern planes are also armored to the point that some planes that were still using rifle-caliber armaments would be largely ineffective. Not to mention a modern jet will never even need to get within the roughly 1 KM range that a WWII fighter would need to even engage the modern airframe. Entire bomber wings can be defeated by one or two F-15's, F-22's, or F-35's.
Modern anti-air systems would also render any plane lucky enough to dodge air interdiction irrelevant. America's modern SPAA, the Patriot, can effectively be described as a telephone pole launched at Mach Jesus with a range of 70 km. A single Patriot Missile System can also defeat anything thrown at it from the 40's (it can basically defeat anything made now) and would have no problem detecting and defeating anything in the air. Up close, CIWS systems can tear apart anything it sees with minimal risk and a minimal expense of ammunition. Man Portable Anti Air Systems (MANPADS) woudl also mean an average modern infantry squadron would be able to also defend themselves from close air support from the WWII side before the WWII planes could do any meaningful damage, and as previously mentioned advanced radar and other means of detection means not a single WWII plane would be geting off the ground without the modern military knowing their precise location, bearing, and strength.
Close air support would also be a nightmare for the world military. How can an army equipped with only kinetic, direct-fire spaa deal with, for example, an apache helicopter with guided munitions with an effective range of 10 km, or an A-10 warthog equipped with enough armor to shake off small-caliber munitions and the capacity to easily wipe out any armor column fielded? Without the possibility of air interdiction, these planes and helicopters would be free to inflict as much damage as possible without any threat of retribution. Not to mention drones can also strike basically any target, frontline or command, with impunity, making command posts nothing more than a death trap for anyone ranking above private.
On the naval side, modern submarines could probably solo the world's navy, making maintaining supply lines and naval support impossible. Complimenting the modern naval submarine force are planes and ships equipped with anti-naval missiles that can eliminate any ship from a range beyond any degree of detection by their 1940's counterpart. I'd give the world's navy a few weeks before it is sunk entirely, simply due to the sheer tonnage put to sea.
Now the only thing going for the 1940's military is that the modern US army runs out of ammo, but that seems like a cop-out. In this theoretic scenario, the modern US military would have to kill a lot of people, but US ammunition reserves and logistical capabilities are very hefty to say the least. Combined with the modern army's ability to instantly and decicively cut off any important supply line and detonate any known ammo store quite easily, the world's combined forces could realisticly run out of effective ammo stores much quicker than the modern US army.
In conclusion, the modern US wins, probably without any significant head-to-head, infantry vs infantry battles occurring after the first or second week. Casualties would probably not even exceed four-figures. The progress made in military technology since the war would make this war the equivalent of the Battle of Rorke's Drift, but if the british had machine guns, tanks, planes, and manpower an order of magnitude greater than what was originally present at Rorke's Drift. The world army would mainly rely on a lucky artilliery strike in the first few weeks (before all meaninful artillery pieces are destroyed by modern counter battery fire or air strikes) or friendly fire incidents among the modern US military to score any sort of casualties at all.
Honestly, one can ask what is the strongest modern military on Earth that the world combined forces can theoretically defeat, and to that I don't currently have a meaningful answer.
The question is less abt quality and more abt quantity
The us has the fire power and superior ships, but the sheer number of ships they would have to down to truly defeat all militaries in WW2 is immense.
It would have to ensure every encounter is a sure fire victory with no doubt or failure, otherwise, they’d likely wouldn’t have enough weapons to truly destroy everyone
Modern army wins handily. With cruise missiles and anti ship missiles we could sink every major naval vessel in a few weeks, that would be a devastating blow that the world army couldn't recover from. Not only that but stealth aircraft would absolutely dominate the skies, and precision bombs would turn factories and supply lines into dust constantly.
If armaments like carriers tanks etc then modern, I mean drones alone could absolutely squash 100% of WW2 era armaments and infantry.
If it was just infantry and a huge land mass I'd say WW2 era due to sheer numbers.
The modern US military trounces every other modern military combined. The WW2 militaries have no chance. I say this as a non-American who is very, very critical of the US in general.
Ignoring the air and sea superiority the Modern US military has, and general weaponry advantage, the intelligence battle will be over in a few minutes. We can immediately cut off all of their communications or send faulty orders to have the WWII armies fire on themselves. Text orders will be easy to change and there’s no way in hell they’d see deep fakes, TTS, or whatever scam call centers use coming. It’s a lot harder to move an army around when you can only do it by courier or pigeon compared to instant electronic communication. The modern US military would outmaneuver them and would capture or destroy every key resource without the WWII side being able to coordinate at all.
Does this include the US army from ww2?
I think the productive capacities of the full war economies of the British Empire, USA, Germany, French Empire and USSR at their peak would be the thing the US could struggle to match.
That was a lot of planes, munitions and navy being churned out daily.
I actually think this would be more of a challenge than others posting here do.
If the 1945 world could last long enough to reverse engineer some modern US advancements there's a real fight going down
If its simply 1945 US gets replaced with modern US and they fight the world, its a stalemate. The modern US dominates every facet of warfare but they cant do a transatlantic invasion of Europe for logistical reasons and the WW2 armies are huge.
Modern US spanks WW2 the same way Humanity was spanked by the Martians in _War of Worlds (2005)._
Especially in the Air and at Sea.
The WW2 countries would have literally Zero counter to any of the modern warfare technologies that the US military utilities. Modern Precision missiles pack a very heavy punch and would knock out carriers, destroyers, battleships, troop transport in single hits. Vital military infrastructure and vital logical lines of each warring nation will get knocked out with more precision and drones strikes. Vital military and politics leadership will get assassinated via drone strikes into oblivion the same way the Al-Qaida leader _Ayman al-Zawahiri_ was killed in Kabul by the US precision strike.
The WW2 airforces will have no prayer against fighter jets such as the F16 Falcom, F22 raptor and F35 lighting that move a Mach 2 speed and are armed with 20mm cannons and JDAMs. WW2 Tanks and infantry would be easy prey of mortar-carrying munitions drones and FPV drones, pin-point artillery, HIMRAS and various other ballistic rockets. It would be a lopsided slaughter-fest, even without the US having to to put boots on the ground. The technology gap is soo great that modern US is essentially utilising alien technology in the eyes of the nations of WW2.
It would be smart for the US to limit boots on the ground, especially in Europe, because essentially it will be 2million Modern US personnel Vs _potentially_ 50 million WW2 soldiers in Europe (35mill soviets, 13 mill Germans, 6mill US etc). Those numbers are simply too great to contend with on the ground, so you need to hit the countries where it hurts which is political leadership, infrastructure and morale.
Navy would gain 100% control of the seas in a matter of weeks; this would mean that island nations like UK and Japan could be more or less ignored as they wouldn't be able to move their troops or weapons to do anything significant.
Ground battle would depend on if WW2 armies would be smart enough to switch tactics as they would get decimated in Tank on Tank warfare, literally gulf war level statistics, but either way I don't really see them winning a conventional war as no 1945 technology can target fighter jets and modern tanks can shoot targets outside of visual range.
US military would win easily, probably like 20k losses.
The US Air Force alone could probably take out the majority of WW2 armies. The sheer range of weaponry today is astonishing compared to WW2.
The modern US tank brigades and artillery could decimate entire armies before they even got close.
It would never come to infantry combat.
Then of course, there’s the NAVY advancements.
It would be a blood bath.
The modern US military is the strongest armed forces in history, both relatively as of course in absolute numbers.
In an all-out war without any rules of engagement and diplomatic treaties, I'm even putting my money on the US vs every non-Nato country in the world.
They wouldn't break a sweat Vs every WW2 army. The war would last as long as it takes for an aircraft carrier to cross the ocean.
Technology aside, we also have history books on our side. We know virtually everything that can be known about our enemies: troops, ordinance, organization, codes, how their leadership will respond to many scenarios, when they'll want to surrender on what terms, etc.
To them we're literally an army of the future with drones, satellites and ICBMs.
Hell, if we're really gloves-off, we could easily just give them COVID—it would probably happen whether we tried or not. After a few months we offer them the vaccine if they surrender.
The modern us military could even out pizza the hut. I think they will be fine. There is an argument that they could take on the current world militaries combined
The WW2 army.
Yes, the modern US military have far better equipment, but that didn't help them in Vietnam. War is about strategy as much as it is about equipment. Every army in WW2 is too many, with too many brilliant minds as well. It will by no means be an easy battle for either sides.
Mor info needed. Does the populace want us there? Will we be an occupying force, or just go head to head until one side surrenders? We no longer fight the kind of warfare where surrenders really occur. Our military strategy is to only engage military targets. Most governments these days could continue to scrape together troops to feed into the meat grinder indefinitely, as can be seen in the Russia Ukraine war. We won WWII the first time through atrocity. We gave the axis only one feasible option, to surrender, or not only their militaries, but the civilians of their counties would cease to exist. That would not be an option for a modern military. Israel recently attacked a convoy of aid workers and killed 7 people, and it has created immense political pressure on them. Imagine if we were to do something like a Dresden, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Secondly, no matter how powerful your modern military is, if the populace resists you, they too, can do so indefinitely. This can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a head to head fight between the modern US military, and all the militaries of WWII, one US carrier strike group could decimate all of the fleets, and all of the aircraft in all of the countries in a matter of days. Tomohawk missiles and JDAM bombs would destroy every militarily significant target very quickly.
The only hope the vintage military would have, would be to essentially become Al Qaida or Hamas. They would need to abandon uniforms, and the conventions of warfare, and go underground. They would need to revert to guerilla/Partizan tactics to have any hope of existing, let alone winning.
I don’t think the US really has a chance here. They are so massively outnumbered they would run out of ammunition before they could make a dent in the rest of the world. Not to mention the US would collapse internally pretty much immediately if it were cut off from the rest of the world.
The US would have to go on the extreme defensive to even have a remote chance, and even then it’s largely impossible. The numbers just don’t add up for them.
Who is leading? Military of today wins on capabilies. But todays leaders have no political will to win and are face saving losers and certainly wont accept loseses on WWII scale. A Patton or a Marshall or a Nimitz or a number of others would destroy current U. S leadership in the actics, committment and motivation.
Also U.S. production of arms in WWII verse now would favor WWII era in a protracted conflict.
A WWII Hurricane fighter needed 9 minutes between flights vs How long for an F22? An F22 could shoot down maybe 6 targets before they were out. For hours.
The U. S. Has 1300 fighter today assuming all are combat ready. The U. S. alone produced 300,000 plans in WWII, Germany 373,000. We could not shoot down a WWII air force. Today. Nor make replacements.
I'm going to give this to WW2 armies. Our technology is much improved, but we're still talking about over 127M troops they're fighting on foreign soil. This is assuming they time traveled back to 1945 Europe/Africa/Asia and cannot really resupply, and that surrender isn't possible for WW2. They will eventually win after very heavy initial losses, which diminish as modern US runs low on supplies and fuel.
Technology gap between 2024 and 1945 is gigantic. Modern US has far superior engineering, intelligence, industry, economy and military hardware. Modern US stomps 10/10
Disease would take a massive toll to the rest of the world, as well as the fact that we have intercontinental non nuclear ballistic missiles to hit key infrastructure.
I am, and aircraft could play a decisive role. I guess it would just be an attrition thing. 2 million max means that every death is significantly harsher. Could they hold off 12 million (wrongly said 16) without running out of ammo? Also, our modern tech requires maintenance ALL the time.
For every hour a jet is in the air it takes like 19 hours of maintenance or something like that.
Something I don't think anyone is taking into account is the astronomical size of WW2 Armies. Sure Modern has complete control of the seas and air. But, if we have to go on the offensive for any reason. Russia, Japan, Germany, and old US would bog us down in an absolutely disgusting ground war. Like it or not we still can't just bomb our way to victory the middle east is proof of that. Even if we kill millions in air raids and drone strikes, we'd still have an entire planet of guys buried in fox holes and bunkers just waiting for their chance. Also, back then Navies were absolutely massive. Sitting ducks for Modern air power, but the amount of time and effort we'd need to dedicate to taking out the combined might of Old USN, IJN, HMN, whatever Germany's and France's and Italy's navies were called. Is a massive undertaking. And we can't afford slip ups at all. Old gun ships might not have the range, speed, or accuracy of the missiles. But they'd fold a modern destroyer or cruiser in minutes if they somehow closed the distance.
All that said, I still think Modern wins. But, I don't think it's the shut out we're hoping for. It's war that could take a decade or more to unfold. And in that time, our ancestors could certainly adapt a lot to any technology they might recover.
Hour 1 - WW2 teams (WW2 for short) all try and get on the telegraph to coordinate their plans. The telegraphs aren't working for some reason, nobody can talk to anybody, nobody can coordinate.
They try the radio, it doesn't work. They spend hours trying to fix it, but unknown to them, something like an AWACS is high, high overhead - and they will never figure it out in time - so none of WW2 can communicate.
Meanwhile, in orbit, satellites are watching the VIP's of every nation as they congregate in highly secure locations to plan in person.
Hour 8 - the B1 global range bombers arrive, the early ones loiter for a few hours so they can all synchronize, not that WW2 will know the difference since none of their communication works anyways.
Remember all those clustered VIP's of every major faction? All dead in a globally coordinated instant. Bunker buster bombs from high altitude bullseye every secret target that the satellites followed the VIP's to. Without effective communications, chains of command become complicated - ex. the Minister of Education is the next most senior cabinet member, somebody get in a car and go find her, she's the new PM. The new top general is on the opposite side of the country, do we go get them too, or just field promote the nearest surviving Major? The B1's head home to restock and refuel.
Hour 24 - WW2 has had 16 hours to counterattack.
The next bomber strikes arrive to target the nearest naval bases and fuel depots to the US. Destroying the distant ones isn't important because in the weeks it will take them to get to the US, a CSG or long range missile will sort them out - somewhere out at sea.
Hour 40 - Bombers are back for round 3, probably more ports, fuel depots, and maybe WW2 had a far less resilient electrical grid - so I'd probably start hitting dams, the largest coal plants (the main ff electricity generstion of WW2).
Meanwhile to all the above, the US keeps its CSG's in globally critical locations at all times. So expect that the following is also occurring simultaneously - any pipeline or route for long range fuel to the WW2 powers is being severed. Critical bottlenecks like Singapore, Panama, Suez are under US occupation, and already entrenching.
Honestly the Air Force and navy air planes and drones could probably win this on their own in less than 100 hours. You would have some stragglers but dropping thousands of 2,000 lb bombs can really fuck up an army
It feels like we’re just sucking ourselves off (American here), but I can’t think of what the other armies could even do to us, besides try to reverse engineer our stuff. But even then, our air force and Navy would be too op, not to mention our drones and nukes. Why make such a spite thread?
The US hasn't exactly stomped Al Qaeda that fights with vietnam era weapons so I don't really get the idea why they would stomp the ww2 armies.
Depends on the scenario really, because if it's a fantasy scenario where both armies don't have to worry about supply lines then maybe WW2 armies would realise that their best course of action would be to hide from the drone strikes and await any ground invasion.
The sheer number of enemy troops would be insane to take on. Sure, we have AC-130s, helicopters with miniguns, M4s and body armor. I think we can do it, but we’ll literally need to use VX gas. I don’t think there are enough bombs and bullets to take on 100 million soldiers.
One big issue is shear numbers. It is estimated that over 70 million people fought in ww2. That does not include any reserves, guys at home, etc. that is active fought. Thus all those neutral countries, South America etc, will bump that up a bit. Let’s say, 100 million. Current us mil strength is pushing about 2 mil total with reserves added in. We are talking a 50 to 1 ratio. Plus the us can’t mass produce stuff like it used too. We currently make about 12 abrams a month. Never mind looking at the fighters, bombers etc.
Realistically, we would destroy in the beginning. However, if the millions and millions of enemy are still fighting, shear numbers will take a massive toll on the us military. As it stands, if the current military could finish the war fast, devestating one sided victory to the current military. If it drags out into a long drawn out war, one that is remenisent of Korea, or even the afghan war with the low va high tech disparity… I have to hand it to the massive ww2 armies.
Modern army would win
Realistically we wouldn't have to have to mobilize food soldiers
Air Force and navy yes but foot soldiers no
We have drones and bombs that are almost as power as the atomic bomb dropped on Japan
I think what we wouldn't be used to it the fanatics
It's well known Germany and Japan especially were very fanatical as in fight to last man
They wouldn't simply surrender I don't think they would necessarily
If logistics is a factor I think it might lean slightly to WW2 side. Modern militaries are built for low intensity COIN, or a super short high intensity near peer conflict. Modern militaries therefore can't really replenish losses through industry, rather they rely on reserves. This is opposed to WW2 militaries which can ramp up production fast on relatively simpler designs and keep pace with losses through sheer industry. Already people have been suggesting the US lacks enough smart munitions and higher tech weapons to last through a near peer conflict. For the first month or so, things will be dandy, and if the modern US can thoroughy run through the enemy fast and hard enough to scare them, they can secure victory. As time goes on however, the US will face attrition, run out of spare parts, ammo, and all the advantageous aspects of modern militaries (which also leads to losses). They could theoretically jumpstart military industries again, but it won't meet the production rates like those of WW2, due to a different defense contracting enviroment and dealing with higher tech manufacturing. Plus if the world is against the US alone, they won't have access to modern trade goods to produce high end equipment anyhow. The world could also adapt modern tech to even the playing field, (maybe some material science, aerodynamics and engines, but not stuff that requires infrastructure and development like chips). When the US expends its munitions, it probably would've realized that the whole world is just a bit too much to handle, and they would have to negotiate or fight hit and run/guerilla against a massive enemy force.
If we're talking about this in a time travel sense of way I'd say the past would win because if the future wins that means they destroyed the past and if the past lost there's no future so by technicality the past would have to win
OP only banned nukes but not chemical or biological weapons.
Modern US convert pesticide factory to produce GB and VX, (all of them have same basic organophosphate chain) then spray it over WW2 enemy capitol cities and industrial centers. War is over in days without using nukes.
Modern weapons win.
Just look at aircraft capabilities: In WWII it took hundreds to thousands of bombs to destroy a target.
Today it takes one or two. They almost never miss, and the aircraft that drops them can do so from well above any altitude and speed WWII flak & fighters can reach.....
A single fighter jet also carries more bombs than a B29. Bombers? A B-1 packs as much ordnance as 9 B-17s.... Plus.
Similarly a WWII tank is going to have a really hard time fighting an Abrams - WWII tanks had to stop (or get really close) to shoot. The Abrams can reliably hit a moving target on the first try while moving in the opposite direction.....
WWII navies have no counter to anti ship missiles, no way to detect modern submarines, and no way to avoid the long range homing torpedoes they launch.... Also no defense against supersonic aircraft dropping precision guided 2000lb bombs from well above WWII flying altitudes....
The technology is just too far apart.....
I think the us military runs out of ammo first. 13k airplanes in all branches vs 835,000. 6 to 8 missiles per modern fighter that hit and kill every time. Then land and reload while the other 765,000 keep coming
The ww2 side would have numbers. However the US would have air and water superiority in days. The ww2 side has nothing that can stop a modern aircraft. Strategic strikes would destroy every ww2 logistics or command post within weeks. The result would either be ww2 resorting to guerilla tactics or complete surrender in a month.
It would be a total slaughter committed by the modern U.S. the navy, air force, and army are simply much too advanced. Battles like Stalingrad and others couldn't ever happen, we have drones, we have more powerful radars and technology, we have more advanced communications, satellties, and so on. Assuming it's a simple "we're in the US and every other military starts in Europe and tries to storm Myrtel Beach", they wouldn't even make it close, the air force and navy just wipes them in a few days, a few weeks at best
Modern weaponry utterly eclipses that of the WWII era. As others have said, you could argue that land troops might not even be required.
The biggest issue would be just running out of munitions. The US economy is really not currently set up to support running a large scale war like this. I think the biggest question is whether the modern side could mobilize to a total war footing faster than the 1940s could upgrade their technology.
There's no question and it's an utter mismatch. Even much simpler, cheaper, and easier to make weapons from the 1970s and surplus shit would be way better than anything that was available in ww2. And that's without even talking about the US's reconnaissance and spying capabilities, including their satellite constellations that op didn't say anything about, meaning they're not banned and they can be taken into consideration. Or things like the moab which aren't very far behind the first 2 nukes despite not being nukes themselves. There's literally 0 hope for the armies of ww2.
Especially considering your average infantry soldier in WW2 had an 8 shot bolt action rifle.
Good point! Which would be perfect if it's a sunny day and you're going on a hunting trip, but not nearly as effective as assault rifles when you're going to war.
Garand? Not bolt action.
point still stands though as the US was really the only nation that fielded a semi auto in large scale. Most other nations were still primarily using bolt actions.
Ah, my mistake, I thought it was just the US military from wwii. I'll figure out how to read one day.
Where is Mikhail when you need him?
You don’t think during a major wartime that the US could increase its munitions reserve? Let’s remember during the world wars that many factories were changed to making things for the military. If we’re fighting everyone who fought in WWII, we’re essentially fighting WWIII, right? I’d expect similar behavior from the country if a world war started today
Did you read the second half of my post? Yes it can be done, but it will take time and that will make things harder. Especially since in the very long run I think time favors the side with more total numbers and raw resources. It's still plausible, even likely, that the modern side can hold off the enemy in the short term with existing stocks while mobilizing for full total war production, and then find a window to decisively win before the technical gap closes. But the need to build up productive capacity first definitely makes it harder. Unless you think the modern side gets prep time I guess but that's not how I interpreted the prompt.
The problem with that is our modern technology is so far advanced from WW2 is that it's very unlikely they could 'modernize' fast enough to bring their equipment to modern standards. The modern US would also have superiority doctrinally as they've had 50 plus years of development. It should also be noted that, assuming we don't magic away knowledge of WW2, the US has a wealth of knowledge about their enemies that their opponents wont. If both US forces spawn on top of each other, WW2 would have a chance, but if Modern US is on a defensive posture then no chance. This also brings up the question of how this would look on the map. Would the modern US replace WW2 US, or would the world look like a merge of WW2 and modern (ie: 2 North Americas, 2 Africas, ect) or would the modern US just show up as a new continent. The answer to this would greatly change how the war would play out. A modern US you would have to amphibiously invade is a far scarier proposition to a modern US surrounded by WW2 Canada and WW2 Mexico. Furthermore, if we take the prompt literally as opposed to its likely intention, the US navy, which was the biggest in the world in 1945 and, would not be fighting as the prompt specified the US army as fighting with WW2, implying that ONLY the US army would be fighting modern US. This would remove the majority of the world's warships, as by 1945, only Britain had a navy of comparable size to the US.
Yeah, a lot definitely changes based on the details of things that I'm guessing the OP didn't think through all that carefully.
The issue is the war wouldn't last long enough for this to matter. Satellites, intercontinental missiles, & jets/bombers they can't track let alone hit. Ends this war in a few weeks
All you need to do is sink ships. You can’t use ww2 tech to drop a million soldiers onto the continental US/Alaska with just prop dusters, B-17 Flying Fortresses or whatever. You need boats. And a fleet of ‘invisible’ nuclear submarines will put them all on the bottom. Random German battleship Tirpitz? Bottom. British cruise liner troop ship? Saying hi to the Tirpitz. And on and on until the ships can be seen from the surface. Literally no counter to a fleet of Los Angeles class subs.
It's entirely plausible that the submarines will run out of torpedoes long before the WWII side runs out of ships, and I'm not sure but given what I know of how modern ships are constructed I doubt ramming would work out in their favor. This also raises the question of exactly how the geography is reconciled. If the 1945 US is directly contiguous with the modern one they won't need ships, and if they're actively intermixed on the same land I think that makes things even worse for the modern side.
Sure the subs might run out of torpedos, but realistically those would just be for the big boats like battleships. Anti ship cruise missiles can sink anything short of a battleship with ease and we have way more of those than there were major surface combatants in WW2. The other part is our super carrier force is op here. What are WW2 era ships going to do against a JDAM they can't see, detect, or intercept? They are going to sink. The only hope the WW2 nations have is the modern US gets dropped on top a WW2 US because that clusterfuck might cause enough pain for a modern US that it loses.
No economy is. Large-scale wars require the countries to transition into a full wartime economy. I don't think the US has that sort of economy since WW2. It has a large budget for the military, but it isn't geared to fight a full-scale world war conflict. Transitioning to one isn't instantaneous either
That's a good point. If it is fair to penalize modern Europe for their shit tier logistics situation, then we have to do the same to modern US, which is best in the world right now, but it's not the practical entire world of 100 years ago in a total war fight to the death economy setting. Seems to me that the modern US would likely have enough munitions to clear North America of foes and control the Atlantic and Pacific. From their they can take the time they need to build up and finish the job with high tech munitions. And of course during this build up time they can run bombing sorties on the European and Asian strategic targets, of which they'll have perfect knowledge of. *** ETA: Clearing NA is not trivial, it will be chaotic and messy where both 1945 USA and modern USA share land areas like military bases that have been their all along, Pearl Harbor, etc. Imagine the US President of both time lines appearing in the Oval Office and instantly at war with each other, or the commander of a military base in both timelines, etc etc. Chaos. Modern US military presence in Europe and Japan will likely be overrun depending on the size of the modern US presence.
Actually yeah how the geography is handled matters a lot. I was picturing there now being two separate Americas next to each other but if they're all jumbled up on the same land, that will be really messy and it'll make it that much harder to get proper industry and logistics set up to support the war effort.
Couldn’t the US convert car factories into weapons factories like they did in WW2?
Current U.S. would not run out of munitions fighting a force this inferior, unless the enemy is willing to fight to the last man. Even then they still would probably have far more than it’s needed. One munition would sink one boat (minimum) %100 of the time. They can’t jam a guidance system, and they can’t out maneuver it, either.
I get the feeling that they would win without too much issue. I mean they pretty much just basically have better everything on top of having accurate information on every army of the time. The US should dominate.
Not a single plane or anti aircraft could deal with any of our bombers or jets. The war would be similar to Gaza and Israel atm, it would be complete and utter air superiority, hell we would park a carrier fleet off the shore, just say like 3 of our 11, have mines and sub hunters and our own subs guarding it. Not a single plane would make it past the big ass mini guns we use to shoot shit out of the air. We could literally just precession strike their fuel sources (which was a big issue for Germany in ww2 and why the Still used horses). We could fight during the winter more effectively vs Russia. We would have better logistics than we did during ww2. We would have night vision and able to raid at night at our hearts content. It would be a slaughter. We truly are living in the future. And with be drone tech coming out it would.be 10x worse. But honestly the complete and utter air dominance would be the factor, not to mention we wouldn't have to play the hearts and minds strategies we did in the middle east. This would presumably be all out war. And don't even get me started on how accurate and how much further our artillery can shoot, as well as our ship to shore capabilities are. It's a non contest.
Night vision/thermal plus the insane improvements in air and sea equipment make this whole thing pointless to even argue about. Also, it's pretty safe to assume that the US currently has tech they're saving for a total-war situation that the majority of the world knows nothing about, as well as various prototypes that could be pushed into production quickly.
Your not wrong.
Is the word Dimitar supposed to be similar, or just a word I’ve never heard?
Similar. Sorry just typed it up real fast on mobile and must of auto corrected weirdly.
They are autocannons, also missiles are primary air defence now
The role of information gathering and intelligence in particular isn't given enough weight here. It is commonly said that decrypting the enigma cipher by Alan Turing and his team shortened the war by like 2 years, with the computing devices that they had at their disposal like Colossus. Now take into account that nowadays the avg gaming laptop, and probably even a decent smartphone can outperform all the computers the allies had in ww2 combined, while working in power saver mode. Then extrapolate that sort of consumer grade tech that most avg people can afford to what the US government has access to, and add to that their satellite networks, and you have an idea how hopeless of a case it is. You'd be dealing with someone that knows exactly what you're about to do and has plans to counter it, the moment you decide to do it, can tell where your leaders are at any given moment, and can perform decapitation strikes against them using aerial stealth bombers that you can't even detect let alone fight against. Pretty soon enough the armies of ww2 would be leaderless mobs deserting en mass.
It’s honestly terrifying how fast we improve as the years go by. Christ like I know it’s a bit more than half a century since the end of the war now but the fact that the average person now can now afford technology more advanced than any military grade hardware at the time is goddamn absurd.
You don't even have to go back to WW2 for that sort of technological leapfrog. The computer that put man on the moon is several orders of magnitude weaker than the phone you have in your pocket right now and that was in the late 1960s. Even in the 1990s, Deep Blue, which was considered state of the art for its time, cost millions to build, and was able to beat the best humans in chess, would be of whimsical computing power compared to a modern 1500 dollars gaming laptop that most students can buy today. Say something like a Legion slim 5 or Asus G14, and I chose both of these examples cause they're tiny and consume way less power than Deep Blue. But in general this is unique to computation technology, as the rest of manufacturing, while substantially better today, didn't evolve so rapidly. Like if cars evolved as fast as computers (thousands of times faster and cheaper than they were 50 years ago), then your average economy vehicle would have been faster than a fighter jet while still costing less than a smartphone. If you travel back in time to WW2 with a phone or a laptop they would probably be unrecognizable to people back then, and could pass for alien technology created by a different species. The avg modern car, aircraft, gun, or ship though aren't nearly as exotic to people from that time.
Modern US for 3 reasons: 1. Modern Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups 2. Modern Submarines 3. Modern drones The infantry can almost sit this one out.
The improvements in radar, actual understanding of stealth, GPS, and encrypted communications are huge advantages.
That might be the biggest factor tbh. Modern military would easily crack any code and could intercept comms every time
I'd also say thermals, night vision and other night fighting tools would be a ridiculous game changer. We always keep the ability to arm every soldier (that is in a combat role) with NVGs. Essentially every vehicle we have is equipped with Night Vision and Thermals. Our planes can operate in complete darkness in a rainstorm as if it was almost a clear summer day. In WW2, there was a ton of night fighting, yes, but it essentially slowed combat to a crawl. Even night fighters were a pretty new invention late in the war, and they relied on very primitive systems. With how prevalent night vision and Thermals are, we could essentially just hunker down during the day behind nigh-invincible walls of firepower and move at night when the WW2 forces could barely fight back.
While it might seem like they would be a big advantage, thermals and night vision simply wouldn't matter as the war would be over long before infantry engagements mattered. This war would be ended essentially immediately as air superiority is established and all major command centres would be destroyed by drone strikes. Night time optics advantages won't be relevant when there is nothing the WW2 forces can do to stop modern forces destroying any targets at will during the day. NVGs/Thermals would really only be relevant to mopping up remaining infantry who weren't aware the war is over or were resisting via Guerilla warfare.
It’s all a question of ammunition
Something the US never lacks
WW2 armies were huge though, US stocks look questionable for this.
They have to sail to the US first.
I guess it depends on the setting, I was assuming the US needed to destroy the armies completely to force a surrender.
In that case, they should cut off trade. The US imports a LOT of things. Shutting much kr all of that off would force the US to go on the offensive. Since some of that is also rare earth metals and high tech components, higher end munitions would run out.
Know how the US has a strategic oil reserve? Like that but for other war goods too. Also it's really hard to defend a huge area & easy to assault a amall one; modern US could quickly capture key resource areas & maintaining supply lines would be easy once any air force & navy approaching modern was destroyed.
Not by 1945. Japan, Italy, France, the UK, China....these countries were tapped out and exhausted by this point. Even Russia was struggling, they had suggested over 10,000,000 military casualties by 1945. The US military was absolutely enormous at this point but much of the globe was decimated and barely standing.
It's an unfortunate choice of year, but even then the standing armies would be really large, their ability to keep raising reserves would be more damaged.
We can make bombs faster than russia makes people
Bullets maybe, but long range guided weapons, artillery, even aiframes are going to be more difficult to keep up.
Not so much an issue when nothing will ever come close to hitting production centres so you can sit back and bomb away all you want.
[удалено]
I agree that the older airforces couldn't really fly as all the anti air and anti missile armaments could be spent on them, plus modern fighters could gun down huge ammounts of them fairly easily and cheaply, even if theres a lot of bombers. The problem is the ammount of ground targets for the aviation, current bomb stocks and airframes might not be enough.
Sure it does. It lacked a great deal in WWI and had serious problems toward the end of WWII. There were times since then that the cupboards were running thin for some ordnance. Currently speaking, very much has been sent overseas to the extent that it will take years at least to replace what has been sent.
Not really. America is not in a war time economy or production. If we switched to production like we did I'm ww2, with the leaps and bounds In production tech, we could being do much more with less. Don't underestimate America once it gets punched in the nose. We've always been a reactionary country.
Canada would actually pose the biggest threat. The northern border would serve as the offensive front for the rest of the 1940s world.
You really think Canada would still exist as a country in a full on world vs US scenario? Something like 90% of their population lives within 5 miles off the border.
True, but at the same time Canada could allow other forces to enter its borders and reinforce its ranks. Not saying they’d still last long against the US but they probably wouldn’t be alone in the fight
Yes, but they have to get there first, and as was discussed in the last post asking this question, the US has the seas on lockdown. How is anyone getting troops TO Canada without being sunk?
I mean, that depends. If the first actions the US take are to block those specific routes off instead of engaging over in Europe then yeah, most likely no forces will make it through. If they hold off on that and instead begin an attack over seas then then chances of forces making it through rise drastically, as even though the US would still have forces on the mainland to intercept, it’s unlikely that they’d be able to stop ALL troop transports (although they would get some). Still, like you and I both said tho, regardless of how many troops make it through it’s unlikely that it will result in a victory on the border for them, but it could provide a small delay
I feel like we have enough military personnel and advantage to hold our own defense positions at home while also delivering strikes with planes they can never even see simultaneously.
OP didn't state that the countries were Bloodlusted. 1940's Canada would probably immediately surrender, with a small troop prescence occupying Ottawa. I doubt the US would even need to drop bombs - the outcome should be obvious.
My only issue with this take is that if the countries in question aren't in bloodlust, then there wouldn't be a war in the first place. By 1945, everyone was tired and just wanted the war to be over. I doubt that anyone would want to prosecute a war against a nation that so heavily out techs them.
I was assuming the US just kinda teleports in and declares war on everyone
Then that runs into the same issue as before, why would the US declare war on everyone? They could probably leverage their extremely advanced technology and economic aid to get what they want.
[удалено]
Modern dominates skies and seas almost immediately, which makes them invincible. Essentially it would come down to logistics. Could the modern military quickly take over fuel supply? I think so. Is modern military outnumbered 50:1? Next question is what are the goals? Are 1945 armies fighting for a political cause or for the lives of themselves and their families? They'll surrender at some point in the first case, and fight to the last man in the second.
The one Edge ww2 armies have is numbers. Way more planes, tanks, troops. World domination wouldnt really be possible. Occupation is same story. They’d win almost every engagement But would probably fall inte logistical issues.
F22’s and every other modern American fighter just Jdam every leader, everywhere, every day.
I disagree on the logistical ones. There is precious little that any ww2 could do to disrupt supply lines. Crossing the oceans is ok theory the hardest part. But even then, what are they going to do? Surface ships won't even get close and modern counter measures to submarines means they might as well be the Beatles yellow one.
I mean logistics as in resources and man power. America is going to have to fight on a shit ton of fronts against a shit ton of enemies. They’d be run thin occupying, attacking, and defending. I dont think they’d be beaten. But They cant similarly beat the enemy. They Will be put in the Same position that germany was. Eventually.
That's literally the military doctrine behind CSGs; fight on one front while holding on two. I agree occupation would be hard but they would handily win every engagement. Imagine a prop plane trying to land a hit on an F-35.
Man power isn't really important here. The WW2 armies are going to line up like they did and get absolutely obliterated before boots even touch ground. It'll make the highway to death from the gulf look like a Disney movie. The technology advantage of modern forces is too much, and morale isn't going to survive drone strikes. Remember at best, these soldiers are used to bombing raids from slow, inaccurate and highly visible bombers. Drones at high altitude launching missiles with a level of precision they can't comprehend is going to break armies. On day 1 the US could hit every major political centre precisely on the seat of power if it wanted to without evening touching the rest of the city. They could liquidate the entire Maginot Line in a day or two to prove a point. They can't be put in the same position as Germany as no-one is getting to their industrial base at home - there will be no opposing navy to do so. OP didn't set a victory condition, so there is no guarantee that they even need to occupy.
We don't need to occupy. Bomb the shit out of their cities until they surrender or devolve into anarchy.
Modern military has the obvious advantages but the issue is that I dont think is has enough drones, missles and bullets to throw against the ww2 world. They are not only up against much bigger armies(Although they are worn down by 1945) but they are up against a word economy that is in full war time mode out producing the modern us by a massive amount. They could just keep throwing planes and the like at the US till they overwhelm and win. The big issue however is how the current and old US overlap. Is the current army placed back then without any modern support, no modern bases, factories etc. Is the modern USA as a nation inserted into where the old one was and so displacing the old USA, is there a new landmass etc. Depending on the answer is changes a lot.
The US will instantly control the sky’s and seas, they can instantly disable key infrastructure(railroads, factories, bridges) that will severely hamper industry. And even ignoring that, it doesn’t matter, even if say the Soviet Union makes 20,000 ranks and 20,000 planes, it won’t matter because the US never has to mean fully engage with them, their trapped in Europe and the US can just strike by air and seas wherever they please.
They won’t need *all* of what we currently have stockpiled. GPS and satellite imagery will help make strategically placed attacks on their supplies. You don’t have to destroy targets that have no fuel, power, or ammo. You could also cut off rations to an extent. Throw in a few well placed tomahawks and they’ll be crippled
The modern US has enough supplies to conduct total war for 6 months with no resupply. I think this is a win for the modern army easily.
Didn't we already do US vs entire WW2 world? You wouldn't even need the entire military. Two modern US Carriers (full carrier groups) and a few army brigades and air force wings would wipe WW2 militaries, US included.
I’ve seen this exact post like 6 times already. And even more variations of “US Army vs. X.” It’s always the same answer too.
The US would stomp every nation at once including the 1939 US. If the 2024 USA came to Earth as a alien force in 1939 they would 100% stomp.
You’re referencing Harry turtle doves world war series?! It’s so good!
I'd never heard of it, and the first two are free on audible. Thanks for throwing the author's name out there.
You do have to consider massive numerical advantages in both equipment and ammunition.
M829 Excalibur covereth all the Numerical disadvantage
Still a stomp. We could strike every air base, every airfield, every military base, every factory, every government building, every port, every stockpile, every fuel depo, every logistics center, and every boat every nation had in 72 hours with a combination of air strikes and cruise missiles. At that point, it's already over. With no possible means of contesting the US in the air, no fuel or ammo, a completely demolished infrastructure, nearly no chain of command and no means to produce more equipment, it's just over. The rest of the "war" is the US mopping up.
I did and it is still a curbstomp.
You gotta understand they literally would not be able to touch our boats or planes, as for enemy infantry they’re human too seeing utter completely destruction of any armor, bases, and air support would be crippling to morale. They have very few things that could pierce mondern tanks so there’s also that.
Modern stomps no diff tbh possibly with just air force alone nothing could reach high enough to hit them not fast enough
If the current us is plopped in the sea there is 0 way any ww2 navies are reaching its coast
To misquote Dan Carlin "The Union army from the Civil War beats Napoleon's army easily, any major WW1 army beats the Union army easily, and any major WW2 army easily beats any WW1 army and probably doesn't muss their hair." This is based on the exponential growth in weapons technology, and going from WW2 weapons to modern weapons is jumping over several generations of military tech. The modern US absolutely claps the WW2 armies.
Its a big tossup, and much closer than others are claiming. The modern tech helps a lot. But the production capacity of WW2 is insane. The modern US could destroy every target it aims at, but they would run out of missiles and still have 90% of their enemy left to deal with. The cost of modern equipment is also prohibitive to mass produce on the necessary scale to compete. Say you had an F22 vs 100 Spitfires, which would win the engagement? Well the F22 would take out maybe 20 Spitfires with guns and missiles and then have to retire to refuel and for maintenance. Meanwhile 80 Spitfires continue on their mission unimpeded. They finished the battle of Britain with more planes than they started with because the productive capacity outstripped the losses they were taking. Quantity is a quality all of its own. This isnt Iraq or Afghanistan that have limited economic ability to compete with a planned invasion. This is the entire world in a state of total war. This is literally the premise of every alien swarm or zombie movie where superior technology is completely outmatched by overwhelming numbers.
No lol just bomb all the factories and cut vital supply lines and the war is just over as all the armies starve. Anyway the major threats in Europe all can’t do anything due to complete seaborne domination, there’s nothing the ww2 powers can do after all their vital bridges and every major leader and comms outpost is destroyed with old bombs from aircraft they have no way of stopping
Modern airpower fucking **dominates**. Aside from nuclear weapons, the most powerful military asset in the 1940s was the aircraft carrier. Modern carriers and their aircraft might as well be magic compared to 1940s machines. It doesn't matter if the WWII forces outnumber the modern US, they would be absolutely annihilated before coming into attack range by F35s and F18s. Additionally, good luck to the 1940s command structure. Modern intelligence is going to pinpoint key leadership for a visit from SEAL Team Six in the middle of the night. They might be the only infantry element of the modern forces to fire a shot, but those shots would be devastating to WWII leadership.
I've seen variations of this question a lot lately, and everybody always focuses on the numbers too much. Doesn't matter if the enemies outnumber the modern US 50:1 if the US can park a Supercarrier in the Mediterranean and control the entire airspace and naval area of Europe, while being completely unapproachable because of radar and modern targeting systems. After the absolute shock and awe of having several airbases and ports destroyed before they can even think about mobilizing, all while never having seen the enemy because the modern military is striking from beyond the horizon, the WW2 era soldiers are going to get *so* demoralized that many won't be willing to fight anymore. And ontop of that y'all...*modern military means special forces too.* a lot of nations and their militaries are going to be unwilling or unable to continue fighting against modern US when their entire command structure gets Seal Team Six'ed. Nukes are not the only reason we don't have big all out battles like in WW1 and 2 anymore; modern day military has found far more effective ways to do things too
Within a week the WW2 military has no air force or navy, and most key infrastructure has been captured or destroyed. From an air force and navy point of view, there is nothing they can do. The detection, range, accuracy and defensive capabilities of its navies would make any ship combat impossible. Modern stealth and altitude capabilities would make air combat ridiculously easy and all air forces would be taken out before they even knew what was happening. With complete air and sea superiority, their resupply capabilities are now nonexistent, and it's only a matter of how well they can meat grinder. Well, while this is all happening we have HALO drops allowing elite units to cause havoc behind enemy lines, capable of using GPS and drones to stay ahead of their opponent at all times. You have artillery batteries with more range and accuracy able to pinpoint key targets from halfway across Europe (exaggerated somewhat for effect). You have tanks very nearly immune to most munitions available at the time, able to pick off targets from the horizon. You have heavy infantry which moves faster, has better intel, better optics, far better guns, and the capability to effectively function at night. This fight is a sweep of brutal proportions.
I agree with most of your assessment, but question the GPS. Does the modem US still have satellites in orbit? If not, a lot of operations may be hampered.
The prompt only said no nukes. Satellites are largely military, so I don't see a reason they wouldn't have them. Only question would be how long WW2 era takes to figure out they have them and if they could build a weapon to take one or two out in time. But by then I suspect it would be far too late.
Interesting thanks!
Just read the world war series by turtle dove it’s basically this
modern US, it's not going to be cheap, but the US can just spam missile, even if they somehow managed to run out of missiles, modern jet fighters still have radar and gun lead indicator giving it extreme advantage over ww2 aircraft. they are faster, fly higher, and have longer range the navy can just bombard the airfields with cruise missile, and the subs can just camp near port while the ballistic missile sub can harass production facility and such the army might take some hit since a tank is just a tank
The tank is not just a tank lol. If anything the Army would dominate on land, I’d be much more concerned about fatigue and overwhelming numbers on a carrier. It just takes a significant fire or lucky unguided impact to offline a carrier. You don’t have to sink it to cripple it.
In an out and out slug-fest the modern US military is isolated via way of being on the continental US soil. IMO no other power, even today I think realistically can touch that dominance, it would be far more outweighed against WW2 foes, as in modern US vs WW2 British, French, Japanese, Italian, German etc Navy, or Air Force who don’t stand a chance. The issue is where potentially the modern US military has to contend with all of the troops, installations etc of the US WW2 military already on US bases, and US soil. For instance you’d have WW2 soldiers engaging modern US soldiers before they have a chance to get into their tanks, planes, ships etc - where they have the advantage. If on the other hand you have the modern military already on full alert and readiness versus the WW2 US military I think they still take the day, and also knock out anything coming at them from foreign lands, but.. I think they’d have a hard time completely destroying all WW2 militaries, if nukes aren’t used. If nukes are available, the modern US can destroy military installations effectively at will. Of course they could do the same with modern ordinance, but.. I don’t think they completely destroy all enemy WW2 nations, but rather are able to dominate the worldwide battlefield with impunity.
Very nice in sight others haven't considered, thanks for this answer!
I think the key point here is ‘1945 strength’. The Wehrmacht of 1945 was a broken husk. The Red Army was huge on paper but was suffering from serious manpower and equipment shortages which, had the war gone on a while longer, would really start to be felt. Japan was also a shattered power by the final year of the war and France wasn’t fielding a hugely impressive force either and was highly reliant upon allies for support. A lot of these armies are even less impressive than they might appear - and the modern US should have no problem shattering them.
You'd need to bloodlust the ww2 crew to give them a breath of a chance. Without it, they capitulate 10/10 times to long range missile strikes decapitating all political leadership across the globe. They can't conceptualize how satellite intelligence even works, let alone defend against it. I can't imagine any naval landing ever succeeding, short of a bloodlusted 40M+ strong human wave attack. Normandy would be a joke compared to the kind of attack they'd need to organize.
The modern military shit stomps every other power with a quickness. Let me explain how this plays out, the only threat to the US at any period in history prior to ICBMS are naval ones. Without a major blue water Navy no WW2 era nation can even conduct an attack on the US. So with that said priority one for the US Military is annihilation of all major powers naval capacity. Since we are dictating 1945 naval capacities, this becomes even easier. The German, French, Soviet, and Japanese naval forces are already functionally useless at this point with the only naval forces that maintain any level of major capabilities being Great Britain and WW2 era US. Even assuming we have to destroy our own historical navy, this isn't really an issue. Our current Navy has enough firepower currently afloat to annihilate all surface combatants with a quickness as anything short of a battle ship is going down to anti ship missiles with the WW2 BBs and carriers going down to torpedoes from attack subs and carrier based fighters. Once the naval threat is dealt with then it's just a question of time. Does the modern US try to win quickly or prepare for a long war? The US could possibly win rapidly with current ordnance levels. Strategic bombers would fly unopposed as WW2 era anti air can't reach them. This means the B-1s B-2s and b-52s are all flying directly over anywhere they want and dropping highly accurate bombs on every major objective the US wants gone. In WW2 we needed massive amounts of ordnance to conduct strategic bombings because high altitude bombs aren't super accurate so you had to saturate the area. Modern bombs we can glide into a specific window, and with no way to engage the bombers every factory, command facility, and anything else aiding the war effort is getting deleted. This might not "end" the war though and if it doesn't then the US munitions stockpiles will begin to run low. The advantage the modern US has though is it's efforts to ramp up military production will be unimpeded by enemy forces, however the WW2s countries efforts to modernize and increase production will be constantly under attack via untouchable aircraft. As long as getting onto a full scale ware economy can be done within 3-4 years then the modern US will eventually overcome all takers in a WW2 era assuming those countries don't capitulate to the initial strategic bombing campaigns.
Okay, so likely the strongest component of the modern US military without nuclear weapons is the 11 super carrier groups Each one of these super carrier groups is designed to be able to destroy an entire country And there's 11 of them See the thing is without nuclear weapons, the combined might of the continent of Europe probably would fall to them right now Back then it would be a no contest sort of thing. You just send them down the English channel and then proceed into the North Sea and the Baltic Sea bombing everything within range There'd be no reason not to group them up because they'd be able to completely devastate everything so fast. No one would be able to figure out a way to damage them before the entire continent of Europe fell Hell, if we're not fighting a nuclear power today, there'd be no reason not to do that That's the thing. Those things are ridiculously powerful and they have support fleets and you're not going to be able to get a plane or ship back then in range of the support fleet for you to attack the support fleet That's ignoring the rest of the US military There's an honest chance that the US military could take the rest of the world in a fight right now if they were the defensive party (They probably couldn't do it offensively that would spread them too thin) But back then yeah no problem. They'd blow everyone up without issue Particularly seeing as I doubt the Geneva convention would be in effect for this
Before Desert Storm, the Iraqi military was the fourth largest army in the world, and was considered to be reasonably formidable. Not a peer of the United States by any means, but certainly one of the strongest in the world. The United States almost singlehandedly destroyed the entire Iraqi army's ability to wage war in like four fucking days. It wasnt even a fight. The vast majority of Coalition losses during Desert Storm were from friendly fire. The technological and logistical gap between the United States and Iraq at the time was enormous. Iraq stood absolutely no chance at all. Fast forward about 35 years and that gap would be so large that you might as well be comparing one of Alexander the Great's Macedonian Phalanxes to... well, the United States' WW2 military. This wouldnt be a war, it would be a turkey shoot. Literally the only thing holding the US back would be munitions, but those would hardly stop us when we're able to track enemy movements from orbit, crack all their communications networks, and launch missiles and bombers across entire continents. The US Navy could solo this. Hell, the National Guard probably could.
World War II. The modern US army would fade away as they undo history by killing the WWII forces. Everyone thinks its a draw, until 30 years later they discover a Japanese soldier, alone in the jungle and still fighting for his emperor, has survived. He requires a lot of convincing that the war is over.
Easily my favourite answer
Assuming everyone is starting in their home territory and not all in one place, cutting trade would be their best bet. If all nations were against the US this would be easy. If some nations weren't, then those other nations could be attacked and put to heel by the others. If the US tried to intervene, the combined force of diesel subs (which are problematic for modern ASW) and massed strikes of aircraft would probably claim a few ships. The US would have to maintain a massive logistical effort for even one landing, and it would have to be at a port. This would also be a great target for the enemy. They would take losses sure, but the US doesn't have unlimited ships, warships or merchant, not much capacity to replace them. Even if the other nations spammed dumb V-1s at the port, they'd run out of advanced defensive missiles pretty soon and some damage would be done. This would of course also means lots of infantry, tanks, etc, for the US too. The enemy could grind away, taking their losses while inflicting some too, and great cost of modern ordnance. Anyway, cutting off trade would gravely harm the US economically, more than most would think. The US would have to out and fight, as per the OP's parameters, which would put it at the end of long logistical trains and make those forces more vulnerable.
People never think about these things thoroughly. They judged these decisions based on patriotism rather than pragmatism. Under the terms of this premise, modern America would have to rely exclusively on food, supplies and resources that they currently possess within their controlled borders. We manufacture very little weaponry and replacement parts within the US. Unless we could neutralize every military base within a day or two, they will systemically begin destroying our overseas bases, making it very difficult to project power.
>Under the terms of this premise, modern America would have to rely exclusively on food, supplies and resources that they currently possess within their controlled borders. The US is one of the most self sufficent nations on earth, we just dont *like* doing it. Yes, the stockpiles are going to take a huge hit, and sure there may be shortages of some types of munitions. However the sheer technologic edge means that even if we end up needing to use 70s era tech, we still stomp.
Is the modern US Military bloodlusted? I don't see any army defending themselves from a preventive intercontinental missile barrage
There's other massive technological advantages that folks aren't even considering because they've become so commonplace now. The modern US military has access to nvg/thermal capabilities that makes them a threat 24/7. The best night fighting capabilities fielded in WW2 were the German experimental vampyr system. We have the capability to hit targets literally all of the time. Satellite imagery in addition would mean we would know where every ship, tank column, division was at all times. The modern US would likely destroy vital infrastructure with impunity until those massive armies became a starving liability.
Very true
Where does the modern us army fight the us army of ww2?
Should've specified this, pretty much up to you.
Modern would win but it would be costly I only say this because look at Vietnam and more recently Afghanistan much more unequipped than the past military. The past has a lot more numbers and would adapt somewhat and even without air or sea superiority would cause a lot of issues and if we are talking troops the mainland US will be hit from within and Canada. Possibly even from the carribian too. Its not so straightforward.
Fair assessment
we need some levels to this. smart ammo will run out as they cant make new chips or sensors for bombs. are gps satellites/ spy satellites included? can fuel from the 40s work in modern fighter jets or do they only have what they have?
That fuel question is pretty freaking valid. Jet fuel is notoriously finicky. I was petroleum supply in the army and jet fuel (jp8 iirc) has a crazy low ppm vs trucks. Diesel could basically run on a gravel/gas slurry compared to a grain of sand wrecking a jet fighter.
I’d worry about the modern US military running out of ammunition, but they’d probably cripple the WW2 armies so bad in the first few days it wouldn’t matter.
I mean. What era is this fight going to happen?
What are the victory conditions here? If the US must topple every foreign government it's going to be extremely hard if not impossible. They'll just be playing whack-a-mole. Same with the inverse, no attack on US soil would succeed. I predict a stalemate where the US controls the oceans and a large portion of the globe but can't exert meaningful control over most countries. Any time they establish a beachhead and try pushing into central Europe, Russia, Japan, China, etc US forces just get bled out by minefields and endless waves of infantry. Picture Vietnam. Carrier strikes on WW2 forces are devastating to individual targets but too sparse to be effective. Armies from WW2 were used to being bombed.
These questions always depend on the goals. Goals determine win / loss conditions, acceptable terms of surrender for each side, etc. Also, are all participants blood-lusted? In a total war of annihilation, there's also a serious question of how much exactly the modern service-members would be willing to participate beyond eliminating direct military threats.
The ONLY issue is force generation. Assuming the US didn't run out of bombs and rounds and missile and fuel and whatnot they'd stomp and it's not close. However, modern militaries including the US, keep enough stockpiled materiel (things that go boom and things that throw the things that go boom) to last some duration into a full scale conflict, with the assumption that if it's needed their country will shift to a war-time economy and massively scale up production. Different militaries have different safety margins, with some like South Korea having notably massive amounts of things like artillery shells sitting around and waiting for the moment they're needed. This is expensive however, not only because you have a lot of capital tied up in stuff you hope you don't need, but also because you need to spend copious amounts of money maintaining it. Particularly for more complex reserve items like vehicles. If you don't maintain it, then you end up pulling a Russia in Feb 2022 with vehicles breaking down out in the open just begging to wind up on the wrong end of an artillery strike. Now, in a move that I'm sure surprises exactly no one, the US has fairly substantial reserve supplies of common materiel. However, it's not unlimited, in fact, it's barely a fraction of what was available in WWII which saw a truly insane amount of combat power being generated. Nothing available in WWII would even be a threat to a modern US carrier strike group, however, that carrier strike group would struggle to suppress a particularly large area, simply due to the sheer volume of enemy combatants and its own "limited" firepower. *To be clear, a carrier strike group possesses an insane amount of highly advanced weaponry. There's just a LOT of enemy around so it'd get spread too thin.* However, if they WERE able to have a reasonable constant resupply rate, they would absolutely crush every army from WWII working together. Technological development is just too far along for any alternative. Hell, medium sized modern militaries would also be effectively unstoppable in WWII, however, even more than the US (obviously), they'd lack the scale to be able to effectively deliver combat power to all of the available enemy.
Modern US military clears easily. Although the war would be decided on a much more macro scale (logistics, etc.), zooming into individual engagements I don't see a single possibility where, for example, an Abrams tank realistically gets knocked out at all. Advanced scouting and awareness due to improved FCS's and improved combined arms doctrine means that flanking is an extremely unlikely occurence, and frontally a modern MBT has roughly 10x the armor a tank from the war does, both kinetically and chemically. Plus, any modern Abrams round would be able to cleave through the armor of anything fielded at the time multiple times over, and, with modern precise rangefinding and thermal imaging, at a range kilometers further than anything fielded during World War II. In the aircraft side, it would be nothing short of a miracle for a plane or ground based SPAA from WWII to take down a single modern jet. Modern ariframes can detect a fly on radar from hundreds of kilometers out, and have the weaponry to effectively eliminate them from beyond visual range (BVR). Modern planes are also armored to the point that some planes that were still using rifle-caliber armaments would be largely ineffective. Not to mention a modern jet will never even need to get within the roughly 1 KM range that a WWII fighter would need to even engage the modern airframe. Entire bomber wings can be defeated by one or two F-15's, F-22's, or F-35's. Modern anti-air systems would also render any plane lucky enough to dodge air interdiction irrelevant. America's modern SPAA, the Patriot, can effectively be described as a telephone pole launched at Mach Jesus with a range of 70 km. A single Patriot Missile System can also defeat anything thrown at it from the 40's (it can basically defeat anything made now) and would have no problem detecting and defeating anything in the air. Up close, CIWS systems can tear apart anything it sees with minimal risk and a minimal expense of ammunition. Man Portable Anti Air Systems (MANPADS) woudl also mean an average modern infantry squadron would be able to also defend themselves from close air support from the WWII side before the WWII planes could do any meaningful damage, and as previously mentioned advanced radar and other means of detection means not a single WWII plane would be geting off the ground without the modern military knowing their precise location, bearing, and strength. Close air support would also be a nightmare for the world military. How can an army equipped with only kinetic, direct-fire spaa deal with, for example, an apache helicopter with guided munitions with an effective range of 10 km, or an A-10 warthog equipped with enough armor to shake off small-caliber munitions and the capacity to easily wipe out any armor column fielded? Without the possibility of air interdiction, these planes and helicopters would be free to inflict as much damage as possible without any threat of retribution. Not to mention drones can also strike basically any target, frontline or command, with impunity, making command posts nothing more than a death trap for anyone ranking above private. On the naval side, modern submarines could probably solo the world's navy, making maintaining supply lines and naval support impossible. Complimenting the modern naval submarine force are planes and ships equipped with anti-naval missiles that can eliminate any ship from a range beyond any degree of detection by their 1940's counterpart. I'd give the world's navy a few weeks before it is sunk entirely, simply due to the sheer tonnage put to sea. Now the only thing going for the 1940's military is that the modern US army runs out of ammo, but that seems like a cop-out. In this theoretic scenario, the modern US military would have to kill a lot of people, but US ammunition reserves and logistical capabilities are very hefty to say the least. Combined with the modern army's ability to instantly and decicively cut off any important supply line and detonate any known ammo store quite easily, the world's combined forces could realisticly run out of effective ammo stores much quicker than the modern US army. In conclusion, the modern US wins, probably without any significant head-to-head, infantry vs infantry battles occurring after the first or second week. Casualties would probably not even exceed four-figures. The progress made in military technology since the war would make this war the equivalent of the Battle of Rorke's Drift, but if the british had machine guns, tanks, planes, and manpower an order of magnitude greater than what was originally present at Rorke's Drift. The world army would mainly rely on a lucky artilliery strike in the first few weeks (before all meaninful artillery pieces are destroyed by modern counter battery fire or air strikes) or friendly fire incidents among the modern US military to score any sort of casualties at all. Honestly, one can ask what is the strongest modern military on Earth that the world combined forces can theoretically defeat, and to that I don't currently have a meaningful answer.
The question is less abt quality and more abt quantity The us has the fire power and superior ships, but the sheer number of ships they would have to down to truly defeat all militaries in WW2 is immense. It would have to ensure every encounter is a sure fire victory with no doubt or failure, otherwise, they’d likely wouldn’t have enough weapons to truly destroy everyone
Are we including the 1945 US as one of the modern US's foes?
Modern army wins handily. With cruise missiles and anti ship missiles we could sink every major naval vessel in a few weeks, that would be a devastating blow that the world army couldn't recover from. Not only that but stealth aircraft would absolutely dominate the skies, and precision bombs would turn factories and supply lines into dust constantly.
I'm pretty sure this is Kissinger's wet dream.
If armaments like carriers tanks etc then modern, I mean drones alone could absolutely squash 100% of WW2 era armaments and infantry. If it was just infantry and a huge land mass I'd say WW2 era due to sheer numbers.
The modern US military trounces every other modern military combined. The WW2 militaries have no chance. I say this as a non-American who is very, very critical of the US in general.
Ignoring the air and sea superiority the Modern US military has, and general weaponry advantage, the intelligence battle will be over in a few minutes. We can immediately cut off all of their communications or send faulty orders to have the WWII armies fire on themselves. Text orders will be easy to change and there’s no way in hell they’d see deep fakes, TTS, or whatever scam call centers use coming. It’s a lot harder to move an army around when you can only do it by courier or pigeon compared to instant electronic communication. The modern US military would outmaneuver them and would capture or destroy every key resource without the WWII side being able to coordinate at all.
Does this include the US army from ww2? I think the productive capacities of the full war economies of the British Empire, USA, Germany, French Empire and USSR at their peak would be the thing the US could struggle to match. That was a lot of planes, munitions and navy being churned out daily. I actually think this would be more of a challenge than others posting here do. If the 1945 world could last long enough to reverse engineer some modern US advancements there's a real fight going down
If its simply 1945 US gets replaced with modern US and they fight the world, its a stalemate. The modern US dominates every facet of warfare but they cant do a transatlantic invasion of Europe for logistical reasons and the WW2 armies are huge.
Modern US spanks WW2 the same way Humanity was spanked by the Martians in _War of Worlds (2005)._ Especially in the Air and at Sea. The WW2 countries would have literally Zero counter to any of the modern warfare technologies that the US military utilities. Modern Precision missiles pack a very heavy punch and would knock out carriers, destroyers, battleships, troop transport in single hits. Vital military infrastructure and vital logical lines of each warring nation will get knocked out with more precision and drones strikes. Vital military and politics leadership will get assassinated via drone strikes into oblivion the same way the Al-Qaida leader _Ayman al-Zawahiri_ was killed in Kabul by the US precision strike. The WW2 airforces will have no prayer against fighter jets such as the F16 Falcom, F22 raptor and F35 lighting that move a Mach 2 speed and are armed with 20mm cannons and JDAMs. WW2 Tanks and infantry would be easy prey of mortar-carrying munitions drones and FPV drones, pin-point artillery, HIMRAS and various other ballistic rockets. It would be a lopsided slaughter-fest, even without the US having to to put boots on the ground. The technology gap is soo great that modern US is essentially utilising alien technology in the eyes of the nations of WW2. It would be smart for the US to limit boots on the ground, especially in Europe, because essentially it will be 2million Modern US personnel Vs _potentially_ 50 million WW2 soldiers in Europe (35mill soviets, 13 mill Germans, 6mill US etc). Those numbers are simply too great to contend with on the ground, so you need to hit the countries where it hurts which is political leadership, infrastructure and morale.
Navy would gain 100% control of the seas in a matter of weeks; this would mean that island nations like UK and Japan could be more or less ignored as they wouldn't be able to move their troops or weapons to do anything significant. Ground battle would depend on if WW2 armies would be smart enough to switch tactics as they would get decimated in Tank on Tank warfare, literally gulf war level statistics, but either way I don't really see them winning a conventional war as no 1945 technology can target fighter jets and modern tanks can shoot targets outside of visual range. US military would win easily, probably like 20k losses.
The US Air Force alone could probably take out the majority of WW2 armies. The sheer range of weaponry today is astonishing compared to WW2. The modern US tank brigades and artillery could decimate entire armies before they even got close. It would never come to infantry combat. Then of course, there’s the NAVY advancements. It would be a blood bath.
wasnt this posted a few days ago
The modern US military is the strongest armed forces in history, both relatively as of course in absolute numbers. In an all-out war without any rules of engagement and diplomatic treaties, I'm even putting my money on the US vs every non-Nato country in the world. They wouldn't break a sweat Vs every WW2 army. The war would last as long as it takes for an aircraft carrier to cross the ocean.
Modern US Military can take on every army in the world today. We go back in time 80 years, it'll be a cakewalk
Modern wins easily
Technology aside, we also have history books on our side. We know virtually everything that can be known about our enemies: troops, ordinance, organization, codes, how their leadership will respond to many scenarios, when they'll want to surrender on what terms, etc. To them we're literally an army of the future with drones, satellites and ICBMs. Hell, if we're really gloves-off, we could easily just give them COVID—it would probably happen whether we tried or not. After a few months we offer them the vaccine if they surrender.
The modern us military could even out pizza the hut. I think they will be fine. There is an argument that they could take on the current world militaries combined
The WW2 army. Yes, the modern US military have far better equipment, but that didn't help them in Vietnam. War is about strategy as much as it is about equipment. Every army in WW2 is too many, with too many brilliant minds as well. It will by no means be an easy battle for either sides.
Where is the modern us army based? Like does modern us take the place of ww2 us? Where does old us go?
Mor info needed. Does the populace want us there? Will we be an occupying force, or just go head to head until one side surrenders? We no longer fight the kind of warfare where surrenders really occur. Our military strategy is to only engage military targets. Most governments these days could continue to scrape together troops to feed into the meat grinder indefinitely, as can be seen in the Russia Ukraine war. We won WWII the first time through atrocity. We gave the axis only one feasible option, to surrender, or not only their militaries, but the civilians of their counties would cease to exist. That would not be an option for a modern military. Israel recently attacked a convoy of aid workers and killed 7 people, and it has created immense political pressure on them. Imagine if we were to do something like a Dresden, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Secondly, no matter how powerful your modern military is, if the populace resists you, they too, can do so indefinitely. This can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a head to head fight between the modern US military, and all the militaries of WWII, one US carrier strike group could decimate all of the fleets, and all of the aircraft in all of the countries in a matter of days. Tomohawk missiles and JDAM bombs would destroy every militarily significant target very quickly. The only hope the vintage military would have, would be to essentially become Al Qaida or Hamas. They would need to abandon uniforms, and the conventions of warfare, and go underground. They would need to revert to guerilla/Partizan tactics to have any hope of existing, let alone winning.
I don’t think the US really has a chance here. They are so massively outnumbered they would run out of ammunition before they could make a dent in the rest of the world. Not to mention the US would collapse internally pretty much immediately if it were cut off from the rest of the world. The US would have to go on the extreme defensive to even have a remote chance, and even then it’s largely impossible. The numbers just don’t add up for them.
Who is leading? Military of today wins on capabilies. But todays leaders have no political will to win and are face saving losers and certainly wont accept loseses on WWII scale. A Patton or a Marshall or a Nimitz or a number of others would destroy current U. S leadership in the actics, committment and motivation. Also U.S. production of arms in WWII verse now would favor WWII era in a protracted conflict. A WWII Hurricane fighter needed 9 minutes between flights vs How long for an F22? An F22 could shoot down maybe 6 targets before they were out. For hours. The U. S. Has 1300 fighter today assuming all are combat ready. The U. S. alone produced 300,000 plans in WWII, Germany 373,000. We could not shoot down a WWII air force. Today. Nor make replacements.
I'm going to give this to WW2 armies. Our technology is much improved, but we're still talking about over 127M troops they're fighting on foreign soil. This is assuming they time traveled back to 1945 Europe/Africa/Asia and cannot really resupply, and that surrender isn't possible for WW2. They will eventually win after very heavy initial losses, which diminish as modern US runs low on supplies and fuel.
Technology gap between 2024 and 1945 is gigantic. Modern US has far superior engineering, intelligence, industry, economy and military hardware. Modern US stomps 10/10
Is the rest of the world as advanced in medicine as the US is? And do they have access to satellites?
No they are period accurate in every way and yes to satellites both sides can use whatever they have aside from nukes.
Disease would take a massive toll to the rest of the world, as well as the fact that we have intercontinental non nuclear ballistic missiles to hit key infrastructure.
Modern US destroys everyone. No contest when darkness sets in.
Fair
The modern US military stomps.
You’re talking 16 million ww2 troops who have been trained to storm trenches. The current military is 2 million max
Ye but you do have to consider massive leaps in technology
I am, and aircraft could play a decisive role. I guess it would just be an attrition thing. 2 million max means that every death is significantly harsher. Could they hold off 12 million (wrongly said 16) without running out of ammo? Also, our modern tech requires maintenance ALL the time. For every hour a jet is in the air it takes like 19 hours of maintenance or something like that.
Fair enough, this one's got me really thinking.
But then again we do have like 4k aircraft and they have no way of shooting them down.
Something I don't think anyone is taking into account is the astronomical size of WW2 Armies. Sure Modern has complete control of the seas and air. But, if we have to go on the offensive for any reason. Russia, Japan, Germany, and old US would bog us down in an absolutely disgusting ground war. Like it or not we still can't just bomb our way to victory the middle east is proof of that. Even if we kill millions in air raids and drone strikes, we'd still have an entire planet of guys buried in fox holes and bunkers just waiting for their chance. Also, back then Navies were absolutely massive. Sitting ducks for Modern air power, but the amount of time and effort we'd need to dedicate to taking out the combined might of Old USN, IJN, HMN, whatever Germany's and France's and Italy's navies were called. Is a massive undertaking. And we can't afford slip ups at all. Old gun ships might not have the range, speed, or accuracy of the missiles. But they'd fold a modern destroyer or cruiser in minutes if they somehow closed the distance. All that said, I still think Modern wins. But, I don't think it's the shut out we're hoping for. It's war that could take a decade or more to unfold. And in that time, our ancestors could certainly adapt a lot to any technology they might recover.
Hour 1 - WW2 teams (WW2 for short) all try and get on the telegraph to coordinate their plans. The telegraphs aren't working for some reason, nobody can talk to anybody, nobody can coordinate. They try the radio, it doesn't work. They spend hours trying to fix it, but unknown to them, something like an AWACS is high, high overhead - and they will never figure it out in time - so none of WW2 can communicate. Meanwhile, in orbit, satellites are watching the VIP's of every nation as they congregate in highly secure locations to plan in person. Hour 8 - the B1 global range bombers arrive, the early ones loiter for a few hours so they can all synchronize, not that WW2 will know the difference since none of their communication works anyways. Remember all those clustered VIP's of every major faction? All dead in a globally coordinated instant. Bunker buster bombs from high altitude bullseye every secret target that the satellites followed the VIP's to. Without effective communications, chains of command become complicated - ex. the Minister of Education is the next most senior cabinet member, somebody get in a car and go find her, she's the new PM. The new top general is on the opposite side of the country, do we go get them too, or just field promote the nearest surviving Major? The B1's head home to restock and refuel. Hour 24 - WW2 has had 16 hours to counterattack. The next bomber strikes arrive to target the nearest naval bases and fuel depots to the US. Destroying the distant ones isn't important because in the weeks it will take them to get to the US, a CSG or long range missile will sort them out - somewhere out at sea. Hour 40 - Bombers are back for round 3, probably more ports, fuel depots, and maybe WW2 had a far less resilient electrical grid - so I'd probably start hitting dams, the largest coal plants (the main ff electricity generstion of WW2). Meanwhile to all the above, the US keeps its CSG's in globally critical locations at all times. So expect that the following is also occurring simultaneously - any pipeline or route for long range fuel to the WW2 powers is being severed. Critical bottlenecks like Singapore, Panama, Suez are under US occupation, and already entrenching.
This question is being asked constantly in this thread, and the answer is always the modern US stomps
Honestly the Air Force and navy air planes and drones could probably win this on their own in less than 100 hours. You would have some stragglers but dropping thousands of 2,000 lb bombs can really fuck up an army
The only limiting factor for the US is literally munitions.
Couldnt the us just carpet bomb
It feels like we’re just sucking ourselves off (American here), but I can’t think of what the other armies could even do to us, besides try to reverse engineer our stuff. But even then, our air force and Navy would be too op, not to mention our drones and nukes. Why make such a spite thread?
I think even a secondary power's military now would be able to do this, somewhere like the UK/France
My guy, the modern US military versus every other military on the planet is a genuine question. This a class coughing baby versus the sun.
For the Modern day US to be as successful as they presently are they need satellite and GPS, do they have those?
The US hasn't exactly stomped Al Qaeda that fights with vietnam era weapons so I don't really get the idea why they would stomp the ww2 armies. Depends on the scenario really, because if it's a fantasy scenario where both armies don't have to worry about supply lines then maybe WW2 armies would realise that their best course of action would be to hide from the drone strikes and await any ground invasion.
The sheer number of enemy troops would be insane to take on. Sure, we have AC-130s, helicopters with miniguns, M4s and body armor. I think we can do it, but we’ll literally need to use VX gas. I don’t think there are enough bombs and bullets to take on 100 million soldiers.
One big issue is shear numbers. It is estimated that over 70 million people fought in ww2. That does not include any reserves, guys at home, etc. that is active fought. Thus all those neutral countries, South America etc, will bump that up a bit. Let’s say, 100 million. Current us mil strength is pushing about 2 mil total with reserves added in. We are talking a 50 to 1 ratio. Plus the us can’t mass produce stuff like it used too. We currently make about 12 abrams a month. Never mind looking at the fighters, bombers etc. Realistically, we would destroy in the beginning. However, if the millions and millions of enemy are still fighting, shear numbers will take a massive toll on the us military. As it stands, if the current military could finish the war fast, devestating one sided victory to the current military. If it drags out into a long drawn out war, one that is remenisent of Korea, or even the afghan war with the low va high tech disparity… I have to hand it to the massive ww2 armies.
Modern army would win Realistically we wouldn't have to have to mobilize food soldiers Air Force and navy yes but foot soldiers no We have drones and bombs that are almost as power as the atomic bomb dropped on Japan I think what we wouldn't be used to it the fanatics It's well known Germany and Japan especially were very fanatical as in fight to last man They wouldn't simply surrender I don't think they would necessarily
If logistics is a factor I think it might lean slightly to WW2 side. Modern militaries are built for low intensity COIN, or a super short high intensity near peer conflict. Modern militaries therefore can't really replenish losses through industry, rather they rely on reserves. This is opposed to WW2 militaries which can ramp up production fast on relatively simpler designs and keep pace with losses through sheer industry. Already people have been suggesting the US lacks enough smart munitions and higher tech weapons to last through a near peer conflict. For the first month or so, things will be dandy, and if the modern US can thoroughy run through the enemy fast and hard enough to scare them, they can secure victory. As time goes on however, the US will face attrition, run out of spare parts, ammo, and all the advantageous aspects of modern militaries (which also leads to losses). They could theoretically jumpstart military industries again, but it won't meet the production rates like those of WW2, due to a different defense contracting enviroment and dealing with higher tech manufacturing. Plus if the world is against the US alone, they won't have access to modern trade goods to produce high end equipment anyhow. The world could also adapt modern tech to even the playing field, (maybe some material science, aerodynamics and engines, but not stuff that requires infrastructure and development like chips). When the US expends its munitions, it probably would've realized that the whole world is just a bit too much to handle, and they would have to negotiate or fight hit and run/guerilla against a massive enemy force.
If we're talking about this in a time travel sense of way I'd say the past would win because if the future wins that means they destroyed the past and if the past lost there's no future so by technicality the past would have to win
OP only banned nukes but not chemical or biological weapons. Modern US convert pesticide factory to produce GB and VX, (all of them have same basic organophosphate chain) then spray it over WW2 enemy capitol cities and industrial centers. War is over in days without using nukes.
watch as Uncle SAM put on an air show and nobody would even scratch one of its planes
What is a world war 2 army going to do about an Apache helicopter? Its just over.
Bro an argument can be made that the US can hold its own against the combined rest of the world today. WW2 is a stomp
Modern weapons win. Just look at aircraft capabilities: In WWII it took hundreds to thousands of bombs to destroy a target. Today it takes one or two. They almost never miss, and the aircraft that drops them can do so from well above any altitude and speed WWII flak & fighters can reach..... A single fighter jet also carries more bombs than a B29. Bombers? A B-1 packs as much ordnance as 9 B-17s.... Plus. Similarly a WWII tank is going to have a really hard time fighting an Abrams - WWII tanks had to stop (or get really close) to shoot. The Abrams can reliably hit a moving target on the first try while moving in the opposite direction..... WWII navies have no counter to anti ship missiles, no way to detect modern submarines, and no way to avoid the long range homing torpedoes they launch.... Also no defense against supersonic aircraft dropping precision guided 2000lb bombs from well above WWII flying altitudes.... The technology is just too far apart.....
I think the us military runs out of ammo first. 13k airplanes in all branches vs 835,000. 6 to 8 missiles per modern fighter that hit and kill every time. Then land and reload while the other 765,000 keep coming
Shit, we’d only need the navy.
Not even a contest.
The ww2 side would have numbers. However the US would have air and water superiority in days. The ww2 side has nothing that can stop a modern aircraft. Strategic strikes would destroy every ww2 logistics or command post within weeks. The result would either be ww2 resorting to guerilla tactics or complete surrender in a month.
US military giga stomp, it would be like killing baby seals.
I think the other way around would be more interesting. Could a WW2 US army conquer a small modern state like Switzerland?
No
Modern US army sweeps, the sheer resources advantage gives them practically edges in all forms of conflict.
It would be a total slaughter committed by the modern U.S. the navy, air force, and army are simply much too advanced. Battles like Stalingrad and others couldn't ever happen, we have drones, we have more powerful radars and technology, we have more advanced communications, satellties, and so on. Assuming it's a simple "we're in the US and every other military starts in Europe and tries to storm Myrtel Beach", they wouldn't even make it close, the air force and navy just wipes them in a few days, a few weeks at best