User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 1:41:05 PM EST
[#1]
There wouldn't have been a WW II.
The end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 1:47:56 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There wouldn't have been a WW II. The end. Damn! Best FPNI I've ever seen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 1:49:53 PM EST
[#3]
I'd imagine Tokyo would be glowing by 1 Jan '42.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 1:51:12 PM EST
[#4]
Perhaps the first sentence of the post needs to be reread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 1:53:24 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Perhaps the first sentence of the post needs to be reread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 1:55:35 PM EST
[#6]
Quoted: Talking non-nuclear. Say the US entered WWII with the weapons that it had at the end of the war. Namely: 1. B-29 Superfortress 2. M26 Pershing 3. Iowa Class Battleship 4. Douglass A-1 Skyraider (OK, stretching it a bit with this one) A. How would the war have been different? B. What am I missing from the list above? The Iowa's would have had very little impact. Hellcats, P47's, Corsairs and Mustangs would have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:01:14 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You know that B-29s dropped things that weren't nukes, right? I don’t know how well they would have done in Europe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:01:53 PM EST
[#8]
We would have won sooner?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:05:35 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don’t know how well they would have done in Europe. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You know that B-29s dropped things that weren't nukes, right? I don’t know how well they would have done in Europe. If we had B-29s over Europe at the beginning of WWII, they would have been unopposed |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:07:32 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Iowa's would have had very little impact. Fuckloads of carrier strike groups with equal fuckloads of fighter cover, launching from fuckloads of carriers protected by massive curtains of AAA fire, and heavy bombers launching from well-defended bases on Luzon and elsewhere would have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:11:36 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know how well they would have done in Europe. Quite well, I'd imagine. And if not, who cares? There's more than enough B-24's to make up the difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:12:10 PM EST
[#12]
Well…we won as it was, so….we’d win even more bigly. The end.
A more interesting question is, how different would things be if the Axis (mainly Germany) had their most advanced late-war weapons available in full mass production, before they started the war? Either against what the Allies had in real life, or best vs best scenario (think Me-262s vs Meteors right off the bat, etc)… |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:15:06 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We would have won sooner? Pretty much. The B-29 closes the North Atlantic Gap two years early, severely hammering the U-boat threat. That's needed as the Pershing requires more shipping tonnage than the Sherman, though the Sherman Easy 8 w/ the 76mm becomes a very effective "light" tank in the mix, and the M3/M5 is dropped. B-29s are escorted all the way to Berlin by P-51s from early 1942. The japs are creamed from the start as we have a ridiculous number of carriers with F6Fs that outclass the Zero to begin with. Now, if you allow everyone to start in late 41 w/ their 45 toys in quantity, the picture changes, particularly as at that point the Axis still had avgas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:18:01 PM EST
[#14]
Can the P-80 shooting star play ?
 How about the F8F Bearcat ? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:18:58 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 1941 Japanese navy doesn't get anywhere close to Singapore and Manila, let alone Hawaii, against the 1945 USN and USAAF. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Iowa's would have had very little impact. Fuckloads of carrier strike groups with equal fuckloads of fighter cover, launching from fuckloads of carriers protected by massive curtains of AAA fire, and heavy bombers launching from well-defended bases on Luzon and elsewhere would have. Not sure it would have made much of a political difference since there is ample evidence that the Bombing of Pearl Harbor was anticipated and allowed to get us into the war. But on a tactical level we would have defeated Japan in 1942 and Germany by 1943. Maybe even taken Russia and China for good measure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:20:50 PM EST
[#16]
As long as we aren't talking about nuclear weapons. I would say that US forces would have gone from having a slight edge to a significant edge.
But the big advantage that the Americans and for that matter the British had was logistics. Having the best fighter aircraft in the world doesn't count for much if you don't have the gas, replacement parts and pilots to fly them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:24:09 PM EST
[#17]
Japan would have never attacked. Attacking the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor was a major risk even with the aircraft and technology of that time.
The Japanese would have had no chance at ultimately winning the war in the Pacific and they would have known it too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:25:55 PM EST
[#18]
Pearl Harbor with antiaircraft ammunition with proximity fuzes would have had a nice effect.
That would have been a surprise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:34:00 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can the P-80 shooting star play ? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Lockheed_F-80C_Shooting_Star_3-view.svg/419px-Lockheed_F-80C_Shooting_Star_3-view.svg.png How about the F8F Bearcat ? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Bearcat_-_Fly_Navy_Day_2016_%2827564576372%29.jpg/640px-Bearcat_-_Fly_Navy_Day_2016_%2827564576372%29.jpg The F8F Bearcat was pretty good performance wise, but light on fuel and guns, which made it limited in utility. Basically, its only usefulness was in short range fleet protection, as it wasn't able to do much else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:34:10 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Japan would have never attacked. Attacking the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor was a major risk even with the aircraft and technology of that time. The Japanese would have had no chance at ultimately winning the war in the Pacific and they would have known it too. Many in the Japanese Navy and some in the Army knew it was a lost cause but supported the Emperor at all costs due to their social make up. The Pearl Harbor attack was in no small part anticipated. The Japanese were in a way duped into taking the bait and attacking. The USA was like a school yard bully taunting the Japanese into a fight with our oil and trade embargos as well as out support of China. We were strangling Japan and they were against a wall. It was hail Mary attack on America or lose in China. We would have eventually had boots on the ground in China anyway. We pushed them into the attack based on their culture and war footing. We always knew it would take millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives (it didn't get that bad after all) to defeat Japan, but it was a foregone conclusion we would ultimately win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:38:08 PM EST
[#21]
Lol the US loaded with Essex carriers, hellcats, P51s, improved radar and signals intelligence
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:51:03 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Many in the Japanese Navy and some in the Army knew it was a lost cause but supported the Emperor at all costs due to their social make up. The Pearl Harbor attack was in no small part anticipated. The Japanese were in a way duped into taking the bait and attacking. The USA was like a school yard bully taunting the Japanese into a fight with our oil and trade embargos as well as out support of China. We were strangling Japan and they were against a wall. It was hail Mary attack on America or lose in China. We would have eventually had boots on the ground in China anyway. We pushed them into the attack based on their culture and war footing. We always knew it would take millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives (it didn't get that bad after all) to defeat Japan, but it was a foregone conclusion we would ultimately win. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Japan would have never attacked. Attacking the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor was a major risk even with the aircraft and technology of that time. The Japanese would have had no chance at ultimately winning the war in the Pacific and they would have known it too. Many in the Japanese Navy and some in the Army knew it was a lost cause but supported the Emperor at all costs due to their social make up. The Pearl Harbor attack was in no small part anticipated. The Japanese were in a way duped into taking the bait and attacking. The USA was like a school yard bully taunting the Japanese into a fight with our oil and trade embargos as well as out support of China. We were strangling Japan and they were against a wall. It was hail Mary attack on America or lose in China. We would have eventually had boots on the ground in China anyway. We pushed them into the attack based on their culture and war footing. We always knew it would take millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives (it didn't get that bad after all) to defeat Japan, but it was a foregone conclusion we would ultimately win. I've seen a flying Mitsubishi Zero parked next to a flying P-47. Its quite the contrast in technologies. I mean they are both radial engine fighter aircraft. But that's about where the similarities end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 2:56:38 PM EST
[#23]
Corsairs are missing from your list.
P-47 was appropriate, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:09:52 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've seen a flying Mitsubishi Zero parked next to a flying P-47. Its quite the contrast in technologies. I mean they are both radial engine fighter aircraft. But that's about where the similarities end. The United States was always going to out tech, out produce, out man and out fund any of the worlds militaries of the time and since. The United States has been the worlds "hit man" for the better part of 100 years. Now we have become the last obstacle to finish the globalists plans, so the hit man must be eliminated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:10:06 PM EST
[#25]
Gato, Balao and Tench class boats with torpedoes that worked, and the Japanese home islands would have been choked out off the bat.
Proximity fuse arty and AAA. Radar all the things! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:14:31 PM EST
[#26]
What if the same was true for the other side?
Luftwaffe with Me262 Wehrmarcht with Stg44 Quoted: Talking non-nuclear. Say the US entered WWII with the weapons that it had at the end of the war. Namely: 1. B-29 Superfortress 2. M26 Pershing 3. Iowa Class Battleship 4. Douglass A-1 Skyraider (OK, stretching it a bit with this one) A. How would the war have been different? B. What am I missing from the list above? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:17:44 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What if the same was true for the other side? Luftwaffe with Me262 Wehrmarcht with Stg44 Quote HistoryQuoted: What if the same was true for the other side? Luftwaffe with Me262 Wehrmarcht with Stg44 Quoted: Talking non-nuclear. Say the US entered WWII with the weapons that it had at the end of the war. Namely: 1. B-29 Superfortress 2. M26 Pershing 3. Iowa Class Battleship 4. Douglass A-1 Skyraider (OK, stretching it a bit with this one) A. How would the war have been different? B. What am I missing from the list above? It would have been more bloody and a LOT MORE people would have died. But the end was always the Germans lose. Mostly because Hitler was a syphilis riddled megalomaniac and was never going to last long term as the leader of Germany. Russia was always going to crush Germany with our help. The numbers were just against Germany long term. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:17:58 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What if the same was true for the other side? Luftwaffe with Me262 Wehrmarcht with Stg44 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:18:06 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The United States was always going to out tech, out produce, out man and out fund any of the worlds militaries of the time and since. The United States has been the worlds "hit man" for the better part of 100 years. Now we have become the last obstacle to finish the globalists plans, so the hit man must be eliminated.  You're not wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:18:11 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What if the same was true for the other side? Luftwaffe with Me262 Wehrmarcht with Stg44 Me-262s over London would have been terrifying. If they had enough of them with drop tanks they would have torn the RAF to pieces. Stg's would have probably have been damn useful on the Eastern Front. But I can't see them winning the war there unless they were paired with some major tactical and strategic changes like not pursuing a policy of extermination of the Slavs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:25:00 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryI know. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:25:01 PM EST
[#32]
See avatar. M26 Pershing is my favorite tank. We would have ended the war with the M46 Patton for sure.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:27:35 PM EST
[#33]
1 for 1 better tech wouldn't have made that much difference.
1945 production levels in 1940 would be game over quickly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:30:36 PM EST
[#34]
If we had the P-61 at the beginning, would the US have focused more on the night time bombings? These fighters could have taken out any German fighers trying to go up to shoot down the bombers. And would the radar-guided bombers be accurate enought for night time bombing?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:35:45 PM EST
[#35]
Just torpedoes that worked and proximity fuses for AA would have shortened the pacific war by years. Add radar and ASDIC and the north Atlantic would have been swept clean in months.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:35:54 PM EST
[#36]
I agree that WW2 would have been very short, if even happened, with America having the military technology of 1945 in 1941.
No doubt had Germany started the war with its weapon development it had at the end…. And being built unhampered by US assisted bombing then England no doubt would have folded rather quickly. Poor ol France might have lasted a day and a half!!!?? King Tiger Tanks STG44 Type 21 Subs ME262 V2 rockets |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:39:46 PM EST
[#37]
Quoted: Talking non-nuclear. Say the US entered WWII with the weapons that it had at the end of the war. Namely: 1. B-29 Superfortress 2. M26 Pershing 3. Iowa Class Battleship 4. Douglass A-1 Skyraider (OK, stretching it a bit with this one) A. How would the war have been different? B. What am I missing from the list above? With just the 4 weapons on this list? 1. B.29. No effect on bombing campaign. 1942 the Luftwaffe can field effective fighters to shoot down B29's. What won the air war over Europe was effective fighter escorts. 2. M26 Pershing. Becomes best tank on battlefield, but still doesn't effect war decisively. You have to get them to the battlefield 1st. 3. Iowa Class Battleships. No effect, and if caught at Pearl Harbor Dec 7th bigger targets. WWII was decided in the Pacific by airpower and carriers. 4. Douglass A-1 Skyraider. "if" it can be operated from the US carriers available in 1942 replaces all other aircraft on US carriers. Battle of Midway no wiping out of torpedo squadrons. Bottom line, nothing on this list IMO gives the US a edge in 1942 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:40:34 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It would have been more bloody and a LOT MORE people would have died. But the end was always the Germans lose. Mostly because Hitler was a syphilis riddled megalomaniac and was never going to last long term as the leader of Germany. Russia was always going to crush Germany with our help. The numbers were just against Germany long term. Don’t know… With Me262, Stg44 and V1/V2 rockets fully functional I guess Germany would have gained control of UK and many other strategic places… making it almost impossible for the US to provide support in Europe.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:42:17 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don’t know… With Me262, Stg44 and V1/V2 rockets fully functional I guess Germany would have gained control of UK and many other strategic places… making it almost impossible for the US to provide support in Europe.. We would have gone through Russia or Africa. More work and more expensive, but doable logistically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:47:53 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Iowa's would have had very little impact. Hellcats, P47's, Corsairs and Mustangs would have. Corsair, Mustang and P-47 all had first fights before the war started. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 3:54:31 PM EST
[#41]
1945 type radar in 1941 would have been a big deal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 4:02:08 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Corsair, Mustang and P-47 all had first fights before the war started. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Iowa's would have had very little impact. Hellcats, P47's, Corsairs and Mustangs would have. Corsair, Mustang and P-47 all had first fights before the war started. Interesting. The first production P-51 designated "Mustang I" with serial# AG345 for Britain, was test flown by Louis Waite on April 23 1941. Bob Chilton test flew AG345 several times in May 1941. Chilton also test flew the 4th production model XP-51 41-038 that was to be delivered to the US Army Air Corps for evaluation. By August, Chilton had test flown the 2nd production aircraft AG346, and it was the first P-51 ready for delivery to Britain. By the end of 1941, the RAF accepted 138 Mustangs with more coming each month. Then in June of 1942, US placed an order for 310 P-51As. So they were "around" but not really being front lined in numbers. General Hap Arnold was a loud proponent of the escort fighter. He insisted that the bombers must have fighter escort deep into Germany. It took another 10 months to deliver the P-51B/C to Europe. They arrived in England in September 1943. General Arnold later wrote that it was the USAAF's own fault that they did not have the Mustangs earlier. Remember above, when the USAAF sat on the evaluation of the P-51 for some time. That delay seems costly for many B-17 crews shot down over Germany in 1943 with no fighter escort, however, NAA later stated they had needed that time for the mustang design to evolve. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 4:09:03 PM EST
[#43]
You brought all the toys, but how many players are on your team?
US.mil at the start of the war wasn't ready and wouldn't be for some time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 4:09:26 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There wouldn't have been a WW II. The end. Yep. And they should have dropped the 1st one on Berlin. Then ask Japan if they'd like to surrender as there was another plane in the air headed to Tokyo. ETA: Yes, the OP says "non-nuclear". But we had the things then, so why not use them...? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 4:27:31 PM EST
[#45]
The biggest difference maker against Japan would be the 24 Essex fleet carriers and the hundred plus little escort carriers to re-supply the planes lost without requiring the big carriers to return to the states. Next would be the Atlanta class cruisers and the 5" VT anti-aircraft shell. The hundreds of planes shot down in the "Mariana Turkey Shoot" were mostly downed by VT shells from the 5 inch guns. The Atlanta light cruisers had 6 turrets and 12 guns and would have made it much more difficult for the Japanese to do air attacks against our carriers.
Against the Nazi's it would again be the Escort carriers that provided scouting and protection from the U-boats for the convoys going to Britain and Russia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 4:34:45 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Damn! Best FPNI I've ever seen.  The only thing that would have changed is whether or not we would have entered at all. If Imperial Japan knew we had that kind of arsenal, they probably would have just waited to see if FDR was bullshitting or not. Then it would have been up to FDR and congress to either make good on America's threats or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 4:36:25 PM EST
[#47]
Wouldn't have happened?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 4:46:58 PM EST
[#48]
 T26e4 super pershings instead of Sherman's German tanks.wouldve aiad what the mayor of Nagasaki siad when the.bomb was dropped What tye fuck was that |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 4:47:11 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The biggest difference maker against Japan would be the 24 Essex fleet carriers and the hundred plus little escort carriers to re-supply the planes lost without requiring the big carriers to return to the states. Next would be the Atlanta class cruisers and the 5" VT anti-aircraft shell. The hundreds of planes shot down in the "Mariana Turkey Shoot" were mostly downed by VT shells from the 5 inch guns. The Atlanta light cruisers had 6 turrets and 12 guns and would have made it much more difficult for the Japanese to do air attacks against our carriers. Against the Nazi's it would again be the Escort carriers that provided scouting and protection from the U-boats for the convoys going to Britain and Russia. Excellent and accurate! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2024 4:59:05 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You know that B-29's dropped things that weren't nukes, right? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Perhaps the first sentence of the post needs to be reread. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
