• 66 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for bruceveidt
#1 Posted by BruceVeidt (3570 posts) - - Show Bio

Basically that. The USA as of today (2018) vs all the armies that participated in both WW1 and WW2.

Rules:

  • No nuclear weapons for anyone.
  • Air support is only allowed for the other armies, not USA.
  • Battleships are also not allowed.
  • WW1 and WW2 armies have perfect teamwork.
  • 12 hours prep for USA before the attack (the other armies want to invade USA).
  • Other armies will attack from both the south and north borders. USA isn't aware of this. They only know an attack is going to happen.

Who would win?

Avatar image for supremegeneration
#2 Posted by SupremeGeneration (11922 posts) - - Show Bio

We lose because Trump bows down to Hitler and Stalin, praising them.

Even barring that, USA gets stomped. That's way too many, including USA itself and 12hours is pitiful to prepare for that. Giving air support to the numerous other armies and not to the USA makes it even more of a stomp.

Avatar image for paytience
#3 Edited by Paytience (4999 posts) - - Show Bio

Lol...the USA today stomps all the armies active NOW. WWII militaries get a 5D warfare blitz stomp into forgotten land. This isn't close and it is not remotely fair.

No air or battleships? Fine...we do not use battleships. But we got destroyers with cruise missiles and a massive artillery and armor advantage.

Avatar image for amcu
#4 Posted by Amcu (16898 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm only worried that we don't have enough munitions to take that many nations down.

Avatar image for stalin-is-steel
#5 Edited by Stalin-Is-Steel (3586 posts) - - Show Bio

In this case, quantity beats quality. There's simply far too much here for the US to deal with, including WW2 Germany and WW2 Russia, both being nightmares in terms of numbers. That, plus everyone else means a defeat for the modern country.

Prep means nothing when you have no knowledge about the opponent.

Avatar image for faradaysloth
#6 Posted by FaradaySloth (10023 posts) - - Show Bio

We don't know since the USA is obviously hiding powerful weapons.

Avatar image for bruceveidt
#7 Posted by BruceVeidt (3570 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for stalin-is-steel
#8 Posted by Stalin-Is-Steel (3586 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for bruceveidt
#9 Posted by BruceVeidt (3570 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for hope_w
#10 Edited by Hope_w (2834 posts) - - Show Bio

Honestly speaking, no aircraft from that time period poses even the slightest threat to modern American airspace. 12 hours is enough time for every inch of the sky to be accounted for.

The only real threat is a land invasion of that magnitude and with current UN restrictions on the type of warfare these guys have seen. Vehicular weapons would be the only option of victory. WW1/WW2 was deaths playing field, I don't think Modern Military is ready for that type of warfare.

Avatar image for mrmonster
#11 Posted by mrmonster (15553 posts) - - Show Bio

Even with all the restrictions you put on the US, we still win. Just about everything from World War II is much more advanced now; bullets, guns, airplanes, submarines, radios, phones, tanks, vehicles, radar, sonar, etc.

And that's not even the most significant breakthrough we've had since then; the computer. Our computers alone would be an enormous advantage in this war.

Although I am willing to concede that this is a possibility.

We lose because Trump bows down to Hitler and Stalin, praising them.

Sad as that may seem, it's would actually be a possibility. @supremegeneration 's only mistake was not adding Benito Mussolini and Hideki Tojo to the list as well.

Avatar image for stalin-is-steel
#12 Posted by Stalin-Is-Steel (3586 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrmonster: The WW1 and 2 teams have perfect teamwork through. That means that you basically have the best generals, leaders and some of the biggest armies ever working as one focused force with a common enemy.

The modern US, while being very powerful, lacks this and thus will actually be split here- having to fight their WW2 counterpart, the "Greatest Generation" may actually cause some of them to quit or surrender out of respect- after all, if you had to pick between fighting for Trump or FDR and Churchill, which one would it be?

Avatar image for mrmonster
#13 Posted by mrmonster (15553 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrmonster: The WW1 and 2 teams have perfect teamwork through. That means that you basically have the best generals, leaders and some of the biggest armies ever working as one focused force with a common enemy.

The modern US, while being very powerful, lacks this and thus will actually be split here- having to fight their WW2 counterpart, the "Greatest Generation" may actually cause some of them to quit or surrender out of respect- after all, if you had to pick between fighting for Trump or FDR and Churchill, which one would it be?

Oh, FDR/Churchill in a heartbeat.

I am willing to admit that you make a really good point; Trump would do nothing to boost morale or patriotism, I can't imagine that the majority of my generation would be willing to take up arms for him.

Avatar image for bruceveidt
#14 Edited by BruceVeidt (3570 posts) - - Show Bio

@stalin-is-steel said:

@mrmonster: The WW1 and 2 teams have perfect teamwork through. That means that you basically have the best generals, leaders and some of the biggest armies ever working as one focused force with a common enemy.

The modern US, while being very powerful, lacks this and thus will actually be split here- having to fight their WW2 counterpart, the "Greatest Generation" may actually cause some of them to quit or surrender out of respect- after all, if you had to pick between fighting for Trump or FDR and Churchill, which one would it be?

Oh, FDR/Churchill in a heartbeat.

I am willing to admit that you make a really good point; Trump would do nothing to boost morale or patriotism, I can't imagine that the majority of my generation would be willing to take up arms for him.

That is actually a really good point.

I'd bet my ass they would actually let the armies invade the US.

Avatar image for reaverlation
#15 Posted by reaverlation (25880 posts) - - Show Bio

Modern USA destroy badly

Avatar image for miekskywalker
#16 Posted by miekskywalker (2306 posts) - - Show Bio

In the world wars especially the Somme, some gunners stopped firing because of the massacre.

Most US soldiers will do the same they would literally need to kill 100s of soldiers each.

Avatar image for eeef
#17 Posted by Eeef (2120 posts) - - Show Bio

The US effortlessly destroys.

Avatar image for larcadedragneel
#19 Posted by LarcadeDragneel (1355 posts) - - Show Bio

USA stomps hard. Technology has evolved so much that the USA would be able to push everyone back and than make it to their mainland.

Avatar image for larcadedragneel
#20 Posted by LarcadeDragneel (1355 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrmonster: The WW1 and 2 teams have perfect teamwork through. That means that you basically have the best generals, leaders and some of the biggest armies ever working as one focused force with a common enemy.

The modern US, while being very powerful, lacks this and thus will actually be split here- having to fight their WW2 counterpart, the "Greatest Generation" may actually cause some of them to quit or surrender out of respect- after all, if you had to pick between fighting for Trump or FDR and Churchill, which one would it be?

I doubt this mainly due to the other people apart of the alliance. Even is they would be fighting for FDR most Americans would never fight under Hitler, Stalin, or Hideki Tojo. Especially Hideki Tojo.

Avatar image for stalin-is-steel
#21 Posted by Stalin-Is-Steel (3586 posts) - - Show Bio

@stalin-is-steel said:

@mrmonster: The WW1 and 2 teams have perfect teamwork through. That means that you basically have the best generals, leaders and some of the biggest armies ever working as one focused force with a common enemy.

The modern US, while being very powerful, lacks this and thus will actually be split here- having to fight their WW2 counterpart, the "Greatest Generation" may actually cause some of them to quit or surrender out of respect- after all, if you had to pick between fighting for Trump or FDR and Churchill, which one would it be?

I doubt this mainly due to the other people apart of the alliance. Even is they would be fighting for FDR most Americans would never fight under Hitler, Stalin, or Hideki Tojo. Especially Hideki Tojo.

I doubt that. After all, the main alliance in WW2 were made out from very different countries and ideologies (Capitalist US and USSR "Socialism") so a similar team here wouldn't be so crazy to the other side as you may think. Hell, having people like Hitler and Stalin will still add people on to the other side.

Besides, it's that, or Trump and/or Clinton. Most Americans would jump to FDR pretty fast to be honest, regardless of the other dudes there. With perfect teamwork, everyone will be getting along just fine.

Avatar image for angryhulks
#22 Posted by AngryHulks (3762 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't think even a combined forces of the 2 World Wars superpowers can assemble enough forces and get a solid logistics to successfully invade USA in just 12 hours. Those coastal Harpoon batteries are going to destroy any ships getting near the coast, and unlike late Cold War ships, World Wars navy doesn't have anything to defend their ships against modern anti-ship missiles. Continental USA also has over a thousand Patriot system to shoot down transport planes and bombers a hundred kilometers away and World Wars military doesn't have the countermeasures for it. Modern MBT is also going to laugh off multiple WW2 tank's shells, just look at the discrepancies between MBT's armor thickness and WW2 tank's rounds.

Avatar image for green_skaar
#23 Posted by green_skaar (12403 posts) - - Show Bio

All the armies.

Avatar image for granpkt
#24 Posted by GranPkt (206 posts) - - Show Bio

No weapons from that time is capable of damaging modern MBT, let alone the difference in combat range.

This is like putting 1000 boy scouts with slingshots against 10 navy seals with M249...

Avatar image for shadowwaker
#25 Posted by Shadowwaker (2495 posts) - - Show Bio

2018 USA has advanced alien technology. We win.

Avatar image for thebestofthebest
#26 Posted by ThEBeStOfTheBeST (11849 posts) - - Show Bio

2018 USA has advanced alien technology. We win.

Avatar image for bruceveidt
#27 Posted by BruceVeidt (3570 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't think even a combined forces of the 2 World Wars superpowers can assemble enough forces and get a solid logistics to successfully invade USA in just 12 hours. Those coastal Harpoon batteries are going to destroy any ships getting near the coast, and unlike late Cold War ships, World Wars navy doesn't have anything to defend their ships against modern anti-ship missiles. Continental USA also has over a thousand Patriot system to shoot down transport planes and bombers a hundred kilometers away and World Wars military doesn't have the countermeasures for it. Modern MBT is also going to laugh off multiple WW2 tank's shells, just look at the discrepancies between MBT's armor thickness and WW2 tank's rounds.

The 12 hours prep is for USA, not the armies.

Armies are already assembled and moving.

Avatar image for mrmonster
#28 Posted by mrmonster (15553 posts) - - Show Bio

Now you guys have got me thinking about what how WW2 would have gone down if Trump were president. Here is what I was thinking.

  • First, Trump would speak to Hitler, Hitler would say he didn't invade Poland, and Trump would take his word for it.
  • Next, when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, Trump would blame violence on both sides and insist that there were very fine people on the side of the Japanese.
  • And finally, Trump would admire how when Hitler and Mussolini speak, their people stand up and listen, and would want Americans to do the same.

And this is all assuming Trump doesn't outright side with the axis powers, which honestly, I could see him doing.

Avatar image for noah_ouellette
#29 Posted by noah_ouellette (3719 posts) - - Show Bio

@granpkt said:

"No weapons from that time is capable of damaging modern MBT"

this is wrong. The difference between the times and the tanks isnt actually as drastic as you think. Sure modern day tanks hit a hell of a lot harder. But anti tank guns, mortars and other heavy tanks, will still do the trick.

Avatar image for amonfire1776
#30 Edited by Amonfire1776 (3133 posts) - - Show Bio

So do we also have to fight the US from those eras as well?

Avatar image for stalin-is-steel
#31 Posted by Stalin-Is-Steel (3586 posts) - - Show Bio

So do we also have to fight the US from those eras as well?

Yep. Good luck trying to get people to kill their beloved heroes lol

Avatar image for kirkseven
#32 Posted by Kirkseven (2872 posts) - - Show Bio

US rn, easily.

Avatar image for granpkt
#33 Posted by GranPkt (206 posts) - - Show Bio
@granpkt said:

"No weapons from that time is capable of damaging modern MBT"

this is wrong. The difference between the times and the tanks isnt actually as drastic as you think. Sure modern day tanks hit a hell of a lot harder. But anti tank guns, mortars and other heavy tanks, will still do the trick.

The protection of M1A2 SEP is a frontal turret armor estimate of 940–960 mm vs APFSD, glacis estimate of 560–590 mm vs APFSDS and lower front hull estimate of 580–650 mm vs APFSDS

Take one of the strongest tank destroyer from WWII, the Jagdtiger with 12.8cm Pak 44.

Using the PzGr.43 projectile, the Pak 44 was capable of penetrating 212 mm of 30 degree sloped armour at 0.5 km, 200 mm at 1 km and 178 mm at 2 km.

The effective combat range of M1A2 is around 5 km, with over 90% of accuracy around 3 km.

And I'm not even including the differences of optics, shells, ballistic computer...etc.

Avatar image for kanyecosby
#34 Posted by KanyeCosby (7174 posts) - - Show Bio

US stomps to be honest. It’s military capabilities are just vastly superior to anything other countries had in WW2. Technology has come a long way since then. Just because we can’t use nukes, doesn’t mean we can’t other types of weapons which would quite easily destroy many of these countries.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#35 Edited by HeroUp2112 (18326 posts) - - Show Bio

Modern US would utterly and totally destroy the combined militaries. If you REALLY want to know why, I'll go into all of it, but it's a lot to type.

Also, does air support include helicopters?

As far as the "fighting for Trump" things goes I can tell you with dead certainty that few people in the military are going to give a shit when we have massive armies invading US soil, threatening our lives and homes.

Avatar image for stalin-is-steel
#36 Posted by Stalin-Is-Steel (3586 posts) - - Show Bio

Modern US would utterly and totally destroy the combined militaries. If you REALLY want to know why, I'll go into all of it, but it's a lot to type.

Also, does air support include helicopters?

Ah, but the real question should be- will they actually fight against the WW1/2 army? I mean, on the one side, you got Trump, and the other has FDR, Churchill, Truman.......

How many will actually want to fight for him, exactly?

Avatar image for heroup2112
#37 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18326 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112 said:

Modern US would utterly and totally destroy the combined militaries. If you REALLY want to know why, I'll go into all of it, but it's a lot to type.

Also, does air support include helicopters?

Ah, but the real question should be- will they actually fight against the WW1/2 army? I mean, on the one side, you got Trump, and the other has FDR, Churchill, Truman.......

How many will actually want to fight for him, exactly?

As a former SGT in the US Army I can tell you very few of us really cared about who was President. Many, MAAANNNYYY soldiers hate Clinton and still served with zeal, distinction, bravery, and integrity. A LOT of soldiers also didn't like Bush, at all, and they still went to Iraq and Afghanistan and they fought their asses off. Same with Obama. We fought for the country, not who was in charge.

Except for a small minority who could care to that degree all military personnel are going to see that a HUGE, determined enemy is attacking our homeland, our homes, and our citizens, and our people are going to make them freaking regret it. FDR, Churchill...even Eisenhower would be considered enemies of the US to the vast majority of troops. They certainly would to me. Even those who wouldn't consider them so would be more concerned about the army invading us and do their jobs. That's just how the majority of the people in the military are trained and wired to begin with.

Avatar image for slimmcl
#38 Posted by SLiMmcl (873 posts) - - Show Bio

Modern Day USA would win due to the 300+ million people that could be armed (From people owning the guns or sharing them since its a time of war)

Not to mention since its the USA being invaded that means that people will be alot more pissed off and fight harder and motivated.

Only way we can lose is if we fight USA from the past (Grandfather paradox)

Avatar image for thebeardofzues
#39 Posted by TheBeardOfZues (2801 posts) - - Show Bio

A single Hbomb and they all surrender.

Avatar image for stalin-is-steel
#40 Posted by Stalin-Is-Steel (3586 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for xzone
#41 Posted by xZone (10346 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for xzone
#42 Edited by xZone (10346 posts) - - Show Bio

Gotta say, some of you guys are complete fools when it comes to politics. Trump wouldn't bow or praise these dictators if it came to war. Trump tries to get along with putin, but that doesn't mean he's going light on him. He has been harder on the Russians than Obama was, that's for sure. I didn't see Obama firing missiles in to Syria killing Russian mercenaries. Did you?

Trump also sold weapons to Ukrain. That's not making putin happy. Also, save yourself the trouble and don't bring up NATO. What trump is doing is going to make NATO stronger in the long run, and here's why.

NATO countries are becoming too lax, expecting the USA to just pay for defense. NATO isn't half as strong when not everyone's contributing. Once all nations are contributing the originally agreed to 2 percent NATO will be far, far stronger than previously, and that does not make putin happy.

Avatar image for thebeardofzues
#43 Edited by TheBeardOfZues (2801 posts) - - Show Bio

@stalin-is-steel:

Ok.

Our Navy is still too much for them even without nukes.

Avatar image for nerdchore
#44 Posted by nerdchore (8160 posts) - - Show Bio

Barring politics aside. Usa wins.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#45 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18326 posts) - - Show Bio

@slimmcl said:

Modern Day USA would win due to the 300+ million people that could be armed (From people owning the guns or sharing them since its a time of war)

Not to mention since its the USA being invaded that means that people will be alot more pissed off and fight harder and motivated.

Only way we can lose is if we fight USA from the past (Grandfather paradox)

Okay...to be sure the invaders would have a HARD time pacifying a civilian populace who was well armed with small arms who would soon form into resistance groups, but we're talking about 1.46 BILLION service people who fought in both World Wars 1 and 2 (are we counting EVERYONE who EVER fought in both wars or just the most at the height of the wars) the US military could still do it, one would just be MUCH harder.

Avatar image for rpottage
#46 Posted by rpottage (969 posts) - - Show Bio

WW1 and WW2 Team win.

The numbers advantage is huge, but honestly it really comes down to the airforce. With no air support for the U.S., they're really handcuffed. Modern day national defence isn't based on the army, it's based on the airforce. This is especially true in the U.S. where they have no actual threat of a ground forces attack. With so much land to cover and airspace to defend, the defence model is to use aircraft as they can cover a large area quickly.

In addition missiles are considered air support (even if they're launched from the ground or ships, a missile strike is still considered an aerial attack); which means they can't be use in this. Even if we assume this doesn't include Anti-Aircraft weaponry, the U.S. only has such weapons in specific places; and has no idea where the attacks are coming from.

Thus, despite the large technological disparity; the mass of WW2 Bomber Aircraft would lay havoc to the nation. America alone produced just under 100 000 bomber aircraft during WW2, so when you add in the other nations you're easily looking at hundreds of thousands of bombers; and you've taken away the U.S.' primary air defence and nuclear deterrent. The U.S. would be able to see the bombers coming, but would have no way to stop them.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#47 Edited by HeroUp2112 (18326 posts) - - Show Bio

@rpottage said:

WW1 and WW2 Team win.

The numbers advantage is huge, but honestly it really comes down to the airforce. With no air support for the U.S., they're really handcuffed. Modern day national defence isn't based on the army, it's based on the airforce. This is especially true in the U.S. where they have no actual threat of a ground forces attack. With so much land to cover and airspace to defend, the defence model is to use aircraft as they can cover a large area quickly.

In addition missiles are considered air support (even if they're launched from the ground or ships, a missile strike is still considered an aerial attack); which means they can't be use in this. Even if we assume this doesn't include Anti-Aircraft weaponry, the U.S. only has such weapons in specific places; and has no idea where the attacks are coming from.

Thus, despite the large technological disparity; the mass of WW2 Bomber Aircraft would lay havoc to the nation. America alone produced just under 100 000 bomber aircraft during WW2, so when you add in the other nations you're easily looking at hundreds of thousands of bombers; and you've taken away the U.S.' primary air defence and nuclear deterrent. The U.S. would be able to see the bombers coming, but would have no way to stop them.

Okay, if missiles are considered air support we're pretty well screwed. Heck TOW, Javelin, AT4, Dragon...all the surface to surface anti-armor missiles. That's not even counting the surface to surface anti ship missiles, and surface to air (which are a big deal here). Yep, we'd be dinked.

Avatar image for death4bunnies
#48 Posted by death4bunnies (1490 posts) - - Show Bio

Our current armored vehicles make this a hard stomp for 2018 USA

Avatar image for slimmcl
#49 Posted by SLiMmcl (873 posts) - - Show Bio

@slimmcl said:

Modern Day USA would win due to the 300+ million people that could be armed (From people owning the guns or sharing them since its a time of war)

Not to mention since its the USA being invaded that means that people will be alot more pissed off and fight harder and motivated.

Only way we can lose is if we fight USA from the past (Grandfather paradox)

Okay...to be sure the invaders would have a HARD time pacifying a civilian populace who was well armed with small arms who would soon form into resistance groups, but we're talking about 1.46 BILLION service people who fought in both World Wars 1 and 2 (are we counting EVERYONE who EVER fought in both wars or just the most at the height of the wars) the US military could still do it, one would just be MUCH harder.

But the thing is since it is modern USA we have so many advantages due to being a future counterpart. Say for example Civilians something as small as filming people initially coming across the border and put it on youtube, or the news, social media, websites, ETC. People can communicate faster. And since The people that are being fought are people from the past we will all know of their tactics, what type of weapons are preferred from the enemy and counters for them. and it doesn't really matter how many they have because they will still have to be funneled in some way (Do to natural land forms or man made structures)

Avatar image for heroup2112
#50 Edited by HeroUp2112 (18326 posts) - - Show Bio

@slimmcl said:
@heroup2112 said:
@slimmcl said:

Modern Day USA would win due to the 300+ million people that could be armed (From people owning the guns or sharing them since its a time of war)

Not to mention since its the USA being invaded that means that people will be alot more pissed off and fight harder and motivated.

Only way we can lose is if we fight USA from the past (Grandfather paradox)

Okay...to be sure the invaders would have a HARD time pacifying a civilian populace who was well armed with small arms who would soon form into resistance groups, but we're talking about 1.46 BILLION service people who fought in both World Wars 1 and 2 (are we counting EVERYONE who EVER fought in both wars or just the most at the height of the wars) the US military could still do it, one would just be MUCH harder.

But the thing is since it is modern USA we have so many advantages due to being a future counterpart. Say for example Civilians something as small as filming people initially coming across the border and put it on youtube, or the news, social media, websites, ETC. People can communicate faster. And since The people that are being fought are people from the past we will all know of their tactics, what type of weapons are preferred from the enemy and counters for them. and it doesn't really matter how many they have because they will still have to be funneled in some way (Do to natural land forms or man made structures)

Oh this will all certainly work in our favor. The technologies (especially communications, electronic warfare, ordnance, armor, targeting, information technologies, missiles (if we're allowed to use it), transportation, and engineering, tactics, and strategies will be enough to defeat the almost defeat the 200 to 1 odds pretty comfortably (this figure represent the roughly 1 million active and reserve military personnel in the continental United States vs the almost 2 billion of the combined forces of WW 1 and 2.