Todays Technology

RustySpoon

What technology in use today would have had the most impact on the second world war?
Was thinking along the lines of everyday use by soldiers in the field rather than Jets, precsion bombing etc.

Wireless communications?
Night Vision?
Better medical supplies?

Morlar

RustySpoon wrote: »

What technology in use today would have had the most impact on the second world war?
Was thinking along the lines of everyday use by soldiers in the field rather than Jets, precsion bombing etc.

Wireless communications?
Night Vision?
Better medical supplies?

Ah - I mis read that bit about 'everyday use by soldiers in the field''

I'd say night vision, satellite communications / GPS, body armour.

TerrorFirmer

Body armor and personal firepower (fully automatic, anti-armor capability, etc) would probably be the two most immediate ones on an individual rather then overall basis....though it'd be things like advancements in armor, logistics and communication, aircraft and ordnance as an overall army structure that would really matter - on a soldier to soldier level, 10 1944 German soldiers versus 10 2008 American soldiers with only standard issue arms and gear isn't remotely as large a gap as, say, 10 soldiers from 1870 versus 10 from 1940. Equally, compare 10 aircraft from 1944 to 10 from 2008 and the difference is far more phenomenal.

Anyone seen the movie Soldiers of Heaven? Korean soldiers with ak74's, sniper rifles, claymores, grenades etc mowing down this huge army of medieval warriors.....spine tinglingly good.

ojewriej

I think modern personal anti-armour weapons would have made a huge difference, particularly in the early stages of the war.

Apart from that - body armour, particularly in the urban combat stages where more 9 mm ammunitions was used, and today's communication systems.

Mahatma coat

communications, and the ability to accuratley direct Air support would give the modern soldier the edge, one on one tho it would depend on which theatre of operation you were takin the soldiers from,

Say a member of the BEF taken from Dunkirk would be a rather different prospect to a member of the Wehrmacht taken from the early days of Stalingrad.

Fratton Fred

Decent anti tank weapons and anti aircraft weapons would have made ahuge difference. A Blitzkreig attack relied on momentum, if that momentum could be stopped by taking out a few front line tanks it would have made a huge difference.

Add to that "Smart" weapons accurately bombing the enemy and it would have been a different story.

Mahatma coat

I

nterestiin question, ish, will edit later to correct details, but just chuckin it out on the fly,

Cost ratios,

towards the end of the war the Germans could knock out single shot rocket launchers made a cardboard for very little cash in large volumes,

'smart bombs' costs shedloads each and take a while to make,

so over a heavy and protracted war of atrition who would break first?

n then theres scales of destruction,

comparisons of

say

Dresden

and the first fews days of OI(L)F

bugger, I had more but System crash