Modern US Army invades Nazi Germany

Marbledsteak

In 1940-41, what would be the minimum sized army the current US army could send in to defeat Germany assuming that the rest of the allies stayed out of the war and nuclear weapons are not an option?

So assume Russia are only interested in defending their territory.

Jawgap

Marbledsteak wrote: »

In 1940-41, what would be the minimum sized army the current US army could send in to defeat Germany assuming that the rest of the allies stayed out of the war and nuclear weapons are not an option?

So assume Russia are only interested in defending their territory.

Quite simply - they couldn't.

You could look at what they had lined up for the later proposed ROUNDUP, BOLERO and SLEDGEHAMMER operations which was no more than about 12 inexperienced divisions. They'd have been slaughtered.

Plus without the Brits, launching a trans-oceanic amphibious landing was way beyond what the US Army could have sustained.

helimachoptor

I think he means current US army, presumably one person controlling drones, tomahawks would do the job

CINCLANTFLT

One brigade... make sure they have M1A2 tanks, AH64D choppers and MLRS with the anti personnel fragmentation warhead...

PirateShampoo

So 21st century technology vs early 20th?

If that's the case they would never have to send a single man on to German soil.

Germany would be crippled within a few days.

CINCLANTFLT

Here is an interesting one... 2012 Ireland transported back 100 years... Irish Naval Service 2012 vs. Royal Navy coal powered destroyer from 1912 etc... great read!!!
http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php/timelines/2012_republic_of_ireland_isoted_to_1912

CINCLANTFLT

CINCLANTFLT wrote: »

Here is an interesting one... 2012 Ireland transported back 100 years... Irish Naval Service 2012 vs. Royal Navy coal powered destroyer from 1912 etc... great read!!!
http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php/timelines/2012_republic_of_ireland_isoted_to_1912

Irish Sea40 miles East of Dublin.Captain O Neill and his officers had debated their course of action since arriving on station that morning. One of the biggest challenges they had faced was actually accepting the possibility that they might have to fight and even kill someone. The most the Irish Navy had ever done was seize boats illegally fishing and intercepting drug boats. One of the main points of contention was how much leeway would they give the Royal Navy. After swift communications with Dublin, Eithne was firmly ordered not to fire first, but to suppress the enemy as quickly as possible if there was a battle. The longer any battle took the more chance the heavier gunned enemy would hit Eithne. They decided on a fire plan, to target the weapon systems and hope this would be enough. It was also decided to try and keep 10 of the ready rounds back from the engagement, in case they had to re-engage either of the targets.Lieutenant Commander Reynolds, after viewing the Irish vessel was confident his gun crews could far exceed the rebels. Especially as the turret was so small that the gun crew must be far too few to achieve any respectable rate of fire.Neither side were prepared for the results. Each Destroyer fired a three round salvo, Eithne’s gun opened fire with two 10 round bursts, one burst for each Destroyer. The effects were devastating. The forward deck of the Ness was turned into a charnel house. All of the forward guns were knocked out with most of their crews dead, or wounded. The bridge itself was little better with half the watch dead including the XO. Reynolds wounded by shrapnel could only stare in horror at the fate of his sister ship Nith. Her entire bow was just gone! The hull was peeled back all the way aft of the bridge. Her engines, still racing at full ahead drove the ship under the waves in seconds.On Eithne the crew were utterly stunned by the carnage they had unleashed. The naval exercises had never been truly real to them until now. The 6 rounds fired by the British all landed around the ship, the closest only 50 yards away. The sight of the propellers of the sinking destroyer snapped O Neill out of his shock.“Away all ribs! Stand by to accept casualties.”The crew snapped back to reality and carried out the Captain’s orders but O Neill knew that there would be damn few saved from the water. What the hell had happened on that ship, he wondered. There was simply no way a 57mm round could do that much damage.“Have the Rangers prepare to board the survivor.”“Comms, get me the Dublin. Have them launch rescue helicopters and prepare for heavy casualties. I’m afraid they’re not going to be happy!”

http://counter-factual.net/upload/showthread.php?t=19621

Custardpi

Yeah 21st century technology vs mid 20th century technology would make it a pretty easy victory for the scenario in the OP. This has got me thinking however. There's currently 21 US army bases in Germany. If (obviously would never actually happen) they were ordered to take on the current German army who would win? Assuming no troop replacements from back home but access to info from spy satellites, probably superior cyber warfare techniques etc it could be an interesting one or would they be wiped out pretty early given force of numbers?

CINCLANTFLT

Custardpi wrote: »

Yeah 21st century technology vs mid 20th century technology would make it a pretty easy victory for the scenario in the OP. This has got me thinking however. There's currently 21 US army bases in Germany. If (obviously would never actually happen) they were ordered to take on the current German army who would win? Assuming no troop replacements from back home but access to info from spy satellites, probably superior cyber warfare techniques etc it could be an interesting one or would they be wiped out pretty early given force of numbers?

Current US Army in Germany vs. Current German Army? Very quick victory to Germany... same question in 1988? Now that would be interesting...

Custardpi

CINCLANTFLT wrote: »

Current US Army in Germany vs. Current German Army? Very quick victory to Germany... same question in 1988? Now that would be interesting...

Yes, assuming no reinforcements from the Soviets they'd probably have been a bit more evenly matched at that stage.

Manach

I'd think the 20th Century types would put up more of a fight.
First - technology is friable. There is a Scifi story set in WWI, "Hawk Among the Sparrows" where a modern jet had to content against WWI era craft. It put into context the technological framework that needs to be in place for modern weapons to function - GPS etc.
Second - Industry/Nationalist. That modern troops did not thankfully suffer the same casualty rates as their WWII breathern (eg the Millions on the Eastern front).
Thus the Nazis(assuming height of their power with the manpower of a continent to draw on) could swamp the US forces.

Jawgap

late 20th C US technology versus mid 20th C Japanese technology.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=min2ohR8j3U

realweirdo

What the US have faced in recent conflicts have been mostly armies and fighters with 20th century weaponry - Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

In Afghanistan, they have struggled against guys with no more than mortars, AK-47s and heavy machine guns. IEDs and mines are also mid 20th century technology if not earlier.

I don't really think modern western armies are cut out for asymetrical warfare. They are designed to destroy tanks and fixed implacements from the air, or opposing ships or fighter planes. Not really designed to fight against guerrila forces that emerge from and slip back into the shadows at will.

Jawgap

realweirdo wrote: »

What the US have faced in recent conflicts have been mostly armies and fighters with 20th century weaponry - Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

In Afghanistan, they have struggled against guys with no more than mortars, AK-47s and heavy machine guns.

I don't really think modern western armies are cut out for asymetrical warfare. They are designed to destroy tanks and fixed implacements from the air, or opposing ships or fighter planes. Not really designed to fight against guerrila forces that emerge from and slip back into the shadows at will.

They can fight and win those engagements successfully, the problem is 'winning' such a war is a lot more than about prevailing in the military dimension.

As one US colonel said to an NVA colonel during the Paris Peace Talks......."you know, you never defeated us on the battlefield."

The NVA colonel thought for a moment and replied "That is true, but it is also irrelevant."

Capt'n Midnight

Let's do WWII first

90% of Germans troops killed and wounded were on the Eastern Front.

so that's 10% between Africa, Italy and North West Europe. And that's vs. the US, UK, Canada, ANZAC, Free French , Poles and loads of others.

*puts on generals hat*
*gets into armchair*

Today,
Look at the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Large nos of vehicles destroyed, (how many Tanks are waiting stateside to be repaired ?) having to buy bullets from the Israelis because stocks are low.

While the UK would be easy to get onside, you can't risk upsetting France or Russia.

Perhaps the French agree to sit on the sidelines provided that the US doesn't use UK airbases or ports, otherwise they might as send peacekeepers into the Rhur.

Yes you have B2's but you only have 20 of them and there's enough Turks in Germany to lean on the Turkish government.

Logistics would be a huge problem , even if you ignore Nato and EU ties to Germany, you can't really drive through Belgium or the Netherlands.

Which means you are in the North Sea and have to rely on carriers for air support, so you can't guarantee air superiority and you can't upset the neighbours. you can't have subs because it's shallow. So having a Navy bigger than the next 17 combined isn't such a huge advantage, especially when you have to remember that the the Russians or Chinese might decide to take advantage.

So missiles and sea skimming Tornados with missiles and maybe a few very quiet subs.

So you can't just waltz in

AbusesToilets

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Let's do WWII first

90% of Germans troops killed and wounded were on the Eastern Front.

so that's 10% between Africa, Italy and North West Europe. And that's vs. the US, UK, Canada, ANZAC, Free French , Poles and loads of others.

*puts on generals hat*
*gets into armchair*

Today,
Look at the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Large nos of vehicles destroyed, (how many Tanks are waiting stateside to be repaired ?) having to buy bullets from the Israelis because stocks are low.

While the UK would be easy to get onside, you can't risk upsetting France or Russia.

Perhaps the French agree to sit on the sidelines provided that the US doesn't use UK airbases or ports, otherwise they might as send peacekeepers into the Rhur.

Yes you have B2's but you only have 20 of them and there's enough Turks in Germany to lean on the Turkish government.

Logistics would be a huge problem , even if you ignore Nato and EU ties to Germany, you can't really drive through Belgium or the Netherlands.

Which means you are in the North Sea and have to rely on carriers for air support, so you can't guarantee air superiority and you can't upset the neighbours. you can't have subs because it's shallow. So having a Navy bigger than the next 17 combined isn't such a huge advantage, especially when you have to remember that the the Russians or Chinese might decide to take advantage.

So missiles and sea skimming Tornados with missiles and maybe a few very quiet subs.

So you can't just waltz in

I think you're underestimating the US's ability to project air power over extended distances In air refueling and the likely hood of absolute dominance in the air would mean all those millions of men and vehicles would be extremely vulnerable. Combine that with surprise airfield seizure by airborne troops with following transports would give the US the ability to gain footholds to push on into German territories.

Jawgap

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Let's do WWII first

90% of Germans troops killed and wounded were on the Eastern Front.

so that's 10% between Africa, Italy and North West Europe. And that's vs. the US, UK, Canada, ANZAC, Free French , Poles and loads of others.

*puts on generals hat*
*gets into armchair*

Today,
Look at the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Large nos of vehicles destroyed, (how many Tanks are waiting stateside to be repaired ?) having to buy bullets from the Israelis because stocks are low.

While the UK would be easy to get onside, you can't risk upsetting France or Russia.

Perhaps the French agree to sit on the sidelines provided that the US doesn't use UK airbases or ports, otherwise they might as send peacekeepers into the Rhur.

Yes you have B2's but you only have 20 of them and there's enough Turks in Germany to lean on the Turkish government.

Logistics would be a huge problem , even if you ignore Nato and EU ties to Germany, you can't really drive through Belgium or the Netherlands.

Which means you are in the North Sea and have to rely on carriers for air support, so you can't guarantee air superiority and you can't upset the neighbours. you can't have subs because it's shallow. So having a Navy bigger than the next 17 combined isn't such a huge advantage, especially when you have to remember that the the Russians or Chinese might decide to take advantage.

So missiles and sea skimming Tornados with missiles and maybe a few very quiet subs.

So you can't just waltz in

In that case, "Send in the Marines" - a Marine Air Ground Taskforce (3 fighting Battalions, plus associated combat support, including an air wing) in the German Bight - they're well used to working in the littoral and getting ashore on contested coasts.

Capt'n Midnight

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I think you're underestimating the US's ability to project air power over extended distances In air refueling and the likely hood of absolute dominance in the air would mean all those millions of men and vehicles would be extremely vulnerable. Combine that with surprise airfield seizure by airborne troops with following transports would give the US the ability to gain footholds to push on into German territories.

Of course it would be a lot easier if the rest of NATO allowed the US to use their resources, but then it's not US vs. Germany anymore is it ?

So I've ruled out airbases in UK / Turkey and passing through / over other EU countries.

Please explain your refilling strategy

Capt'n Midnight

Jawgap wrote: »

In that case, "Send in the Marines" - a Marine Air Ground Taskforce (3 fighting Battalions, plus associated combat support, including an air wing) in the German Bight - they're well used to working in the littoral and getting ashore on contested coasts.

When was the last time the marines landed on a genuinely contested beach ?

3 battalions , what's that 6,000 or less ?
against an army 10 times that size ?
in a country where up to half the male population were conscripted in the recent past ?
that spent most of the last 50 years planning for an invasion by an enemy with massive numerical superiority in ground and air forces ?

Probably the nearest recent comparison would be the Falklands.
649 Argentine military personnel, 255 British military personnel and 3 Falkland Islanders died during the hostilities. Excluding the 323 of the Belgrano you get 326 vs. 255, wounded were more like 2:1
It wasn't one sided, and you could never have imagined it happening if the Falklands weren't so far offshore.

Jawgap

But if the (surreal) scenario is 1940s Wehrmacht -vs- 21st Century US Marines, 6000 jarheads (with special forces) with modern fire support, helicopters, intelligence, etc could beat a substantially larger force.

How would a hellfire fare against a Tiger I?

This thread is ridiculous...........fun, but ridiculous

Capt'n Midnight

Jawgap wrote: »

But if the (surreal) scenario is 1940s Wehrmacht -vs- 21st Century US Marines, 6000 jarheads (with special forces) with modern fire support, helicopters, intelligence, etc could beat a substantially larger force.

How would a hellfire fare against a Tiger I?

This thread is ridiculous...........fun, but ridiculous

So a US amphibious landing facing the Kriegsmarine as was ?

Do they have anything that would even scratch the paintwork of the likes of the Bismark ?

A CIWS won't stop a 28cm armour piercing shell

Scharnhorst hit the carrier HMS Glorious from 24Km away , caught up and sank her.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kriegsmarine_ships

Not to mention lots of fast attack boats and submarines

Jawgap

A Mk48 torpedo should do the job - maybe 2 just to be sure

Capt'n Midnight

Jawgap wrote: »

A Mk48 torpedo should do the job - maybe 2 just to be sure

LOL

the Bismark was hit by a lot of torpedos before it was scuttled.


ships
https://i.imgur.com/kujXrSr.gif

Manach

Would the US Army be able to find Germany?
Well, assuming the time shift that has brought the moderately sized army unimpaired into the 1940/41 period - without any GPS satellites to tell the weapon's systems in which direction to go, then would significantly degrade their effectiveness. Hence re-establishing the old mapping reading skills would level the playing field.

AbusesToilets

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Of course it would be a lot easier if the rest of NATO allowed the US to use their resources, but then it's not US vs. Germany anymore is it ?

So I've ruled out airbases in UK / Turkey and passing through / over other EU countries.

Please explain your refilling strategy

They would be able to conduct aerial refueling in much the same way as they can now. If it became an issue of real estate, they could probably coerce one of the European countries into letting them use facilities.

AbusesToilets

Manach wrote: »

Would the US Army be able to find Germany?
Well, assuming the time shift that has brought the moderately sized army unimpaired into the 1940/41 period - without any GPS satellites to tell the weapon's systems in which direction to go, then would significantly degrade their effectiveness. Hence re-establishing the old mapping reading skills would level the playing field.

They are able to utilize munitions that don't really on GPS guidance. They also have significant anti armor air assets that would make a mess of the German forces. Can you imagine unleashing A-10s and AH-64s against massed land formations, especially at night? It would be a massacre.

Jawgap

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL

the Bismark was hit by a lot of torpedos before it was scuttled.


ships
https://i.imgur.com/kujXrSr.gif

True, but the Mk48 is designed to detonate under a ship and break its back rather than strike the ship and blow a hole in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beU3sExN1BA

Manach

AbusesToilets wrote: »

They are able to utilize munitions that don't really on GPS guidance. They also have significant anti armor air assets that would make a mess of the German forces. Can you imagine unleashing A-10s and AH-64s against massed land formations, especially at night? It would be a massacre.

The Warthog was always a fine craft, but leaving aside that AFAIK it is being retired, once their effectiveness against German tank korps was demonstrated, the German's would break up their units into more smaller units. As Normandy showed, having air superiority will eventually be key in winning, the Germans could still operate somewhat effectively and move the armoured assets into hiding whilst the American's assets are run down trying to find them. If the Yugoslavian army in the 90s could still hide assets from aerial surveillance, so could the 1940s Wehrmacht.

AbusesToilets

It would be interesting alright. If the US was able to leverage the full spectrum of ISR and information processing capabilities available to it nowadays i don't think the Germans would have much luck. The US would probably be able to listen in and decipher any broadcasted signals and the ability to operate unheeded at night would give them a huge advantage.

Capt'n Midnight

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It would be interesting alright. If the US was able to leverage the full spectrum of ISR and information processing capabilities available to it nowadays i don't think the Germans would have much luck. The US would probably be able to listen in and decipher any broadcasted signals and the ability to operate unheeded at night would give them a huge advantage.

Oddly enough the opposite is true

In the 1940's most countries used phones within their borders so no radio intercepts until they went beyond their own phone network.

Also the Germans would ditch Enigma once the realised the US processing abilities. They never though it was totally secure, just that it was too much work to break.

The German forces had lots of junior officers able to take the initiative so reduced comms wouldn't be the show stopper it would have been with other countries.

Yes the US has lots of jamming equipment , but Germans would be using Valves, which are very resilient to EMP.


Thing is , at the end of the day you need infantry on the ground to hold territory. A couple of thousand marines vs. personnel in the Wehrmacht on 1, September 1943

Field Army including Luftwaffe Field Divisions:...4,647,000
Luftwaffe in field army area:..............................990,000
Kriegsmarine in field army area:.........................170,000
Field Army in General-Govt, Ostland, Ukraine:......526,000
Luftwaffe in above areas:...................................393,000
Kriegsmarine administered areas:.......................617,000
Waffen-SS in the field army areas:......................280,000
Replacement Army:........................................1,767 ,000
Luftwaffe replacement units:...............................363,000
Waffen-SS replacement units:...............................70,000

Total Wehrmacht:........................................ ..9,823,000

Yes the Marines have body armour, but the Germans aren't using Nato rounds , and they have rather a lot of land mines

Yes the US have nukes, but the Germans had 250,000 tonnes of chemical weapons (70,000 250Kg bombs filled with tabun can put a dampner on your day)

Air combat would be interesting since most of the US fixed wing aircraft would be too fast to interact with prop drive aircraft which would still be faster than helicopters


Yes the US could bomb cities into rubble, but look at the example of Monte Cassino, you now have an even more defensible position.


As Stalin said, "Quantity has a quality of it's own"

AbusesToilets

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Oddly enough the opposite is true

In the 1940's most countries used phones within their borders so no radio intercepts until they went beyond their own phone network.

Also the Germans would ditch Enigma once the realised the US processing abilities. They never though it was totally secure, just that it was too much work to break.

The German forces had lots of junior officers able to take the initiative so reduced comms wouldn't be the show stopper it would have been with other countries.

Yes the US has lots of jamming equipment , but Germans would be using Valves, which are very resilient to EMP.


Thing is , at the end of the day you need infantry on the ground to hold territory. A couple of thousand marines vs. personnel in the Wehrmacht on 1, September 1943
Yes the Marines have body armour, but the Germans aren't using Nato rounds , and they have rather a lot of land mines

Yes the US have nukes, but the Germans had 250,000 tonnes of chemical weapons (70,000 250Kg bombs filled with tabun can put a dampner on your day)

Air combat would be interesting since most of the US fixed wing aircraft would be too fast to interact with prop drive aircraft which would still be faster than helicopters


Yes the US could bomb cities into rubble, but look at the example of Monte Cassino, you now have an even more defensible position.


As Stalin said, "Quantity has a quality of it's own"

I am put in mind of the events of the 1st Gulf War when the US went up against the relatively modern Iraqis (in terms of hardware). The force multiplying effects of the superior tech that the US employed was devastating in material and psychological terms. The ability to fight accurately at night is a huge advantage, which would favor the US significantly.

While the Germans would have a huge advantage in sheer numbers, an army that size demands incredible support and resources. All of which would be hugely vulnerable to disruption by the US, in ways that weren't possible in WW2

Capt'n Midnight

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I am put in mind of the events of the 1st Gulf War when the US went up against the relatively modern Iraqis (in terms of hardware).

Iraqi conscripts vs. Combat hardened Germans ?

The force multiplying effects of the superior tech that the US employed was devastating in material and psychological terms. The ability to fight accurately at night is a huge advantage, which would favor the US significantly.

You have to remember that superior Germany tech was defeated by numbers in WWII , OK it's not as simple as that but there is truth in it.

While the Germans would have a huge advantage in sheer numbers, an army that size demands incredible support and resources. All of which would be hugely vulnerable to disruption by the US, in ways that weren't possible in WW2

And the US would have to invade by sea which means much longer supply lines.

During WWII there were "thousand bomber" raids. There were targeted raids on infrastructure too. In the end it was lack of raw materials that limited production most.

Look at the Korean war, the Allies had a ridiculous amount of war surplus bombers and after the initial campaigns the effect wasn't that great as the factories were moved underground.

Yes precision munitions are a multiplier. But even in Iraq and Afghanistan it was B52's dropping dumb bombs.

Could an Me163 intercept a B52 ?
Yes I know that they have very short range and are easily avoided and be a much easier target for heat seeking missiles than propellered planed but on paper they'd have the speed and altitude.

and a B52 is a rather large target, and 1940's Germany produced 20,000 88's

Jawgap

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

?....
Could an Me163 intercept a B52 ?
Yes I know that they have very short range and are easily avoided and be a much easier target for heat seeking missiles than propellered planed but on paper they'd have the speed and altitude.

and a B52 is a rather large target, and 1940's Germany produced 20,000 88's

No, the first time the GCI radars came on, they'd be eating AGM-88Es.

Likewise any aircraft coming up to meet them probably would even see the the fighters that shoot them down from distance using AMRAAMs.

I reckon the only chance would be in urban fighting, which equalise out the technological advantages the US would have.

AbusesToilets

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Iraqi conscripts vs. Combat hardened Germans ?



You have to remember that superior Germany tech was defeated by numbers in WWII , OK it's not as simple as that but there is truth in it.


And the US would have to invade by sea which means much longer supply lines.

During WWII there were "thousand bomber" raids. There were targeted raids on infrastructure too. In the end it was lack of raw materials that limited production most.

Look at the Korean war, the Allies had a ridiculous amount of war surplus bombers and after the initial campaigns the effect wasn't that great as the factories were moved underground.

Yes precision munitions are a multiplier. But even in Iraq and Afghanistan it was B52's dropping dumb bombs.

Could an Me163 intercept a B52 ?
Yes I know that they have very short range and are easily avoided and be a much easier target for heat seeking missiles than propellered planed but on paper they'd have the speed and altitude.

and a B52 is a rather large target, and 1940's Germany produced 20,000 88's

The difference in tech between the various countries in WW2 would be nowhere near that which would exist between a modern army and one from then.

The reasons the Allies needed to have such massive bombing raids was because they were so inaccurate. They couldn't generate the effects they needed with night time bombing so they switched to day time bombing and needed huge numbers to compensate for the horrible losses they suffered accordingly. I think the US would do serious damage to the German airforce on the ground with surprise night time raids any would annihilate and birds that launched.

Jawgap

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The difference in tech between the various countries in WW2 would be nowhere near that which would exist between a modern army and one from then.

The reasons the Allies needed to have such massive bombing raids was because they were so inaccurate. They couldn't generate the effects they needed with night time bombing so they switched to day time bombing and needed huge numbers to compensate for the horrible losses they suffered accordingly. I think the US would do serious damage to the German airforce on the ground with surprise night time raids and would annihilate and birds that launched.

They didn't "switch" - USAAF bombed by day, RAF bombed by night because they were following different strategies and philosophies.

Capt'n Midnight

The key technological gap is radar.

At the Battle of Leyte Gulf radar it showed up twice.

The Battle of Surigao Strait
The Japanese lost battleships Yamashiro and Fusō (largest ship lost with no survivors) and three destroyers. Mostly because US radar could detect the Japanese at longer range for torpedo attacks and shelling.


The Battle off Samar
On paper this was a walkover.

Kurita's powerful "Center Force" consisted of five battleships (Yamato, Musashi, Nagato, Kongō, and Haruna), ten heavy cruisers (Atago, Maya, Takao, Chōkai, Myōkō, Haguro, Kumano, Suzuya, Tone and Chikuma), two light cruisers (Noshiro and Yahagi) and 15 destroyers.


Rear Admiral Clifton Sprague's Task Unit 77.4.3 ("Taffy 3") consisted of Carrier Division 25 Fanshaw Bay, St. Lo, White Plains, Kalinin Bay, and Rear Admiral Ralph A. Ofstie's COMCARDIV 26 Kitkun Bay and Gambier Bay. Screening for Taffy 3 were the destroyers Hoel, Heermann and Johnston, and destroyer escorts Dennis, John C. Butler, Raymond, and Samuel B. Roberts. - none of these ships carried anything bigger than a 5" gun

One of the carriers was 10,00 tons the other's were 7,800 tons , the destroyers 2050 tons and the destroyer escorts were 1,350 tons so total weight about 60,550 tons.

Yamato and Musashi weighed over 70,000 tons each
18" guns with with a range over 2.5 times that of the Americans. They also had a 8 Knot speed advantage over the carriers, which weren't fleet carriers and weren't geared up for fending off warships.


The Japanese used optical systems for gun aiming, each battleship had a separate colour dye in it's shells.

Some of the American ships used radar fire control.

There were lots of factors , such as air attacks and submarines that whittled down the Japanese fleet, and lucky weather and poor decisions by Kurita, fever, lack of sleep and being torpedoed didn't help. Musashi was sunk by air attack en route, Yamato had to run from some torpedoes.

The Japanese weren't able to direct fire on the the US ships until they got so close that they took damage from the 5" guns.

Sand

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Iraqi conscripts vs. Combat hardened Germans ?

German conscripts actually. German conscripts trained in an armed force that grew from about 115,000 on very long term contracts in 1935 (designed to prevent building up a reserve of trained military) to a size of 4.7 million in 1939. Over 5% of the German population, counting women and children. That basically means the German military growing 41 times bigger in just over 4 years, having had little or no comparable training "experience" since the end of WWI 17 years or more before.

You cant tell me corners were not cut in terms of training and equipment quality to achieve such rapid growth. Goering himself noted that Hitler would not ask him about the quality of the bombers of the Luftwaffe, only how many bombers they had. The myth of the "combat hardened Germans" is just that, a myth. By the time the Germans had the opportunity to build up combat experience, they were scraping the barrel for manpower - enlisting children and foreign fighters to try and keep the numbers up. A large number of the "German" troops facing the Allies on D-Day were actually Ukrainians, whose combat ability and commitment were questionable at best.

What defined German success in the early period of the war was a mixture of (varying) surprise and excellent operational (if not strategic) leadership. Germany had a series of frankly fantastic generals. The problem with the theoretical exercise is that any "modern US army" force will have better equipment, better trained troops, better reconnaissance and will have leadership that will have probably studied and learned from the German generalship of WW2. So long as the modern force is large enough to be able to offer a coherent, sustainable combined arms opposition it will quite simply melt any mid 20th century opposition. The Germans went to war with the Pz I and II for example - they were parade tanks even by the standards of the time, let alone what an M1 would make of them.