Would the SnowFlake Generation have been able to win WW2

Your being absurd now...they never claimed such a thing, what contrarian tripe you are peddling. Also stop padding yourself on the back, yeah great job you pushed papers around for 10 years your a regular Leonidas.

 

Why invade? Japan was being starved into non-existence. They would not have survived the winter.

 

Easy snowflake....don't get too worked up...LOL

 

You do not know the Japanese very well, and your assessment is childish... this wasn't some castle under siege, it is a very large land mass that could have supported itself very well for years forcing the US to either invade or make armistices without total surrender of the Japanese.

- - - Updated - - -

Worked up by the likes of you, you wish toy soldier.

 

Not according to the Chiefs of Staff. LOL

 

It was a large landmass with a highly urbanized population and a transportation network to its food growing regions that was being systematically dismantled by strafing and bombing. Plus, Japan has always dependent on fishing for food and the blockade put the Japanese fishing fleet fathoms below their effective fishing depth.

 

Which would have lived of rice and water for foreseeable future without ever surrendering.

 

Not if they couldn't get their rice to their people, and with every truck or train getting strafed or bombed, they wouldn't be doing.

 

Our kids are plenty capable of winning any war against any enemy.

Our political leaders, not so much.

 

What if the target is an area target ?

200 enemy troops in trenches and bunkers 600 yards long 250 yards deep.

Or more likely 600 enemy troops in the open coming your way, 1/2 mile front 200 yards deep. Napalm is no longer politically correct.

The call for fire would be "Time On Target" (TOT) either ground artillery or naval gunfire.

It's a surprise tactic where the enemy can't respond by taking cover. one, two, three or four six tube batteries.

TOT missions involved timing the firing of multiple batteries so that all fire on the same location, with the firing times adjusted to cause the rounds to all impact at the same time. A typical TOT might involve 4 batteries (24 guns), of different calibers; some firing rounds fused for ground burst, some for airburst. The effect is that a particular jungle clearing might be quiet and peaceful one second and in the next second be totally enveloped and saturated with explosions in the air and on the ground. Bombardment may cease after the initial volley or be maintained in Fire For Effect mode, creating a sustained saturation of the area with detonations.


What if todays military had to refight the battle of Iwo Jima ?

Bombs from the air don't have the kinetic energy to take out reinforced concrete bunkers. Todays Navy largest gun is the 5"/54 popgun.


IWO JIMA NAVAL GUNFIRE SUPPORT -> http://www.allworldwars.com/Iwo-Jima-Naval-Gunfire-Support.html

 

You understand the air force has bunker busting bombs that are superior at armor penetration than 16" shells yes? You really think Iwo Jima bunkers would stand up to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator

And why won't you give a straight simple answer? Why didn't the guys in WW2 use smart bombs instead of carpet bombing? There is a simple answer, but you won't give it.

BTW, guidance packages exist for both artillery and cluster bombs today. Your 600 enemy troops in the open has an answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon

Also "in the open" would imply no possibility of collateral damage to civilians wouldn't it?

 

Not according to the Chiefs of Staff

 

You are stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, two low intensity wars. The war in Iraq was poorly executed and both wars fought stupid.

You don't use a $110,000 Hellfire missile to kill one Taliban fighter when a .25 cent bullet can accomplish the same mission.

Back in 1970 I found myself standing before the man getting my ass chewed out and a quick course in economics 101.

What it was I called in a NSFS mission, six 5"/38 guns, three six gun salvos of HC rounds with FT for an air burst on a NVA rifle squad. We counted 8 dead NVA. When the Navy heard that the taxpayers spent $12,400. to kill 8 NVA the (*)(*)(*)(*) came down the mountain. A two gun two salvo would have been sufficient and would have only cost the taxpayers $1,000.

BTW: A CBU-97 can't be used in a danger close situation and it's not used for CAS missions. And at $360,000 a pop, kinda expensive. It's a "battlefield air interdiction" weapon not a "close air support" weapon.

 

And if enemy troops are "in the open", then use Rockeyes or Mark 82's. Hell, call in rotary wing support and gun them down with FFAR's and autocannons. You don't have much of a risk of collateral damage to civilians on the open battlefield, but we aren't talking about that.

We are talking about carpet bombing cities. So why didn't the allies during WW2 use GPS and laser guided bombs to limit collateral damage rather than carpet bombing?

 

Dan Quayle was born in 1947 so he was to young to have been in Congress to get appropriations for developing GPS for the U.S. Navy.

And if you aren't aware, the Navy are bringing back the sextant and celestial navigation since the Russians are able to defeat GPS today.

 

This ignores the fact that "saturation bombing" and "shuttle bombing" were strategies that had nothing to do with limitations of guided munitions and everything to do with systematic large-scale terrorism designed to congest roadways and break the spirit of the enemy.

Shuttle Bombing was time and again determined to have zero effect on the German war industry and as proven by their highest output being 1944 and the last 5 month of their war, it is obvious that these bombing campaigns were not aimed to defeating the German war industry.

Also, bombadiers were extremely accurate and diver bombers were as good as any precision guided bombing.

So why not focus more on those once air superiority was achieved?

 

What did the firebombing of Tokyo have to do with trying to destroy military targets?? Nothing.

To say that the US terrorized the enemy with carpet bombings because the US didn't have "guided munitions" is a lie. It's not true at all.

 

How dare you EVER CHALLENGE ME in military matters.

Today's Navy's largest "gun" is arguably a 1,000lbs HE Tomahawk cruise missile with more explosive force than an entire Iowa Class Broadside hitting their target all at once.

The fact that you even question the US navy's firepower today is pathetic.

The US navy today would tear the entire US WW2 Pacific Fleet to shreds.

2 US Guided Missile Destroyers would have blown every US battleship in pearl harbor in half in a mater of minutes from 200+ miles away.

 

In one hour an Iowa class BB can put more tons of ordnance on target than entire Nimitz class carrier air wing can in 24 hours.

In just one minute an Iowa can put 27.8 tons (55,600 lbs.) of explosives on target.

Exactly what weapons platform is there today that can sink an Iowa class BB ?

Tomahawk cruise missiles aren't capable of hitting moving targets. And if a Tomahawk were to hit an Iowa class BB, they are prepared, the ship's paint locker has gallons of battleship grey paint just incase. The Iowa's were designed to take numerous hits from IJN Yamato class BB 20" guns 4,000 lb. AP rounds and keep on fighting.



The only way an Iowa class BB can be sunk is by breaking it's keel.

You can always put any warship out of action where it has to return to port and be repaired.

Strafford Morss and Iowa Class Survivability -> http://warships1discussionboards.yu...-Iowa-Class-Survivability?page=1#.V7O9ZE0rLnD

 

Lolz, how pathetic. When did you google what a DD 214 was?

 

When I was in son.....Google didn't exist. Lol

 

Yawn. Cool story.

 

Not as good as yours. Lol

 

You still aren't answering the question. Why didn't the guys during WW2 use GPS and laser guided bombs to minimize collateral damage rather than using carpet bombing?

 

Face-palm....