User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 7:44:49 PM EDT
[#1]
The US Military does what it wants, but in that case it would get messy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 7:45:55 PM EDT
[#2]
Can't be strong everywhere is just as true today as it was then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 7:46:26 PM EDT
[#3]
Probably but it would require a lot of softening up with air power and missiles. Nobody is going to use fixed defenses anymore like the Germans did at Normandy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 7:48:06 PM EDT
[#4]
Landing on contested beach heads was required because technology did not permit by passing the defense force.
Today we would by pass the beach head and land the majority of the landing force in land. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 7:50:49 PM EDT
[#5]
Since we now posses the means to actually "take out" beach fortifications....sure, why wouldn't we succeed?
(I still seethe in anger at what my Infantry forebears had to suffer through, in spite of the Navy and Air Force blithely promising they'll "take out" the beach fortifications and instead bombed the fuck out of fish in the Atlantic and cows in the French countryside behind the beaches   )
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 7:51:38 PM EDT
[#6]
5000 ships aren't sneaking up on anybody these days.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 7:51:58 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Landing on contested beach heads was required because technology did not permit by passing the defense force. Today we would by pass the beach head and land the majority of the landing force in land. Interesting. But have we ever had any actual contested beaches for a landing? Minus the special op invasions in Grenada and Panama. We faked them out in GW1 but off the top of my head I can't think of any. Without that though. Replace the Nomandy defenses with modern weapons etc. same with our landing fleet. Do we still take the beach? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 7:52:13 PM EDT
[#8]
Back then we were willing to take a punch.
I seriously doubt we could generate that kind of will today. We knew we were going to lose thousands and went anyway. Don't see that happening today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 7:53:50 PM EDT
[#9]
especially for France
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 7:55:25 PM EDT
[#10]
Nope...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 7:55:58 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting. But have we ever had any actual contested beaches for a landing? Minus the special op invasions in Grenada and Panama. We faked them out in GW1 but off the top of my head I can't think of any. Without that though. Replace the Nomandy defenses with modern weapons etc. same with our landing fleet. Do we still take the beach? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Landing on contested beach heads was required because technology did not permit by passing the defense force. Today we would by pass the beach head and land the majority of the landing force in land. Interesting. But have we ever had any actual contested beaches for a landing? Minus the special op invasions in Grenada and Panama. We faked them out in GW1 but off the top of my head I can't think of any. Without that though. Replace the Nomandy defenses with modern weapons etc. same with our landing fleet. Do we still take the beach? With our modern sensor tech, UAVs, recon sat coverage, and PGMs... would there be any sort of defense left? It's a fascinating thought exercise... I hope like hell we never find out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 7:58:38 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Landing on contested beach heads was required because technology did not permit by passing the defense force. Today we would by pass the beach head and land the majority of the landing force in land. Just a thought. I'm talking a super power. Years of war to prepare. They would also have air defense of simulator technology. Can we really bypass this. Look with SAMs did to our fighters and bombers in NV. Sure it was 40 years ago but the question stands. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:03:38 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With our modern sensor tech, UAVs, recon sat coverage, and PGMs... would there be any sort of defense left? It's a fascinating thought exercise... I hope like hell we never find out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Landing on contested beach heads was required because technology did not permit by passing the defense force. Today we would by pass the beach head and land the majority of the landing force in land. Interesting. But have we ever had any actual contested beaches for a landing? Minus the special op invasions in Grenada and Panama. We faked them out in GW1 but off the top of my head I can't think of any. Without that though. Replace the Nomandy defenses with modern weapons etc. same with our landing fleet. Do we still take the beach? With our modern sensor tech, UAVs, recon sat coverage, and PGMs... would there be any sort of defense left? It's a fascinating thought exercise... I hope like hell we never find out. Remember, this isn't against sheep herding Taliban. We're talking a similarly advanced military force. Much like the actual event but with modern tech. We have it. They have it. Would we even get near a beach? Would their be a massive naval battle preceding any actual landing attempt? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:07:19 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryThis. Also, Hitler could have stopped Overlord with nerve gas, if he had been ready and willing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:10:00 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Also, Hitler could have stopped Overlord with nerve gas, if he had been ready and willing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Also, Hitler could have stopped Overlord with nerve gas, if he had been ready and willing. How far is either side willing to go. Another scary point. Would nukes enter the equation before a landing was even attempted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:11:08 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Landing on contested beach heads was required because technology did not permit by passing the defense force. Today we would by pass the beach head and land the majority of the landing force in land. Wut about muh IADS? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:14:41 PM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:19:10 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Remember, this isn't against sheep herding Taliban. We're talking a similarly advanced military force. Much like the actual event but with modern tech. We have it. They have it. Would we even get near a beach? Would their be a massive naval battle preceding any actual landing attempt? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Landing on contested beach heads was required because technology did not permit by passing the defense force. Today we would by pass the beach head and land the majority of the landing force in land. Interesting. But have we ever had any actual contested beaches for a landing? Minus the special op invasions in Grenada and Panama. We faked them out in GW1 but off the top of my head I can't think of any. Without that though. Replace the Nomandy defenses with modern weapons etc. same with our landing fleet. Do we still take the beach? With our modern sensor tech, UAVs, recon sat coverage, and PGMs... would there be any sort of defense left? It's a fascinating thought exercise... I hope like hell we never find out. Remember, this isn't against sheep herding Taliban. We're talking a similarly advanced military force. Much like the actual event but with modern tech. We have it. They have it. Would we even get near a beach? Would their be a massive naval battle preceding any actual landing attempt? At this point in time fixed defenses are simply bomb magnets. B-2s, F-22s, F-35?? are basically immune to air defenses and once the SEAD mission is complete and we have air superiority roll in the bomb trucks. It would be a blood bath for a fixed defensive positions on a beachhead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:22:39 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
5000 ships aren't sneaking up on anybody these days. Not with CNN and MSNBC broadcasting that they were on the way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:24:00 PM EDT
[#20]
We were planning on softening up mainland Japan with a carpet of nukes before we invaded.
No reason that wouldn't work today. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:26:57 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We were planning on softening up mainland Japan with a carpet of nukes before we invaded. No reason that wouldn't work today.
Really? I didn't know that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:27:07 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Probably but it would require a lot of softening up with air power and missiles. Nobody is going to use fixed defenses anymore like the Germans did at Normandy. I really need to dig my grandpa's target list out of the boxes from when I moved earlier this year, but he I know he flew on several missions to both Normandy and Pas de Calais as part of the pre-invasion/deception operations from May through early June of '44. He was a ball turret gunner on a B-17 and his group dropped a shitload of bombs on France to soften up/deceive the Germans in the run-up to the invasion. In a modern sense we'd have to do the same thing, but a lot of it would be cruise missiles for prep work and it would have to be spread over a larger area because response times (and weapon ranges) are a lot different now than they were in 1944. Even after doing all of that you still have to deal with all the Silkworms and the like that the bombing missed when you attempted the actual landings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:27:32 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably but it would require a lot of softening up with air power and missiles. Nobody is going to use fixed defenses anymore like the Germans did at Normandy. besides our targeting systems are much, much, much better today, all the bombing to soften up the Normandy beaches was largely ineffective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:28:48 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? I didn't know that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We were planning on softening up mainland Japan with a carpet of nukes before we invaded. No reason that wouldn't work today.
Really? I didn't know that. Chemical weapons, too. We were TIRED of dealing with their ornery asses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:29:21 PM EDT
[#25]
Considering the bombers straight missed the fkn beach by a couple miles. Id say we could do better
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:29:52 PM EDT
[#26]
Precision bombing with laser guided bombs and artillery? A-10s to stop Panzer Lehr and its Leopard IIs? Tomahawk missiles to take out RRs or its bridges? Atomic weaponry?
Yeah, it's doable but the counter-strike with atomic weaponry will wipe out the invasion force. Bottom line: very expensive in terms of men and material. How about just letting the old dudes (politicians) fight it out for everyone else? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:30:41 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Really? I didn't know that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We were planning on softening up mainland Japan with a carpet of nukes before we invaded. No reason that wouldn't work today. Really? I didn't know that. Yep that was one of the ideas they were kicking around. Check out the book Downfall by Richard B. Frank, it's a good book and it has a lot of interesting information on Allied invasion planning for Japan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:31:02 PM EDT
[#28]
Could you imagine groups if 30 A-10s straffing that beach for hours.
Txl |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:31:56 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistorySend in the Metal Gears. A swarm of Metal Gear Rex's would do a number on a beachhead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:33:10 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote History[b]Quoted:[/
Remember, this isn't against sheep herding Taliban. We're talking a similarly advanced military force. Much like the actual event but with modern tech. We have it. They have it. Would we even get near a beach? Would their be a massive naval battle preceding any actual landing attempt? I would think that if they have comparable tech to us they would attack our fleet. We would lose some ships to subs and missiles. We would have to destroy their airbases, missile installations, air defenses, ships, and subs before we could attempt an amphibious landing. Close air support would be needed against defending ground forces and you wouldn't get them all. We would take heavy loses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:35:37 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Could you imagine groups if 30 A-10s straffing that beach for hours. Txl Well if we're gonna go all Final Countdown and be sending A-10s back to '44 then I can see the A-10 pilots tuning into German coms, "Oh you have a Hitler's buzzaw? How quaint. Check this shit out Hans in: 3, 2, 1..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:40:47 PM EDT
[#32]
The enemy sould have guns similar to our Phalanx, anti-missile missiles, anti-air missiles, right? They can shoot down your missiles and launch missiles at your bombers. They'd also have artillary and stuff like MLRS that could drop a load of hurt on wherever you try to establish yourself. Seems like it would be pretty messy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:40:51 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Assuming we had to land against a similarly advanced military with years to fortify a beachhead against a landing. Could we- the U.S. Military actually get a foot hold and take the beach and advance? Yes, with a far lower casualty rate than in '44. They didn't really have CAS on the beaches in Normandy, not by today's standards. I don't care if they have years to fortify. Building static fortifications amounts to building your own tomb. Precision guided munitions would do a far better job softening things up than what was done in the run up to D-day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:42:36 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well if we're gonna go all Final Countdown and be sending A-10s back to '44 then I can see the A-10 pilots tuning into German coms, "Oh you have a Hitler's buzzaw? How quaint. Check this shit out Hans in: 3, 2, 1..." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Could you imagine groups if 30 A-10s straffing that beach for hours.
Txl Well if we're gonna go all Final Countdown and be sending A-10s back to '44 then I can see the A-10 pilots tuning into German coms, "Oh you have a Hitler's buzzaw? How quaint. Check this shit out Hans in: 3, 2, 1..." How about a couple MOABs dropped on Panzer groups? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:53:05 PM EDT
[#35]
Coastal defences are probably no match for a Tomahawk in the same way a LCT is no match for a Milan, TOW or even a Carl Gustav or LAW
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:55:53 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Coastal defences are probably no match for a Tomahawk in the same way a LCT is no match for a Milan, TOW or even a Carl Gustav or LAW Tomahawk with a W80 warhead, yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 9:05:14 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tomahawk with a W80 warhead, yes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Coastal defences are probably no match for a Tomahawk in the same way a LCT is no match for a Milan, TOW or even a Carl Gustav or LAW Tomahawk with a W80 warhead, yes. Nuke? Wouldn't use it They would hope to blow a Bridgehead, and it isn't too far from Britain so AH-64 could play a vital role, although you guys are handicapped coz yours aren't Maritime capable....although given the short distance that may not be necessary. AGMs would play a critical role, so I think the result would be similar, given many of the landings would be by helicopter |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 9:05:48 PM EDT
[#38]
Had the Germans not removed the artillery battery from Pointe du Hoc, and the 12th SS and Panzer Lehr were engaged at the beginning, the Normandy landing would have ended much differently.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 9:10:34 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Could you imagine groups if 30 A-10s straffing that beach for hours.
Txl I'd like to preorder my ticket to this movie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 9:12:31 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Chemical weapons, too. We were TIRED of dealing with their ornery asses. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: We were planning on softening up mainland Japan with a carpet of nukes before we invaded. No reason that wouldn't work today. Really? I didn't know that. Chemical weapons, too. We were TIRED of dealing with their ornery asses. Only one I've heard of was the actual invasion...where we expected a shit ton of losses. As in...the Purple Hearts minted for the invasion literally didn't run out until the late 80s...and that was mostly b/c they apparently have a shelf life and had to start being replaced by new ones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2015 10:14:24 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, with a far lower casualty rate than in '44. They didn't really have CAS on the beaches in Normandy, not by today's standards. I don't care if they have years to fortify. Building static fortifications amounts to building your own tomb. Precision guided munitions would do a far better job softening things up than what was done in the run up to D-day. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Assuming we had to land against a similarly advanced military with years to fortify a beachhead against a landing. Could we- the U.S. Military actually get a foot hold and take the beach and advance? Yes, with a far lower casualty rate than in '44. They didn't really have CAS on the beaches in Normandy, not by today's standards. I don't care if they have years to fortify. Building static fortifications amounts to building your own tomb. Precision guided munitions would do a far better job softening things up than what was done in the run up to D-day. I don't believe that at all. Just the approach of a naval force would elicit a response. How close can a landing force get? Do you not think positions can be hardened to withstand most munitions? I've built 2000lb JDAM and "bunker buster" PGM. I know what they can do. But given time, can't most weapons be defended against to some degree. While I think the pre assault would be much different than '44 I think the casualty rate would probably be worse. May not all be on the beach but over all I don't see few casualties being the case. |
|
|
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.
