Would any WW2 era ships still be useful in a modern conflict or would they just be easy targets? Assume they are in perfect condition.
Even if they’re easy targets, all of them would probably be useful in some scenario, but certain ships could go beyond potentially being useful in a modern conflict, perhaps to the point of temporarily ruling the waves. Naturally, I’m referring to battleships.Basically, battleship design tended to result in an arms race where the ships got bigger guns and thicker armor, and speed where possible. The relevant part here is the armor.Using the Iowa Class as an example, they were designed to survive shots that were substantially more powerful than pretty much all current anti-ship weapons can deliver, except perhaps the nuclear variety.Basically, since the battleships were retired, there isn’t really a need for something that can penetrate armor of that thickness, so most weapons aren’t designed to be able to do that. Hence, the ship might be virtually unsinkable with currently available technologies.Seriously, just look at it, and think that is solid steel.I recently went to Norfolk and took one of the tours of the USS Wisconcin, and the tour guide later commented that during the 1980’s when the navy reactivated them, they considered them to be virtually unsinkable given how thick the ship’s armor was. So the plan was that in the event of a war with the Soviet Union, the battleships would go out and kind of just try intercept a soviet fleet and take whatever punishment the relevant soviet fleets could dish out.Of course, I’m sure that within a few years of such a battleship being deployed in a modern conflict, the need for a weapon to counter it will result in such a weapon being developed and deployed. But until then, said battleship could probably rule the waves.Naturally, that great expense of developing and building a new battleship would probably be significantly greater than the cost of deploying a weapon that could take it out. Hence, there probably won’t be any new battleships, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t cool.Both images came from wikimedia commons, which claims that they’re in the public domain. Still, links to the sources of the images.:USS Iowa BB61 broadsideUSS New Jersey armor citadel
What WWII-era weapons would perform well in modern combat? Along those lines, what WWII-era pistol would perform well in modern combat, other than the Colt 1911?
Well, if operational, all WWII guns can kill and be used with success against the proper target.The M2 Browning .50 cal is still produced and used as the standar heavy machine gun for most of the world outside the russian equipped armies.Any WWII pistol is pretty much good for any war. Except if you take a .45 to a house by house cleaning.Bolt action rifles from WWII are still used in several armies as sharp shooter weapons. And they can be very effective for sniper duties.The Kar98 is used by irregular militias and terrorist for this. Israel produced a derivative that is still in reserve stocks.Same the Mosint-nagantThe MG-42 was rechambered to 7.62x51 NATO in the 50s and still is in service as the MG-3 medium machine gun in the Bundeswehr.Artillery cannons are still useful, and some WWII cannons are still in service in some nations. Like the 155 mm M114 howitzer in SKorea.The M1937 152 mm soviet Howitzer105 mm Schneirder MLE 1913105 leFH 18/40122 mm howitzer M1938 (M-30)The drawbacks of old artillery is the quantity of service crew they need. Modern cannons require fewer people than older ones. Also new cannons have more caliber length, which means longer range with the same ammunition.The PPSh 41 sub-machine gun. It is a legend in close quarters combat, and it works as good as in Stalingrad and Berlin in the 40’s.Believe it or not, the US soldiers chose this weapon for CQB in Iraq:The MP40 or Thompson sub-machine gun is also valid:The StG-44 is a valid assault rifle. It may be heavy, but works. Modern battle rifles are lighter by using modern materials, some improvement in accuracy, and the eternal debate about intermediate calibers. Still, the StG-44 works, replicas and semi auto brand new are still produced in 8x33, 7.92, 7.62x39, 5.56x45.
After World War II, why was there conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians?
Illegal jewish immigrants from Europe formed terrorist gangs and attacked the British Administration and the local population of christians and muslims in Palestine. The British Administration gave up and handed the problem to the UN who decided to reward the terrorists in 1948 with their own state called Israel This was was done by a program of ethnic cleansing in which many Palestinians were murdered and thousands of others fled to refugee camps in adjoining countries. Go to www.palestineremembered.com
In a modern world war, after militaries run out of the means to replace high tec equipment, would we see a return of WW2 like equipment?
It’s an interesting question that allows me to explain something you might not know about modern warfare:we will never again fight that kind of war.One side will dominate the other and crush them in a matter of days or weeks and the main fighting will be over. It’s called “Rapid Domination Doctrine.” Basically, you disrupt the enemy in so many areas and press the battle so quickly and consistently that they can never regroup and mount an effective counterattack.The first side to gain air superiority (and the winner will be known well before the first shot is fired) will win the day.Air superiority gives you the following:Control over enemy troop movementsA huge military intelligence advantageThe ability to target and disrupt enemy command and controlSo you are facing an enemy that can’t move, can’t coordinate their attacks and doesn’t know where you are or what is happening. In modern warfare, no one comes back from that.This is why we see so much asymmetrical warfare these days. It’s the only way a smaller force can fight a modern army.So the answer is that no, we would not see a return to WW2 style equipment. It will never come to that.
What major conflicts has the US military won after World War 2?
Although North Korea did not surrender the Korean conflict was a victory for the US. North Korea, with Stalin's approval, invaded South Korea with the intent of uniting the country against South Korea's will. Truman, interpreting this as a Communist attempt to begin its stated goal of taking over of the world, decided to resist. With the UN behind him he put troops on the ground and MacArthur in charge of repelling this unwarranted invasion by North Korea. MacArthur decided, on his own, to conquer North Korea and unite the country. He effectively did just that but his actions, which were not supported by either Truman or the Joint Chiefs of Staff who feared a Chinese entry into the war, sparked a massive Chinese intervention.We ended up with the North Koreans back where they started from and South Korea intact. Had we lost Korea would have been united under Kim Il-sung, a Stalin puppet, and it would have become a communist state. This is a win. Korean War - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.comAlthough people argue about Bush's intentions it seems to me Bush had some naive idea of invading Iraq in order to bring down one of the pillars of the "Axis of Evil" and bring democracy to Iraq. That makes it an all round failure. If his only goal was to take out Saddam then he succeeded but since that was not his only goal we have at best a partial success. I am assuming his intention was not to destabilize the region. Iraq, 10 years on: Did invasion bring 'hope and progress' to millions as Bush vowed?Bush went into Afghanistan in order to retrieve Osama bin Laden. That didn't work out. Why Did the United States Invade Afghanistan?Vietnam, like Korea, was a war of containment and while some say it did succeed in arresting Communist takeovers in the region this is not a generally accepted conclusion. If it was not successful at containment then I consider it is a mistake and a loss. Even if it was successful it seems to me to have been unnecessary in the long run. The Vietnam War and the Tragedy of Containment
Did the Falklands/Malvinas war shape future conflicts as it was the first modern conflict?
As others have pointed out, it certainly woke up the RN ( and other Navies ) to the shortcomings in their weapons and sensor systems and certainly forced changes in doctrine.But an area that has not been mentioned is the how the detail of actually fighting a war get lost with time.This was the first war the RN had fought since WW2 and it was the small things that caused concern.I had the pleasure of being instructed by the XO of HMS Broadsword on the lessons they had learnt in fire fighting and damage control…but it was other things that turned out to be more interesting.The task force only received their “ Dog Tags “ in the last couple of days before the deployment…no one had thought to have them made.Alcohol was removed from the officers mess but kept in the lower deck for moral purposes..the carpet was kept in the officers mess ( they are first aid stations ) but removed from anywhere else due to possible pumping issues.Dietitians had recommended a balanced whole food diet and the ships were loaded with all sorts of fruit and veg etc….only for it to become apparent that people only wanted “comfort food “ when they were under stress.It was found that people tasked with being lookouts, and there were lots of extra lookouts posted for obvious reasons, were becoming “burnt out” because while they were spotting the incoming aircraft easily enough, they were frustrated to the point of panic because they could not do anything about the incoming aircraft…the solution was to give the lookouts a GPMG and let them blaze away, the chances of hitting anything was remote, but they felt a hell of a lot better about their position.All these lessons and more were, learnt and disseminated amongst many different Navies, so yes, it has shaped any future conflicts
4 modern world studies questions, 20 points? please help?
9. Which of the following best describes the situation in most newly independent African nations in the 1960s and 1970s? wars with neighboring African nations violence, civil war, and unrest sudden economic growth peaceful transition to democracy Question 10. 10. Which of the following best explains why some newly independent African countries, such as Kenya, were able to avoid civil war immediately after gaining independence? African neighbors intervened to prevent civil war. They immediately allied themselves with either the United States or the Soviet Union. Colonial rulers made an effort to prepare the colony for independence. Imperial soldiers remained for many years to maintain peace and order. Question 11. 11. What action did the United Nations take after World War II that led to a lot of conflict in the Middle East? It divided Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. It allowed Jewish settlers to emigrate to Palestine. It granted Syria full independence. It created a Jewish state within the borders of Lebanon. Question 12. 12. Which of the following best explains how Islamism is causing conflict in the Middle East today? Many Arabs believe that Jews and Christians should not be allowed to live in the region. Some Muslims do not believe Israel should be allowed to exist in the region; others believe it has that right. Some Muslims believe Arab governments should be based on Islam, others believe in secular governments. Jews living in Israel believe that there is no place in their society for people of other faiths.