If the entire 1945 US army was teleported to the modern day UK

>>32844480
Technology back in the day is clunky garbage compared to even the most mediocre modern equipment.

That, combined with modern response time from friendly nations would mean an unsuccessful campaign IMO.

>>32844480
UK invokes NATO Article 5, '45 US Army losses.

>>32844566
>>32844589

For the sake of the op say the UK fights alone against the US army

>>32844686
I honestly dont know if my first point would be enough to sway things in one direction.

Someone more knowledgable than me'll probably chime in.

The US army had 8 million active personnel on 1945, that is over 10 percent of the 64 million population of the UK, I don't think the bongs would do well if they teleported there all of a sudden

>>32844480
Where in the countryside? What does "take over" exactly entail? Like, if they appeared 1 mile from London, would they win if they get rid of the government immediately?

The Modern US army would come save the UK's ass a 3rd time.

>>32844480
If the Army Air Forces are included, they could probably destroy a good portion of London. I mean, in modern times nobody is expecting a WWII-level carpet bombing campaign out of nowhere. Most likely the RAF can scramble once the 1945 AAF is detected, but the damage is gonna suck for the British.

>>32844762
Not to mention if the ww2 planes have nuclear pay loads

>>32844480

It's going to be hell for everyone involved, due to how big the US army of 1945 is and how small the UK is.

>>32844686
Then its 5,851,000 (plus an additional 2,282,000 if you include USAAF) vs ~200,000 Brits.

At that point just feeding the US force would be a insurmountable problem, add in all the other logistical factors such as needing leaded gasoline, obsolete ammunition and no airbases for the USAAF if included and the US force would quickly collapse in on itself.

The UK would have its own severe logistical problems due to small depot and stockpile sizes but as long as it retains the ports and currency it has access to the international arms market, which still contains absurd amounts of Cold War weapons already in Europe.

>>32844480
US wins by sheer numbers and proximity to objectives.

>>32844762

A modern fighter could down ww2 planes at will without even coming close to machinegun range. That and ground forces would have a turkey shoot with AA weapons.

>>32844822
This, but some stalwart Brit will make it to a tank and run roughshod over the US forces till they run out of ammo or petrol.

>>32844840
Most likely modern AA will quickly disable most of a 1945 air force. However, OP's scenario involved them suddenly materializing in the UK with clear orders to destroy, so no doubt the AAF can do significant damage before countermeasures can be scrambled.

File: IMG_0187.png (117KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 750x1334px

My money's on the brits.

Modern radar guided aa would make airforces evaporate, and if the brits were to make a concerted push with combined arms it'd be over.

I mean fuck a Challenger II would literally be invulnerable to anything the americans would have. The only british units that would be vulnerable would be LAVs and infantry.

We havent even mentioned the disgusting effect modern CAS would have.

Zerg rushes rarely beat advanced technology, not in the bigger picture at least.

>>32844882
And when I say vulerable I mean physically able to be destroyed in a firefight. Good luck getting a shot on that Warrior ACP when its put a few autocannon rounds through your front plate and turned the gunner into hamburger meat.

>>32844846
>petrol
joke's on you, American tanks run on gas

>>32844882
>undocumemted illegal
And thats why i hate living anywhere near either coast. Washington is worse than Cali at this point. I dont care about the guns if i cant shoot without some illegal fuck complaining and being taken seriously.

At least i'd join a PD down there and be happy about it. Here, i just want to shoot myself.

>>32844480
>would they be successful?
yes, hands down.

Given 1 week's notice, my money's on the Brits/2017 tech.

"Suddenly materialising", and anything is possible.

If we're gonna fuck around with hypotheticals... there's another factor:

Why do the 1945 yanks wanna hurt modern day Britain? Is this a "we're gonna go to 2017 and fuck some modern pommie scum". Or is this a "woah dude, crazy warp gate wtf?", ala "final countdown"?

Tl;dr
100 modern US Muhreens vs. The entire British American Continental Army... again.

>>32844902
Yeah. American hot air. Unlimited supply thanks to non stop shit talk and mouth breathing.

>>32844480
Yes. It's not even a question.

8,267,958 man army suddenly shows up ON your soil?

You're fucked.

>>32844902
Gave me a chuckle

No.

They'd just roll Tiger 131 out of Bovington and it'll wipe out every sherman in the UK

File: shart in the mart.jpg (3MB, 3240x3576px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3240x3576px

>>32844902

>be American
>call petrol (a liquid) "gas"
>try to let out some gas
>it comes out as a liquid

File: Conik.gif (1MB, 400x244px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x244px

>>32846026
That's just a little gas, mate.

Let's not forget that U.S. doctrine is very much against zerg rushes and would not respond well to high casualty rates.

After the Brits pull a couple of "Highways of Death" on US convoys they would halt their advance to reassess their strategy.

When they do that the Royal Air Force would very quickly pick the US chain of command apart.

The only hope the 45 US army has is If they make a mad dash for London the moment they show up and hope the Brits are too slow to react.

File: 1484297248402.jpg (137KB, 640x494px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 640x494px

Brits are unable to kick out hordes of UNARMED muslims who rape their women by the thousands, take over their towns and behead their soldiers on their streets, and you think they would be able to stop outdated, but heavily armed, well trained and equipped with armor, regardless that it's backwards....

The key word here is "teleport" - how much men did US army had in 1945, and how much men does Royal Army have now?

It would be faster than 1939 blitzkrieg...

PS
Op is a fag.

>>32845948
>8,267,958 man army suddenly shows up ON your soil? You're fucked.
So does the starving invasion force, do they intend to eat dirt?

>>32846102
>So does the starving invasion force, do they intend to eat dirt?

>Implying "entire army" doesn't mean logistics batalions

>>32846139
Logistics for near 9 million men? You have lost your damned mind if you think you can feed, fuel and keep them armed during this cluster fuck of a nightmare.

>>32846166
They would quickly take over the civilian & mimlitary food storages.
Such an invasion wouldn't last longer than a week.

>>32846182
>Such an invasion wouldn't last longer than a week.
Agreed when the huge logistics depots needed to supply such a force is targeted with Tomahawks or worse

>>32844480
Assuming they all landed on the West coast, say Cornwall or in Wales:
> Royal Navy and land based AshM systems BTFO the US fleet and convoys supplying the ground forces from out of the range of the US fleets conventional weapons
> Rapier & other portable AA systems BTFO the US air presence from the carriers: the carriers get BTFO by Royal Navy, any runway the US forces captured would be hit with a few JDAM/Brimstones and rendered inoperable
> Entire US landing force now has no air support, supplies or naval support and are bottlenecked geographically
> RAF conducts massive amounts of airstrikes daily, reducing any large armour or troop formations to piles of slag and burning flesh
> Any command structure and signalling the US has is easily intercepted by British forces with far better encryption and decryption, so the Brits know every move the US make
> UK has satellites and drones constantly watching and assessing US troop movements
> Any attempt to attack by the US is met by Challenger 2s, Scimitars and a shit ton of air support
> US army forces start to crumble
> Corporal Blogs in his Chally 2 rolls his way through the starving, wounded and burning yankee corpses, parks his tank in the middle of Pattons tent, then gives him a 120mm HESH to the chest from point blank for the keks
> 'God Save the Queen' is broadcast on all channels for the following week on repeat
> Depending on how the old girl feels, New York, Washington and other major cities receive a Trident shaped surprise

10/10 would love to see this happen

>>32846026
>Doesn't realize "gas" is short for "gasoline"

How fucking stupid are you Europeans? All that inbreeding has really fucked you all, huh?.

>>32846200
>gasoline
You mean guzzlean?

>>32846193
How many tomahawks does Royal Army/Navy has.
How many of them are active/operational.
How much time would it take to set targets for them.
What if they would place logistics in highly populated areas.
>keyword here is "teleport".

Bah, fuck it, I,m already angry at myself for taking part in this childish thread.

>>32846220
>keyword here is "teleport".
May as well teleport 10 men with loaded rifles behind every British soldier then if you are going to pull this shit, fuck off.

File: fuckoff_punch.gif (297KB, 480x442px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 480x442px

>>32846194
> R
> R
> E
> R
> A
> U
> A
> U
> C
> '
> D

>>32846266
Let the butthurt flow through you son

File: unknown7.png (133KB, 293x382px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 293x382px

>>32846283
yes! i can feel it!

>>32844745
This desu

>>32846301
but when they get there they all stop and thank the ww2 guys for their service and get shot in the face for letting their guard down

>>32846295
You can console yourself with the fact that if the British Army of 1945 tried the same on modern day America, the attempt would be quashed twice as fast.

>>32846308
replied to wrong post?

>>32846319
Dyou mean you did or I did

>>32844815
>At that point just feeding the US force would be a insurmountable problem

Nah, they would raid Asda, Tescos, etc.

File: unknown0.png (121KB, 384x243px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 384x243px

>>32846330
how retarded are you? the post you replied to had nothing to do with what you posted...

>>32846332
> I post how scenario would go
> you reply with 'fuck off' gif
> I reply with 'let the butthurt flow through you'
> you reply with 'yes! I can feel it'
> I reply with a consolation
> you reply with assertion of wrong post
> I ask if you mean you or me
> you call me retarded

Theres definitely a retard here, but Fortunate Son.

>>32846369
>too stupid to realize what i meant with my gif

maybe you should look at the thing i quoted from you in that post again.

This is a dumb thread but the thing that irks me most is people thinking there is a Royal Army.

>>32846403
> meaningless jumble of letters in combination with a gif of a small child saying 'fuck off'

Well you did a great job of giving the appearance of responding like a petulant child. Your post came across as retarded and butthurt so I responded with consolation. Not my fault if your post structure presents you in a bad light.

File: hint hint.jpg (12KB, 412x378px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 412x378px

>>32846422
i'll give you a hint

File: its_happening.webm (2MB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x1280px

>>32844566
>this retard has no idea the numbers we're talking about

>>32846439
I think youre the only one who gets it pal. When people told me most burgers were clinically retarded I thought they were joking...

>>32846443
Numbers matter but so does logistics, I fail to see how you can supply 9 million soldiers when you drop them on a small Island.

>>32846443
>implying numbers matter when they wont even be able to see the enemy before they're dead

>night vision
>infrared
>satelites
>guided missiles and rockets
>supersonic jets with stealth
>everything has longer range than their old tech has

>>32846472
are you >>32846422 ?

>>32846477
Not to mention what this will do to morale, knowing the enemy can watch you take a shit from space will soon take the fight out of people.

File: 654654654.jpg (211KB, 1165x917px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1165x917px

ISOT American 2002

“On March 13, 2002, the continental (i.e. lower 48 states) USA of that
day is switched with the USA from March 13, 1942.”

http://www.changingthetimes.net/samples/asb/isot_american_2002.htm

>>32846439
Your responses are so autistic you're the only one who understands what you're talking about. I know you use that to make yourself feel intelligent, like you're speaking in a code only smart people understand, but you're just a moron. Kindly do the world a favor and give yourself an extreme late term abortion.

File: final_hint.png (5KB, 396x356px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 396x356px

>>32846505
if you cant figure it out after this hint you should consider killing yourself for the benefit of the human gene pool

>>32844480
Didnt the army include the Air corp in 1945? And didnt the US have a few Nukes in 1945? The US wins without firing a shot just by holding London hostage.

>>32846521
Not even him but I am confused as fuck, is it an emoji?

>>32846521
Not even the same guy, jesus. You legitimately have aspergers dont you

>>32846530
>Didnt the army include the Air corp in 1945?
Yes but they needed large runways, runways which are very large targets and are on British soil.

>>32844480

These threads are the worst. Nothing ever constructive can come from them because they are entirely removed from reality. All it does is rile up nationalist shit-flinging.

>>32846505
I cant wait for this guy to try and explain this, I didnt know butthurt could spasticate someone

>>32846521
Okay, confession time. I lied. I understood what you were talking about, but I thought it was such a stupid thing to point out I decided that couldn't be what you were being triggered by. Sometimes I forget that everyone on this cursed somalian face painting board has a variant of the 'tism in some way.

>>32844840
>A modern fighter could down ww2 planes at will without even coming close to machinegun range
Yes, easily.

Except the UK has a very tiny number of them compared to 1945 USAAF. Same deal with missiles, the UK has a very small reserve of A2A missiles.
>That and ground forces would have a turkey shoot with AA weapons.
What AA weapons? Their less than 100 Starstreak launchers (which still couldn't reach even the lowest flying bomber formations with its 5500m max range and 1000m ceiling)? Their 42 Rapier launchers?
>http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/23208.aspx

>>32846194
>Depending on how the old girl feels, New York, Washington and other major cities receive a Trident shaped surprise
And then the modern US nukes the UK into nothing.

File: jjbZxwa.jpg (27KB, 850x716px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 850x716px

>>32846521
nuclear command is separate

>>32846537
no

>>32846539
>believes in an imaginary friend
>calls people asperger

>>32846559
>i only pretended to be retarded

>>32846443
hey look, it's the fleet of tanks everyone is talking about

>>32846559
Can you explain his autism for the rest of us?

>>32844882
The British don't have very many "modern radar guided aa" though. Less than a hundred total Starstreak launchers (more than 60 of which are shoulder fired) and less than 50 total Rapier launchers. They have nothing else.

>>32846571
>nuclear command is separate
meant for >>32846530


also this >>32846546
they could only deliver with airplane, and even if they had runways they would be shot down easily

>>32846580
they have a couple hundred fighter jets

>>32846581
>nuclear command is separate
Ok, where are they taking off from? OP says the force teleports to the UK so do not try to cheat.

>>32846577
He means the spaces in the greentext. I'm cracking up now that I realize it. Of all the things to get triggered by, I legitimately thought there was no way it could be that.

>>32846562
Prop fighters killed ME 262s and other jets by shooting them down on takeoff or landing. It's easy to loiter and kill anything that's poorly defended.

>>32846590
>they have a couple hundred fighter jets
Not that work, no.

That's also not AA in anybody's mind and if you're arguing such you've moved the goalposts so far they're in a different stadium.

>>32846570
> 1945 USA
> modern UK

In this scenario, modern USA wouldnt exist in anywhere near the same capacity, as it would have been nuked to fuck in 1945. Unless they can somehow magically transport their entire nation through time, in which case theyre stupid for sending WW2 era forces to modern Britain.

Checkmate.

>>32846571
>samefag accusations
kek'd heartily friendo

Park a few Challenger 2's on the American runways and nothing can take off, there goes the US air power.

>>32846597
Goddamn, call DHS or the NSA cus that guy has some weapons grade autism

>>32846603
While true, what has that got to do with their very tiny arsenal of ground-based AA or the fact the current RAF and RN has less than 1/300th of the total fighters of 1945 USAAF?

>>32846617
>almost everything 1945 USAAF flew could achieve lift-off at ~60mph and from a grass field
>they simply go around the tank
Brilliant!

>>32846626
So their entire airforce from all theatres is somehow teleported there with able runways, munitions, fuel, pilots and other supplies?
Why not just teleport all the munitions factories over aswell while youre at it

>>32846591
what i meant with "nukes are separate" is that they're not part of the regular military structure, and certainly not the army command, so i dont think you can even use them in this scenario since OP said "US Army"...

>>32846607
>modern fighter jets dont have weapons that can shoot down WW2 era planes
kek

>>32846614
>implying i even implied any samefagging
top zozzle, buddy

>>32846617
>infantry rush and disable it
sure they would lose a lot of men, but it's doable (unless tank has backup)

>>32846640
The OP premise was the entirety of the US Army (which includes the USAAF as they had not made the distinction between them yet) was teleported to Britain. So yes, that would include munitions, fuel, pilots and other supplies.

The USAAF only had like 2 planes that needed an improved runway and couldn't just use a random fucking field.

What's the matter, your inability to read or understand a very simple and properly written premise shoot holes in all your potential arguments?

>>32846645
>infantry rush and disable it
We need volunteers to clog this tank up with your guts, anyone?

>>32846645
Goddamn you are fucking daft.
>the Brits don't have very many modern radar guided anti-aircraft
>"b-but they have planes!!1!"
>Not enough,and that isn't AA
>"y-yes it is, I fucking said so KEKSUS MAXIMUS LOLOLOL BTFO!!!!11! BURGERSHART #REKT LOLOLOL"

>>32846670
In that case, given the USAs amazing ability to teleport millions of tons of equipment wherever they please, why didnt they just teleport a battalion of Shermans with Army Rangers into Downing Street, and troops into every single home, office, factory, along with nuclear armed bombers teleported over every population centre with fuel that magically teleports itself into the bombers fuel tanks indefinitely?

Within the constraints of the scenario, unless you apply some sort of realistic supply, logistic and transport chain, the entire thing is completely moot anyway, as shown above. I could rationalise with a massive scale invasion that subsequently lands millions of troops, and then further elements are brought ashore, but if you disregard that there are no restraints as to how many, why or where US forces magically pop up. Thus it is completely arbitrary.

>>32846683
>surround it and damage the tracks
>rush it from all sides and climb on top
>plant some explosives on the engine deck and the view ports and sights
>stick a few grenade down the barrel
>pour some fuel and set it on fire
disabled

>>32846685
>b-b-but we're talking about AA
they dont need AA when they can bomb the runways before more than a couple dozen burger planes have taken off and then blow those out of the sky with a few rockets or gun bursts

they can disable every little fucking dirt field with a barrage from artillery or a missile. USAAF would be incapable of operating.

>>32846732
Because not the premise.

Just how fucking retarded are you?

>>32846735
>>surround it and damage the tracks
>>rush it from all sides and climb on top
>>plant some explosives on the engine deck and the view ports and sights
>>stick a few grenade down the barrel
>>pour some fuel and set it on fire
>disabled

And the Challenger and his mates is doing what during the mean time?

>>32846735
> surround it
> climb on it
> get shredded by another tank hosing down his buddy with the coaxial MG

Fixed that for you

>>32846735
>through the powers of handwavium, the entire 1945 US Army is teleported to the British countryside with the sole goal of taking over Britain
>t-they can just bomb the runways guise, they totally will be able to get military assets up and going to totally destroy everything before the people who got the drop on them can even get anything airborne!
Patriotism is fine but you've literally exceeded slavaboo levels of fervor here.

File: learn_to_read_faggot.png (8KB, 462x116px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 462x116px

>>32846752
>>32846763
he didnt mention any mates in the post he made, and i already mentioned that it would probably fail if the tank had backup in this post >>32846645
>sure they would lose a lot of men, but it's doable (unless tank has backup)

>>32846732
pic related

>>32846751
Not as retarded as a person who accepts a scenario whereby a multimillion man force and billions of tons of necessary supplies magically appear in the UK but for some reason do so all localised and not in a position to occupy and blackmail every major population centre and the government.

>>32846617
>Park a few Challenger 2's on the American runways
>A few

Backups were implied before he started replying.

>>32846776
Countryside is not location specific.
A field a mile outside of Manchester is technically 'countryside'.

>>32846782
why are you in this thread if you cant use your imagination?

go be a retard somewhere else if you cant stick to the scenario/premise that OP wrote.

>>32846794
>A field a mile outside of Manchester is technically 'countryside'.
So is a mile outside of Liverpool, the US forces would be fucked when every jeep and aircraft is on bricks within an hour.

>>32846792
oh my bad

>>32846794
>technically
if you have to use this, it means you're argument is flawed.

>>32846798
Why are you in this thread if you cant apply logic?

>>32844840
im not sure they could even maintain a sortie rate that high to stop ww2 level carpet bombing

File: )when-someone-think-they-have-an-argument-but-its-not-2777133.png (54KB, 500x534px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x534px

>>32846852
then use your logic and figure out that there is more country side further from big cities and presume that is where they would arrive, fucktard

>>32846868
they dont have to, just shell whatever they use as runways and then use jets to mop up anything that managed to get into the air

File: 1485428247957.jpg (55KB, 1024x563px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1024x563px

>>32846877
Theres countryside outside of big cities? Holy shit man, I never knew that. Goddamn.

>>32844480
You didn't specify if they were teleported through time, so I'm just going to assume there's only a few old ass WW2 Vets surrounded by huge piles of corpses.

File: Logical_6ad3fd_5614369.jpg (61KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x360px

>>32846918

File: 1476950080678.jpg (48KB, 605x806px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 605x806px

>>32846919
>few old ass WW2 Vets surrounded by huge piles of corpses.
That mental image can kill people.

>>32846919
>surrounded by huge piles of corpses.
This is far more frightening, a few million rotting corpses appearing in random places would be tougher to deal with than scared GI's out of time.

>>32846952
probably just piles of bones now

>>32846930
In my original post, I did it under the assumption of logic, as in an invasion on the west coast, not that they could magically teleport whatever wherever the fuck they want. Once again, if the latter is true, it is completely arbitrary, thus a completely moot point. Good effort though.

>>32846530
Nukes make the entire thing retarded though, what the fuck are the bongs even supposed to do?
Millions of foreign troops with shitloads of supplies and nukes suddenly pop up instantly
Not like the bongs can use their own nukes in any meaningful way besides going full Sampson

>>32846964
your whole argument was moot from the start

nice try tho

>>32846967
This t b q h. Half of this thread is imagining the entire US army suddenly appears but not in a massive occupation stance (which is retarded) while the other half is trying to debate that from an invasion standpoint. Literally square peg round hole.
OPs fault for making it so ambiguous.

>>32846967
>>32846988
OP said US Army. US Army doesn't control the nukes, thus they dont have them after being teleported.

>>32846981
Only because I was assuming invasion, not magical teleporting burgers who are too retarded to teleport into positions of blackmail and control but instead teleport into one large mass to fight conventionally because reasons.
Gg tho

File: stopposting.png (159KB, 519x480px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 519x480px

>>32847003
OP didnt say invasion, he said teleported to british countryside.

learn to read, you imbecile

>>32846021
not if it breaks down first

>>32847028
Not him buuuuut
Where in the British countryside?

File: IMG-20160112-WA0002.jpg (48KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 540x960px

>>32847028
Well fugg.

Have a lewd pic of my ex as a reward.

UK nukes the fuck out of the fields crammed to the brim with 9 million Americans
The easiest phyrric victory ever won

>>32847038
OP didnt say, so but when people usually talk about the countryside it's quite far from any big cities, so assume that.

>>32847048
hnnngghh, hawt

>>32847048
You expect to get away so easy? You need to post more images of your ex to escape our anger.

File: IMG-20151224-WA0001.jpg (119KB, 900x1600px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 900x1600px

>>32847139
I'll only post more if you post 'God Save the Queen'.

>>32847173
God save the queen.

The sheer disparity in numbers could cause the UK to be overrun despite the US Army taking truly horrendous casualties.

Using superior ISTE and modern munitions could completely annihilate US command structures. This would cause chaos and confusion and allow groups to be cut of piecemeal by mode armour. Once the avearage soldier begins to panic mass surrenders could start.

The US isn't a collective culture and would probably crumble under those kind of casualties. UK forces would be outnumbered 40 to 1 though......

File: IMG-20151220-WA0002.jpg (146KB, 900x1600px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 900x1600px

>>32847192

>>32844840
>>32844862
Britain has no gun AA guys, and probably only a very small amount of radar guided 40mm Bofors L/70 kept in reserve storage.
USAAF has a ton of planes and British ground based air defense is short to medium ranged missiles. No PAC3's.

The Brits would run out of missiles, this shouldn't be a problem for too long provided BAe remains intact and isn't bombed to hell and back with firebombs.

All of this said Warrior IFV's are capable of engaging aerial targets with their 30mm's (typically helicopters).

One plus for the British is basically modern trainer aircraft which can be armed - this can greatly augment the small air force.
The BAe Hawk can already take a 30mm pod, 4 Sidewinders/ASRAAM's and 2 fuel pods, the Short Tucano can take a gunpod and missiles, and the Grob can with some work be outfitted with machineguns.
The Hawk will be untouchable, the Tucano's will be 10/1+, and even the Grob's, if uparmed, can cause a dent in all but the best USAAF fighters.
As for helis, well, the Apache will be the most effective anti air platform the British have, a flight of RAH-64's will be able to deny miles of airspace effectively

On the ground, the British will have absolute fire superiority in open country - but here's hoping they have enough FAL's, Sterling's, LAW's and MILAN's in storage.
By my estimate their reserve war stock isn't going to be perfect.
Britain will need a draft, and fast, they will need to put emergency imported M16's into the hands of barely trained youths because 8 million enemy troops is no laughing matter

>>32844840
They'll run out of missiles though. WW2 plane swarm is the perfect scenario for modern radar guided AA guns/SPAAG's. Which Britain doesn't have. They'll have to import ZU-23-2 Sergei's ffs before it's too late

>>32846597

Holy shit, you're right. Now that is some grade A autism right there.

>>32847241
>>32847259
i've said this like 3 times already but ill do it again since you dont seem to have read a fraction of the thread

i doubt brits need much AA when they have planes and artillery and other shit they could just shell the airstrips with and mop up any planes that did get into the air

>>32844815
>Obsolete ammunition
Are you retarded? .45 acp, .30-06, and .30 carbine are plentiful nowadays. Larger guns might be an issue though.

File: 1477782249756.jpg (100KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 640x480px

>>32844480
>US forces start invading towns and villages close to their starting point
>Quickly leave them since they think they are in the middle east and try to find modern maps to point out where the UK is.
>Find out they are indeed in the UK
>US command declear full retreat
>Massive amount of american soldiers are moving towards the sea to find transportation back to the US
>UK media reports that hugh amount of american world war 2 reenactors are stealing boats but not before destroy massive amount of fences in the countryside, thus allowing domestic animals run free causing anger among the farmers.
>"Just like in world war 2, these yanks keep destroying our fences" Said local old man.

>>32846166
There would be more than enough left over food laying around considering the fact that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of civilians would die in '45 US Artillery attacks and Carpet bombings.
And Urban combat would be an utter meat grinder of the highest order for the Brits, even if they militarized the entire police force, advances in small arms (really only a 25 year advance since small arms today are basically at late 60's capability), infantry optics and body armor won't mean much when you are so heavily outnumbered and the enemy can use submachineguns much more effectively in CQB.

As for the Challenger 2's, who fucking knows, the US will be throwing Tanks and tank destroyers at it hoping for a mobility kill, but what's more likely is they just back the fuck off, remember their superior firepower doctrine, and call a 500lb bomb on it

>>32847306
why would they retreat just because of arabs?

>>32846194
>any runway the US forces captured would be hit with a few JDAM/Brimstones and rendered inoperable
They would be capturing runways meant for jet aircraft, hell they would probably stumble on abandonded cold war air bases and use them as well.
Prop planes don't need even 1/2 the runway compared to jets, in fact you should just consider all prop planes smaller than a B-17 to be STOL, because they basically are.
Not only that but prop planes are less dependent on runways period, they can take off from dirt strips. And marsen mat exists.
Plus FOD isn't really a problem for props

File: ouch.gif (2MB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x200px

>>32847330
There is nothing of value to take.


But it is just a meme so dont take it personally mkay?

>>32846546
Prop bombers need less runway than jet fighters, or even subsonic jet trainers, the reason why some bomber runways were so huge back then is because multiple (overloaded) bombers took off at once, a large runway affords a greater capability to do that. They were landing B-25's on carriers. Hell ffs we landed and took off a C-130 from a carrier years ago.

I think the bigger question is this...... Both sides have access to nuclear weapons, and only one side would have the will to use them first, because it is not their home soil...

>>32847310
>There would be more than enough left over food laying around considering the fact that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of civilians would die in '45 US Artillery attacks and Carpet bombings.
Yes, go dig through the rubble looking for food and fresh water. How long does does it take to build a runway large enough to allow a WW2 bomber to take off? I am sure it is a lot longer than it takes to shell or bomb it.

>>32846603
Saturation is going to be a hugh problem regardless.
I expect the RAF will quickly run out of radar guided AAM's, and then eventually sidewinders/ASRAAM's.
That said radar directed 27mm/30mm on Typhoons and Tornadoes, with an effective range that triples that of 20mm's used in ww2 fighters, will make short work of all of the things. I hope the RAF has some gunpods sitting around

>>32847411
read the thread, they can takeoff from dirt fields you tard

>>32847397
>Both sides have access to nuclear weapons, and only one side would have the will to use them first, because it is not their home soil...
Nope, only 1 side has access to nuclear weapons because the US Army never had control of the nukes in WW2.

>>32847428
>they can takeoff from dirt fields you tard
Dodging craters and hills? How much flat land suitable for aircraft do you think the UK has?

>>32847397
I'd be more inclined to vaporise the millions of people invading my nation rather than nuking the nation where I have millions of troops invading

>>32847474
Because OP never made anything clear all those 8 million+ men might end up in one staging area, only 1 nuke needed.

>>32847442
>craters
you didnt specify this in your post
>hills
if you think there are no fields flat enough (protip: it doesnt have to be flat like the autobahn or a regular airfield) in the whole country you're retarded

>>32847411
I think you are forgetting the fact that real war just landed on a Western Country. Brits would be fleeing the front/advance so fucking quickly US troops would be stumbling on empty towns, all it would take is the hint of shelling and the average brit says "fuck it we're driving to Scotland"

>>32847491
Exactly
Some scorched fields and maybe a destroyed town or two in exchange for wiping out your entire enemy combatant force that massively outnumbered them otherwise
Seems pretty logical to use a nuke

>>32847429
The USAAF (Ie the Army) dropped the nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Unless you want us to seriously believe the navy operated B-29's.

>>32847504
>you didnt specify this in your post
I thought being bombed and shelled by the enemy would be implied, I am sorry. Next time I will assume they will sit there are do nothing as a force an 8th of the size of their population prepares an attack.

>>32847300

Try finding that in the UK.

>>32847538
dont get me wrong, i said the same thing earlier in the thread multiple times, but my point is that they will be able to get some planes in the air

>>32847519
USAAF did not store, guard, manage or command the nuclear warheads in WW2 until after the decision was made to drop them on Japan.

File: 1484759933675.jpg (772KB, 3200x2149px) Image search: [Google]

772KB, 3200x2149px

>>32844480
This is dumb as hell... The Americans would completey destroy the UK; Sure its gonna hurt, no doubt but in the long run. The Americans win..
>If the entire 1945 US army was teleported
This means logic is all setup, lines are already made, fuel is on hand, and in tankers offshore, the ENTIRE army.
All thats left is the push to the queens doorstep.

The British Armed Forces are a professional force with a strength of 153,470 UK Regulars and Gurkhas, 35,200 Volunteer Reserves and 8,160 "Other Personnel" [nb 5] as of 2016 May 1 . This gives a total strength of 196,840 "UK Service Personnel".

vs

1945 -
8,267,958 - Army
3,380,817 - Navy
474,680 - Marines
85,783 - Coast Guard
12,209,238 - Total.
> Keyword here = "ENTIRE". The branch of the army was supported by all the above, and worked in unison to accomplish goals.

Between the naval fleet just hammering the island, the sheer numbers of fighters jets that DONT get shutdown in the first wave, and the fact that..
>there is about 227 active challenger tanks in Britannia armament (ACTIVE, not stored.. you need a crew for that and on such short notice its not an effective crew)
Now they are fighting
> 49,234 ww2 shermans.. and hell if they have the 75mm cannon attachment, they are going to penetrate that armor.
Each tank would have to score 216 sherman kills to be effective...

Dude its a good thought; but honest to god...
Between the flat out sheer numbers the american forces would bring to the battle, even WITH brits adv tech on them.
>They lose. probably within the week; considering it would be a non stop push to london
Maybe come up against a few pockets of resistance that get bombed into the fucking ground by arty.

And this isnt even talking about tactics that would be employed
or battlefield terrain
OR the fact that 1945 US fields more trained/ Experienced soldiers and officers then the entire standing army of Britannia currently.

GG US 1-0

>>32846580

>Less than a hundred total Starstreak launchers (more than 60 of which are shoulder fired) and less than 50 total Rapier launchers. They have nothing else.

What are you even talking about? They've got 100 triple launchers in service, 60 more 8-shot launchers on Stormers, a bunch of shoulder launches ones and they just bought another 200 missiles last year.

Enough to take on that many Army Air Force things? Hell no. But your numbers are WAY off.

>>32847578
>USAAF did not store, guard, manage or command the nuclear warheads in WW2 until after the decision was made to drop them on Japan.
Did the crew even know what the mission was until they were in the air? Those poor bastards on the Indianapolis suffered due to the secrecy of it, even those on D-day did not know when they were going until crunch time.

>>32847589

see >>32846477

>>32847606
Exactly. Therefore the americans wont have any nukes if we're talking about the Army command like OP stated.

File: 1464579588292.png (652KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 1280x720px

>>32847607
You mother fucker.

Is that your response? Really? All the effort I put into my post, and you respond with that ‘witty’ retort of yours? The passions and experiences of my life have been poured into ensuring my post was a masterpiece. You’re merely a peasant that can’t even begin to understand how my post was utter perfection. I bet you couldn’t even replicate even an iota of how great my post was. I laugh at the thought of how bewildered and overheated your brain must be for attempting to even begin to refute my post. Even if you went to Harvard and earned a Master’s in the study of my post, you would still lament your inability to learn the prophetic undertones of my post. But you know what? I pity you, since it is a tragedy you couldn’t appreciate my post. The experience could have changed you… made you a better man. Instead, you will remain the hollow shell of a man who could have received salvation. The anguish of you not being able to truly appreciate my post will haunt you to your grave.

>>32847589
OP said the US Army teleported, he did not say they teleported with their lines and infrastructure intact and he most certainly never included the Marines, Navy and Coast Guard. More likely you will end up with a load of terrified and confused GI's wondering what the fuck is going on and why are the locals pointing strange rectangle boxes at them.

>>32847589
Airforce
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft
Around 350-300 ACTIVE craft, and not even fucking modern..
>Panavia Tornado GR4 UK Jet Attack 1979 46 81

vs

1945 americans - 45,852

Serisoly. dude. They will just flat out run out of arms before they even dent the american numbers.

File: 1484042184799m.jpg (56KB, 1024x920px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1024x920px

>>32846074

>royal army
What the shitting fuck is that

File: nananananana.gif (719KB, 240x209px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 240x209px

>>32847629

File: 1478233834086.jpg (2MB, 1333x1897px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1333x1897px

>>32847636
He did say teleport, but they arent just plopped down.. they have a general idea of whats up. they know the game.. if not then its "Oh look someone invented timetravel how are you doing chaps welcome to 2017" and we have the biggest wtf just happened the world has ever seen..

By the way the question is worded.. they know their objective and they are setup at start to accomplish said objective..

>>32847629
Not me

>>32847607
Great, longer range... i guarantee you there is not enough ammo in any of that to take it out and effectively.. you have over 12 million targets wilth 1 goal. london.. you are not going to stop that entire force.

Planes sure they win, but they will only fly for so long.
Tanks, they will lose by attrition
Inf combat, they lose by attrition. Bullets are bullets man.. ither it be a brand new bulpup or a 1942 m1 30-06 its still combat effective..

> British lose, period.

File: USN_1945 vs RN_2016.png (67KB, 1449x507px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1449x507px

>>32847589

It's US Army, not US Army, USMC, Navy and Coastguard.

We had a thread about the US Navy from 1945 vs the modern Royal Navy a few weeks back. The US would get absolutely buttfucked at sea in that case.

On land it'd be the same thing. Identify millions of men appearing, nuke the area and its done.

In a straight fight elsewise, then it's a lot more unsure. But OP said "US Army". Not "US Military". In which case the US would have no resupply, no logistics routes and no intelligence or central hub that would exist past hours. The amount of time it'd take for that many men to reorient and figure out where they are and how to operate would be enormously slower than it'd take a modern connected force to organise and decapitate the older one.

Not to mention the intelligence and EW advantage. And the moral shock as US soldiers find entire convoys exploding with no known source. Or pinpoint accurate artillery fire striking every supply dump and repair station they try to make.

It's not video game style "throw armies together" that kills it eventually for the US. It's coordination and intelligence being completely dominated against from against an enemy who is only going to get tougher as they start taking armament measures.

>>32847682
>they know their objective and they are setup at start to accomplish said objective..
Once again I will ask why they do not just teleport people into more strategic positions then? You do not need tanks and bombers when you can teleport a man with a rifle into every home in the UK.

File: ssbn_launch.jpg (27KB, 617x479px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 617x479px

>>32847642
>cluster bombs whatever the yanks use as airfield while they're taking off, making further take-offs impossible
>ICBM into any massed forces

>>32847682
>bongs running out of ammo
>pic related
>yanks surrender

>>32847642

>In my fantasy world all these prop planes aren't just fucking steamrolled on the ground in their dozens by planes, artillery, naval gunfire and helos they don't even know the origin point of, let alone the approach of!
>In my fantasy world, planes don't need supply lines and logistical support!

>>32847698
because they themselves are not in control of the teleportation.

UK detonates a nuclear bomb off the coast near the invading forces.

Declares the next one lands ON them if they don't immediately drop arms.

US forces surrender.

Easy scenario.

>>32847714
>because they themselves are not in control of the teleportation.
Who is then? Is it planned or random? If it is planned then where in the UK can you put 8 million people plus equipment and billions of tons of supplies? If it is random then you end up with very confused and scared troops that just want to go home.

>>32847725
It's irrelevant anyway, but since OP didnt say, assume aliens or whatever the fuck you want.

>>32844902
Medium top quality bait

>bongoloids trying to make up crazy excuses as to how a force more than 40 times their size

Best thread on weeks. Carbons should switch to be targeting bongs, much better reaction than burgers

>>32847704
>>32847721

The only nuclear forces the UK has are 64 Trident II SLBM's with 8 warheads each, with pre-selected targets (probably aimed at Russia).

It would take time to reprogram the targeting computer and to reduce the number of warheads on board the missile you fire (so you're not nuking half of your own country with eight warheads at once). How long that takes isn't really known, and you almost certainly cannot do either of these things on the sub itself.

>>32847693
Allright I can agree to that. 86 nukes tho; they really are just unfair and are basically deterrents.

>It's not video game style "throw armies together" that kills it eventually for the US. It's coordination and intelligence being completely dominated against from against an >enemy who is only going to get tougher as they start taking armament measures.
Point.

>>32847698
>>32847714
>>32847725

Has to be organized, and start with attack move in play... and the force HAS to know whats up.. otherwise its just

>hi 1945 soldiers
>hello there 2017 soldiers.
>Well how did this happen
>Beats me mate

>>32847704
You would have to assume all planes are in flight and onto target objective at start of scenero

>>32847721
Also, no nukes

>>32847712
Planes crash into things

File: 1470350656043.jpg (68KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 620x387px

>>32847754
>retard ignoring the fact there would be 80 years of technological advancements between the two forces
>one has tech that lets them kill their enemy without them ever seeing them, and nukes
but hey, why dont you tell us how you fight an enemy you cant even find?

>>32847771
>it takes a lot of time to enter coordinates into a computer
>implying their conventional weapons cant hold off the enemy for 30 minutes

>>32847655
If even these French can take land the US Army can win easy

>>32847799
they can take land initially until the bongs organize and drop a missile into the yank's headquarters

>>32844480
>would they be successful?
Yes

The UK would be take by complete surprise since you got millions of enemy troops randomly pop in the country side which means land not in towns, cities, or industrial areas, that is either used for farming or left in its natural condition with the objecitve "take over the country". The scenario could play our different depending on many factors but generally the UK would lose.

You can do the same thing in the USA but the scenario would be much harder since USA is so much larger so the US goverment can actually trade space for time which the UK goverment cannot.

This is assuming that US 1945 troops WILL shoot at civilians and remain loyal and not just break away in both scenarios. If the troops wont follow orders then the 1945 force lose all the time.

>>32847821
And how long will that bongs will be fucked very shortly and in the long run US will still keep fucking as they can take ammo from dead m8s

>>32847838
>And how long will that bongs will be fucked very shortly and in the long run US will still keep fucking as they can take ammo from dead m8s
No one has yet to explain where all this billions of tons of supplies is to be stored, we are talking about a place 3 times smaller than Texas here.

>>32847712
So can 300ish attack craft effectively reload, refit, refuel and fly another attack mission and take down say 7 planes each time before...

45,852 Bombers, Escorts and paratoopers drop shit onto their heads..

Im betting on the massive difference in numbers here.
God forbid, that the entire fucking 101st drops onto your airfield.
Planes are now grounded.

>>32847797
>>it takes a lot of time to enter coordinates into a computer

As I said, it's probably not possible to do from the sub itself. You can't reprogram an ICBM in a silo.

Nobody really knows how these things are targeted. Your claim that all you have to do is punch in some numbers (which for some reason takes 30 minutes?? how long are these numbers?) is something you can't back up with evidence.

>>32847797
>Thinks bongistanis have infinite ammo

I love it. You even thought that britshits had cluster bombs.

Even with everything in a straight line any force of 8 mill is going to out number and survive any kind of attrition.

Bongistanis are hilarious

>>32847825

see >>32846477


>>32847850
assume the supplies got teleported with them.

>>32847838
how are they supposed to be able to take ammo from dead bongs, let alone kill any soldier bongs, when they cant even find the bongs that is killing them from way outside the american gun's effective range?

>>32847852
for the 5th time, they dont have to, they can just drop a fucking bomb on whatever the americans use as airfield and clog up the runway.

>>32847859
even if they have to fly whatever personell that they need to any location in the country to change the coordinates (if they cant do it remotely), their forces are so far ahead in tech they can hold out at least that long.

>>32847882
>thinks they cant start producing ammo
the americans will have less supplies after their logistics get photo'd by a satellite and bombed from over the horizon. how will they kill a bong they cant see, with ammo they dont have?

>>32847928
>even if they have to fly whatever personell that they need to any location in the country to change the coordinates

These missiles are on submarines.

At least familiarize yourself with the most basic facts of this subject *before* piping up about it, would you?

>>32847928
>assume the supplies got teleported with them.
And stored where? You cannot carry a campaigns worth of supplies with you and when this shit appears it will be detected in seconds/minutes by satellites.

If they're sane human beings they'll realize they're in the fucking future and in Britain and won't want to go to war for no reason. UK wins.

If part of the scenario is they're all jihad-tier fanatics, then they'll disperse across the country, infiltrate as much as possible under the cover that they don't know how the fuck they got there, which should be pretty believable given their old-ass equipment, and at some preset time start wrecking literally everything. US wins.

File: Seals_are_taken_by_a_helicopter_from_a_submarine.jpg (129KB, 990x619px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 990x619px

>>32847947
>hurr durr durr derp
kys retard

>>32847954
in the crates in the fields. transported by US Army trucks.
why is this so hard to comprehend?

>>32847979
Oh good, so all in one place?+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We can send in the sjws to educate the barbaric 1945uns. Solves two problems - removes SJW's and removes quite a lot of the Americans ammo.

>>32847954
>>32847979
>it will be detected in seconds/minutes by satellites
like i multiple times already, but that's not what we're talking about.

>>32847992
see >>32847995

File: 1464883397098.png (96KB, 750x935px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 750x935px

>>32847306
>america
>white

File: oooooooo.gif (429KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 320x240px

>>32848034

File: 1411858292164.png (289KB, 384x635px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 384x635px

>>32847928
>See
We are talking about 8 million troops coming out of the woods with no warning. You keep talking about technological advantage but this is practically useless in the large scale since you dont have the time to prepare.

To put it mildly. This is the same as 5 burglers suddenly comming out of your basement with no sound of any window getting broken or you seeing them get into your house. They got flintlocks pistol and you got a AR but you are not holding it at the moment. Sure you got the advance weapon but you never even knew they where there and they are gona rob you.

File: 1452158450883.jpg (12KB, 261x190px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 261x190px

>>32848056
>you dont have any time to prepare
>oi guvna, there be a bunch of bloody yanks in me field
>5 minutes later
>*takes satellite picture*
>bloody hell, there is! oi queeny, mind if i launch a missile on them there cheeky cunts?
>right'o mate
>10 minutes later
>*WOOOSH*
>*boom*

File: american freedom smug.jpg (272KB, 953x1200px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 953x1200px

>>32848083
Such a well thought out post. I have been completely blown away by your superior logic.

As expected from my fellow anglo saxon brother. Not even the Leaf's are capable to reach your special status.

>>32844762
>implying anywhere outside of London would care if it was destroyed

File: implying.jpg (28KB, 280x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 280x400px

>>32848115
yeah because 8 million people somehow all have harry potter's invisibility cloak and it takes a lot of time to make a phone call and tell a guy to press a button to launch a missile or launch a bunch of jets

i have a feeling it would take far longer for 8 million people that suddenly found themselves in dirt fields to organize than it takes to snap a few satellite photos and fly a couple jets over there and greet them

>>32847300
try finding that shit in the UK

File: 1440293485509.jpg (131KB, 480x455px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 480x455px

>>32848154
I never knew the brittish were so bent on killing people in the middle of the woods because they got spotted on satellite photos.

I wonder if it is possible to take walk in bongistan since you never know when a plane drops a bomb on you.

>>32846801
Severely underrated post.

>>32844480

This is the most retarded thread ever, Sage goes in all fields.

File: ....jpg (62KB, 640x457px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x457px

This is a really dumb question OP.
Ur an fagget

If the US Army just materializes out of nowhere then Britain will be skullfucked simply due to the overwhelming size of the army appearing. They'll inflict disproportionate losses I'm sure, but they'd been a 100-1 k/d to have a chance of winning.
It's 8,000,000 against 200,000. At a certain point technology only makes up for so much. Sure, nothing in the US arsenal could take out a challenger, but you're looking at 20k Shermans versus a few hundred Challengers, and that's assuming they can even mobilize all the armor in time.

If we assume the US has fully intact logistics and not that it's just a cage match here the British lose most of their cities before they can fully react, and what they don't lose is gonna get carpet bombed.

If the British have prior warning and it's not just a magical 8 million outta fuckin nowhere maybe they do a bit better, but you're still pitting a really really tiny force against the third largest army ever assembled in human history, and unlike in history, you'd be concentrating it all on one theater.

But then, the British would also be able to inflict such ridiculous losses if they had prior knowledge that even though they'd still be overwhelmed, if we assume this 8 million man Army still has the American mentality of the day it's unlikely they would be able to stomach such horrendous losses and would probably want to assume a defense posture after the British blow their load all but eradicating the first attack waves. Of course, the next offensive would overwhelm Britain, but the fictional army wouldn't really know that only that everything they sent out gets obliterated by pinpoint artillery and rocket strikes and invincible tanks knock out platoons of Shermans in under a minute.

My conclusion, OP sucks cocks and this argument is stupid no matter how you want to slice it.

>>32848196
Walk into gunshop/gunsmiths, find fucking mountains of the stuff.

File: hKrtWKd.jpg (55KB, 500x751px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x751px

>>32848230

>>32846102
>"entire army"

That includes quite a logistical arm stashed with food and supplies for probably a weeks worth of ass kicking.


If it was 1945 US Army (including the Army Airforce and Army Maritime Arm) vs 2017 UK military, in the UK.

The 1945 US Army wins purely by numbers and sheer firepower output.

Chally 2's will get smoked by rear shots.

Typhoons will cause damage only to get shot up by hundreds of P-47 and P-51 strafing their airfields.

General Patton will lead the charge to remove Communists from London and then later Scotland.

>>32846102
Gee, if only an army with fucking tanks and shit had some way to convince the local populace to contribute to their cause.

File: 1473538717434.jpg (11KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x250px

>>32848259
>HAHA ONLY SUPERIOR MANPOWER MATTERS!

>>32848317
>WW2 US Army
>has more firepower than a modern nuclear armed nation
>implying their numbers matter when they cant even see the bongs before they die
stop this retarded meme "argument"

>>32848196
it doesnt matter, compare the ENTIRE FUCKING US ARMY OF WW2 vs 200,000 brits. the rules also dont say the americans cant pick up and use the weapons of slain bongs.

File: 1466179268692.jpg (32KB, 447x456px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 447x456px

>>32848383
you know what else doesnt matter? your manpower and "firepower" when you cant even fucking see the enemy, let alone reach them with your weapons.

>>32848353
you arent even presenting an argument.

>>32848410
>cant see the enemy

most combat takes place within 3-500 meters you sperglord. is that your only argument? Also theyre using god damn 30-06, theyll have no problems reaching bongistanis using 5.56

File: 772bdVA.jpg (28KB, 298x360px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 298x360px

>>32848423
i've already refuted your "muh manpowa!!!" and "muh faiyapowah!" so called "arguments" several times in this thread.

>>32848430
>tanks, planes, missiles and artillery suddenly doesnt exist!

File: 1484536925485.jpg (237KB, 598x792px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 598x792px

>>32847704
>>32847712
>>32847797
>>32847928
>>32847992
>>32848083
>>32848154
>>32848314
>>32848353
>>32848410
>>32848459

>>32846211
WITNESSED

File: when-someone-think-they-have-an-argument-but-its-not.png (118KB, 496x534px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 496x534px

>>32848474
right back at ya

>>32848353
Superior manpower matters a lot.
In this case a lot more than the firepower does. Because the British literally do not have enough ordinance to beat the army.

The only way the British win in such a lopsided fight is if the American force refuses to stomach the heavy losses it will indeed take, but if this is some dumbass cage match like OP is implying where both sides fight until one side is wiped out the British get wiped out first.
Hell, the British just straight up run out of ammo before they can even put a major dent in an 8 million man army.

File: 160420175729-isis-in-libya-1-large-169.jpg (45KB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 460x259px

ITT people don't realize that airstrikes solve everything.

I mean seriously, could you imagine if there was a force that only had aging infantry weapons, obsolete vehicles, and whatever it could capture with those two?

Could you imagine if it tried to square off against any country with a modern airforce?

It would be totally erased within weeks, guys, because airstrikes are infinite, costless, always accurate and very easy to use in situations where the enemy is in close proximity to civilians you would like to not see obliterated.

>>32846074
>Brits are unable to kick out hordes of UNARMED muslims who rape their women by the thousands, take over their towns and behead their soldiers on their streets, and you think they would be able to stop outdated, but heavily armed, well trained and equipped with armor, regardless that it's backwards....
>implying that's not the cops jobs

Not saying the cops in Britain are cucked beyond belief.

>>32848459
you will expend all of your ordinance within the first few days of fighting. You aren't the US. You dont keep metric shit tons of JDAMs ready to go. You ran out of ordinance just from low tempo bombardment in Libya.

>>32848515
aren't*

>>32848494
>expects to defeat americans
>cant defeat muslim invasion
Lol what good does your nukes and nightvision do when you cant kick out pakistanis.

There would be no fight because British women would drown the Yanks in pussy just like the last time. The Brits couldn't shoot without destroying their own cunny supply, though schoolbois make bretty gud expedient poonanny.

After the Great Cucking the remaining (b)ritfags would be assimilated by the offspring of their former Colonials.

>>32848530
>Lol what good does your nukes and nightvision do when you cant kick out pakistanis.

Could be worse, they could elect a nig nog or a reality TV star as president.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (56KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1280x720px

>>32848496
>Because the British literally do not have enough ordinance to beat the army.
>the British just straight up run out of ammo before they can even put a major dent in an 8 million man army.
It's the other way around. The brits can start producing ammo. Americans cant replace anything, and their shit will be gone pretty fucking quick once bongs start bombing their shit.
>b-b-but muh captured equipment
Like I said about a dozen times already, they wont even be able to get close to the brits because everything except their small arms is outranged, and brits have infrared, night vision and satellite and can outmaneuver the americans easily.

>>32848500
>>32848559
The British literally don't have enough bombs, missiles, anti tank rockets, HEAT and sabots to wipe out all the Shermans the US Army fielded. They literally do not have enough, and they cannot manufacture enough to make up for it either. You're looking at a few tens of thousands of fighters with technicals getting bombed with impunity, then equating that with 8 million men, 40,000 fighters, 60,000 bombers, 40,000 tanks, 40,000 other AFVs, 120,000 guns and heavy mortars, and competent training.

Versus.
200,000 men, a few hundred tanks, a few hundred IFVs, a few hundred pieces of artillery, a thousand or so mortars, a few hundred ATGMs.

Of the 220 aircraft the British have only 54 are currently in a flyable state, with only another 80 being easily field able in the near future. The rest might as well not exist.

If the US throws everything they've got at the British the British are straight up overwhelmed. No ifs ands or buts. They run out of munitions before the US runs out of anything.

File: 1444504454404.gif (2MB, 383x204px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 383x204px

>>32848549
No the worse thing is that british soldiers can get killed by a african with a machete.

All that range advantage, capability to see in the night. See your enemy before he see you did nothing to stop this tragedy. The police are no better.

How can you expect them to fight a man who have seen hell and won?

>>32848559
>outmaneuver the americans easily.

Which matters a lot when the Americans can basically tank any casualties while capturing every single city and base on their map.

>>32848559
I seriously think you do not understand how fucking large the american military was. almost 8 million in 1944 and that was just the army. There would be burgers running rampant all over your island supported by armor. You wouldnt have time to ramp up industry.

>>32848575
>>32848521
>brits cant mobalize and conscript
>brits cant start producing supplies
>brits cant break out old equipment
>brits cant shell american runways
>brits cant bomb american supplies
>brits cant outrange them in everything except small arms
>brits cant nuke concentrated forces

>>32848603
there wont be 8 million americans standing after pic >>32848559

I'd argue it's down to how quickly America can grab enough land, thus forcing the British to surrender, before their supplies run out due to the fact that all supply lines are gone and tankers and naval presence was destroyed. It's all about speed for the Americans in this scenario I guess

>>32848632
>Britain will drop a nuke right into their own land

>>32848632
90% of British military industry exists in or around London, which will certainly be the primary target of the American Army. It will be either besieged or outright captured in under a month, and any industry will have been carpet bombed into uselessness within the first week.

If they use nukes, ok, that's one thing, but they're also nuking themselves so as soon as nukes come into the picture it's a British Phyrric Victory. Assuming that can even make a difference.

>>32848666
>Britain will drop a nuke right into their own land
Its that or hand it over to a foreign power.

>>32848632
Your cucked government doesn't even have the heart to deport foreign criminals. Do you think they will have enough nuts to nuke themselves? The UK is extremely small. You would have entire armored divisions at the doorstep of your military instillation before you even have time to mobilize conscripts or anything like that. You would be lucky if you could even get your regulars in marching order before then. The US would just maneuver hard and fast.

especially

when

its

fucking

8

million

soldiers

>>32848632
>brits cant mobalize and conscript
How are you gona do that when there is a american division overrunning pretty much every large town?
>brits cant start producing supplies
How are you gona do that when there are american soldiers in the factories since they spawned just outside in the countryside and moved to capture the factory?
>brits cant break out old equipment
How are you gona do that when the americans overran the storage house?
>brits cant shell american runways
How are you gona do that when american soldiers are in your airbase since they spawned outside in the field and overran your defence?
>brits cant bomb american supplies
How are you gona do that when american soldiers are in your base since they spawned outside in the field and overran your defence?
>brits cant outrange them in everything except small arms
How are you gona do that when american soldiers are in your base since they spawned outside in the field and overran your defence stopping your soldiers to get into their vehicles?
>brits cant nuke concentrated forces
How are you gona be able to nuk 8 million troops who spawned in the country side which is everywhere? They dont have to spawn at the same place. They can spawn anywhere that is counted as countryside so they can easily spawn at different positions.

Dont you understand? You lose. My scenario still stands :^)

>>32848692
>Government nukes the shit out of London (where the Americans will be within a couple of days of teleporting in)
>Government expects to still be in power when the dust settles

>>32846194

You're forgetting two things:

>1. The UK literally does not have enough AA missiles to shoot down the entire Army Air Corps; there are over 60,000 aircraft up and running while the UK has some 400~ fighters/attack aircraft/trainers that can be converted into fighters between its many branches, of which at least 20% are still propeller driven and thus would be vulnerable to being shot down by P-51s themselves, as are any helicopters.
>2. The UK also decommissioned the vast majority of its armoured forces, leaving behind ~200 functional Challanger 2s, which will be quite literally facing a hundred tanks for each of their number while the M4 Sherman has proven its capable of taking out modern tanks in the Arab-Israeli War.
>3. The sheer amount of fucking guys there are. As stated, the RAF simply does not have the amount of resources needed to combat a fully operational military, especially one that's working within its borders.

That being said though, it's probably not going to be direct combat that does the Royal Army in, but the sheer attrition on both sides reducing the country into a third-world stinkhole. China is probably laughing its rear off at the situation.

I will give you one thing, once the subs get into the picture, the USN is boned; those things can single-handedly take out a modern carrier group.

File: 1470350487419.png (690KB, 850x464px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 850x464px

>>32848666
they suffered far more civilian losses before, and modern warheads dont leave much radiation

>>32848686
if they teleport near london in the first place, yes. but even then they would have to figure out where exactly they are, and im sure it takes them longer to do that than the brits to notice several million personal and equipment.

>>32848709
>implying im a bong
>FUCKING EIGHT MILLION SOLDIERS
wont be that many very long

>>32848722
>>Government nukes the shit out of London (where the Americans will be within a couple of days of teleporting in)
>>Government expects to still be in power when the dust settles
The rest of the country will celebrate if London gets nuked.

File: Invoker takes skill.gif (842KB, 228x171px) Image search: [Google]

842KB, 228x171px

>>32848731
Nukes make conventional force arguments obsolete for a reason. It's why we didn't have WW3.
But either way the second the Brits start dropping nukes they've already admitted defeat, now enjoy 70% of the British countryside being unsuable for the next three decades and self inflicting casualties reaching the hundreds of thousands as a result of the deployment.

Like yeah, nukes are gonna work, but that shit ain't gonna be pretty. Probably about the same amount of collateral as if you just let the US hand out freedom instead.

>>32848731
I dont think you understand how war works. With as many the US has they can take the entire country within hours with overwhelming force and sheer violence of action. No one is saying muricans wont die, but there is no way the bongistanis could win. They could put up a fight if they get lucky and have some notice, but thats about it.

>>32848728
>Royal Army
As shit your pants scary as the Confederate Army.

>>32848770
okay not hours, thats a bit buch. a couple of weeks tops.

File: kzmGbo1.jpg (102KB, 444x543px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 444x543px

>>32848721
>How are you gona do that when there is a american division overrunning pretty much every large town?
How are you going to do that when you're driving WW2 equipment and getting bombed by an invisible enemy?
>How are you gona do that when there are american soldiers in the factories since they spawned just outside in the countryside and moved to capture the factory?
We dont know where they will spawn.
>How are you gona do that when the americans overran the storage house?
How do they know where British warehouses are?
>How are you gona do that when american soldiers are in your airbase since they spawned outside in the field and overran your defence?
See first point.
>How are you gona do that when american soldiers are in your base since they spawned outside in the field and overran your defence stopping your soldiers to get into their vehicles?
See first and second point.
>How are you gona be able to nuk 8 million troops who spawned in the country side which is everywhere? They dont have to spawn at the same place. They can spawn anywhere that is counted as countryside so they can easily spawn at different positions.
We dont know how spread out they will spawn, but if it's random there will be larger and smaller groups, and we can assume all the larger concentrations will be decimated. There wont be anywhere near 8 million left.

>>32848728
They have enough intel firepower to destroy anything they use as an airfield quickly before they get any sizable numbers into the air, and anything that gets into the air is outclassed easily.

>>32848762
OP said modern UK, that includes their nukes whether you like it or not.

>>32846307
Not
>join the WW2 vets, many of whom could be their grandparents, in talk over the UK, adding two more States to the USA.

File: 1471236844855.png (80KB, 1982x1133px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1982x1133px

>>32848816
Sure it includes nukes, but a lot of countries include nukes. And using nukes on your own territory is the explicit thing you're not supposed to do, you're supposed to use them on other countries to prevent conventional forces from ever threatening you.

That's their whole point, irradiating your own country is not what you wanna use them for.

Again, it'll work.
But it's not gonna be pretty. For the British. Using nukes on your own country is the equivalent of pic related, a strong bluff, but then what happens when your bluff gets called?

>>32848845
>That's their whole point, irradiating your own country is not what you wanna use them for.
Modern warheads are actually very clean. And I think they would do it.

>>32848816
>Drop a handful of nukes all over your own country to take out largest concentrations
>Erase countless small villages
>Hundreds of thousands dead
>Millions homeless, wounded and/or irradiated.
>Now you only have 6 million Americans to worry about

Great work. Incidentally, the notion that nukes would be the immediate response is absurd. The British have no idea what the scenario is, and would probably just be baffled for the first day or so. By the time they've accepted that space and time have just shit themselves to allow this, the American forces will have set up in hundreds of little towns and possibly occupied many large cities with little resistance.

Unless someone beams perfect knowledge of what's happening into the mind of someone who has direct control over nukes within the first 24 hours, there is no way nukes are getting launched.

Also, even if someone is crazy enough to launch, enjoy WWIII as the US, China, and Russia all detect nuclear launches coming from Britain's silos.

>>32848895
You're assuming the americans wont be equally baffled.

>>32848895
>Also, even if someone is crazy enough to launch, enjoy WWIII as the US, China, and Russia all detect nuclear launches coming from Britain's silos.
they are not part of the scenario so moot point

>>32848902
The Americans will have orders to take over the country. That means they know where they are and what they're supposed to do.

Frankly even if they didn't though, they would pretty much have to spread out and start raiding nearby cities. You can't camp 8 million men out in the same field, so the American force is going to scatter and embed itself in nearby towns and cities as soon as possible regardless of what their orders are.

>>32848888
Modern warheads, yes, but just how modern ARE Britain's nukes?
What exactly is their payload and their fallout generation?

There's a lot of older nukes still in service that are about as clean as a Turk. And even the clean ones still irradiate the SHIT out of ground zero and anything nearby, they just don't stay deadly radioactive quite as long.

>>32844480

Short answer: no.

Long answer: Pretty much the only advantage that US forces would have in that scenario would be numbers. With this, they're going up against:

>Air superiority of a stupendously overwhelming degree
>Rotary wing aircraft
>Modern artillery, which can reach out to 70+km with pinpoint accuracy and wipe an entire grid square off the map
>Modern armour, much of which is impervious or at least resistant to any AT available at the time
>Proliferation of thermal imaging, rendering most flanking and surprise stratergies useless
>Proliferation of personal night vision devices, and infantry trained in their use
>Proliferation of effective man-portable AT
>Proliferation of image intensifying optics
>Proliferation of personal radios and situational awareness enhancing gear
>Infantry trained in what, at the time, was commando warfare- the purview of elite units
>A command structure, planning departments and bounding logistics lightyears ahead of anything available in 1945
>A foe with the ability to tap/disrupt/otherwise fuck up theater-wide communications at will

By the time US forces got orders, objectives and planning disseminated, they would have been under concerted attack by the RAF for hours; enough time for the UK to begin mobilising. Without modern maps even knowing where to attack is going to be a challenge, and without any communications more advanced than runners coordination will break down very quickly. Any heavy equipment they have would be toast within a week, and they would be outmanoeuvered and outgunned on both a tactical and stratigic level in virtually every engagement faced. Lots and lots of infantry pockets holding out after an initial advance whilst the UK got its shit together, But stopped hard and rapidly repulsed when modern combined arms and manoeuvre warfare is allowed to do its thing.

>>32848816
>How are you going to do that when you're driving WW2 equipment and getting bombed by an invisible enemy?
Because they spawned so in this scenario that there will take only a hours for almost all divisions to reach their objective.
>We dont know where they will spawn.
Exactly, therefore in this scenario there will spawn 1 american army divison outside each city in the UK.

There are 69 cities in the UK.

The US faction have 20 armored divisions
100 Infantry divisions.

This leaves us with 51 divisions that can be concentrated anywhere needed. In this scenarion almost all will be concentrated in random locations in England that constitutes as "countryside"

>How do they know where British warehouses are?
>See first point.
>See first and second point.
Taking over every goverment building in all cities to gain information.
Visiting locations that served as a base in world war 2 to see if it is active, can be used or have information. This can be done by sending small regiments from divions. The extra divisions that spawned in England may drive to those bases located in england if needed.
The chance to randomly meet people that have information is high.
Randomly driving towards a base or spawning just outside it is high.

>TLDR GG no re

>>32848937
>Modern warheads, yes, but just how modern ARE Britain's nukes?
>What exactly is their payload and their fallout generation?

You can just google this stuff. It's public information. Why don't you give that a shot, nuke expert?

>>32848955
>51 divisions
41*

File: 0.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

>>32848957
I actually already tried, and couldn't find any information on the warheads themselves, only the delivery systems. I asked you that after I looked cause I couldn't find anything, and I was hoping you knew.

File: hmm_i_guess.gif (888KB, 294x318px) Image search: [Google]

888KB, 294x318px

>>32848935
That's a good point.

>>32848937
How should I know? But they sure as hell arent some fucking Chernobyl-tier crap. People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today and those were dirtier than modern warheads.

>>32848955
>Because they spawned so in this scenario that there will take only a hours for almost all divisions to reach their objective.
>Exactly, therefore in this scenario there will spawn 1 american army divison outside each city in the UK.
That's not what OP said so no.

>>32846907
>>32846907
to be fair i think ww2 planes were fairly used to grass fields, not tarmac

>>32848989
doesnt change anything

>>32848975
OP never said anything but countryside.

My scenario is as possible as yours since we are speaking from speculations with no hard facts. OP question is so vague that any possible scenario of spawning and objectives are possible therefor you cannot refute me.

>>32848975
It also took decades for those places to be livable again. Clean is relative when you're talking splitting plutonium.

>>32844480
Eisenhower would refuse, the end.

>>32848666
They would if it was condensed with almost 10 million people that had no other goal but destroy Britain
What is a few towns and a bit of fallout to losing the entire nation to those that want you dead?

>>32849035
Radiation levels were survivable at ground zero within hours, and within weeks represented only a modest increase in long term cancer risk. Within a month bodies had been removed, temporary shelters built for survivors and gardens were being planted to combat post-war famine. Within three years major planning had begun for reconstruction and the rebuilding was slow not because of the trivial risk of radiation, but because there wasn't very much money.

>>32848845
Millions go GIs get vaporised

>>32849063

I think they're seriously underestimating the amount of work or planning it would take to pull off something like that. Four times the number of soldiers involved in Bagration, no idea what they're walking into and only the vaguest set of orders to work on.

Fuck, all the UK would have to do would be to keep them contained and scorch the earth. Ten million mouths is a lot to feed on short notice, and they have no means of resupply unless they waste time foraging.

>>32846998
Speaking of nukes, couldn't the UK just drop nukes on its own soil on top of the freshly arrived us army?
If they all arrived in one spot, the whole invasion force might be destroyed in one or two strikes. Might be a bit of collateral damage, but it's probably less bad than having a drawn out fight against such numbers.

>>32848317

>1945 US Army vs modern UK Armed Forces: Army, Navy and Airforce
USA wins, USA #1
>A-10 vs 1945 German Armed Forces: Heer, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe
USA wins, USA #1
>East Asian Rice Farmers vs 1965 - 75 USA Armed Forces: Army, Navy and Airforce
USA wins, USA #... oh wait!

>>32849063
>What is a few towns and a bit of fallout to losing the entire nation to those that want you dead?

Who said "dead"? Conquest doesn't have to imply democide, and there being no remaining white culture in Britain a considerable number of whites should side against the mudskin majority.

>>32849616
>>East Asian Rice Farmers

You know it wasn't like that. Troll harder and look at a map.

Americans aren't soulless, Godless commies so they're not gonna throw their lives away en masse trying to kill people that share their values with no good reason.

>>32844480
element of surprise and weight of numbers versus vastly better equipment but drastically fewer numbers.

probably going to go to the 1945 army due to sheer suprise, but any time they do meet a formed unit, or even a police armed unit they are going to get mauled quite badly, and they literally have nothing that could stop any british armored unit

>>32850073
Isn't Britain like 80-90% white
We've got loads more shitskins and niggers, I never get that meme

>>32848957
You know the tridents that the USA uses? The nuclear ones? Well guess who else uses them.

File: 224.png (349KB, 580x412px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 580x412px

>>32844815
>The UK would have its own severe logistical problems due to small depot and stockpile sizes but as long as it retains the ports and currency it has access to the international arms market, which still contains absurd amounts of Cold War weapons already in Europe.

>Nigel Farage's emergency government pulling a complete 180 on gun control and issuing soviet small arms en masse to civilians

>>32850664
>And thus the hunter became the hunted
>The whole british population was armed and even old guns from the colonial times were given out along with red uniforms to fight the american invaders.
Payback for 1776 ya yank.

>>32850664
Actually, in the MOD stockpile they still have at least 100,000 Lee Enfields. Dont know about SLRs (FALs to everyone else) but I would assume theres a substantial amount of them too.

>>32848666
Actually Satan it's a common demo point in nuclear warfare discussion to reference results of an investigation held once that concluded a normalish yield nuclear device detonated in the center of London would reduce infrastructure by something like 10% and population by about 20% so statistically Londoners would be better off afterwards

>>32848762
http://www.giantbomb.com/fallout-3/3030-20504/forums/nuclear-warfare-101-wall-of-text-alert-2999/

I think you'd find this an interesting read.

The tl;dr is that one nuke dropped on whatever farmland the Americans show up in isn't going to cause much long term damage to anything.

>>32846503
That was the coolest shit I've ever read. Thanks, Anon