What would a modern ground based WW3 look like without nukes?

[YUPPIE]

Looking back at WW2, it seemed pretty barbaric to what can be implied now. Apart from the Kamikaze shit, people just ran at each other's faces guns blazing. From what you see of modern engagement though, people almost never do that shit anymore. If they're even confronting each other to begin with anyway, it's like there's so little unit combat anymore; everything is through surveillance and missile strikes.

But what would a modern full-blown war look like? Would we just go back to charging at each other or is it some variation of that covert warfare?

[Guy4123]

You don't know much about the tactics used during WW2 do you. WW1 was the last "run at each other's faces until one of us is dead" kind of War that used those tactics.

It would be like WW2, only the air support would actually be worth something on the ground. WW2 air to ground support wasn't all that good but today air to ground support is pretty amazing.

[The Butt Witch]

The future conventional wars will have a heavy focus on automatons. And I mean in the next 20 years or so. Actual humans soldiers will play a secondary role of going in when machines can't do the job, such as covert ops.

[Yadryonych]

It would be like WW2, only the air support would actually be worth something on the ground. WW2 air to ground support wasn't all that good but today air to ground support is pretty amazing.

Except air support would be largely denied by SAM compared to WW2

[Grimbold21]

Did you forget airforce?

[Cockus Maximus]

Looking back at WW2, it seemed pretty barbaric to what can be implied now. Apart from the Kamikaze shit, people just ran at each other's faces guns blazing. From what you see of modern engagement though, people almost never do that shit anymore. If they're even confronting each other to begin with anyway, it's like there's so little unit combat anymore; everything is through surveillance and missile strikes.

But what would a modern full-blown war look like? Would we just go back to charging at each other or is it some variation of that covert warfare?

Have you never played any of the Modern Warfare games?

[ParanoiD84]

Long without clear winners, was easier back in the days when you could defeat a empire with just a few key battles wiping out their armies, abit easier when they mass all their troops for a single or a couple battles instead of hiding with civilians etc.

Was also way way more epic.

Unless it's a total war with no rules there you can wipe everything out until they surrender making it abit easier.

[SoaD009]

You don't know much about the tactics used during WW2 do you. WW1 was the last "run at each other's faces until one of us is dead" kind of War that used those tactics.

It would be like WW2, only the air support would actually be worth something on the ground. WW2 air to ground support wasn't all that good but today air to ground support is pretty amazing.

The Russians charged in or got shot if they tried to retreat. I watched Enemy at the Gates! And what about the Normandy beach invasion?

[Yadryonych]

Modern technology makes conquest of urban areas nearly impossible.

Ever heard of a siege and starvation? A few months would be enough to enter an empty city

[Yadryonych]

Tunneling and smuggling meet Yadryonych.

Good time comparing small local conflicts to WW3 that is being discussed here.

[GreenJesus]

Modern technology makes conquest of urban areas nearly impossible. It would look more similar to WW1 than to WW2: excrutiatingly slow territory gain and loss while bunkered in forces take pot shots at eachother. No, not even the air force or nukes will be able to change that much.

Especially since they can hide inside civilian population centers and use them as collateral (i.e. Isis) and then whenever 1 civilian dies the press gets involved and makes the attacking country look bad.

[Mihalik]

Ever heard of a siege and starvation? A few months would be enough to enter an empty city

I don't think there is a single currently existing standing military force that would be capable of putting enough soldiers in the field and keeping them there for extended periods of time to sustain a siege on a city like let's say Berlin or Saint Petersburg, let alone Moscow. Also I remind you that the Germans for example failed to starve out Leningrad in nearly 3 years.

The fundamental difference between modern militaries and those of WW2 is that it would take significantly longer and substantially more resource to take a run off the mill civilian off the street and get them trained enough to be able to effectively interact with the professional branches of the military.

Even a country like Russia where most military age men receive some training through conscription would struggle to actually industrially equip and support such an upsizing, and would likely not take resources away from its professional units to engage in such sieges.

A country like the US could probably pull of the logistics, but would struggle to get the manpower needed in the field, and again would probably not waste resources on drawn out sieges.

[Kellhound]

Most likely it would start off fast like WWII, but given modern weapons are not easily cranked out like T-34s or B-25s, it would eventually degrade into a muddled mess unless a victory was achieved in 30 days or so.

[PACOX]

Assuming no WMDs at all?

Scorched Earth tactics all the way. Otherwise, have fun weeding out any insurgency.

[Tenjen]

It will mostly be the soldiers with the most advanced weapony existing demolishing their way through the civilians of each others cities and nations while having a few occasional skirmishes against each other here and there until theres nothing left to use them on except each other.

[Yadryonych]

I don't think there is a single currently existing standing military force that would be capable of putting enough soldiers in the field and keeping them there for extended periods of time to sustain a siege on a city like let's say Berlin or Saint Petersburg, let alone Moscow. Also I remind you that the Germans for example failed to starve out Leningrad in nearly 3 years.

They failed to starve Leningrad and yet no other city in german occupation did stand against offensive. Leningrad survived mostly due to specific georaphy, being guarded by fleet artillery at bay, ahuge lack of enthusiasm of Finns and relative proximity of main land, enabling air drops and establishing winter road on frozen surface of the lake.

For modern cases of siege see Battle of Raqqa or Battle of Mosul, siege a city of paramilitary insurgents is pretty comparable to siege of opposing nation's city with disrupted supplies. All that's need to be done is destruction of water refineries (rarely more than three per city), hospitals and numered roads/bridges. Citizens will begin to scatter from the city soon after and those who still stand can be bombed/shelled from the safe distance

[Kokolums]

In the computing world, hackers are ahead of security systems and are only pulling further and further ahead as time goes on. A WW3 between Russia/China and the US would open with a MASSIVE virus deployment / DDoS / hack of ALL US military computer systems to shut them down for a few hours to give them enough time to deploy from their 58342534 arctic bases and occupy NYC / Washington DC / Baltimore / San Fran / LA / San Diego. The viruses, hacks, and backdoors in US military infrastructure are already in place that give generous access to US computer hardware thanks to allies within the US government itself. They probably even got the codes. Its a blitz. In a modern non-nuke war, the first country to hack and blitz the other has a huge advantage. By the time the US regains control of its computer hardware, both the east coast and west coast is controlled and occupied by Russian and Chinese troops. They might need to jam us computer systems for 2-3 hours and then they own both coasts and its gg.

[Easo]

It seems people here are underestimating the power of air force. There is a difference between the bombing of a total war (read, WW2) and today's precision strikes and RoE's which have a huge emphasis on avoiding civilian casualties - effectively limiting the potential damage. Good for the simple man, bad for the military.
P.S.
SAM's are not the ultimate answer to air defence, nor are the airforce an insta win.

[StayTuned]

Hans, get the flamethrower


Or, scaled up, just throw napalm all over the place and watch it burn. In WW3 we'd probably not give too much of a fuck about "forbidden weapons" so carpet bombing and napalm it is.

Until Japan releases their Gundams. Then we're all fucked.

[Ihavewaffles]

Mobility would be a huge factor, not like previous wars, accuracy of previous static systems like artillery is now precision instead of hitting a general area like before, will be important to shoot n move on, cuz an army that stands still dies.
Today there is system to track the direction of incoming fire n immediately fire back..



Massive closure of enemies ability to use radar etc. make them blind is crucial.

Honestly, I don't think drones will be good for much at this scale except for surveillance..they are mostly good against 3rd world countries n not for massive operations against powerful opponents...