Hypothetically, if a time traveler were to give Nazi Germany modern drone technology would they have won WW2?
>>18131852If they could mass produce it yes.The allies wouldn't have enough time to copy their tech.
>>18131852Britain would be fucked by constant blitz drone attacks, but I don't think they could've made it beyond the Eastern Seabord of the United States before they deployed nukes over Berlin.
>>18131866This>Germany has drones but don't have nukes>America has nukes but doesn't have drones>America drops nukes directly on Germany in this timeline>Germany is still fuckedNukes > Drones
>>18131866No ICBM in WW2. If Britain capitulates, there's no base to nuke Berlin from.
>>18131852>drone technologyThere is no such thing as drone technology. There is computer technology, inertial sensor technology, battery technology (electric motor tech but that's easy). All of which need to be on (nigh) current level to make drones in the style of the ukraine war viable. Each of which would be revolutionary to nazi germany. The idea that you can give a 1940s state "drone technology" without also giving them an industrial base on almost 2025 level is absurd.
>>18131886The Boeing B-29 Superfortress that dropped the first nuclear bomb over Japan has a service ceiling well above the capabilities of drones, the atomic bombs over Japan were also dropped from this service ceiling, about 30,000 ft, and the bombs used were airburst bombs that detonated 2000 above the ground, still higher than the capabilities of most drones. It would require aerial refueling and strategic maneuvering but even without Britain it could be done I thinkThis is assuming by "drone" you mean the modified quadcopters being deployed in Eastern Europe of course and not UAVs like the MQ-9 Reaper
>>18131899Okay well lets assume the time traveler is able to bring the information on all of that to them via manuals and blueprints and stuff, and the locations from which miners get lithium or whatever the battery resource is?
>>18131929It would take more than ten years to build the machines to build the machines to make an inertial sensor or processor suitable for flying a drone with.
>>18131909Maybe from Greenland you can do it. Without fighter escort. Make it a one-way trip.
>>18131966>one-way tripwhat, are they gonna land in their own nuclear fallout? lol
>>18131852They would have no fucking clue how to operate, let alone manufacture and mass produce, so unless you're able to provide them in unlimited numbers, their battlefield utility is going to end as soon as the supply dries up. Your average Taliban fighter is more tech-savvy than a Wehrmacht Landser in 1940 because he at least KNOWS that remote controlling vehicles with a joystick through a TV screen exists as a concept thanks to things like video games.In other words, see >>18131899 >>18131933Really, you'd be better off introducing the Germans to something like Combination K composite armor (it's Soviet shit from the 60s, so Nazi Germany should be able to jump the technological gap with little difficulty, especially since it was the first country to produce fiberglass in appreciable quantities), that would get you a more positive result because then they could have dramatically cut down on weight on ALL of their AFVs, from Tigers to half-tracks, which in turn would cut down on fuel expenditure.
>>18132929The Nazis had the remote controlled Goliath explosive vehicles though, and driving those around without a screen has gotta be harder than driving them with a screen even if they'd never done it before right?It's like how I went most of my life driving a car without a rear camera so I just turned my head around to look behind me when going in reverse. But once I got a car with a rear camera it was easy to adapt; it was the same as using my own eyes but easier.
>>18132902B-29 doesn't have the range to make a round trip to Berlin from Greenland, so the best bet for survival might be to drop the bomb on Berlin and fly to neutral Sweden. Although I would think Sweden would cough up the pilots if Germany asked.
>>18131852>>18131866How quickly can they reverse engineer and maintain a steady production line of those drones? The underlying question is: can you outpace American production with kamikaze drones? Do you have the tech to deliver a payload strong enough to disable a tank?>>18131866Drones have a very short battery life. Wouldn't work if you aren't close enough to deploy them and Op Sealion failed IRL.
>>18131857>>18131866No.Drones have a vastly inferior range, altitude and payload compared with WW2 planes. Also WW2 AA would be extremely effective vs them. It would be a huge waste of resources.Also Nukes>Drones
>>18134021>WW2 AA would be extremely effective vs themThen why don't they use AA like that against the drones today?
>>18131852There is no additional tech, with the possible exception of nukes, that would have given Germany a chance of winning the war. Their problems were strategic and having retarded drug addicts in various positions of power - not that they didn't have hi-tech gear. >Germany pushes through and captures the BEF at Dunkirk>Britain, shocked, negotiates for a truce>No battle of Britain means there's more of the Luftwaffe to support Barbarosa>This just means that it takes a little bit longer for Germany to lose against the Soviets - killing even more Germans>Without Britain involved in the European war America probably doesn't bother too much with the Western Front, and even if they did with Britain out of the fight the odds of a D-Day style invasion are low>That means there's absolutely no reason for the Soviets to stop their push West until they hit the Portuguese coastThe better that Hitler and co did the worse things would be for the world.
>>18134051They do you dumb fuck. Why do you think everyone is breaking out their mobile AA guns like Gepards. But they had all basically been retired so they are bringing them out of mothball or waiting on new ones to be built. Actual WW2 AA is all scrap by now.
>>18134483Why did they scrap it? Clearly they were wrong about them being obsolete, but even when they believed so they could have just stuck 'em in a big warehouse somewhere lol
>>18135130They were absolutely not wrong. They were obsolete from Korean forward. And we still dont know if they arent obsolete. Neither Ukraine or Russia have fought a war vs a modern military yet. Either way keeping 70yr old vehicles in mothball is not a good use of resources.
>>18135707>Neither Ukraine or Russia have fought a war vs a modern military yetlol wutHow are they not modern armies? Well, Ukraine has to beg for modern weapons so yeah I guess they're behind the times but Russia is a Superpower soooo... not modern, really? I honestly assumed that starting from WW2 they always were in competition for most advanced and powerful military.
>>18136018>Russia is a SuperpowerBruh
>>18136018There is 1 superpower 2 at best. USA, and maybe china. Russia is a regional power. As evidenced by the fact it is incapable of defeating the poorest country in europe. Nukes are the only reason its still even counted as a regional power. You thinking russia is a superpower exposes a key flaw in your thinking. That you havent actually thought critically about this topic at all. Also almost everything ukraine gets for military aid is 2-4 generations behind. Or is very limited in quantities. We are seeing the future of war in africa not how a US chinese conflict would play out.
>>18136374>>18136018Officially the USA is the only superpower. China is an emerging power but is still too underdeveloped and lacks the force projection for superpower status. And Russia is only considered a regional power, they just don't have the same global influence that they once did
