What would a modern D-Day invasion look like today?

[@Binkov]

Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, Android or iOS: 💥con.onelink.me/kZW6/ModernInvasion Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days

[@prezmrmthegreatiinnovative3235]

id like to see 2 big videos: 1. what would a modern Operation barbarossa look like 2. what would a modern ww2 look like

[@madhie-kun8614]

@@prezmrmthegreatiinnovative3235 interesting

[@PW060284]

The doc link didn't work for me

[@josepholiver6733]

Iv played conflict of nations its cool and all but I found it big on pay to win

[@corneliusantonius3108]

What do you think about thr Hiimars now used in Ukraine /

[@forMacguyver]

3/4 of the video describes how NOT to conduct a 'Normandy Style' . They would absolutely pound the area with air and cruise missile strikes for weeks or even months first while building up an invasion force.

[@arthurjenkins9757]

For days maybe lol do that shit for months and itll be no surprise where the attack is coming from. D day used hella deception in order to work

[@Mr.Schitzengigglez]

Let's not forget, the impact of a few non nuclear, multiple warhead,, pgm icbms

[@jedispartancoolman]

What's not to say they won't do the same on your landing zones that you so obviously forecast

[@hiteshadhikari]

Thats assuming other side doesnt pound the accumulating ally troops. The reason allies were able to accumulate troops in UK was because germans couldnt strike the force and didnt have the radar tech ( initially they did but they didnt fund it for long and hence got behind, very behind)

[@forMacguyver]

@@hiteshadhikari And the same problem would apply today as far as Germany not being able to mount serious strikes against the U.K.. Not due to radar problems but seriously under-matched against Allied air power. Any attempt to strike U.K. by air would be suicide.

[@stanyu2029]

Operation Overlord was not the last successful amphibious assault of significant scale. The Incheon landing of 1950 in Korea surprised the North Koreans and turned the war decisively against them. Very particular circumstances favored the Incheon landing: the defenders were a thinly stretched force of invaders who had only recently seized the territory, the beach head was distant from active combat operations, and the theater had a lot of coastline to defend.

[@yourkiwimate]

lol usa lost

[@Dave_Sisson]

Falklands War? Okay it wasn't a terribly big amphibious invasion, but it was run by a first world country.

[@cLaw27]

Incheon landing was so successful because students from South Korea sacrificed themselves on fake landings with no retreat options...

[@mostlymessingabout]

@@Dave_Sisson it had high losses too. Try that again today and there will be far worse casualties

[@iamaloafofbread8926]

Modern day D-Day would probably happen between China and Taiwan.

[@sir2657]

That won't happen....what will is turkey invading greek Islands and very soon

[@christianalbert7082]

Good guess. Taiwan would be a hard invasion for china especially since the US would be backing Taiwan not to mention the defender usually has the upper hand

[@Emilechen]

100% sure that it wil happen in a few years,

[@Emilechen]

@@sir2657 oh, why you think that it won't happen?

[@psycho3v]

And China would 100% lose

[@looinrims]

“They’d know via dumb locals uploading photos online of ships being loaded up and at sea” Remember when OPSEC was a given?

[@MidMo4020]

My grandpa was in the 2nd Marines in WW2. Whenever the topic of DDAY would arise, he always would say “Hah.. at least they only had to do it ONCE!” (As opposed to having to land on several different islands each complete with a new beach full of motivated Japanese) Great Video! 🇺🇸🔥

[@Bacontruffle]

Watching this video makes me realize just how ill-advised a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be... As much as the CCP likes to threaten Taiwan, it would be an utter nightmare for them and in my opinion - the biggest mistake the CCP could make

[@John_Doe448]

This is assuming many countries would actually come to help, at least in a timely manner. Recent histoy doens't really support that claim tho

[@Bacontruffle]

@@John_Doe448 Just like Ukraine though, Taiwan can easily hold it's own for a long time. More importantly, while Ukraine didn't have any direct allies, Taiwan is already under the direct protection of the USA And ALL small semi-conductors in the world - which all modern technology relies on - are made in Taiwan. The USA simply cannot and will not let the CCP take Taiwan, and has its main fleet close to Taiwan for just that occasion. Not to mention it often sails its carriers through the area for freedom of navigation operations

[@John_Doe448]

@@Bacontruffle it's pretty rough to argue that Taiwan is under 'the direct protection of the USA' when it not only doesn't officially recognize it as a country, but especially when not even the president can say anything towards defending them without the white house throwing him under the bus the next minute taking everything back he said. It's a pattern at this point since it's not the first time that happened.

[@Bacontruffle]

@@John_Doe448 The US has been selling an astronomical amount of weapons though, and even sending its generals to Taiwan. And that's not mentioning the US sending its fleet out to threaten China into not invading Taiwan. I understand how the optics are, but that's mainly because US policy outward has been "strategic ambiguity" for the longest time, and letting Biden change that with an off remark because he forgot isn't what the White House wants. Trump made it very very clear though that if China attacks Taiwan, the US jumps in, and for as much as Biden likes to pretend to be the anti-Trump, when it comes to the Pacific, he's kept most of his predecessor's policies intact. (even though he's working on removing tariffs on China now)

[@NewAgeOfPower]

Normandy style landings are implausible until the attacker massively outclasses and suppresses the defender. If we take this scenario seriously, TBM strikes into staging areas in the British isles as troops assemble would be disastrous. Rocket artillery could directly hit ports across the channel. MRLS makes the idea of "yeah my amphibious ship is going to make 2 trips" completely absurd without completely flattening the defenders from the air. Actual assault would likely require months of air campaign to suppress the defenders then a sudden rush to shore where landing craft - protected by heavy AAW warships make a mad dash to deposit their troops and materiel, and would still result in huge casualties.

[@Digmen1]

I have read and studied D Day for the last 50 years. It was a massive undertaking, that required months of build up and training. The invasion fleet and support was huge And total air and sea superiority. Even then, the Americans suffered huge casualties on Omaha beach.

[@cycloneranger7927]

It took you fifty years of study to come up with those brilliant insights?

[@IgN5P]

With a fair amount of errors as well. As with the hooks they intended to use which fell short, since they didn't take into account that rope tend to soak water and get heavier.

[@jamesricker3997]

Precision guide of Munitions would have made Omaha Beach a lot less difficult

[@waitingforyouatthedoe2267]

Can you guys imagine being that one guy that didn’t get the memo that there was a whole multi country coalition lead invasion and your ass was fishing in the straight? Lmfaooooooooooooooo! Damn…

[@tomislavblazevic2742]

I've always wondered what D-day would have looked like if undertaken by the US and the English as they were on D-day 1944, but opposed by the German army as in 1940/41, after the fall of France, with all of the German forces there and Luftwaffe at peak power. Add Bismarck and Tirpitz too :D

[@karigrandi7]

more bloody allies still win german navy sunk/not used

[@nPcDrone]

Forget prepping a beach ahead of time. Imagine just showering a beach with anti personnel mines via long range artillery or high flying bombers.

[@ricksonpat4451]

Imagine landing troops getting mowed by a c ram

[@rolf2655]

The entire beach would be covered by blood and body parts

[@hamzamahmood9565]

Fewer, but more precise - four words that can describe all modern battles.

[@J_X999]

Could you do a video on AI and autonomous weapons? China is clearly prioritising AI weaponry with drones etc. Obviously the US still has a lead in that field, but it would be cool to see how it will change warfare

[@scottn7cy]

I love the concept of invading France. Please do more videos where France is invaded!

[@MostlyPennyCat]

OK, here's Cheeky Plan No 1: You can blind those satellites and I don't mean by shooting them down. So, launch all your ships but also launch many sea drones that are equipped with radar retro reflectors. Either use natural cloud cover or engineer it with smoke generators either on flying or floating drones. Use all sorts of other EW and jamming techniques against those radars. The enemy satellites which are also optical can also be blinded with on-shore lasers dazzlers.

[@byloyuripka9624]

put down the pipe kid

[@jadonberg9364]

Man’s out here suggesting we use the Shadow of Mordor

[@jamesmaddison4546]

Synthetic aperture radar can see through everything you've said. Smoke, clouds and so on. The only thing it can't see through is extremely solid objects. Theres plenty of images online of these types of satellites seeing straight through aircraft hangars and seeing all the aircraft in there. So any buildings like that won't hide a damn thing.

[@JZ909]

I think this is a reasonable take, not in considering how a modern military would tackle such a situation, but in explaining why a modern military wouldn't tackle it the same way.

[@CMDRFandragon]

Somehow a modern dday would be less bloody. Modern equipment would see far fewer troops yoloing across open sands. Modern arty would actually hit the beach defenses...

[@lightspeedvictory]

A couple of technologies would actually make the air campaign a whole lot more devastating. First off, Rapid Dragon. If it moves out of R&D, it would allow for more massive cruise missile barrages and might even free up some fighters for additional air combat. Second, the Sensor Fused Weapon would make mincemeat out of any armored formations, especially those that are being sent as reinforcements

[@andrewthomas695]

Step one. Knock out enemy telecommunications. Otherwise don't bother.

[@nickthx1138]

Dont forget the extensive deception exercise by the allies prior to the invasion, and the special forces strikes to disable elements able to hit the invasion fleet, both of which could be applied as modern versions.

[@inteallsviktigt]

Deception would be close to impossible when we have internet and satellite surveillance

[@nickthx1138]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_tank

[@nickthx1138]

@@inteallsviktigt i think thats a blanket statement

[@CBB-dg9jy]

"Third time's the charm." Germany, probably.

[@TheMrPeteChannel]

They won, it's called the European Union.

[@justsomerandomguywithanime7369]

I think its shoud be 4th time, you know HRE,Imperial German and The Mustache Man

[@Community-Action]

Why do people look at D-day as being the bloodiest battle? The battle of Kursk, Stalingrad and many other battles on the Eastern front were far worse. The fact USA lost 400k soldiers in WW2 while the USSR lost over 10 million should tell most people where the real fighting was.

[@viniciusdomenighi6439]

Because generally on a global level it is Americans who talk about the second world war. And when they talk about the war, they talk from their perspective.Other than that, the cold war didn't help the Western media speak well of the Russians.

[@HOTSHTMAN53]

The USSR destroyed 671 divisions. USA and its allies destroyed 173 divisions in WW2. Nuff said

[@Digmen1]

Yes, although any casualties are sad. The deaths of the British on the first day of the some were 19,000. And the French in one little known battle in August 1914, we about 24,000 - deaths! It is interesting that Eisenhower told his troops to be prepared for up to 80% casualties!

[@HOTSHTMAN53]

@MirroredVoid which was paid for in gold

[@swampdonkey1567]

@@HOTSHTMAN53 yes but fun fact the Italian front ended kursk.

[@rippleyaliens8275]

A number of issues with regards to this. IT is highly suggested to research MAGTAF (Marine Corps Air\Ground Task Force), Beach Assaults today, are not the same as back in WWII. A typical MEU, the smallest USMC Amphib group. Consist of 3-4 LCAC's.. 15 Amtraks, 20+ ospreys, 10+CH53'sm, 4-6x F35's, 4x Cobras.. *Just the First round.. When combined with the US Navy, for ship based Artillery, missiles. THEN Add the US Airforce.. THAT entire area, will be pounded for 1-2 weeks, before the first Marine, leaves the ship. Bombing from 60k feet=ALOT of damage, before the 1st person touches the beach. AND.. While defending the BEACH, ENTIRE units, will Flank. THIS has been studied, for decades... WHOEVER owns the AIR, has the best chance of survival. And just having a MEF off the coast of Saudi, during Desert Storm, pretty much tied up, an entire Iraq Division. 3x MEU's, = 1x MEB.. 3xMEB=1x MEF.. the USMC has 3x MEF's available.

[@bgshin2879]

One surprising thing which was not mentioned is the electronic warfare. Germany currently uses Tornado and has signed up for Eurofighter. However the source signal intels come from the US. Without the source signals, it will be far less effective than the US, GB allies. Allies are more likely to disrupt their communications than they were in WW2. Another thing to note is, a modern artillery has range of 40km and many land based systems have ranges over 100km. For example, Harpoons have sufficient range to cover a large part of Southern coast prohibiting any troop movement from South. I do agree the fact that any landing is more fatal than WW2 but given the dismal state of German Air Force, air superiority will make significant difference.

[@IPendragonI]

They signed up for 35 F-35s and only 15 Eurofighters.

[@ryanclark3445]

Loved this thank you

[@darkoneforce2]

Given that the german ministry of defence said they don't have a single operational division, this is pure fantasy.

[@madhie-kun8614]

Lmao, this reminds me of that joke about their tanks getting decommissioned because the aircon of their tank are broken

[@mva6044]

Conflict of Nations promo, featuring Binkov and a brief section of wild speculations.

[@ricardokowalski1579]

amphibious landings are *difficult* IF un-oposed, in good weather and with good luck in today's environment, with oposition, drones and portable missiles...it is closer to "nope"

[@tonymilam206]

I think that one possible tactic the allies could use would be to have special operations units making halo jumps behind the defense and then paint the targets (radar and other communications) with lasers to guide bombs.

[@seeleagent]

HALO jumps over enemy territory that has SAMS? They’d infiltrate by boat/sub on the coast at night and March inland. Lol. A C130 wouldn’t even get halfway across the channel before getting shot down.

[@mage3690]

@@seeleagent not quite halfway across, you say? That happens to be exactly the range a HAHO jumper could glide under their own chute. Probably a terrible idea, if someone ever looks through their binoculars at the funny birds on radar those jumpers are definitely hosed, but it is an idea.

[@Raptor747]

A modern D-Day wouldn't look anything like what Operation Overlord was. Modern technology/weaponry/doctrine would completely change how anything would work. Precision weapons launched from the sea, from the air, and from land, all ensure that you couldn't just make reinforced concrete bunkers and pillboxes with machine guns and ensure that any beach landing would be heavily contested. Air superiority would be far more significant and decisive than it was in 1944, as it would render any ground fortifications on or near the beach nothing but targets. Likewise, modern SEAD is nothing like it was in 1944; even if you couldn't neutralize all SAMs, modern EWAR would still be able to interfere with what limited air defenses survive. Comparing numbers of aircraft/tanks/ships from today versus 1944 is comparing apples and oranges. 1944 combat aircraft were vastly cheaper and less capable than modern ones. An F-16 can drop a variety of precision bombs or ground-attack missiles and then dogfight other fighters with advanced guided missiles and its gun at speeds nothing in WW2 could even dream of. An F-15E could destroy an entire tank column by itself. Likewise, a modern amphibious assault ship is vastly more capable than a WW2 equivalent. Also, helicopters could transport a substantial number of infantry across the channel repeatedly. Furthermore--and this is important--modern infantry is FAR more capable and versatile than WW2 infantry. Each soldier boasts more and better firepower, communications, protection, and capability than pretty much an entire fireteam of WW2 infantry. Lastly, the air campaign would be a massive, decisive battle that would be conducted and concluded long before any landing attempt. Like with Desert Storm, a long campaign to decisively dominate the air would make a ground campaign a one-sided affair afterwards.

[@qwaeszrdxtfcgvbqwaeszrdxtf5733]

I love how they give us additional explanation in the description about why you cant just shoot down satellites unlike others who would simply say "its just imposible lmao" and not explain any further.

[@deckape714]

Good one Binkov!

[@Ars_Illyrian]

4:17 cracked me up so hard :D

[@taragonleaf8005]

yea, no joke.

[@L0kias1]

The only flaw I see with this analysis is not realizing the impact of months and months of air to ground sorties along the coast. The invader would launch hundreds of attacks with precision munitions in the day and night. Then as invasion day approached they would launch daily cruise missile attacks. The enemy would run out of air/ground defense and/ or support radar. Not to mentions all enemy run ways would be nothing but craters if they even had aircraft to launch. Not to mention the economic impacts from cutting off supply lines and technology months in advance.

[@sylwesterglab3732]

1 . Attacker would also suffer attrition and expend ammunition 2. Europe is not an island .

[@MrScruffels]

Your just assuming they could do that, that large scale air campaign over Europe would be complete suicide for the US airforce even it isn’t that powerful

[@ThisPartIsAndrew]

Okay, okay, I've got 1 word: GLIDERTANKS, that's right, they launched tanks with removable glider wings to get behind the enemy lines, stealthy, no engine noise, just a tank coming out of the clouds

[@DJ1573]

Lazerpig wants to know your location

[@TheScaledOne]

They tried it but it didn't work and was never used in combat

[@hans2936]

I know it's you Mike

[@ItsJustAyo]

HMM

[@ThisPartIsAndrew]

@@DJ1573 the farm I own is on the top of the hills that the Wright Brothers first launched their gliders from. Ergo I am an especially qualified source of information haha

[@jonwallace6204]

Germany: yes! I’ve got control of France, think you can take it back? England: we’ve been doing that for a thousand years

[@Dummvogel]

Tarawa class has been out of service for ages. America class is what you meant.

[@jaiswole8709]

Did he just forget shore bombardment exists in this scenario? Like the landing wouldn’t be covered by every available battery and missile like in the original D-Day

[@darkjill2007]

@tripplefives Binkvo was making it out like there wasn't going to be much of a surprise. He also said there would be months of bombing runs first maybe shore bombardment would be included in that. I don't know how many naval guns we have left that could do the job though. Maybe that's why he didn't mention it.

[@jasondiaz8431]

Sounds like a job for the 101st Airborne Division. Why fight on the beachhead if you can just Air Assault over It. After the initial Air Assault you could than Air Assault other light infantry units

[@IdesofMarch223]

Might be hard if every aircraft transporting them is shot down well before reaching their DLZ.

[@jasondiaz8431]

@@IdesofMarch223 you would have to have suppression of enemy air defenses. Every Electronic warfare bird. MLRS would target Air defenses.

[@callumtrott7661]

Would D day even happen at Normandy if the enemy would have the intelligence capabilities to know the landing area? Figure they would just go for Calais Instead just to give the enemy less of a range advantage and less time to react

[@FactsInto]

I agree,the whole point of choosing Normandy was to throw the Germans of,not to mention that a major factor behind the successful deception was allies fake armies ,with entire divisions ,when the German recon planes saw them Germans were confident that allies would go for Calais,so in this scenario since the element of surprise is already lost,why risk it any further?

[@SpaRool]

Don't forget that the defender would have ample time to position submarines as well as loitering drone torpedoes in the waters of the channel

[@georgesakellaropoulos8162]

The Allies used their air power to do exactly the same thing that Binkov is describing at the end of the video. I don't see how it would be different today.

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

I always thought that the attack on Chinese held Singapore in battlefield 4 was absurd but knowing that the USS Valkyrie (wasp class) could hold 2000ish marines makes it seem far more plausible.

[@gavrielmarcus831]

Love your videos keep up with the great work!

[@MasterChiefSamus]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a "What If" video. Of course in reality it would happen differently, modern warfare will NEVER be the same as in WW2. Conventional warfare is reserved for major countries facing minor countries that don't have nukes. France would detonate theirs the moment Belgium capitulates and the first German troops cross the border through the Ardennes. Germany would surely use their nuclear arsenal on the English Channel to target the highly valuable US carriers arranged for the invasion. Any Stalin-like figure would absolutely obliterate the entirety of the Axis Powers the moment he's informed of Operation Barbarossa beginning. Without any of those scenarios there's still asymmetrical warfare to consider. The depths and preparation of bunkers throughout the Atlantikwall would put even Albania to shame. German technology would take a much longer time to neutralize than in WW2 and still remain more potent than its counterparts thanks to bigger power in smaller units with better quality even after reduced production. A single MANPAD will ruin most armor's day. A couple of drones can take out a major country's flagship. The German machineguns that killed so many Allied soldiers during WW2 can be compared to rifles even a child can carry around today. If this war happened today without nukes or comparable MOABs, Germany would have to be reduced to 1945-level production, equipment and infrastructure before the Allies could ever pull off a 1944-style naval invasion. By that point they may as well not need to invade anyway, since the living conditions of the average German would be so poor that they'd either surrender or literally face mass starvation.

[@scottkrater2131]

The amphibious assault on Okinawa was the last of these huge operations. Improvements in arms, etc and doesn't require as many troops to accomplish its objectives did in 44 or 45.

[@Maniak76]

Not watched it yet, but would imagine it would be far more brutal than ever. Most likely a non starter !!

[@juniorarmijo2020]

*”Dumb locals”* Yeah people will do anything for 15 mins of fame.

[@ST-ly8uf]

This is why no one would even think of invading Florida, they know the power of the Florida man.

[@Fred-eg9sx]

And that is why the US Navy said No more contested landings

[@abacero2009]

There is also something that the Allies had in 1944: battleships that swiped the coast at the disembarkment with 12" shells. None of the main powers have this kind of ship, at least on active duty. The US can recommission the battleships they have in museums or mothball places like they did with the Missouri or the New Jersey during the Irak War, but they need a deep refurbishing and updating, which takes time and money. The problem with battleships is that, by current standards, they are sitting ducks for air attacks from carriers or land bases near the coast.

[@aesopsaintours4491]

None of the main powers NEED that kind of ship. Forget dumb fire artillery, guided missiles work great. Missile destroyers and cruisers can fill the role of battleship far more efficiently, and far more safely: guided missiles can be called in much closer to friendlies without risking blue casualties. Unlike battleships, missiles don't have to sweep the shore for hours or days before the fight, hoping to hit something. They can wait to be called in on actual targets, not just the area where targets are expected to be. Missiles can also be launched from the air or from England, no need to bring our boats too close.

[@tetraxis3011]

Actually submarines are the biggest threat to battleships, as their armor makes them almost inmune to anti ship missiles. That’s why the ARA Belgrano was sunk by a sub, it was a threat to the RN surface fleet.

[@aesopsaintours4491]

@@tetraxis3011 Battleships, like tanks, concentrated their armor in the belt, not the top. Precision anti ship missiles that can reliably strike specific locations are death to any ship. No ship ever floated could take hits from the 18.1" shells fired from the Yamato, but anti ship missiles can mount even heavier warheads.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

4:18, I feel like Binkov throwing some shade on all the randos uploading war footage right about now.

[@UnluckyCantaloupe4]

Lmao

[@WilliamNeacy]

I understand the scenario your presenting. I just don't see a modern military force even attempting an amphibious landing in anything resembling this scenario.... Got to the end of the video and seem to agree

[@byloyuripka9624]

its youtube content not reality will

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

You could apply this to many modern scenarios, Taiwan comes to mind obviously, if we assume there’s US forces on Taiwan it would be a similar scenario to this and we can see easily why the “million man swim” isn’t considered possible by many generals.

[@jameswilkinson9964]

I love these...so interesting. Keep it up

[@reclaimatorerebus6531]

I think a lot of this depends on who has stealth. If you give the tech advantage of stealth to the Axis, which might be reasonable given the technological standing at the time, it could potentially prevent Allied air superiority, which would be disastrous. On the other hand, if you give the tech advantage to the Allies, this involved both stealth and recon advantages that would likely prove decisive. This is especially true when you consider that a barrage of Cruise Missiles, potentially even land launched from England, would proceed any attack if there is targeting intel. Broadly speaking, though I did not have time to read the full write-up, the question in this scenario is who and how much of a tech advantage you give to which side. From what I can tell, F22/F35 aircraft outclass anything else in the sky due to their low visibility, both when attacking air and ground. If you decide the German Me 262's are 5th gen, and the Allies have 4th gen, it will be vastly harder for the Allies to succeed, vs if you decide both have the same generation fighters. It's also worth noting that a modern helicopter and airborne landing has a lot more flexibility and functionality, never mind spec-ops, than their precursors. I would not underestimate the ability of such units to slow and otherwise sabotage a response if inserted early. Finally, you have to consider the leaders. Even with modern satellites and other observational units, misdirection is possible, and to my historic understanding, the biggest hindrance to Germany's defense on D-day was Hitler himself. If you can still convince him this is a feign, reserves would be held back, and it would be much easier for the Allies to gain a bridgehead. Overall I'm not sure I can agree or disagree with Binkov's take, as I think there are a few dimensions of the conflict in modern terms he didn't consider. Still interesting and thought-provoking as always though!

[@hughbrisse1013]

"Sheer audacity" is basically the best way to describe the US in two words

[@brianfoley4328]

It wouldn't happen today...no one has enough assets to even attempt it. Even if anyone were capable of marshalling the necessary assets they couldn't achieve the surprise.

[@loganjay7819]

I think it's 100% possible to do a modern day D Day. I just don't think it would go particularly well

[@altratronic]

Just send the whole army through the Chunnel! Easy victory! ; )

[@lowesmobiledj]

Here’s an idea for a future video- what if the revolutionary war the Americans had guns that you didn’t need to single shot reload? What if they had semi automatic rifles?

[@SlavGod47]

Even better: US Revolution in a modern setting I'm curious how well the UK has worked on it's counterinsurgency tactics and how well the revolting US forces could adapt

[@missk1697]

*Couldn't the defender just wait for all the enemy forces to land, and then use 1-3 low yield tactical nukes to vaporize 90% of them?*

[@rogerbrownreacts8528]

Any use of a nuclear weapon opens up a most likely of a full scale nuclear exchange.

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

Yes, although that would involve nuking their own land. Not to mention the risk of all out nuclear war. Presumably, if the war hasn’t gotten nuclear by this point, both sides are either unable or unwilling to use them.

[@missk1697]

@@johnmcglennan8956 Retaliatory? They would be nuking their own territory.

[@aloh5613]

When China say they will invade an conquer Taiwan. I hold my head in my hands and think to myself... No China you won't... Trying to land on a beach and conquer a country is by far the hardest military plan's to execute.... So hard in fact its only ever happened a few times in ALL of human history 😉

[@m3c4nyku43]

OK 5-star general

[@cesaravegah3787]

Succesful hostage rescue and ordered retreat under attack seem to be even harder...but yes, you have a point

[@tomz5704]

Vikings: hold my beer

[@engineeringvision9507]

China has structured much of its forces around invasion of Taiwan. It is mostly using massive helicopter, transport plane and fishing boat swarms.

[@korayven9255]

@@engineeringvision9507 Doesn't change how absolutely difficult an operation it will be. Hundreds of thousands will die just on the approach and that is the optimistic projection. China may have structured much of its forces around an invasion of Taiwan but Taiwan has structured _all_ of its forces around defending against an invasion of Taiwan from mainland China. Literally the only security concern they care about.

[@kevinbryer2425]

Granted the purpose of the video is to exhibit how precision guided ordinance makes a D-day style landing that much harder, now we are all going to ponder the modern day storming of fortress Europa. Without defining the factions, it's hard to judge just what forces, tools, and assets would be available to attack and defend. Given enough strategic depth, even high tech equipment can be replaced over the course of a year. Do a EU vs Angelophone cross channel scenario. What are the Scandinavians up to? Do we have access to the Mediterranean? Can we operate tactical aircraft out of North Africa? Are the Russians behaving themselves? What sort of conflict immediately preceded the cross channel standoff? Inquiring minds want to know.

[@viktor_v-ughnda_vaudville_476]

Yea this would be an absolute meat grinder if they used 1944 tactics and tried the same type of invasion but with drones, cruise missiles, stealth aircraft (B-2 F-22 F-35) and insertion of highly trained and very efficient special forces ahead of time causing all kinds of ruckus would make this type of invasion quite different although if it had to be a mass invasion by sea at the end of the day it would have such a high casualty rate it would be horrifying

[@matriputra2624]

Binkov's should do a video of a putative Russian sea landing on the west of Odessa in the very near future. More topical!

[@Deridus]

Years later and I still love the sign off.

[@lllPlatinumlll]

Silly. The static defences in modern day scenarios would be utterly obliterated by air power alone. Isn't this why Russia focuses so much on its air defences since the days of the B52's being lost in Vietnam. Either they have the ability to deny the airspace or they do not, if they do not they are doomed.

[@briancowan4318]

Some thing you may not have factored in to the conflict. The MPF (Maritime Pre-positioning Force) , brings the equipment of heavy Divisions to the Marines after the beach head is secure (1-2 days). And all the cruise missiles and other weapons, and I'm sure the 'Germans' will have the latest version of the Exocet.

[@imjashingyou3461]

You completely didn't cover how much better Naval fire support would be, nor things like active protection systems or thermal smoke on the landing craft.

[@LNgKhoi]

"Dumb locals" They really got on everyone's nerve huh?

[@looinrims]

Anyone vaguely familiar with military affairs holds OPSEC failures in severe contempt

[@rogerbrownreacts8528]

China has 5x more distance to travel.

[@Emilechen]

they will repeat what Koxinga do against the Dutches: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYW7iaerpNSbjqc

[@jyc210]

In Taiwan, we call Taiwan strait as "black ditch" for hundreds of years.There's a saying goes, If ten people go(to Taiwan), six dead, three stay(at Taiwan), only 1 get back(to mainland). The weather condition is way more adverse than the English Channel.

[@Emilechen]

@@jyc210 20 years ago, Taiwan navy still have some technology advantage comparing to Mainland China's navy, so they can brag about their advanced weapons, today, they can only rely on climatic and geographic condition,

[@jyc210]

@@Emilechen Meanwhile, China say unification over a decade.

[@Emilechen]

@@jyc210 whatever we like or hate CCP, we should admit that most CCP's projects have been realized, so if some Taiwaneses want independence, they need to prepare militarily since now,

[@KC_Smooth]

Cruise missiles and bunker busting bombs would have eliminated all of the fortified defenses in minutes.

[@rogerwilco2]

And nukes would destroy the attacking force.

[@neowide4970]

@@rogerwilco2 France has nukes.

[@The_Mad_King]

@@rogerwilco2 nukes would not be used. If they were the country that fired them would be turned 2000 degrees in less than 28 minutes… are you daft? Using a nuke against the USA is mass suicide

[@ingurlund9657]

At 7.29 you list 10 Tarawa/Wasp class. I thought no it's Wasp/America class as the Tarawas are all out of service. But then I remembered the two Americas don't have a well deck. But still the Tarawas are out of service so it would be just the Wasps. There were 8 but Bonhommie Richard is gone so it's 7. Anyway great vid!

[@1984Phalanx]

I wonder how the tunnel between France and UK would be used. If they could secure both ends it would be a great way to move troops and supplies fast.

[@darkjill2007]

Thats a good point. It would proably be destroyed by the defender,

[@1984Phalanx]

@@darkjill2007 yeah it would have to be a surprise attack before any hostilities which is unlikely in Binkovs scenario.

[@DraigBlackCat]

When you have to make so many explanations of your assumptions that you have to put an external link up then it is probably a sure sign that your combat situation is far too complex for your style of animated video. The biggest problem is the premise of even trying to confine today's forces to a simple beach invasion, but ok, I'll play along. D-day didn’t just happen overnight, there were months of infiltration and attrition bombing beforehand. There was a well controlled resistance network that provided intel, sabotage and insurgency operations. How would the occupier cope against the intelligence gathering possibilities of the modern French population, with smart cellphones, www, etc? How would their airforce cope with a couple of dozen maquisards each with a couple of stingers camping out near their airfields or along transit routes? What about hedgerows hiding maquis anti-armour teams and infiltrated teams of forward observers with covert comms and laser designators? What about the invaders using container ships as mini aircraft and helicopter carriers? How many of the US Navy mothballed ships could be reactivated in a year? Airforce planes from their boneyards? How long would it take to put MLRS into a barge and how many fibreglass barges could be built in a year and towed behind powered pleasure craft? How many jet skis could be assembled and used to transport assault troops from converted cargo ships? How long would it take to convert civil airline jets into huge transporters for gps or laser-guided weapons droping them at 44,000ft over the English coast? Hell, load a few with explosive and you would have modern day flying bombs with GPS autopilots! There are loads of private jets that could be used as I've mentioned for their bigger brothers or could be flown to simulate combat aircraft assembling for an attack. Massive jamming could be employed to deal with drones near the invasion beaches or the area around the beaches targeted with drone swarms that would impair the occupiers manpad teams. So close to the UK there would be huge opportunity to use decoy drones to simulate air attacks. All of this is ignored in your video.

[@metachuko]

Just use the Chunnel.

[@Dancingontgesun1942]

I'm sorry but if I was running a army this little dragon 🐲 or frog thing would be hired to do all my briefings.

[@misfortunemate8261]

Underwater mines; this weapon, which has existed since before 1944, is still effective. Especially when the defenders scatter them at the intended landing area, the attackers are forced to either enter the minefield as planned, accepting the risk of numerous casualties from landing craft touching the mines, or postpone the landing operation in order to sweep minefield. But minesweeping still requires manpower and time, even with modern technology. while the planners of D-DAY correctly recognized this dangers and built large minesweeping fleet, but does a navy as advanced the modern US Navy have equivalent capability? I doubt it. Or can future detection technology and unmanned drones finally overcome the lack of manpower and neutralize them?

[@kdaltex]

Drone mines. Underwater cruisemissiles

[@VisibilityFoggy]

The air war differential in general would be fun to study. The US, UK, and Australia field fifth-gen platforms (Canada soon) while neither Germany nor France do. There are already rumbles that the UK may join the B-21 stealth bomber program as well, but in wartime that would go without saying. I think the gulf between these two sides is larger than some might think.

[@logondash]

War never changes. Caesar in Britannia, the Spanish Armada, landings are a gamble.

[@KapiteinKrentebol]

We don't need to. Now we can just airdrop Chuck Norris directly on the Reichtag.

[@marloyt7786]

Edge of Tomorrow kinda did it

[@MartinCHorowitz]

Since the US can encrypt GPS, The defender would need to use a competitor. Also you ignored Counterbattery RADAR and JSTARS tracking of vehicles, Unce A defenders artillery fires its location would be known quickly, and if the artillery moved it can be followed on JSTARS.

[@Amondil1]

I don't think it would be as bloody given the huge disparity between allied air power and the axis and the technology we have today. Not to mention the navel and land bombardment from cruise missiles. I would be surprised if there was an organized defense of the landing beaches, being that the defenders would be seen/detected and broken apart or destroyed for the most part prior to the landings. Any reinforcements would be eaten alive by allied air power. It would be the highway of death 2.0.

[@arthurjenkins9757]

There is no Axis today 😂😂

[@Numtalegau]

"Not to mention the navel and land bombardment from cruise missiles". Who could stomach such firepower? It would be a bellyache for sure and a punch to the gut for the defenders. Sorry, had to. :)

[@Amondil1]

@@arthurjenkins9757 I know that lol 😆

[@alexvandun2124]

That largely depends on what you mean by the Axis forces. If Germany, Austria, France, Northern Italy, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark large parts of Poland, Baltic states, Russia, Belarus, Yugoslavia and Ukraine, (over which Germany had influence in 1944) should be allowed to use in this scenario then I think it is realistic what is outlined here. These countries, military infrastructure combined with the Bundeswehr is a force to be reckoned with. And production facilities combined certainly have the potential to make things very bloody for the Allies at a landing in Normandy. If it is only Germany who has to stop Canada, Australia, UK and USA with their current defense then it will be a difficult story. But this is a population of somewhere between 3 and 4 hundred million inhabitants depending on what is included and covers almost the whole of the EU. If today's EU wants to defend itself tooth and nail against the said powers, I don't think they will get a foothold on mainland Europe.

[@Amondil1]

@@alexvandun2124 per the senerio they would have the same force ratio as what they had at Normandy just with the modern day equipment. And it wouldn't be bloody, for the allies/invaders; it would be a slaughter for the axis/defenders because of American airpower having a year to build up and destroy their air force. They would have total control of the skies and would wipe out the ground forces.

[@lazysunside]

I do not know what kind of weaponry people will use in WW3, but the 50 canoes landed in France a few years after looks trivial.

[@AiluridaeAureus]

Nukes and cyberwarfare. They're going to use nukes and cyberwarfare. It's a stupid quote.

[@lazysunside]

@@AiluridaeAureus It's a joke. We all know they'll use mini nuke mounted on Emus

[@dramaking9559]

I think the thing about modern war is that equipment and technology are far more precious and far far more deadly. In ww2 it was all about mass production of a good enough weapon/vehicle for combat. Now in days everything far to risky to use. Just losing one is already millions of dollars and even if you build up a nice batch of equipment it could be destroyed in a instant and take years to reproduce. So a Modern D-Day would be a Expensive waste of life and technology

[@looinrims]

Someone isn’t paying attention to the war in ukraine Wartime production doesn’t exist today hence why you don’t see it, but here we go with dumbass anime pfp randoms going “they mass produce garbage cuz it’s good!” Somehow

[@ericvulgate]

What the hell does 'two-and-a-half-times fewer' even mean? I have no idea how to calculate that.

[@jonathantybirk]

I assume it's supposed to mean 'one two-and-a-halfth as many', or 40%

[@coelholukas]

2,5 or 25 or 1/4

[@JD-wf2hu]

flip the nouns and swap fewer for greater.

[@crazywarriorscatfan9061]

This'll be good!

[@ThatsMrPencilneck2U]

From the histories I've read, I'm under the impression that the American assault of Omaha was botched. The English and Canadians faced the same opposition, but they managed to land their tanks and they used more types of 'Hobart's Funnies' than the American generals were willing to work with. Due to the appalling loss of life, this is probably still shrouded in propaganda.

[@vascomanteigas9433]

This device helped to destroy the mines before the vehicle advanced.

[@swampdonkey1567]

Partially yes, many American landing where further south and they lost like 47 out 50 floatable shermans cause bad weather (cause they really weren't that floatable, in anything but calm water). Which god imagine sinking in a tank.

[@Chris-oh2jq]

Helicopters could be used to transport troops from England to France and attack helicopters could also be used. As could drones and cruise missiles to take out air defenses.

[@mr.imperial8721]

When I think of this I think of the inchon landing 2:40........its from the Korea War.........it all depends on the location and timing Even if they had satellites 3:35 they still wouldn't have the ability to send there land forces hundreds of miles away in a short notice like we could since we had the navy

[@mattbrown5511]

No mention of America's bloody cutting edge of stealth tech? OK.

[@janbo8331]

The video assumes similar technological tiers to WW2 Normandy landings. At the time Germany had some rocket interceptors and prototype jets in service while the Allies were nowhere near. They were also pioneering stealth tech with the Horten Ho 229.

[@janbo8331]

@@realeyesrealizereallies427 You are correct. It was indeed a jet aircraft. Although one could argue it was more like a jet engine with some wings bolted onto it. The design was very crude and aerodynamically inefficient, not using the swept wing design used by almost every jet aircraft since. Would you happen to know if jets from both sides ever encountered each other in combat?

[@MrScruffels]

Well cause ground radars can detect stuff like the F35 for a while now

[@JJ-si4qh]

This is the perfect use for battleship bombardment. But we prefer to spend $1m per cruise missile instead.

[@Its_shiki_time4876]

It's because of how expensive battleships are to re commission, run, and how easy they are to target

[@JZ909]

More like $30K per JDAM. Doctrinally, cruise missiles are used in situations where you need standoff, surprise, or risk mitigation. In WW2, air dropped bombs didn't have the accuracy to hit point targets, necessary when you're attacking fortified positions, so a battleship's main guns were the preferred bunker buster. With the advent of modern, relatively cheap guided munitions, aircraft have replaced battleships in that role.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

@@JZ909 Missiles have replaced aircraft. Eliminate the middle-man.

[@josegomes3959]

In next vídeo, could you make a video showing what a military invasion of the Amazon Rainforest would be like, made by the US army?

[@TheMormonPower]

Why the hell would America want to invade the Amazon rain Forrest ? I think a funny one would be, millions of Mexicans and illegals try to take the southern boarder by force, and the US army mows them down with Gatling guns 🤩

[@aviationwithebin2121]

4:19 got me 🤣🤣🤣

[@davidwalkerjr1949]

I don't believe we or any other Countries would try a beach invasion today unless they had almost complete control of the landing area war is different today with all the new technology out there, plus one big factor was skipped, I'm sure the all the allied Countries involved in this would use superior air power first. But do not count out Special Forces which was not even mentioned is the Video.

[@CrossbowManD]

Oh, I misunderstood the question. I thought it was a modern attacker versus the old defender.

[@JathTech]

You whole last point basically nullifies the rest of the video. In your poll, I answered that I think the initial invasion would go smoother, but there'd be an overall greater number of losses. The reason I say that is that any defensive position within a mile of the coast would be destroyed. The defenders would not place them there. After months of softening, the beaches would essentially be perfectly safe to land on, but the defending forces would still have kept large numbers of troops and equipment in reserve and safe hidden around the country.

[@Bacontruffle]

He mentioned that a lot of close-range defences like small radar sensors and switchblade drones would be too small and too easily hidden to be reliably destroyed by the air in advance. He does state that the whole situation wouldn't play out like that because a long air campaign would be more likely, but the video was about a current-day D-Day, so no prolonged air campaign spanning months beforehand, but a matter of days at most