Mightier military vis-a-vis the contemporary competition: Imperial Germany or Nazi Germany?
Comments
-
WW2 Nazi GermanyOne plane and one bomb to do the work of multiple bombing runs is the height of efficiency
Now, let me tell you about the ship that delivered the bomb, the USS Indianapolis.....
-
WW1 Imperial Germany
I'll never put another life jacket again, Chief.RaceBannon said:One plane and one bomb to do the work of multiple bombing runs is the height of efficiency
Now, let me tell you about the ship that delivered the bomb, the USS Indianapolis..... -
WW1 Imperial Germany
Still total USSR and USA tank production dwarfed that of Germany of all types.BearsWiin said:
Tiger I was a mediocre tank, too many straight flat surfaces to catch incoming rounds. Tiger II was much better, but it was a heavy tank, not a medium one.YellowSnow said:
Consider, of those bad ass Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, the Germans built 1,839 of them. We? built over 49,000 Sherman tanks. The Soviets built over 34,000 T-34's which was probably the most important tank of WWII.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Tech matters a lot, but maybe industrial base matters more. It's staggering how much shit we! built in four years.ThomasFremont said:
The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.YellowSnow said:
Except wars are not usually won by technology and innovation alone. In other words these things don't mean shit if your political leadership sucks and you have poor strategy. Again, in WWI Germany's strategy came within a C-hair of winning twice- i.e., Aug of 1914 and Spring of 1918. Germany in WWII never got that close to winning.ThomasFremont said:I’m taking WWII in this one. For me it boils down to innovation. No Navy? No problem. They can terrorize the Atlantic crossing with U-boats.
Tanks were top notch. Artillery was super effective. Infantry was professional and motivated. And the blitz changed the game. If Hitler wasn’t such a dipshit strategically, his scientists would have developed nukes and then its game over. Instead he wasted half his army in Russia, and wasted resources on the V-2.
I’d argue not finishing off England was their biggest mistake though. Without England as a staging ground, retaking Europe would have been really fucking hard. We didn’t exactly roll through Italy like we had hoped...
Sure there are examples of underpowered insurgents/revolutionary movements beating global powers with superior tech, but those were almost always political defeats. In large scale conventional conflicts, tech plays a massive role. I’d argue that German industry and science gave them the edge to do what they did. It wasn’t manpower. It wasn’t genius strategic leadership (obviously). And it wasn’t really natural resources or economic advantages. They had to seize those.
Tech MATTERS. I hope this post made you THINK and CARE.
Panthers were much better, more angled sloping lines to the chassis and turret, and they made about 6,000 of them. They also made 8,500 Panzer IV variants. So between the IV/Tiger/Panthers, there's 16,000 tanks.
The US went to full war footing/production almost immediately. Germany resisted doing that until around 1943. Even so, per capita, they made a comparable number of tanks to the US/USSR
And the atomic bomb had a lot less to do with the end of the war than the Soviet declaration of war on August 8
-
And that's just Shermans. We had better but could pound those things out.YellowSnow said:
Still total USSR and USA tank production dwarfed that of Germany of all types.BearsWiin said:
Tiger I was a mediocre tank, too many straight flat surfaces to catch incoming rounds. Tiger II was much better, but it was a heavy tank, not a medium one.YellowSnow said:
Consider, of those bad ass Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, the Germans built 1,839 of them. We? built over 49,000 Sherman tanks. The Soviets built over 34,000 T-34's which was probably the most important tank of WWII.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Tech matters a lot, but maybe industrial base matters more. It's staggering how much shit we! built in four years.ThomasFremont said:
The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.YellowSnow said:
Except wars are not usually won by technology and innovation alone. In other words these things don't mean shit if your political leadership sucks and you have poor strategy. Again, in WWI Germany's strategy came within a C-hair of winning twice- i.e., Aug of 1914 and Spring of 1918. Germany in WWII never got that close to winning.ThomasFremont said:I’m taking WWII in this one. For me it boils down to innovation. No Navy? No problem. They can terrorize the Atlantic crossing with U-boats.
Tanks were top notch. Artillery was super effective. Infantry was professional and motivated. And the blitz changed the game. If Hitler wasn’t such a dipshit strategically, his scientists would have developed nukes and then its game over. Instead he wasted half his army in Russia, and wasted resources on the V-2.
I’d argue not finishing off England was their biggest mistake though. Without England as a staging ground, retaking Europe would have been really fucking hard. We didn’t exactly roll through Italy like we had hoped...
Sure there are examples of underpowered insurgents/revolutionary movements beating global powers with superior tech, but those were almost always political defeats. In large scale conventional conflicts, tech plays a massive role. I’d argue that German industry and science gave them the edge to do what they did. It wasn’t manpower. It wasn’t genius strategic leadership (obviously). And it wasn’t really natural resources or economic advantages. They had to seize those.
Tech MATTERS. I hope this post made you THINK and CARE.
Panthers were much better, more angled sloping lines to the chassis and turret, and they made about 6,000 of them. They also made 8,500 Panzer IV variants. So between the IV/Tiger/Panthers, there's 16,000 tanks.
The US went to full war footing/production almost immediately. Germany resisted doing that until around 1943. Even so, per capita, they made a comparable number of tanks to the US/USSR
And the atomic bomb had a lot less to do with the end of the war than the Soviet declaration of war on August 8 -
Really? I feel like that happens rather frequently in this shithole.Swaye said:It's a really weird feeling to come to HH and actually learn interesting things.
-
What does this have to do with #MySwaye?GrundleStiltzkin said: -
WW1 Imperial GermanyThe WWII Krauts relied on horses and carts. Same as they did in WWI
The Germans had an average of over a million horses used for troop movement. The US used less than 100,000, a good chunk of which were mules in the Pacific Theater.
-
Back when @SpiritHorse was just @HorsePurpleThrobber said:The WWII Krauts relied on horses and carts. Same as they did in WWI
The Germans had an average of over a million horses used for troop movement. The US used less than 100,000, a good chunk of which were mules in the Pacific Theater.
