Mightier military vis-a-vis the contemporary competition: Imperial Germany or Nazi Germany?

YellowSnow

WW1 Imperial Germany

PurpleThrobber 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.

For all that tech @ThomasFremont the WW2 Germans had no fucking gas so it didn't matter.

ThomasFremont

WW2 Nazi Germany

YellowSnow said:

PurpleThrobber 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.

For all that tech @ThomasFremont the WW2 Germans had no fucking gas so it didn't matter.

Does that limitation make their gains lesser in your eyes?

PurpleThrobber

WW1 Imperial Germany

YellowSnow said:

PurpleThrobber 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.

For all that tech @ThomasFremont the WW2 Germans had no fucking gas so it didn't matter.

Most of the WWII technology actually was developed in WWI. Radar, V-2 rockets and A-bombs notwithstanding.

Tanks, flamethrowers, motorized vehicles, airplanes, large-scale artillery, depth charges.

ThomasFremont

WW2 Nazi Germany

PurpleThrobber said:

YellowSnow said:

PurpleThrobber 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.

For all that tech @ThomasFremont the WW2 Germans had no fucking gas so it didn't matter.

Most of the WWII technology actually was developed in WWI. Radar, V-2 rockets and A-bombs notwithstanding.

Tanks, flamethrowers, motorized vehicles, airplanes, large-scale artillery, depth charges.

Ok, I’ll take the WW2 tech (just the conventional stuff, I don’t even need nukes) and you take the WW1 tech and let’s fight it out. Sound fair?

PurpleThrobber

WW1 Imperial Germany

ThomasFremont said:

PurpleThrobber said:

YellowSnow said:

PurpleThrobber 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.

For all that tech @ThomasFremont the WW2 Germans had no fucking gas so it didn't matter.

Most of the WWII technology actually was developed in WWI. Radar, V-2 rockets and A-bombs notwithstanding.

Tanks, flamethrowers, motorized vehicles, airplanes, large-scale artillery, depth charges.

Ok, I’ll take the WW2 tech (just the conventional stuff, I don’t even need nukes) and you take the WW1 tech and let’s fight it out. Sound fair?

Jesus - I didn't say there was no technological improvements in the 25 years between. Don't go venturing into HondoFS territory.

But clearly the weapons of WWII were of WWI origin.

YellowSnow

WW1 Imperial Germany

ThomasFremont said:

YellowSnow said:

PurpleThrobber 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.

For all that tech @ThomasFremont the WW2 Germans had no fucking gas so it didn't matter.

Does that limitation make their gains lesser in your eyes?

It certainly lessened their ability to effectively make war which is what we are ultimately comparing- i.e., Germany's military might relative to their enemies in WWI vs WWII. Fuel wasn't as big of a factor in WWI and therefore not having an abundance of it didn't affect Imperial Germany's war making ability at the time.

ThomasFremont

WW2 Nazi Germany

PurpleThrobber said:

ThomasFremont said:

PurpleThrobber said:

YellowSnow said:

PurpleThrobber 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.

For all that tech @ThomasFremont the WW2 Germans had no fucking gas so it didn't matter.

Most of the WWII technology actually was developed in WWI. Radar, V-2 rockets and A-bombs notwithstanding.

Tanks, flamethrowers, motorized vehicles, airplanes, large-scale artillery, depth charges.

Ok, I’ll take the WW2 tech (just the conventional stuff, I don’t even need nukes) and you take the WW1 tech and let’s fight it out. Sound fair?

Jesus - I didn't say there was no technological improvements in the 25 years between. Don't go venturing into HondoFS territory.

But clearly the weapons of WWII were of WWI origin.

I’m not sure what your point is. Mine was in regards to those advancements you just admitted to.

There are long stretches in history where the weapons used were little changed from the decades or centuries previous. That was not the case in WW2.

dflea

All this German hardware discussion and nobody mentioned the Maus? I want to go on a joy ride in this motherfucker.

GrundleStiltzkin

Great tank pr0n channel
https://youtu.be/kFQd8TYt6Ew

ThomasFremont

WW2 Nazi Germany

YellowSnow said:

ThomasFremont said:

YellowSnow said:

PurpleThrobber 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.

For all that tech @ThomasFremont the WW2 Germans had no fucking gas so it didn't matter.

Does that limitation make their gains lesser in your eyes?

It certainly lessened their ability to effectively make war which is what we are ultimately comparing- i.e., Germany's military might relative to their enemies in WWI vs WWII. Fuel wasn't as big of a factor in WWI and therefore not having an abundance of it didn't affect Imperial Germany's war making ability at the time.

Wait what are we comparing: SOS, W-L record, coaching, facilities, sizzle?

The way I see it, WW1 was Germany barely beating up (but had the upper hand) a weak Euro division, had Euro allies, not having to worry about Russia, and then giving up once we entered with more troops. They failed to innovate and were locked in a stalemate. They lacked oil in WW2, but resources became an issue in WW1 too.

WW2 they blitzed the entire Euro league, only had 1 shitty Euro ally that basically gave up (sad to see how far Italy has fallen), took North Africa, backstabbed the Soviets and pushed them to the outskirts of Moscow, and fought a SERIOUS Allied military led by us. We had to push all the way to Berlin before they quit in round 2.

Round 2 lasted longer, was a true global conflict rather than a regional slaughter, and the end result reshaped the world way more than the end of round 1. The Nazis were a much bigger threat. I don’t think this is even that close tbh.