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

Sledog

YellowSnow said:

Sledog said:

Neither!

America #1

They both lost. Winning counts especially in war.

Sure winners win and loser lose. But still....it's not like the USA circa 1941- 45 could have defeated Germany mano y mano. Same with 1917 USA vs Germany. In either instance, other countries killed far more Germans than we did.

We would have beaten them alone if need be. Only Russia killed more but they wouldn't have if we weren't supplying them and the Brits and France etc. We were the engine of that war and defeated the Japanese at the same damn time!

oregonblitzkrieg

WW2 Nazi Germany

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

The Blitz or 46 defense that Hitler came up with changed modern warfare

WW1 was a brutal slog with modern killing weapons and Civil War era strategy

Nazi Germany is Oregon- i.e., revolutionary Offense - but they got worn down and lost in the second half badly. WWI Germany was built for 4 quarters of football.

YellowSnow

WW1 Imperial Germany

Sledog said:

YellowSnow said:

Sledog said:

Neither!

America #1

They both lost. Winning counts especially in war.

Sure winners win and loser lose. But still....it's not like the USA circa 1941- 45 could have defeated Germany mano y mano. Same with 1917 USA vs Germany. In either instance, other countries killed far more Germans than we did.

We would have beaten them alone if need be. Only Russia killed more but they wouldn't have if we weren't supplying them and the Brits and France etc. We were the engine of that war and defeated the Japanese at the same damn time!

Doubtful; the cost if lives would have been far more than a democracy such as ours could bear. If you took all the divisions that Germany had in the East and lined them up along the Atlantic Coast, they could have repelled a US invasion of any size rather easily.

YellowSnow

WW1 Imperial Germany

oregonblitzkrieg said:

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

The Blitz or 46 defense that Hitler came up with changed modern warfare

WW1 was a brutal slog with modern killing weapons and Civil War era strategy

Nazi Germany is Oregon- i.e., revolutionary Offense - but they got worn down and lost in the second half badly. WWI Germany was built for 4 quarters of football.

ThomasFremont

WW2 Nazi Germany

YellowSnow said:

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...

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.

The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.

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.

YellowSnow

WW1 Imperial Germany

ThomasFremont said:

YellowSnow said:

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...

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.

The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.

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.

Of course, the Tech / Innovations matters and the USA, Brits and Germans we're pretty evenly matched against each other in WWII tech wise. Brits invented radar. Germans had the first fighter Jets and Rockets (though neither impacted the outcome). And the USA had carriers, long range bombers, and the bomb. Oh and we had by far the best infantry weapon of the war- i.e., M-1 rifle.

But we're getting off topic here I think. We're not debating whether WWII Germany could beat WWI Germany (of course it could because of tech), bur rather was Germany 1.0 more powerful relative to its enemies at the time compared to Germany 2.0. And I think Germany 1.0 had a lot far fewer weaknesses than Germany 2.0 as fighting machine.

Swaye

WW2 Nazi Germany

YellowSnow said:

ThomasFremont said:

YellowSnow said:

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...

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.

The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.

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.

Of course, the Tech / Innovations matters and the USA, Brits and Germans we're pretty evenly matched against each other in WWII tech wise. Brits invented radar. Germans had the first fighter Jets and Rockets (though neither impacted the outcome). And the USA had carriers, long range bombers, and the bomb. Oh and we had by far the best infantry weapon of the war- i.e., M-1 rifle.

But we're getting off topic here I think. We're not debating whether WWII Germany could beat WWI Germany (of course it could because of tech), bur rather was Germany 1.0 more powerful relative to its enemies at the time compared to Germany 2.0. And I think Germany 1.0 had a lot far fewer weaknesses than Germany 2.0 as fighting machine.

We should settle this with a game of Risk.

YellowSnow

WW1 Imperial Germany

Swaye said:

YellowSnow said:

ThomasFremont said:

YellowSnow said:

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...

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.

The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.

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.

Of course, the Tech / Innovations matters and the USA, Brits and Germans we're pretty evenly matched against each other in WWII tech wise. Brits invented radar. Germans had the first fighter Jets and Rockets (though neither impacted the outcome). And the USA had carriers, long range bombers, and the bomb. Oh and we had by far the best infantry weapon of the war- i.e., M-1 rifle.

But we're getting off topic here I think. We're not debating whether WWII Germany could beat WWI Germany (of course it could because of tech), bur rather was Germany 1.0 more powerful relative to its enemies at the time compared to Germany 2.0. And I think Germany 1.0 had a lot far fewer weaknesses than Germany 2.0 as fighting machine.

We should settle this with a game of Risk.

What's up with you fags and the Seinfeld references? While the cool crowd was out banging beaver at parties on campus, you maroons were safe at home with your other cuntless friends watching and memorizing lines from Seinfeld on thursday nights (then recite them the next day after class with same said friends). Then after everybody went home, you'd crank up an episode of "friends" when nobody was watching. You know who you are. You still post stupid little Seinfeld youtube clips here every thread. Get over it already. No wonder you chimps are 40 and still single.

ThomasFremont

WW2 Nazi Germany

Swaye said:

YellowSnow said:

ThomasFremont said:

YellowSnow said:

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...

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.

The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.

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.

Of course, the Tech / Innovations matters and the USA, Brits and Germans we're pretty evenly matched against each other in WWII tech wise. Brits invented radar. Germans had the first fighter Jets and Rockets (though neither impacted the outcome). And the USA had carriers, long range bombers, and the bomb. Oh and we had by far the best infantry weapon of the war- i.e., M-1 rifle.

But we're getting off topic here I think. We're not debating whether WWII Germany could beat WWI Germany (of course it could because of tech), bur rather was Germany 1.0 more powerful relative to its enemies at the time compared to Germany 2.0. And I think Germany 1.0 had a lot far fewer weaknesses than Germany 2.0 as fighting machine.

We should settle this with a game of Risk.

First pick, I’m taking Australia. GG, bitches.

YellowSnow

WW1 Imperial Germany

ThomasFremont said:

Swaye said:

YellowSnow said:

ThomasFremont said:

YellowSnow said:

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...

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.

The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.

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.

Of course, the Tech / Innovations matters and the USA, Brits and Germans we're pretty evenly matched against each other in WWII tech wise. Brits invented radar. Germans had the first fighter Jets and Rockets (though neither impacted the outcome). And the USA had carriers, long range bombers, and the bomb. Oh and we had by far the best infantry weapon of the war- i.e., M-1 rifle.

But we're getting off topic here I think. We're not debating whether WWII Germany could beat WWI Germany (of course it could because of tech), bur rather was Germany 1.0 more powerful relative to its enemies at the time compared to Germany 2.0. And I think Germany 1.0 had a lot far fewer weaknesses than Germany 2.0 as fighting machine.

We should settle this with a game of Risk.

First pick, I’m taking Australia. GG, bitches.

You lose Tommy! It's harder to push them over the lines than pass the Dardanelles @Dardanus