Mightier military vis-a-vis the contemporary competition: Imperial Germany or Nazi Germany?
Comments
-
WW1 Imperial Germany
Psst....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...
The Krauts had U-Boats in WWI, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania -
WW2 Nazi GermanyAs for the importance of timing/delaying Barbarossa in 1941, taking Moscow by November would certainly have been more important than when Napoleon took it in 1812. Moscow wasn't even the capital in 1812; St. Petersburg was. By 1941, the Sovs had made the USSR into a highly centralized state, with Moscow as its indispensable hub. You take Moscow, you can use it over the winter as a forward base and roll come springtime (and, even without taking Moscow, the Germans did resume the offensive in the spring of 1942). Striking all the way to Stalingrad in late 1942 shows that the Germans could certainly do logistics, and having a central rail/road/comm hub like Moscow in their hands would have given them an excellent springbored to keep up the heat.
Not necessarily saying that Barbarossa would have succeeded if Moscow had been taken, but certainly not the case that it "always would have failed." -
WW1 Imperial Germany
The plan would have worked. Von Moltke just brownsocked and panicked.BearsWiin said:Re: Schlieffen Plan: the German Army had Ross's speed, but their Logistics Corps had Browning's arm
-
WW1 Imperial Germany
And this is a key piece to my argument- i.e., WW1 Germany had a way harder schedule from the start and yet they lasted well into the 4th Quarter.BearsWiin said:
Yeah but the conference was down in 1940. There was more parity in 1914, where even a cellar dweller like Belgium could ruin a perfect season on the first weekendGladstone said:Once the invasion of the USSR failed by December 1941, Hitler was done. It was only a matter of time. Not only was the Wermacht's aura of invincibility shattered, it was the genesis of Hitler not trusting his (elite) generals and taking matters into his own fucktarded hands. "No retreat under any circumstances" policy? He's lucky his generals ignored him and pulled back some, or else losses would have been exponentially worse.
People point out to the delayed invasion start date, the swing south to Kiev, or the attacks on Greece/Yugoslavia as contributing factors, but honestly Barbarossa always would have failed. Hitler severely underestimated the fighting strength of the Soviet troops, their ability to quickly replenish their numbers (despite losing 3 million in '41 they had essentially replaced them by Jan '42), and Soviet armor (which to his horror was far superior than German, and Tiger tanks were 2+ years away anyway). Moscow falling wouldn't have changed a thing except stretch their supply lines even further. Ask Napoleon.
Once it became about attrition and not blitzkrieg by 1941's end, Hitler's doom was assured. The Americans played no real part in defeating Germany beyond preventing the Germans from retreating westward as the Red Army hordes advanced, preventing millions of women from being raped, and curbing Stalin's initial desire to spread communism to the shores of the Atlantic. Remember lend lease had no material influence until 1943 when 7/10 of the prime German fighting force was dead in the east or rotting away in some Kolyma gulag.
To accomplish what they did despite the bullshit though should easily qualify them as the winner of this pole, and probably top 5 fighting force of all time. Wermacht. Modern US. Mongol Empire under Genghis or Kublai Khan. Roman Republic/Empire after Marius's reforms. And....maybe the Grande Armée? -
WW2 Nazi Germany
And once they went to unrestricted warfare in the Atlantic, things looked dire for England's food supply until convoy tactics and attrition turned things against Germany. Massie's Castles of Steel has a few good chapters devoted to this (and his recounting of the exploits of the Q-ships is entertaining).PurpleThrobber said:
Psst....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...
The Krauts had U-Boats in WWI, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania -
WW2 Nazi Germany
It’s tough to tell. Prior to WWI nobody would say that the US was a military power, but they had many successes against Mexico, Spain, and Filipino revolutionaries, and some quality wins in those fun “Banana Wars” . Plus the Navy had made some gains in modernization at that point. So we had the recruits/troops, newer facilities/weapons, and coaches/military leadership, we just hadn’t really played anybody yet. You could say we were the Boise State of the time.YellowSnow said:
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.Sledog said:
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!YellowSnow said:
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.Sledog said:Neither!
America #1
They both lost. Winning counts especially in war.
In the ramp up to WWII in addition to the American people wanting nothing to do with European wars again, much of the US military budget had been slashed to help fund economic recovery/ FDR’s New Deal (interesting as he made one of his early career claims to fame in the Navy department).
So yes, if the US had to play the Germans at the start of the wars ala UW/Auburn on a non-neutral field, they would’ve gotten their asses handed to them, BUT they didn’t and if there’s one thing the US has smoked many other nations in militarily (besides technology) is resources - manpower, raw materials, sheer land mass (oh, and speed, speed, SPEED!). Even with fighting on multiple fronts, we would have eventually worn out Germany. -
WW1 Imperial Germany
I wish my wife would offer tuff military history hot takes.Doog_de_Jour said:
It’s tough to tell. Prior to WWI nobody would say that the US was a military power, but they had many successes against Mexico, Spain, and Filipino revolutionaries, and some quality wins in those fun “Banana Wars” . Plus the Navy had made some gains in moderation at that point. So we had the recruits/troops, newer facilities/weapons, and coaches/military leadership, we just hadn’t really played anybody yet. You could say we were the Boise State of the time.YellowSnow said:
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.Sledog said:
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!YellowSnow said:
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.Sledog said:Neither!
America #1
They both lost. Winning counts especially in war.
In the ramp up to WWII in addition to the American people wanting nothing to do with European wars again, much of the US military budget had been slashed to help fund economic recovery/ FDR’s New Deal (interesting as he made one of his early career claims to fame in the Navy department).
So yes, if the US had to play the Germans at the start of the wars ala UW/Auburn on a non-neutral field, they would’ve gotten their asses handed to them, BUT they didn’t and if there’s one thing the US has smoked many other nations in militarily (besides technology) is resources - manpower, raw materials, sheer land mass (oh, and speed, speed, SPEED!). Even with fighting on multiple fronts, we would have eventually worn out Germany. -
WW1 Imperial Germany
You still need to vote Russian / Soviet History Superioroty Guy.BearsWiin said:
And once they went to unrestricted warfare in the Atlantic, things looked dire for England's food supply until convoy tactics and attrition turned things against Germany. Massie's Castles of Steel has a few good chapters devoted to this (and his recounting of the exploits of the Q-ships is entertaining).PurpleThrobber said:
Psst....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...
The Krauts had U-Boats in WWI, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania -
WW2 Nazi Germany
In your lovely bride’s defense military history isn’t exactly a subject offered to many women. I only got into it because Grandpa_de_Jour was a history nut and would take my brother and I to all these famous battlefields growing up. It was how we bonded.YellowSnow said:
I wish my wife would offer tuff military history hot takes.Doog_de_Jour said:
It’s tough to tell. Prior to WWI nobody would say that the US was a military power, but they had many successes against Mexico, Spain, and Filipino revolutionaries, and some quality wins in those fun “Banana Wars” . Plus the Navy had made some gains in moderation at that point. So we had the recruits/troops, newer facilities/weapons, and coaches/military leadership, we just hadn’t really played anybody yet. You could say we were the Boise State of the time.YellowSnow said:
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.Sledog said:
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!YellowSnow said:
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.Sledog said:Neither!
America #1
They both lost. Winning counts especially in war.
In the ramp up to WWII in addition to the American people wanting nothing to do with European wars again, much of the US military budget had been slashed to help fund economic recovery/ FDR’s New Deal (interesting as he made one of his early career claims to fame in the Navy department).
So yes, if the US had to play the Germans at the start of the wars ala UW/Auburn on a non-neutral field, they would’ve gotten their asses handed to them, BUT they didn’t and if there’s one thing the US has smoked many other nations in militarily (besides technology) is resources - manpower, raw materials, sheer land mass (oh, and speed, speed, SPEED!). Even with fighting on multiple fronts, we would have eventually worn out Germany. -
WW1 Imperial Germany
True. brb, yo.YellowSnow said:
I wish my wife would offer tuff military history hot takes.Doog_de_Jour said:
It’s tough to tell. Prior to WWI nobody would say that the US was a military power, but they had many successes against Mexico, Spain, and Filipino revolutionaries, and some quality wins in those fun “Banana Wars” . Plus the Navy had made some gains in moderation at that point. So we had the recruits/troops, newer facilities/weapons, and coaches/military leadership, we just hadn’t really played anybody yet. You could say we were the Boise State of the time.YellowSnow said:
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.Sledog said:
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!YellowSnow said:
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.Sledog said:Neither!
America #1
They both lost. Winning counts especially in war.
In the ramp up to WWII in addition to the American people wanting nothing to do with European wars again, much of the US military budget had been slashed to help fund economic recovery/ FDR’s New Deal (interesting as he made one of his early career claims to fame in the Navy department).
So yes, if the US had to play the Germans at the start of the wars ala UW/Auburn on a non-neutral field, they would’ve gotten their asses handed to them, BUT they didn’t and if there’s one thing the US has smoked many other nations in militarily (besides technology) is resources - manpower, raw materials, sheer land mass (oh, and speed, speed, SPEED!). Even with fighting on multiple fronts, we would have eventually worn out Germany.
People forget the US played all its 20th century wars on the road.
