Mightier military vis-a-vis the contemporary competition: Imperial Germany or Nazi Germany?
Comments
-
WW1 Imperial Germany
I'll accept it. We're both Dan Carlin fan boys, of course.GrundleStiltzkin said: -
WW1 Imperial Germany
In the Pod, Carlin, describes Nazi Germany as being akin to Mike Tyson, and WWI Germany being more like Ali, Frazier, Foreman...Swaye said:
Probably. The Cuntwaffle was designed around the CAS mission. They had no heavy bombers I can even think of. Their F/A Squadrons put the A in Attack. Not so much the F. They were built to support the Blitzkrieg, and they were HIGHLY effective in this role, but were MUCH less effective in a strategic role. Even the planes were designed for that role (short range). The RAF punched them in the nose over and over in A2A. I get your point, and I agree that better planes, designed more for A2A than CAS would certainly have helped, but even their training infrastructure was geared toward supporting infantry and tanks, not sustained air superiority engagements. So, in short, I think German losses in the air in WW2 had less to do with incompetent leadership than many think, and more to do with the role this air force was created to fulfill. Hell, I don't think the Germany military in general was built for a prolonged struggle. The Field Marshalls designed this thing to hit hard and quick, and win or lose just as fast.YellowSnow said:
Except that's not what we're debating here. Stay on topic Kemosabe.Swaye said:I'm going with Hitler here. He bitch slapped Paul Von Hindenburg, the German military commander of WWI, into making him Chancellor in 1932. Hindenburg beat Hitler in the elections in 1932, regaining the Presidency, but that was just the first half. Hitler so fucked shit up after the elections that he forced Hindenburg to capitualte to his demands to make him Chancellor, rode it out until Hindy died the next year, and declared himself Der Furor! So independent of what their armies ever did, Hitler > Hindenburg. Winners win.
Consider: WWI was able to field the best fighter of the war - i.e., Fokker D7 and get it deployed in large numbers. Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe stepped on their dicks for all of WWII because they were being run by an incompetent, homo junkie. They had done test flights of the Me262 in 1941 and fucked around for 3 years before getting a few into combat by 1944. You think we could have bombed the shit our of Germany if they had a competent air force? -
WW2 Nazi Germany
Good comparison. Now, all of my drivel above is not to say Germany didn't have some kick ass fighter pilots, because they did, but primarily they were built as a CAS arm of the military, which greatly affects everything from plane selection and design, to pilot training, to logistics, etc. They had many aces, and they did teach A2A, but that wasn't their focus, and it showed in sustained strategic engagements with the RAF and AAF.YellowSnow said:
In the Pod, Carlin, describes Nazi Germany as being akin to Mike Tyson, and WWI Germany being more like Ali, Frazier, Foreman...Swaye said:
Probably. The Cuntwaffle was designed around the CAS mission. They had no heavy bombers I can even think of. Their F/A Squadrons put the A in Attack. Not so much the F. They were built to support the Blitzkrieg, and they were HIGHLY effective in this role, but were MUCH less effective in a strategic role. Even the planes were designed for that role (short range). The RAF punched them in the nose over and over in A2A. I get your point, and I agree that better planes, designed more for A2A than CAS would certainly have helped, but even their training infrastructure was geared toward supporting infantry and tanks, not sustained air superiority engagements. So, in short, I think German losses in the air in WW2 had less to do with incompetent leadership than many think, and more to do with the role this air force was created to fulfill. Hell, I don't think the Germany military in general was built for a prolonged struggle. The Field Marshalls designed this thing to hit hard and quick, and win or lose just as fast.YellowSnow said:
Except that's not what we're debating here. Stay on topic Kemosabe.Swaye said:I'm going with Hitler here. He bitch slapped Paul Von Hindenburg, the German military commander of WWI, into making him Chancellor in 1932. Hindenburg beat Hitler in the elections in 1932, regaining the Presidency, but that was just the first half. Hitler so fucked shit up after the elections that he forced Hindenburg to capitualte to his demands to make him Chancellor, rode it out until Hindy died the next year, and declared himself Der Furor! So independent of what their armies ever did, Hitler > Hindenburg. Winners win.
Consider: WWI was able to field the best fighter of the war - i.e., Fokker D7 and get it deployed in large numbers. Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe stepped on their dicks for all of WWII because they were being run by an incompetent, homo junkie. They had done test flights of the Me262 in 1941 and fucked around for 3 years before getting a few into combat by 1944. You think we could have bombed the shit our of Germany if they had a competent air force? -
WW1 Imperial Germany
GOAT?? 352 killzSwaye said:
Good comparison. Now, all of my drivel above is not to say Germany didn't have some kick ass fighter pilots, because they did, but primarily they were built as a CAS arm of the military, which greatly affects everything from plane selection and design, to pilot training, to logistics, etc. They had many aces, and they did teach A2A, but that wasn't their focus, and it showed in sustained strategic engagements with the RAF and AAF.YellowSnow said:
In the Pod, Carlin, describes Nazi Germany as being akin to Mike Tyson, and WWI Germany being more like Ali, Frazier, Foreman...Swaye said:
Probably. The Cuntwaffle was designed around the CAS mission. They had no heavy bombers I can even think of. Their F/A Squadrons put the A in Attack. Not so much the F. They were built to support the Blitzkrieg, and they were HIGHLY effective in this role, but were MUCH less effective in a strategic role. Even the planes were designed for that role (short range). The RAF punched them in the nose over and over in A2A. I get your point, and I agree that better planes, designed more for A2A than CAS would certainly have helped, but even their training infrastructure was geared toward supporting infantry and tanks, not sustained air superiority engagements. So, in short, I think German losses in the air in WW2 had less to do with incompetent leadership than many think, and more to do with the role this air force was created to fulfill. Hell, I don't think the Germany military in general was built for a prolonged struggle. The Field Marshalls designed this thing to hit hard and quick, and win or lose just as fast.YellowSnow said:
Except that's not what we're debating here. Stay on topic Kemosabe.Swaye said:I'm going with Hitler here. He bitch slapped Paul Von Hindenburg, the German military commander of WWI, into making him Chancellor in 1932. Hindenburg beat Hitler in the elections in 1932, regaining the Presidency, but that was just the first half. Hitler so fucked shit up after the elections that he forced Hindenburg to capitualte to his demands to make him Chancellor, rode it out until Hindy died the next year, and declared himself Der Furor! So independent of what their armies ever did, Hitler > Hindenburg. Winners win.
Consider: WWI was able to field the best fighter of the war - i.e., Fokker D7 and get it deployed in large numbers. Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe stepped on their dicks for all of WWII because they were being run by an incompetent, homo junkie. They had done test flights of the Me262 in 1941 and fucked around for 3 years before getting a few into combat by 1944. You think we could have bombed the shit our of Germany if they had a competent air force?
-
Twatted for you Yellah
-
WW1 Imperial Germany
Can you get this kind of content from KJV, Roof, or Doog Pound? Me thinks not.GrundleStiltzkin said:Twatted for you Yellah
-
Neither!
America #1
They both lost. Winning counts especially in war. -
WW1 Imperial Germany
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. -
WW2 Nazi GermanyI’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... -
WW1 Imperial Germany
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... -
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. -
WW2 Nazi GermanyYellowSnow said:
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.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
-
WW1 Imperial Germany
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. -
WW1 Imperial Germanyoregonblitzkrieg said:YellowSnow said:
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.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
-
WW2 Nazi Germany
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. -
WW1 Imperial Germany
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.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.
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. -
WW2 Nazi Germany
We should settle this with a game of Risk.YellowSnow said:
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.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.
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. -
WW1 Imperial Germany
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.Swaye said:
We should settle this with a game of Risk.YellowSnow said:
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.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.
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.
-
WW2 Nazi Germany
First pick, I’m taking Australia. GG, bitches.Swaye said:
We should settle this with a game of Risk.YellowSnow said:
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.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.
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. -
WW1 Imperial Germany
You lose Tommy! It's harder to push them over the lines than pass theThomasFremont said:
First pick, I’m taking Australia. GG, bitches.Swaye said:
We should settle this with a game of Risk.YellowSnow said:
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.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.
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.Dardanelles@Dardanus
-
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. -
WW1 Imperial Germany
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.
-
WW2 Nazi Germany
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 -
WW2 Nazi Germany
The cancelled invasion of the Japanese home islands disagrees. The war was over. I’m talking about ending it for good vs killing millions more before it was official.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 -
WW2 Nazi Germany
I invite you to read the minutes of the Imperial War Cabinet meeting of August 10 1945. They figured they could hold out against a bombing campaign, and the US would sue for some sort of peace before it would take the casualties required for the invasion of the home islands. They knew damn well that Stalin had no such qualms about sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers.ThomasFremont said:
The cancelled invasion of the Japanese home islands disagrees. The war was over. I’m talking about ending it for good vs killing millions more before it was official.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 -
Not after we nuked them.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. -
WW1 Imperial GermanyIt should also be kept in mind that German logistics especially at the start of world war 2 were shit. They were highly dependent on horse drawn supplies. This allowed, for instance, the evacuation from Dunkirk as the armored units had to wait for the rest of the troops and supplies. I have also heard it said that one reason the Germans didn't use chemical weapons during the allied invasion was because they couldn't get gas masks for their horses to work (although I'm not sure how true that anecdote is). I also believe that they relied heavily on Czech tanks and tank design at the beginning of the war.
-
WW2 Nazi GermanyOnce 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?
edit: to further answer the OPs question, WW1 German Navy >>>>> WW2. It probably could have stood up to the Royal Navy if it was 1:1. Russia couldn't arm themselves properly at all, the Schlieffen Plan -- while allowing some initial headway -- bogged down and locked them into a stalemate. Without American involvement here they very well might have been able to sue for quasi favorable peace terms. So in that sense they were superior to WW2 in that they didn't doom themselves and bite off more than they could chew. Hmm.
I've edited my post 4 times because the more I think about it, the more impressed I am with their WW1 performance. Now IDK what to say.
Interesting thread.
tldr -
WW2 Nazi Germany
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 GermanyRe: Schlieffen Plan: the German Army had Ross's speed, but their Logistics Corps had Browning's arm
