Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

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

12467

Comments

  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 47,967
    WW1 Imperial Germany

    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...

    Psst....

    The Krauts had U-Boats in WWI, too.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania
  • BearsWiinBearsWiin Member Posts: 5,069
    WW2 Nazi Germany
    As 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."
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,196 Founders Club
    WW1 Imperial Germany
    BearsWiin said:

    Re: Schlieffen Plan: the German Army had Ross's speed, but their Logistics Corps had Browning's arm

    The plan would have worked. Von Moltke just brownsocked and panicked.
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,196 Founders Club
    WW1 Imperial Germany
    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 weekend
    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.
  • BearsWiinBearsWiin Member Posts: 5,069
    edited August 2018
    WW2 Nazi Germany


    Psst....

    The Krauts had U-Boats in WWI, too.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania
    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).
  • Doog_de_JourDoog_de_Jour Member Posts: 8,041 Standard Supporter
    edited August 2018
    WW2 Nazi 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.
    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.

    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.
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,196 Founders Club
    WW1 Imperial 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 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.

    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.
    I wish my wife would offer tuff military history hot takes.
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,196 Founders Club
    WW1 Imperial Germany
    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).
    You still need to vote Russian / Soviet History Superioroty Guy.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 47,967
    WW1 Imperial Germany

    I wish my wife would offer tuff military history hot takes.
    True. brb, yo.

    People forget the US played all its 20th century wars on the road.


  • ThomasFremontThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325
    WW2 Nazi Germany


    Psst....

    The Krauts had U-Boats in WWI, too.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania
    U boats are ALL they had in WW2. In round 1 they had a blue water Imperial German Navy. Had to hand it all over as part of the treaty of Versailles.
  • GladstoneGladstone Member Posts: 16,419
    edited August 2018
    WW2 Nazi Germany
    BearsWiin said:

    As 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."

    I've done a full 180 on this since I first got into WW2/EF stuff 10 years ago. I don't think it had any chance of succeeding at all. I took a history class elective my senior year at UW and was adamant it could have worked and got into actual arguments with my professor lol.

    Barbarossa was based on a faulty assumption; that the Soviet Union would collapse before 6 months if struck hard enough. The Germans attacked on June 22, by mid-July it was already obvious that despite huge success the assumption was extremely incorrect.

    No matter what changes are made to the plan, the Soviet Union will not collapse in 6 months.

    But could Barbarossa have been changed to allow the Germans to win an extended, multi-year conflict? That is possible, but the changes you would need to make require Hitler and others to know that they are dramatically expanding the war on two fronts. If they do know that, they may not invade at all, and instead concentrate on a Mediterranean strategy to knock out Britain before attempting any attack on the Soviet Union.

    A third option is that Barbarossa goes off as planned, but Hitler realizes that the Soviet Union has many more reserves than expected. In November, rather than keep pushing towards Moscow, he orders the Wehrmacht to prepare for defensive operations in the winter and a spring/summer offensive. This would make the Germans absorb the upcoming Soviet counter attack a lot better. It would decrease German losses and increase Soviet losses. Then in 1942, he might be able to take Leningrad as well as launch an earlier Case Blue. Then, if Hitler does not divert the 4th Panzer Army from Stalingrad or screw up logistical plans too bad, there might be a very different battle on the Volga.

    But even then, you don't have a victory. You just have a more mauled Red Army, but not one absolutely defeated. So Hitler would have to hope for a decisive battle in 1943 to force the Soviets to the peace table. But at that time, the Soviets have gotten substantial Lend Lease aid, the Allied Bomber Offensive is taking off, Africa is in US and UK hands, and Italy is going to be attacked. So then we need a second major POD which is for Germany to not declare war on the US. But even then, we can still likely see some form of Lend Lease being given and the British finally pushing the Axis out of Libya.

    It was the most spectacular gamble in the history of the world, with single battles and victories larger than the whole of the other campaigns combined. And it never had a chance.
  • GladstoneGladstone Member Posts: 16,419
    WW2 Nazi Germany
    Now what would have been interesting: if the Japanese acquiesced to Hitler's request to attack the eastern USSR instead of Pearl Harbor. This would have kept the US neutral. It would have prevented the Siberian reinforcements at Moscow 1941.

    Pity Khalkhin Gol permanently scared the Japs from ever taking on Russia again.
  • GladstoneGladstone Member Posts: 16,419
    WW2 Nazi Germany
    Yep.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 113,530 Founders Club
    WW2 Nazi Germany

    True. brb, yo.

    People forget the US played all its 20th century wars on the road.


    And at altitude at times
  • BearsWiinBearsWiin Member Posts: 5,069
    edited August 2018
    WW2 Nazi Germany

    And I refer YOU to the Battle of Okinawa, which was practically considered a home island at that point. One of the bloodiest/nastiest battles of the entire war.

    I also refer you to the American Navy plan to convert medium size troop/tank transports into missile platforms as part of the bombardment of Tokyo. Casualty estimates were in the millions (mostly Japanese civilians) and the time to pacify the islands was considered difficult due to the expected civilian resistance.

    Keep in mind the deep cultural differences between the Germans and the Japanese as foes. Without the overwhelming show of force that was the atomic bomb, it’s likely the surrender would have been delayed enough to significantly add to the death toll.

    Grandpa (WW2 Naval officer) told me I’d likely never have existed if that invasion took place. He knew the proposed battle plan first hand.
    Jesus Christ, man, what the fuck are you arguing? That an invasion would have been horrible? That's not up for debate. That is up for debate is how instrumental that atomic bombs were in getting the Japanese High Command to capitulate. We? like to think that it was because of the atomic bombs, because it validates the effort we? put into making them and it makes it all about us?, which is what Americans tend to like to do. But the minutes of the meeting that the Japanese Imperial War Council had one day after Nagasaki, and two days after Soviet troops poured over the Manchurian border, tell us that the Japanese were more concerned about fighting Soviet soldiers on land than they were about dealing with continued strategic bombing.

    We did use the atomic bomb as quickly as we could because we wanted to try to get the Japanese to surrender before the Soviets came into the war, as they pledged to do within three months of the German surrender. As it turned out, the Soviet entry was sandwiched between atomic bombings. The minutes of the Japanese meeting tell us that both played a part in their decision (which was in no way unanimous), but that the prospect of dealing with Soviet armies was a bigger factor than the atomic bombs were. We'd already razed their cities. They didn't particularly care if we did it with 400 planes and 10,000 incendiaries, or with four planes and one big bomb.
  • FireCohenFireCohen Member Posts: 21,823
    WW2 Nazi Germany
    bearswiin delivers in this thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.