• 76 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for modernww2fare
Posted by modernww2fare (7009 posts) 9 months, 1 day ago

Poll: WW2-era Germany replaces U.S. in Vietnam War - Do they win? (52 votes)

Yes 56%
No 44%
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for abstractraze
#2 Edited by AbstractRaze (2363 posts) - - Show Bio

Germany, because the Third Reich had over 4 million qualified trained soldiers, if we would consider Wolfenstein's alternative ending about the WW2, where Germany and Japan won the war, it's very probable that if German's tech was those times pretty much advanced, then with more reasons could be the case during a possible conflict in Vietnam.

I don't remember well, but the US had between 350.000 or 400.000 military units, 100.000-150.000 were active/full-trained/ready and 50.000-60.000 died during the conflict.

That's nothing in comparison to The Third Reich's manpower which were qualified units.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#3 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18046 posts) - - Show Bio

At it's height, the Wehrmacht (the Army of Nazi Germany in WW2) numbered about 13 million. The largest number of troops the is estimated at something like 5 million troops.

There are several factors that mitigate the numbers that I'll throw in here for a quick spit ball that would help in the People's Army of Vietnam (NVA) a LOT. VASTLY superior air forces, knowledge of the terrain, better armor, and a little bit better artillery.

On the other hand. The Germans won't be fighting like the Americans did...the Germans will be fighting an all out offensive war with their entire force driving HARD to destroy the NVA and VC with massively aggressive tactics. At the LARGEST number in the Vietnam War the US only had about 500, 000 troops in the country.

The NVA would very likely be overwhelmed in a matter of weeks (it's a very small country) and very soon the fighting would be in and among their people and cities which would limit the effectiveness of the the NV air superiority.

I could be off a little bit, but I don't think so. The cost to both sides in blood and equipment would be simply earth shattering but (except for insurgencies) I'm pretty sure the Germans would come out on top.

Avatar image for mimisalome
#4 Posted by mimisalome (5341 posts) - - Show Bio

With consideration to Geography and Politics?

No, I don't think so.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b84aca03eae8
#5 Edited by deactivated-5b84aca03eae8 (6261 posts) - - Show Bio

Nazi Germany stomps if it's strictly 1v1 and they start with all of their manpower and equipment already in South Vietnam. Otherwise, North Vietnam wins.

Avatar image for mimisalome
#6 Edited by mimisalome (5341 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112 said:

On the other hand. The Germans won't be fighting like the Americans did...the Germans will be fighting an all out offensive war with their entire force driving HARD to destroy the NVA and VC with massively aggressive tactics. At the LARGEST number in the Vietnam War the US only had about 500, 000 troops in the country.

I think the primary reason why the Germans were pretty successful in the early phase of their European campaign is because of the Blitzkrieg tactics.

With consideration to geography and terrain, Blitzkrieg would not fly unless the Southern Vietnamese buys them enough time to mass up, build forward bases, and launch the campaign with a secure supply line and close air support.

The US didn't have to worry about that because they have well supplied bases in Japan (and the Philippines) just within arms reach.

The mobility advantage of German tanks would be pretty useless in the dense, rainy, hot, humid tropical jungle environment of Vietnam. They would just be sitting ducks for guerilla ambushes and be very vulnerable to anti-tank mines (since routes and pathways are very constricted), if reliability and operational problems wouldn't destroy them first.

Not to mention the Germans utter lack of combat experience fighting in the jungles filled with environmental hazards like very deadly tropical diseases which could decimate their ranks faster than their enemies.

But I think the main factor that would affect their deployment is the German's lack of Navy or Air Cargo that could facilitate such massive troop movement and logistic from Germany to the Asian South East.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b17f1b84ea5f
#7 Posted by deactivated-5b17f1b84ea5f (1752 posts) - - Show Bio

Unless they do Blitzkrieg off the bat, I see them struggling like the US did.

Avatar image for wut
#10 Edited by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

No.

1. German tanks aren't going to be all that useful in this terrain, especially, considering the hilarious amount of technical issues they had, the over-engineering the Germans liked to do and the lack of true force projection to this area.

2. Germans lack the air power of the United States and are going to get stomped into the ground by, even the tiny, amount of air assets the NVA had [and they had quite a bit of air defense assets]. Wanna see what happens when a MiG-17 runs into the Luftwaffe? Because the German's won't see it.

3. Germany lacks the ability to project forces to this side of the world in any real numbers or capabilities. Anyone they do bring is going to be woefully under-supplied and out-manned.

4. China and Russia are the main reasons the US never went into the NVA and just smacked them down, which was well within their power [Especially after the NVA and VA shot their wad during the Tet Offensive and lost most of their combat ability after their military defeat]. No one wanted a repeat of the Korean War where China ran down and this could have started WW3. Now, that was against the US, a much, much, much more advanced and powerful nation compared to WW2 Germany with a very impressive naval fleet that could have made life difficult for the Chinese in the region as well as the NATO forces that would have been drawn into such a major conflict... believe it or not, but no one wanted WW3.

The Germans? They can't stop them. They either do what the French did and fight a war they can never hope to win being constantly undermanned and supplied in the region and try to hold on to what little lands they have while China and Russia supply the NVA and bleed them dry, or, the Germans run north and then get swatted like flies by the Chinese and Russians.

Avatar image for laiks stake
#11 Posted by Laiks Stake (1211 posts) - - Show Bio

1x1 Germany stomps.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#12 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18046 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112 said:

On the other hand. The Germans won't be fighting like the Americans did...the Germans will be fighting an all out offensive war with their entire force driving HARD to destroy the NVA and VC with massively aggressive tactics. At the LARGEST number in the Vietnam War the US only had about 500, 000 troops in the country.

Well, I was mainly spit balling this, but you're overly intelligent and informed self is making me work for a living lol. First, there are several variables that aren't addressed in the OP.

Are all the German forces magically in place? Are they going to be ferried there by the 6 large German troop ships and massive fleet of troop delivery aircraft that would have to refuel at refueling stations on the way? ARE there refueling stations on the way?

Is the ARVN at full strength when the new war begins? They have fighters and bombers of their own that the Germans could fold into their war strategy. They also have commo and radar equipment that would help even the odds against the NVA.

My prediction was based on the Wehrmacht already being in place when the "new Vietnam war" to begin with. One thing I DID forget was the MASSIVE German navy. About 30 of which could rain massive naval gunfire on the North Vietnamese coast for at least the first three to six months before they were sunk. Especially the two Bismark class, two Scharnhorst class battle ships, and three Pre-Dreadnaught , Deutschland class not to mention all the destroyers, cruisers, and artillery ships.

I think the primary reason why the Germans were pretty successful in the early phase of their European campaign is because of the Blitzkrieg tactics.

With consideration to geography and terrain, Blitzkrieg would not fly unless the Southern Vietnamese buys them enough time to mass up, build forward bases, and launch the campaign with a secure supply line and close air support.

Well, since the ARVN had such bases at the beginning of the war it's a sure bet that the German's would pour at least half to two thirds of their forces into this forward area as fast as possible, start and keep attacking.

The US didn't have to worry about that because they have well supplied bases in Japan (and the Philippines) just within arms reach.

Supply might be a BIT slower, but the Germans had not only a fleet of supply submarines and a decent number of supply ships, and dozens of other ships that could easily be pressed into supply service. Furthermore, they would be able to operate unopposed and be steaming a constant stream of supplies from Germany to Vietnam.

The mobility advantage of German tanks would be pretty useless in the dense, rainy, hot, humid tropical jungle environment of Vietnam. They would just be sitting ducks for guerilla ambushes and be very vulnerable to anti-tank mines (since routes and pathways are very constricted), if reliability and operational problems wouldn't destroy them first.

You make an EXCELLENT point here, which I actually took into account. One thing that should also be taken into account is that the German soldiers were some of the most professional, adaptable, and finest troops every produced. They would take significant losses to men and equipment, but if American conscripts would adapt and effectively fight well equipped, highly determined, almost fanatical NVA, and VA forces and inflict the kind of damage they did to the enemy, imagine what kind of damage the Wehrmacht would do.

Not to mention the Germans utter lack of combat experience fighting in the jungles filled with environmental hazards like very deadly tropical diseases which could decimate their ranks faster than their enemies.

True. Initially the German's would have a difficult acclimation process to the tropical environment but I've already discussed their ability to adapt and perform. They did so in the steppes of Russia, they would do the same in Vietnam. I did NOT consider the tropical diseases however...good one...yeah Malaria took out almost as many American troops as combat did.

But I think the main factor that would affect their deployment is the German's lack of Navy or Air Cargo that could facilitate such massive troop movement and logistic from Germany to the Asian South East.

Yes, this would be extremely difficult. The war would hing a lot on on where the German's started out in the war. On the other hand, the NVA could do almost noting but be a minor annoyance in preventing the Germans from landing in S Vietnam. If the Germans are forced to land piecemeal then yes, the chances of them winning drop SIGNIFICANTLY. However, if they are allowed to start as is, I strongly believe they win.

Another factor is that both sides didn't START with the maximum troop numbers I listed, they're the troop numbers they had at the height of their individual conflicts. Germany in 1944 and North Vietnam in 1968.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b2121a0a9a00
#13 Posted by deactivated-5b2121a0a9a00 (10000 posts) - - Show Bio
@wut said:

No.

1. German tanks aren't going to be all that useful in this terrain, especially, considering the hilarious amount of technical issues they had, the over-engineering the Germans liked to do and the lack of true force projection to this area.

2. Germans lack the air power of the United States and are going to get stomped into the ground by, even the tiny, amount of air assets the NVA had [and they had quite a bit of air defense assets]. Wanna see what happens when a MiG-17 runs into the Luftwaffe? Because the German's won't see it.

3. Germany lacks the ability to project forces to this side of the world in any real numbers or capabilities. Anyone they do bring is going to be woefully under-supplied and out-manned.

4. China and Russia are the main reasons the US never went into the NVA and just smacked them down, which was well within their power [Especially after the NVA and VA shot their wad during the Tet Offensive and lost most of their combat ability after their military defeat]. No one wanted a repeat of the Korean War where China ran down and this could have started WW3. Now, that was against the US, a much, much, much more advanced and powerful nation compared to WW2 Germany with a very impressive naval fleet that could have made life difficult for the Chinese in the region as well as the NATO forces that would have been drawn into such a major conflict... believe it or not, but no one wanted WW3.

The Germans? They can't stop them. They either do what the French did and fight a war they can never hope to win being constantly undermanned and supplied in the region and try to hold on to what little lands they have while China and Russia supply the NVA and bleed them dry, or, the Germans run north and then get swatted like flies by the Chinese and Russians.

Avatar image for mimisalome
#14 Posted by mimisalome (5341 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112:

Well, I was mainly spit balling this, but you're overly intelligent and informed self is making me work for a living lol. First, there are several variables that aren't addressed in the OP.

I just really love playing war games, so "What If" War Scenario topic like this really interest me.

The game "War in the Pacific: Admiral Edition", in particular, had always makes me consider the value of transportation and logistic in operational level warfare because that game is a total chore with regards to that military aspect.

It makes me always consider geography, transport capability, and logistic efficiency (force projection) as a prime determining factor over raw military strength alone at least that's what the game taught me.

I don't know how realistic that notion is since I'm not pro, but believe you are (or you were) and that's why I'm always interested about your opinion on such topic and even consider challenging your position just so i can extract more information out you.

The best thing is that you don't disappoint, somehow You always come's up with an idea that makes me ponder even some more.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#15 Edited by HeroUp2112 (18046 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112:

Well, I was mainly spit balling this, but you're overly intelligent and informed self is making me work for a living lol. First, there are several variables that aren't addressed in the OP.

I just really love playing war games, so "What If" War Scenario topic like this really interest me.

The game "War in the Pacific: Admiral Edition", in particular, had always makes me consider the value of transportation and logistic in operational level warfare because that game is a total chore with regards to that military aspect.

It makes me always consider geography, transport capability, and logistic efficiency (force projection) as a prime determining factor over raw military strength alone at least that's what the game taught me.

I don't know how realistic that notion is since I'm not pro, but believe you are (or you were) and that's why I'm always interested about your opinion on such topic and even consider challenging your position just so i can extract more information out you.

The best thing is that you don't disappoint, somehow You always come's up with an idea that makes me ponder even some more.

Weeeeelllllll, the only thing I'm (or were) honestly a pro at is calling indirect fire (meaning that I used to sneak out in front of our maneuver forces...another way of saying our front lines, locating significant enemy forces or positions and calling artillery or air power in on them...though mostly artillery...or close air support if I was working directly with the Infantry). I am more than a little knowledgeable about small unit tactics and how maneuver elements (combined arms...armor, artillery, air support, infantry, etc) work together to achieve a goal, and how.

Those things I have experience with. The other stuff I'm just really well read on, and/or I've had long conversations with, with people who actually have done such things.

I like discussing this stuff with you too because (as stated) you come up with stuff I haven't thought of and sometimes change my opinion about them. I'm honestly kind of a novice about naval and amphibious operations other than having studied Operation: Overlord a lot and one of my two best friends being a Marine who knows a lot about them. I usually pick his brain about some of the stuff we talk about here. I also study some about air power but the main air stuff I know about is ground attack aircraft since I worked directly with them (from the ground).

Avatar image for heroup2112
#18 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18046 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut said:

No.

1. German tanks aren't going to be all that useful in this terrain, especially, considering the hilarious amount of technical issues they had, the over-engineering the Germans liked to do and the lack of true force projection to this area.

2. Germans lack the air power of the United States and are going to get stomped into the ground by, even the tiny, amount of air assets the NVA had [and they had quite a bit of air defense assets]. Wanna see what happens when a MiG-17 runs into the Luftwaffe? Because the German's won't see it.

3. Germany lacks the ability to project forces to this side of the world in any real numbers or capabilities. Anyone they do bring is going to be woefully under-supplied and out-manned.

4. China and Russia are the main reasons the US never went into the NVA and just smacked them down, which was well within their power [Especially after the NVA and VA shot their wad during the Tet Offensive and lost most of their combat ability after their military defeat]. No one wanted a repeat of the Korean War where China ran down and this could have started WW3. Now, that was against the US, a much, much, much more advanced and powerful nation compared to WW2 Germany with a very impressive naval fleet that could have made life difficult for the Chinese in the region as well as the NATO forces that would have been drawn into such a major conflict... believe it or not, but no one wanted WW3.

The Germans? They can't stop them. They either do what the French did and fight a war they can never hope to win being constantly undermanned and supplied in the region and try to hold on to what little lands they have while China and Russia supply the NVA and bleed them dry, or, the Germans run north and then get swatted like flies by the Chinese and Russians.

1. The sheer number of tanks should mitigate this. It will be entirely possible for the German's to drive their tanks until they just quit than have new tanks brought up by truck to replace them while the old tank gets repaired.

2. You are ABSOLUTELY correct here. The only slight mitigation to this are the 1, 433 Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters that the Luftwaffe produced and fielded toward the end of the war. Granted they wouldn't be able to do a WHOLE lot against the NV air force (it's hard to find exact numbers for some reason) best estimates I can find, and I'm erring on the "more" side is around 500 fighter aircraft. MORE than enough to defeat the German fighter force and then some. However, it will decrease them somewhat. At any rate, I factored the massive toll the NV air force would take on the German ground forces into my calculations. Also as good as the NV air defense system was (which was AMAZING) the thousands and thousands of fighters, fighter bombers, and fighter bombers would do significant damage, along with the hundreds of destroyers, battleships and dreadnaughts that would be prowling the coast laying massive naval gunfire into and all along the coast and even farther in.

3. Well, like I was talking to @mimisalome about. There was no discussion in the OP about where the German's start off in this war. Either way, we're not talking about the German's sending off a small expeditionary force like the French did (assuming we're going with a build up scenario like with the US helping S Vietnam) and the Germans certainly don't fight like the French to begin with (by doctrine and history). They would be sending all of their assets as quickly as they could with the intent of crushing this very small country with the forces that they took a continent (and part of another continent) with. For more of a break down, and so I don't have to write this ALLL again you could look at posts 3, 6, and 12 for my points, and mimis counterpoints and my rebuttal if you feel like...especially regarding resupply.

4. If we're including the Chinese and Russian involvement then yes, there is no contest. The Germans would lose the larger war. (assuming it was rational commanders and not...yanno. that guy). My assumption is it was just these two stand alone forces against each other. If that's not the case than the whole exercise is pointless to begin with. :)

Avatar image for wut
#19 Posted by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112:

1. The solution to dense forest is notto drive even more tanks through them. That would be a logistical nightmare on already logistical straining tanks [German Tanks were godawful because of this very reason, Tigers are nice and all, but they tend to break down forty kilometers before they even reach the battlefield]. Any commander who believes the solution to jungle warfare is to 'Drive even more tanks through them!' should not be a commander. Seriously, that is the worst plan I have ever heard. On the level of, 'We will build a bridge with our corpses!'

2. Those ships are going to run into a lot of trouble if they lose the air war, and the German fleet were never, I repeat, never, meant to fight that far from any resupply station and that far from friendly harbors. Germany planned on building a mighty fleet... but they shelved that plan and just spammed subs to strain supply lines where they could.

3. Since they 'replace the US', I would assume they start off.... in Germany and Africa, like they did in real life, and then would have to ship men, supplies and resources all the way around the world to Vietnam... like the US did. [Ignoring the fact that you have a US friendly Japan right there and, unlike the US, Germany lacks any nearby military bases to act as launching points. As Germany would never have those, they would only have the assets they had.]

4. They are replacing the US, therefor, they have to deal with the same issues the US did, ergo, Russian/Chinese backing of the North and the hesitancy to advance into North via Chinese intervention. That is all the OP says. Replacing the US in the Vietnam War. They aren't replacing the US if we are handwaving the main reason the US struggled in Vietnam.

Avatar image for mikesterman
#20 Posted by mikesterman (1376 posts) - - Show Bio

Let’s not forget that the Vietcong played dirty. They would use women, and even children as distractions and bombs. Something the Germans sure as hell ain’t prepared for. Also the jungle holds so many diseases. They are on Vietcong turf. They know their jungle inside and out. The Germans are outmatched. Just like we were.

Avatar image for jagernutt
#21 Posted by jagernutt (16020 posts) - - Show Bio

@mikesterman:

WW2 era Germany would gun down the woman and children and not think twice about it.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#22 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18046 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut said:

@heroup2112:

1. The solution to dense forest is notto drive even more tanks through them. That would be a logistical nightmare on already logistical straining tanks [German Tanks were godawful because of this very reason, Tigers are nice and all, but they tend to break down forty kilometers before they even reach the battlefield]. Any commander who believes the solution to jungle warfare is to 'Drive even more tanks through them!' should not be a commander. Seriously, that is the worst plan I have ever heard. On the level of, 'We will build a bridge with our corpses!'

2. Those ships are going to run into a lot of trouble if they lose the air war, and the German fleet were never, I repeat, never, meant to fight that far from any resupply station and that far from friendly harbors. Germany planned on building a mighty fleet... but they shelved that plan and just spammed subs to strain supply lines where they could.

3. Since they 'replace the US', I would assume they start off.... in Germany and Africa, like they did in real life, and then would have to ship men, supplies and resources all the way around the world to Vietnam... like the US did. [Ignoring the fact that you have a US friendly Japan right there and, unlike the US, Germany lacks any nearby military bases to act as launching points. As Germany would never have those, they would only have the assets they had.]

4. They are replacing the US, therefor, they have to deal with the same issues the US did, ergo, Russian/Chinese backing of the North and the hesitancy to advance into North via Chinese intervention. That is all the OP says. Replacing the US in the Vietnam War. They aren't replacing the US if we are handwaving the main reason the US struggled in Vietnam.

1. My idea with the tanks was certainly not to run them through the jungles, rice fields and such, that would be ridiculous. I was talking about taking them up the roads, highways (which were definitely present, and vehicle trails.(plus whatever the very clever and resilient German engineers could cut out). I'm talking about the tanks taking cities, not countryside. The Germans (in the scenario I initially was operating under) would have had VASTLY more Infantry, and artillery (though neither would have been as rapidly reactive as the Americans) than the Americans had. To overwhelm the jungles and countryside.

HOWEVER. If we're operating under the idea that Germany is simply replacing the US exactly the way the US was operating in the Vietnam war...my way made some sense because there's simply NO way the Germans could have realistically done it...as you pointed out...(I honestly missed some things in my analysis and you definitely gave me a bit of a black eye here :) )

Your assessment of the OP that it was intended to be from the this standpoint (that you assert) certainly makes more sense and no, the Germans could barely get their forces deployed much less their entire Wehrmacht. The ONLY way it would come out my way is if they were magically transported entirely into S. Vietnam.

Avatar image for modernww2fare
#23 Posted by modernww2fare (7009 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut: @heroup2112: You guys ever watched Deadliest Warrior? Because I got the idea from their matchup "Waffen SS vs Viet Cong"

Avatar image for heroup2112
#24 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18046 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut: @heroup2112: You guys ever watched Deadliest Warrior? Because I got the idea from their matchup "Waffen SS vs Viet Cong"

I have. I don't remember that one though. I would well imagine the VC won that one on the show though. Their small unit weapons were considerably better.

Avatar image for modernww2fare
#25 Posted by modernww2fare (7009 posts) - - Show Bio

@modernww2fare said:

@wut: @heroup2112: You guys ever watched Deadliest Warrior? Because I got the idea from their matchup "Waffen SS vs Viet Cong"

I have. I don't remember that one though. I would well imagine the VC won that one on the show though. Their small unit weapons were considerably better.

Nope lol the SS won

Avatar image for heroup2112
#26 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18046 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112 said:
@modernww2fare said:

@wut: @heroup2112: You guys ever watched Deadliest Warrior? Because I got the idea from their matchup "Waffen SS vs Viet Cong"

I have. I don't remember that one though. I would well imagine the VC won that one on the show though. Their small unit weapons were considerably better.

Nope lol the SS won

No foolin? Maybe they factored in tactics...

Avatar image for wut
#27 Edited by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112: The Vietcong, in the video, were only using WW2 French smgs rather then their more advanced options like the AK-47 [or the more common Type-56 Chinese Knockoff].

I mean.. the weapons used by the VC in their episode were:

MAT-49

POMZ-2 mines

Tokarev TT-33 pistol

Booby Traps..

.

Compared to the SS given:

MP 28

Bouncing Betty

Mauser pistol

Flamethrower

Unsurprisingly, the Flamethrower did better in their simulations then punji stake booby traps in a squad on squad random encounter...

Avatar image for heroup2112
#28 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18046 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut said:

@heroup2112: The Vietcong, in the video, were only using WW2 French smgs rather then their more advanced options like the AK-47 [or the more common Type-56 Chinese Knockoff].

I mean.. the weapons used by the VC in their episode were:

MAT-49

POMZ-2 mines

Tokarev TT-33 pistol

Booby Traps..

.

Compared to the SS given:

MP 28

Bouncing Betty

Mauser pistol

Flamethrower

Unsurprisingly, the Flamethrower did better in their simulations then punji stake booby traps in a squad on squad random encounter...

Oooohhhhhh, well THAT makes no sense...the weapons choice, not the flamethrower thing.

Avatar image for wut
#29 Posted by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112: No.. it makes a pretty large difference. Since its a computer that does it all. The sticks didn't do much. The Flamethrower did better. The amount of kills it gave was what made the SS take the majority.

I imagine they went with the MAT-49 because they are both 9mm smgs for 'balance' [although, it is more the VC that fought France then the one that fought the US]. Both had land mines, both had pistols. So woulda been down to the soldier or terrain [although the engine didn't.. really.. do that all to well]. What pushed the verdict was the fact the Flamethrower did far better then the traps in the sim... which.. wasn't.. surprising.

Avatar image for abstractraze
#30 Edited by AbstractRaze (2363 posts) - - Show Bio

@modernww2fare said:
@heroup2112 said:
@modernww2fare said:

@wut: @heroup2112: You guys ever watched Deadliest Warrior? Because I got the idea from their matchup "Waffen SS vs Viet Cong"

I have. I don't remember that one though. I would well imagine the VC won that one on the show though. Their small unit weapons were considerably better.

Nope lol the SS won

Nothing different to expect from a Spezial Einheit, German troops were in general more prepared, better trained under strict selective standards, the active German troops was composed by over 4 - 5 million units, while only 100,000 US troops participated in the Vietnam conflict, that's a miserable amount of active troops compared to those of the Third Reich, that's why the whole world had to primarily unite against Germany and as second priority against Japan.

That's why it took 6 years to take down the Axis alliance despite the whole world was united.

People babbling bullshit that the Nazi won't take over Vietnam is hilarious.

Despite we lost the war, we massacred half of the world, with over 15,827,000 military deads while the Axis Alliance only suffered 6,901.400, almost the third part.

Axis Alliance

Nazi Germany = ca. 4,500,000 Military deads

Japan = ca. 2,100,000

Italy = ca. 301,400

ca. 6,901,400 Deads

vs.

Soviet Union and "Soviet Allies without counting China"

ca. 11,000,000

+

China = ca. 3,500,000

ca. 14,500,000 deads

Allied Nations

Unite States = ca. 407,000

United Kingdom = ca. 383,800

France = ca. 200,000

Australia = ca. 39,700

Canada = ca. 45,400

New Zealand = ca. 11,900

Poland = 240,000

ca. 1,327,000 Deads

Allied Nations + Soviet Union military deads:

ca. 15,827,000

Axis Alliance:

ca. 6,901,400

Avatar image for heroup2112
#31 Edited by HeroUp2112 (18046 posts) - - Show Bio

@abstractraze said:
@modernww2fare said:
@heroup2112 said:
@modernww2fare said:

@wut: @heroup2112: You guys ever watched Deadliest Warrior? Because I got the idea from their matchup "Waffen SS vs Viet Cong"

I have. I don't remember that one though. I would well imagine the VC won that one on the show though. Their small unit weapons were considerably better.

Nope lol the SS won

Nothing different to expect from a Spezial Einheit, German troops were in general, more prepared, better trained under strict selective standards, the active German troops was composed by over 4 million units, while only 100,000 US troops participated in the Vietnam conflict, that's a miserable amount of active troops compared to those of the Third Reich, that's why the whole world had to primarily unite against Germany and as second priority Japan.

That's why it took 6 years to take down the Axis alliance despite the whole world was united.

People babbling bullshit that the Nazi won't take over Vietnam is hilarious.

Despite we lost the war, we massacred half the world, with over 15,827,000 military deads while the Axis Alliance only suffered 6,901.400, almost the third part.

Axis Alliance

Nazi Germany = ca. 4,500,000 Military deads

Japan = ca. 2,100,000

Italy = ca. 301,400

ca. 6,901,400 Deads

vs.

Soviet Union and "Soviet Allies without counting China"

ca. 11,000,000

+

China = ca. 3,500,000

ca. 14,500,000 deads

Allied Nations

Unite States = ca. 407,000

United Kingdom = ca. 383,800

France = ca. 200,000

Australia = ca. 39,700

Canada = ca. 45,400

New Zealand = ca. 11,900

Poland = 240,000

ca. 1,327,000 Deads

Allied Nations + Soviet Union military deads:

ca. 15,827,000

Axis Alliance:

ca. 6,901,400

You're leaving out quite a few major factors in this scenario.

    • Yes...if you were able to magically drop the entire German ONLY Wehrmacht (not the other countries conscripts that swelled their ranks to over twice the size of the German only armed forces) it is very probable that they would win. However, we've decided that the German's will be fighting under the same strictures that the Americans were. Those strictures being that the Germans would have to transport their troops, equipment, air craft, and supplies from Germany to 1960's SE Asia. They simply don't have the infrastructure to do that effectively.
      • They have to refueling bases to refuel their airplanes.
      • Even though they have enough ships in their fleet to keep a supply line running from Germany to Vietnam, most of their ships don't have the range to make such a journey. Even if they do (except for the few supply U-Boats) they have ZERO defense against the N Vietnamese fighter and surface attack jets that would surely sink them in the gulf or South China Sea.
    • I tried to make an argument otherwise but I was just plain wrong. The Luftwaffe would simply be completely ineffective offensively or defensively against Cold War jet fighters and anti aircraft systems. Period. Then the ground attack aircraft would attack the German armor with impunity. The infantry much less so of course, and yes, the German Infantry were some of the best trained and experienced soldiers ever, and they would outnumber the North Vietnamese.
    • HOWEVER. The Germans would have their numbers soon cut by a quarter (at least) by tropical diseases that they have had no exposure to. Malaria being the most serious and infectious one. Almost as many American servicemen were put out of action by this one as combat wounds.
    • Without the assistance of their armor, and very limited assistance of their artillery (which was not the German's best asset to begin with...don't test me here,..I was an artilleryman for 10 years, I know from artillery...the German artillery wasn't bad, it just wasn't very flexible, which cost them). The infantry alone (after being chewed up thoroughly in the jungles by the very determined NVA and VC who, frankly, will have superior infantry weapons, when they finally GET to the North Vietnamese cities (which I firmly believe they will) will be destroyed by the NV tanks (that they've been able to hold back because the NV air power has been taking care of the German armor) and artillery will pound the schnitzel out of them.

The Americans (and their allies) did as well as they did in Vietnam with so few numbers (you're incorrect by the way, at the height of the war we had about 300,000 personnel in country), is that we had tremendously superior artillery (by FAR), greater technology in general, and the new air mobility concept. Furthermore, we were fighting defensively, and while you can't WIN a war fighting defensively it's easier to "not lose" a war that way, or at least make it take a hell of a long time, and make it cost the enemy a whole lot.

It's also funny how in your list of Axis countries you didn't list the dead of the Danes, Dutch, Czechs, Serbs, Croats, French, Belgians, Hungarians, Austrians, etc, that either volunteered for or were conscripted into the German Army that eventually swelled their ranks to more than twice the size of the native German Army. Hmmm, wonder why?

Avatar image for wut
#32 Posted by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112: Don't bother. You don't want to get into a debate with a wehraboo.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b84aca03eae8
#33 Edited by deactivated-5b84aca03eae8 (6261 posts) - - Show Bio

@abstractraze

Despite we lost the war, we massacred half the world, with over 15,827,000 military deads while the Axis Alliance only suffered 6,901.400, almost the third part.

I find it disturbing that you used "we" as if you're trying to associate yourself with the Nazis.

Avatar image for abstractraze
#34 Edited by AbstractRaze (2363 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112: I will abbreviate the whole point:

If we are going to replace Nazi Germany for the US during the Vietnam conflict, then we must assume the Axis Alliance victory in 1945 following by a Waffenstillstand with the Soviet Union, giving birth to a Cold War between the Axis Alliance and the Soviet Union while the Allies are either neutralized or siding with the Axis Alliance.

Giving the scenario, the Soviet Union and a communist China would still exist in order to supply the Vietcong, but if talking about geographical positions, the Third Reich has a far better position, considering a possible intercontinental railway from Europe till India and an efficient supply from Japan through the Philippine Sea

Giving this scenario, Nazi Germany still takes them down with no real difficulties, Germany was by far more advanced in the chemical field, those ranking their pharmaceutics on the top, a clear advantage against diseases like the malaria, etc... so if we would finally consider 23 years of technological development after the Axis Alliance victory, then it's a suitable situation.

Moreover, the only reason why the Axis Alliance could annihilate 15,827,000 military units, highlights a superior tactical output overall, especially Germany, numbers talks for itself, we had a far greater armament quality, a better technology, a superior scientific knowledge, we were more systematical and disciplined, that's why we could kill more and hell a lot more than our military units, adding a hypothetical 23 years of a constant development from the following time skip, we would be at a far superior level, considering that our scientists and knowledge were taken by the Allies and Soviets.

Avatar image for abstractraze
#35 Edited by AbstractRaze (2363 posts) - - Show Bio
@castiel_18 said:

@abstractraze

Despite we lost the war, we massacred half of the world, with over 15,827,000 military deads while the Axis Alliance only suffered 6,901.400, almost the third part.

I find it disturbing that you used "we" as if you're trying to associate yourself with the Nazis.

Because at the end of the road, Nazis were Germans and I'm a German, so you don't need to feel disturbed.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b84aca03eae8
#36 Posted by deactivated-5b84aca03eae8 (6261 posts) - - Show Bio

@castiel_18 said:

@abstractraze

Despite we lost the war, we massacred half of the world, with over 15,827,000 military deads while the Axis Alliance only suffered 6,901.400, almost the third part.

I find it disturbing that you used "we" as if you're trying to associate yourself with the Nazis.

Because at the end of the road, Nazis were Germans and I'm a German, so you don't need to feel disturbed.

Well..all the Nazis were German, but not all German were or are Nazis.

Avatar image for wut
#37 Posted by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

@abstractraze:

If we are going to replace Nazi Germany for the US during the Vietnam conflict, then we must assume the Axis Alliance victory in 1945 following by a Waffenstillstand with the Soviet Union, giving birth to a Cold War between the Axis Alliance and the Soviet Union while the Allies are either neutralized or siding with the Axis Alliance.

Giving the scenario, the Soviet Union and a communist China would still exist in order to supply the Vietcong, but if talking about geographical positions, the Third Reich has a far better position, considering a possible intercontinental railway from Europe till India and an efficient supply from Japan through the Philippine Sea

Incorrect. We are merely replacing WW2-EraGermany with the US. Saying they won WW2 [Which isn't actually possible] and entered a Cold War isn't following the OP as this is not WW2-Era Germany any longer

Avatar image for abstractraze
#38 Edited by AbstractRaze (2363 posts) - - Show Bio
@castiel_18 said:
@abstractraze said:
@castiel_18 said:

@abstractraze

Despite we lost the war, we massacred half of the world, with over 15,827,000 military deads while the Axis Alliance only suffered 6,901.400, almost the third part.

I find it disturbing that you used "we" as if you're trying to associate yourself with the Nazis.

Because at the end of the road, Nazis were Germans and I'm a German, so you don't need to feel disturbed.

Well..all the Nazis were German, but not all German were or are Nazis.

But Nazis were Germans, that's the point, our military just followed the government orders, they fought for our country, that's all about.

Of course, there were Germans which wasn't Nazis, that's more than evident, putting such a point in question, borders stupidity.

Avatar image for abstractraze
#39 Edited by AbstractRaze (2363 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut said:

@abstractraze:

If we are going to replace Nazi Germany for the US during the Vietnam conflict, then we must assume the Axis Alliance victory in 1945 following by a Waffenstillstand with the Soviet Union, giving birth to a Cold War between the Axis Alliance and the Soviet Union while the Allies are either neutralized or siding with the Axis Alliance.

Giving the scenario, the Soviet Union and a communist China would still exist in order to supply the Vietcong, but if talking about geographical positions, the Third Reich has a far better position, considering a possible intercontinental railway from Europe till India and an efficient supply from Japan through the Philippine Sea

Incorrect. We are merely replacing WW2-EraGermany with the US. Saying they won WW2 [Which isn't actually possible] and entered a Cold War isn't following the OP as this is not WW2-Era Germany any longer

To begin with, it could perfectly be possible, if we would retreat our army from the Soviet territory before the winter arrived east Europe, we could've focused our forces against the west, after the winter, we could return to the east and efficiently force the Soviet Union to surrender and buy more time for our nuclear program against the west in hand with our last generation prototype bombers.

1 nuke over Washington and New York, 1 nuke over London and game over.

The second point, the problem is that @heroup2112 is mentioning geographical advantages which were clearly obtained through the Cold War dispute, because a great number of countries sided with the Allies, without such influence, the US could never freely move their ships through the ocean.

He's pleasantly talking about a magical German drop over Vietnam, so I bring up something over the table.

Avatar image for wut
#40 Posted by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

@abstractraze: To begin with, it could perfectly be possible, if we would retreat our army from the Soviet territory before the winter arrived east Europe, we could've focused our forces on the west, after the winter we could return to the east and efficiently force the Soviet Union to surrender and buy more time for our nuclear program against the west in hand with our last generation prototype bombers.

No, you couldn't. The Soviet Union supplied by the US and UK early in the war, alone, had Germany beat. The invasion of France accelerated the fall of the Reich, but its fall was already inevitable as the entire offensive was a Hail Mary pass to attempt to grab the resources they lacked before they crumbled.

They failed.

To be blunt, the Soviet Union never needed an Allied invasion of France to win. They had already won.

1 nuke over Washington and New York, 1 nuke over London and game over.

Keep up the fanfiction. I am sure the other Wehraboos find it just as enlightening.

Second point, the problem is that @heroup2112 is mentioning geographical advantages which were clearly obtained through the Cold War dispute, because a great number of countries sided with the Allies, without such influence, the US could never freely move their ships through the ocean.

He was referring to the advantages the US enjoyed in the real world. You know, the one we live in. The one where WW2 Germany is randomly being dropped into that time period will not be enjoying.

This isn't hard to understand. I am not sure why you are being willfully obtuse.

He's pleasantly talking about a magical German drop over Vietnam.

Which is the only chance Germany has, however, as he already said to you, he agreed with me that as they are only replacing the US's efforts in this war it means they are attempting to do something outside of their capability and this ends badly for them.

Avatar image for abstractraze
#41 Edited by AbstractRaze (2363 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut

No, you couldn't. The Soviet Union supplied by the US and UK early in the war, alone, had Germany beat. The invasion of France accelerated the fall of the Reich, but its fall was already inevitable as the entire offensive was a Hail Mary pass to attempt to grab the resources they lacked before they crumbled.

They failed.

Response:

You have no idea what you're talking about, the invasion against the Soviet Union started in 1941 and the US started their invasion of Normandie France, in 1944.

So, copy paste:

To begin with, it could perfectly be possible, if we would retreat our army from the Soviet territory before the winter arrived east Europe, we could've focused our forces against the west, after the winter, we could return to the east and efficiently force the Soviet Union to surrender and therefore buy more time for our nuclear program against the west in hand with our last generation prototype bombers.

@wut

To be blunt, the Soviet Union never needed an Allied invasion of France to win. They had already won.

Response:

We massacred the Soviets as they were chickens in the slaughterhouse, if it wouldn't be due the winter, we could have demolished them in 1941 with no real problems, so lick the wound and get over it.

@wut

Keep up the fanfiction. I am sure the other Wehraboos find it just as enlightening.

Response:

Inform yourself first, before babbling bullshit, the name of the secret program was the 'Uranverein' April 1939, after the scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann discovered fission, following with the nuclear project Manhattan.

We had prototypes jets like the Ho‑229, which were supposed to drop the nukes over New York, Washington and London.

No Caption Provided

No Caption Provided

@wut

He was referring to the advantages the US enjoyed in the real world. You know, the one we live in. The one where WW2 Germany is randomly being dropped into that time period will not be enjoying.

This isn't hard to understand. I am not sure why you are being willfully obtuse.

Response:

Still, such geographical advantages correlate the mere fact, that it was because there were other nations siding with the Allies against the Soviet Union, since the world was pretty much divided, so, if we are going to replace the US for Nazi Germany, things must be equalized.

Avatar image for wut
#42 Edited by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

@abstractraze: You have no idea what you're talking about, the invasion against the Soviet Union started in 1941 and the US started their invasion of Normandie France, in 1944.

Yes, with Operation Barbarossa which went far better then anyone expected. You are the one who should educate themselves [As you said 'focus on their foes in the west' which means it wouldn't be until late war during the invasion of France as Africa was a lost cause and an invasion of mainland Britain would have been suicidal]:

Germany was operating on a time-window. They did not have the resources to engage in a long war, which is why they tried to so hard to push deep into the Soviet Union as possible, however, despite the success of Barbarossa, they were not able to push towards their primary targets of Moscow as they overextended themselves. It was Fedor von Bock that made the decision to push even more because it was better then letting the Soviet Union gather its strength, like your idea to just 'pack up and go back the way we came until next year!' which cedes all the territory you took as the Soviets had no issue fighting in the winter [As seen by their counter-offensive in the winter of '41] while also allowing the Soviets more time to mobilize which is suicidal.

More to the point, Zhukov purposely initiated the winter campaign of 41-42 to not let the Reich have any breathing space and because they knew the Reich was running on a strict timetable and even more strict resource allowances.

By the summer of '42 the German advance was all but halted. By the winter of '42, after the Nazi's last gambit of an assault on Stalingrad failed, the war was over, the Reich simply didn't want to admit it.

From 43-44, the Wehrmacht was being pushed back to Donbass to Dnieper then Ukraine was seized, pushed back to Estonia. By the Summer of '44 the Soviet Union had claimed Ukraine and Romania and outnumbered, outgunned, outmanned the Reich and the Soviet tanks and air forces were having a field day as the Soviets easily pushed through.

Ergo, as I said, The war was lost very early for the Reich. They just didn't want to admit it and struggled on, futilely, for a few more years. The Soviet Union had claimed victory on its own. The invasion of France by the Allies just helped speed the process up and help curb communist control post-war.

We massacred the Soviets as they were chickens in the slaughterhouse, if it wouldn't be due the winter, we could have demolished them in 1941 with no real problems, so lick the wound and get over it.

See the above. The war was lost. The only hope the Reich ever had was to take enough from the Soviets, hold it, then push again the next year before they mobilized fully. Dealing with weather conditions and season changes are part of war. Get over it.

Which wasn't possible. Hoping Barbarossa, an Operation that did far better then anyone could have ever hoped, would be even more successful is naive and blatant wehraboo nonsense.

Inform yourself first, before babbling bullshit, the name of the secret program was the 'Uranverein' Aprilril 1939, after the scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann discovered fission, following with the nuclear project Manhattan.

We had prototypes jets like the Ho‑229, which were supposed to drop the nukes over New York, Washington and London.

Which wasn't possible:

1. Said prototype didn't even come around till 1944 [and by then, well, you know what was happening] as even, by then, what they wanted to use [such as the BMW 003 engine still wasn't ready] wasn't ready. It wasn't until '45 that the more.... usable version [V2] started to come out that wasn't an under-powered 'proof of concept' build. Coming up with an idea =/= having the means to implement an idea.

2. By then, it is far too late to do anything, the Soviets are at their doorstep and closing, the allies have landed and pushed. The war has been over for a long time, just no one in Germany wants to admit it.

3. Said jet ate fuel, something the Reich didn't have much of, or the means to mass produce such a jet in any real numbers.

4. Said Ho 229 would never have been able to make such a journey as the maximum range has been estimated at 1,180 miles because jet engines, at the time, devoured fuel faster then an alcoholic on a binge. [Also, if you are curious, you are looking at over 3,000 miles just from Spain to DC, must less France or Germany, and if you think the German Navy was going to be breaking out to carry out such a mission.... Not even going to indulge you].

So, as I said, keep it to your fanfiction.

Still, such advantages correlate the mere fact, that it was because there were other nations siding with the Allies against the Soviet Union, since the world was pretty much divided, so, if we are going to replace the US for Nazi Germany, things must be equalized.

No, you wantthings to go your way so you don't have to swallow the nasty pill that Germany loses this in a badly thought out OP.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#43 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18046 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut said:

@abstractraze:

If we are going to replace Nazi Germany for the US during the Vietnam conflict, then we must assume the Axis Alliance victory in 1945 following by a Waffenstillstand with the Soviet Union, giving birth to a Cold War between the Axis Alliance and the Soviet Union while the Allies are either neutralized or siding with the Axis Alliance.

Giving the scenario, the Soviet Union and a communist China would still exist in order to supply the Vietcong, but if talking about geographical positions, the Third Reich has a far better position, considering a possible intercontinental railway from Europe till India and an efficient supply from Japan through the Philippine Sea

Incorrect. We are merely replacing WW2-EraGermany with the US. Saying they won WW2 [Which isn't actually possible] and entered a Cold War isn't following the OP as this is not WW2-Era Germany any longer

To begin with, it could perfectly be possible, if we would retreat our army from the Soviet territory before the winter arrived east Europe, we could've focused our forces against the west, after the winter, we could return to the east and efficiently force the Soviet Union to surrender and buy more time for our nuclear program against the west in hand with our last generation prototype bombers.

1 nuke over Washington and New York, 1 nuke over London and game over.

The second point, the problem is that @heroup2112 is mentioning geographical advantages which were clearly obtained through the Cold War dispute, because a great number of countries sided with the Allies, without such influence, the US could never freely move their ships through the ocean.

He's pleasantly talking about a magical German drop over Vietnam, so I bring up something over the table.

You're making assumptions with history that are up for serious dispute. A. At what point are you talking about withdrawing the German forces from the Eastern Front? The main allied push came in June '44. Would they have retreated at that point, let the Russians push THEIR forces to the frontier against the German retreat, and locked into a confrontation which they certainly wouldn't have backed down from, until the end of winter? B. Assuming that the Germans did leave only about 25% of their forces do forestall the Russians during the winter, what makes you so sure the German's could have thrown back the Allied advance totally in the Winter of '44/'45? They made great headway with the forces they had certainly, and would no doubt have done more if they had that many more extra troops but there are two problems with your idea. It is by NO means certain that they could have broken the Western allies, and even if they did they'd have lost TREMENDOUS numbers of men and equipment doing so. So that when the Winter DID break...assuming the Russians would quit fighting during the Winter, they'd be fighting a generally rested and intact Red Army with a tired, severely reduced force that would almost certainly have gotten its ass kicked. Again, I say ALMOST certain because you can't say anything for certain in a battle that never happened. I will say this however for your idea that the Western allies were ineffective and would have been easy to defeat The following are the forces arrayed against an undermanned, underfed, American Airborne Infantry unit with no winter clothing consisting of only about 19,000 LIGHT Infantrymen, a handful of artillery pieces, ten tanks, and a mix tank destroyer weapons.

The XLVII Panzer Corps consisted of the 2d Panzer Division, Panzer Lehr Division, and the 26th Volksgrenadier Division, all reinforced by one volks mortar brigade, one volks artillery corps, and the 600th Army Engineer Battalion for bridging purposes. The 2d Panzer Division had been in the rear area for four weeks to rest and refit. It had only 80 percent of its authorized personnel and equipment, but its commanders were seasoned veterans.

The Panzer Lehr Division had just returned from the Saar area. It had 60 percent of its troops, 40 percent of its tanks and tank destroyers, 60 percent of its guns, and 40 percent of its other types of weapons. 539th Heavy Tank Destroyer Battalion equipped with 30 percent of its authorized Panther tank destroyers. Due to previous battle losses, the 26th Volksgrenadier Division was without one regiment..These included the 9th and 116th Panzer Divisions, the 3d and 15th Panzergrenadier Divisions, and the F¸hrer Begleit (Escort) Brigade.

If ONE small force from the allies for almost a week (in most other situations this battle should have lasted a few hours...a day at the most), imagine what all of them could do?

You're making further assumptions that the German hard water experiments definitely would have yielded a nuclear weapon. Well this is certainly possible, it's not a known quantity. It doesn't play into this scenario.

The geographical advantages are what they are as of the time period. The Allies won, the Axis did not.

For what it's worth, I initially argued that the German's would win, but others simply showed me that I was wrong.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#44 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18046 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut

No, you couldn't. The Soviet Union supplied by the US and UK early in the war, alone, had Germany beat. The invasion of France accelerated the fall of the Reich, but its fall was already inevitable as the entire offensive was a Hail Mary pass to attempt to grab the resources they lacked before they crumbled.

They failed.

Response:

You have no idea what you're talking about, the invasion against the Soviet Union started in 1941 and the US started their invasion of Normandie France, in 1944.

So, copy paste:

To begin with, it could perfectly be possible, if we would retreat our army from the Soviet territory before the winter arrived east Europe, we could've focused our forces against the west, after the winter, we could return to the east and efficiently force the Soviet Union to surrender and therefore buy more time for our nuclear program against the west in hand with our last generation prototype bombers.

@wut

To be blunt, the Soviet Union never needed an Allied invasion of France to win. They had already won.

Response:

We massacred the Soviets as they were chickens in the slaughterhouse, if it wouldn't be due the winter, we could have demolished them in 1941 with no real problems, so lick the wound and get over it.

Truly? Tell me how Operation: Barbarossa ended up? Operation: Typhoon? The Battle of Stalingrad? The Offensive in Kursk? Hube's Pocket? Don? Volga? The Caucasus? After that it was pretty much all Germany going "Holy crap, look at all these Russians coming!" Yeah, lotta chicken slaughter alright.

Avatar image for abstractraze
#45 Edited by AbstractRaze (2363 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut

Yes, with Operation Barbarossa which went far better then anyone expected. You are the one who should educate themselves [As you said 'focus on their foes in the west' which means it wouldn't be until late war during the invasion of France as Africa was a lost cause and an invasion of mainland Britain would have been suicidal]:

--------------------------

It's more than evident that the Operation Barbossa had a good start, but again the only thing which we miss calculated was the weather, moreover, invaded or not, the UK was cornered in their own territory while praying to the US for their participation in the war.

However, we managed kept the UK under check with our ballistic missiles V-2, which was an efficient psychological method.

No Caption Provided

@wut

Germany was operating on a time-window. They did not have the resources to engage in a long war, which is why they tried to so hard to push deep into the Soviet Union as possible, however, despite the success of Barbarossa, they were not able to push towards their primary targets of Moscow as they overextended themselves. It was Fedor von Bock that made the decision to push even more because it was better then letting the Soviet Union gather its strength, like your idea to just 'pack up and go back the way we came until next year!' which cedes all the territory you took as the Soviets had no issue fighting in the winter [As seen by their counter-offensive in the winter of '41] while also allowing the Soviets more time to mobilize which is suicidal.

More to the point, Zhukov purposely initiated the winter campaign of 41-42 to not let the Reich have any breathing space and because they knew the Reich was running on a strict timetable and even more strict resource allowances.

------------------------------

Of course, we had to manage the whole world,we were by far outnumbered, so we had to win the war through knowledge and a superior technology which was going to be the case if we would have bought more time by retreating our forces from the Soviet territory and therefore protect our forces from the cold which was the main reason why everything failed after massacring the Soviets.

The Soviet did not have other hope than trusting their penguin weather.

@wut

Ergo, as I said, The war was lost very early for the Reich. They just didn't want to admit it and struggled on, futilely, for a few more years. The Soviet Union had claimed victory on its own. The invasion of France by the Allies just helped speed the process up and help curb communist control post-war.

------------------------------

False, the only hope for the Third Reich, was time, in order to obtain the required technology and therefore outclass any industrial alliances, even if they fabricated junk instead weapons, then as well outclass a manpower superiority over the Third Reich, which was the situation at the time of confronting the Allies and the Soviets.

@wut

Which wasn't possible:

------------------------------

Still, it was, with enough time.

@wut

1. Said prototype didn't even come around till 1944 [and by then, well, you know what was happening] as even, by then, what they wanted to use [such as the BMW 003 engine still wasn't ready] wasn't ready. It wasn't until '45 that the more.... usable version [V2] started to come out that wasn't an under-powered 'proof of concept' build. Coming up with an idea =/= having the means to implement an idea.

------------------------------

With enough times, YES, AGAIN.

@wut

2. By then, it is far too late to do anything, the Soviets are at their doorstep and closing, the allies have landed and pushed. The war has been over for a long time, just no one in Germany wants to admit it.

------------------------------

They could successfully push, because of our miscalculation with the weather in the Soviet territory as explained before, where we had a lot of losses, if we would have retreat, then we could successfully defense, we had by far a greater firepower, fewer men, but a better artillery and a better technology.

@wut

3. Said jet ate fuel, something the Reich didn't have much of, or the means to mass produce such a jet in any real numbers.

------------------------------

You're wrong, they could and it was a prototype destined for an update, since the prototype was there to test the aerodynamics.

@wut

4. Said Ho 229 would never have been able to make such a journey as the maximum range has been estimated at 1,180 miles because jet engines, at the time, devoured fuel faster then an alcoholic on a binge. [Also, if you are curious, you are looking at over 3,000 miles just from Spain to DC, must less France or Germany, and if you think the German Navy was going to be breaking out to carry out such a mission.... Not even going to indulge you].

----------------------------

But the update, which wasn't possible to achieve, because we did not have enough time, either way, we had the aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin for some possibleHo 229.

No Caption Provided

@wut

So, as I said, keep it to your fanfiction.

------------------------------

There is no fanfiction, rather coherent probabilities, within the subject, one thing is that you're miserably butthurt, because we were superior overall, we managed the world with less manpower, with a disvantaged industry power compared to those of the world, but for that we had a greater quality, Allied or Soviet tanks were junk compared to German quality.

@wut

No, you wantthings to go your way so you don't have to swallow the nasty pill that Germany loses this in a badly thought out OP.

----------------------------

Still, as I said before, if we would consider an intercontinental railway from Europe till India, then it's possible, considering Europe has by far a superior geographical position than the US, considering the US had a free pass through multiple maritime territories in order to arrive Vietnam, we must consider that Germany didn't build a lot of ships, for that, we were strong on the ground and we must geographically have a free pass through the Middle East and Asia, that means we must have the same or similar kind of influence, there is no other possibility than to assume the Axis Alliance victory and therefore supose a cold war against the Soviet Union in order to gain allies in Asia and in the Middle East and therefore have the same influences as the US had during the Cold War.

Anything outside such scenario, can't be defined as a plausible replacement, we could assume The Axis Alliance victory and then how they gain the following geographical influences, but assume they never updated since 1945.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b84aca03eae8
#46 Posted by deactivated-5b84aca03eae8 (6261 posts) - - Show Bio

At least make it fair for Nazi Germany.

Avatar image for wut
#47 Posted by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

@abstractraze: It's more than evident that the Operation Barbossa had a good start, but again the only thing which we miss calculated was the weather, moreover, invaded or not, the UK was cornered in their own territory while praying to the US for their participation in the war.

However, we managed kept the UK under check with our ballistic missiles V-2.

No, it was a gambit play. The quick warfare was done because the Germans had no other option. It was all one giant gambit. That failed. Winter was just, yet another, factor against them.

No, you didn't. There is a reason a large portion of the tanks fielded by the Soviets during Stalingrad were British tanks. Because they didn't keep the UK 'under check'.

Of course, we had to manage the whole world,we were by far outnumbered, so we had to win the war through knowledge and a superior technology which was going to be the case if we would have bought more time, by retreating our forces from the Soviet territory and therefore protect our forces from the cold which was the main reason why everything failed after massacring the Soviets.

The Soviet did not have other hope than trusting their penguin weather.

You didn't massacre the Soviets. They won the Eastern Front. They conquered you. Not the other way around. But, I suppose, it gives you some semblance of dignity to believe as such.

By the end of WW2, the Soviets had the best land army and best land doctrine in the world. As WW2 progress, Soviet Tanks were superior to German Tanks especially in the fields of logistics and reliability.

You weren't fighting the whole world. That is arrogance.

Axis Powers:

Nazi Germany, Empire of Japan, Kingdom of Italy, Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of Romania, Slovak Republic, Kingdom of Bulgaria, Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Republic of Finland and, of course, the various puppets I am not going to bother to list.

Allied Powers:

United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, China, Canada [as, while, I should just throw them in with the Commonwealth, they did enough that I feel they earn a mentioned spot]. Most of the other nations are those from occupied locations such as Poland, Greece, Norway, etc or nations that were part of the British Commonwealth.

It wasn't 'Whole world to stop the Reich!' No. It took the Soviet Union to stop the Reich. Stop buying into your own hype. Actually read about the war instead of drinking your own Kool-Aid.

False, the only hope for the Third Reich, was time, in order to obtain the required technology and therefore outclass any industrial and manpower superiority over the Third Reich, which was the situation at the time of confronting the Allies and the Soviets.

... Do... you know anything about WW2? Like, at all?

Still, it was, with enough time.

No, it wasn't. Again, do me a solid and google WW2 Germany Timetable. They had a set amount of time in which their resources would hold. Do it. I'll wait. Might teach you something.

They could successfully push, because of our miscalculation with the weather in the Soviet territory as explained before, where we had a lot of losses, if we would have retreat, then we could successfully defense, we had by far a greater firepower, fewer men, but a better artillery and a better technology.

Germany did not have much in the way of artillery, the best users of artillery, whom also had the best combat doctrine revolving around their use, in WW2 was the USA, and no, outside of rockets, the technology of Germany wasn't 'OMG SUPER AMAZING!'. Soviet T34/76 and KV tanks were superior to what the Reich was fielding, hell, T-34's inspired much of the design of the Panther, the best tank the Reich put out in WW2.

Falling back would have been colossally stupid as it gives up all the land you have taken, and as history has shown, the Soviets weren't going to let them as it was the Sovietswho launched the counter attack in winter against the Reich so they couldn't catch their breath, and again, the main reason they desperately pushed against hte Soviets was to defeat them before the Soviets mobilized and do, exactly what they did in reality, roll over the Third Reich. Which they did.

You're wrong, they could and it was a prototype destined for an update, since the prototype was there to test the aerodynamics.

One that wasn't finished until '44. The first, actual, working version of it didn't come out till '45. Because, this is crazy, but it takes a lot of time and development to create such projects especially as the engines required weren't going to be available for some time.

But the update, which wasn't possible to achieve, because we did not have enough time, either way, we had the aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin.

Loading Video...

There is no fanfiction, rather coherent probabilities, within the subject, one thing is that you're miserably butthurt, because we were superior overall, we managed the world with less manpower, with a disvantaged industry power compared to those of the world, but for that we had a greater quality, Allied or Soviet tanks were junk compared to German quality.

Right, because, "German will push into Soviet Russia! Then retreat when winter comes! And the Soviets will let them and not launch a counter-attack like they did in the thing we call reality! THEN THEN! Germany will come back in the summer! And launch a new offensive! At a stronger and mobilized Soviet Union! And retake all the lost ground! TRULY! BELIVE ME HERE! And... And... We will make a jet... A jet we didn't even get a feasiable prototype for until the Soviets were knocking on our door step.. one that can go four... you heard me, FOUR TIMES! the distance as the working prototype! And we will finish Nukes! YES! ANd BOMB THE AMERICAS! And we will even win the naval engagement! The one we didn't win at all! And we will also defeat the US Navy! Those guys who were making more destroyers in a single year then Japan was making in the entire war period!"

Fanficiton. Badly written. Fanfiction.

No, Soviet tanks caused the Reich to go into overdrive to field tanks capable of matching the T-34/76 which lead to the Panzer V, or the Panther, which was heavily inspired by the T-34's design which was the best tank Germany put out in WW2. A shame they never switched to it because then it may have let them struggle on for another month or two. US tanks were flat out superior especially as you got later into the war as the US started to learn and adapt.

Do you know why?

Because US and Soviet tanks were designed to win wars. They were reliable, easy to maintain, cheap to produce, more then strong enough to get the job done and, often, outright superior to their foes while their over engineered opponents tended to break down before the battles even began [Looking at you Tiger] or due to numerous overengineering with different variants with no real purpose, many could not be repaired with standardized kits.

Go and educate yourself more. When you evolve out of your Wehraboo nature, let me know.

Avatar image for abstractraze
#48 Edited by AbstractRaze (2363 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut: You're so funny, I enjoy your rage, it makes me feel so good, those acknowledging the fact, that you are butthurt about our superiority overall, we killed 15,827,000 opposite soldiers, of course, I acknowledge the 100.000 Hungarian troops, etc....but our 5 million troops had to charge with the whole event, Germany was the main target following by Japan and lastly an invisible Italy, we put the industry, the production, the knowledge, the technology, the innovation, and again, we managed the entire world following by Japan, which is still nothing compared to the entire world, even Southamerica contribuited with food.

Again:

The only hope for the Third Reich, was time, in order to obtain the required technology and therefore outclass any industrial alliance, even if our enemy fabricated junk instead weapons, then outclass a manpower superiority over the Third Reich, which was the situation at the time of confronting the Allies and the Soviets.

Again:

Still, as I said before, if we would consider an intercontinental railway from Europe till India, then it's possible, considering Europe has by far a superior geographical position than the US, considering the US had a free pass through multiple maritime territories in order to arrive Vietnam, we must consider that Germany didn't build a lot of ships, for that, we were strong on the ground and we must geographically have a free pass through the Middle East and Asia, that means we must have the same or similar kind of influence, there is no other possibility than to assume the Axis Alliance victory and therefore supose a cold war against the Soviet Union in order to gain allies in Asia and in the Middle East and therefore have the same influences as the US had during the Cold War.

Anything outside such scenario, can't be defined as a plausible replacement, we could assume The Axis Alliance victory and then how they gain the following geographical influences, but assume they never updated since 1945.

I'm done anyway, you bore me, I don't like to talk with people with a flesh wound on the subject.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b2121a0a9a00
#49 Posted by deactivated-5b2121a0a9a00 (10000 posts) - - Show Bio

If history has proven anything, it's that numbers don't matter in warfare.

Avatar image for wut
#50 Posted by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

@abstractraze: You're so funny, I enjoy your rage, it makes me feel so good, those acknowledging the fact, that you are butthurt about our superiority overall, we killed 15,827,000 opposite soldiers, of course, I acknowledge the 100.000 Hungarian troops, etc....but our 5 million troops had to charge with the whole event, Germany was the main target following by Japan and lastly an invisible Italy, we put the industry, the production, the knowledge, the technology, the innovation, and again, we managed the entire world following by Japan, which is still nothing compared to the entire world, even Southamerica contribuited with food.

Italy/Japan were the first targets of US and Italy was the first of the three to crumble as the US landed in Italy. German was the main target of the Soviets, whom the Soviets defeated.

Japan was defeated by the US with the Soviets driving the final nail into the coffin at Manchuria.

The only hope for the Third Reich, was time, in order to obtain the required technology and therefore outclass any industrial alliance, even if our enemy fabricated junk instead weapons, then outclass a manpower superiority over the Third Reich, which was the situation at the time of confronting the Allies and the Soviets.

Google is your friend. Use it.

Still, as I said before, if we would consider an intercontinental railway from Europe till India, then it's possible, considering Europe has by far a superior geographical position than the US, considering the US had a free pass through multiple maritime territories in order to arrive Vietnam, we must consider that Germany didn't build a lot of ships, for that, we were strong on the ground and we must geographically have a free pass through the Middle East and Asia, that means we must have the same or similar kind of influence, there is no other possibility than to assume the Axis Alliance victory and therefore supose a cold war against the Soviet Union in order to gain allies in Asia and in the Middle East and therefore have the same influences as the US had during the Cold War.

No. You evaluate the situation the OP gives you. You don't get to dislike what the OP does and then try to make your own. If you want to make your own fanfiction thread about a Nazi Germany that did more then launch a failed invasion of the Soviet Union and then get smacked around by said Soviet Union, you make a thread about it. Until then, judge an OP on how it is written and the intent behind it, not hold one side's hand so they don't disappoint you.

I'm done anyway, you bore me, I don't like to talk with people with a flesh wound on the subject.

Do yourself a favor and google WW2 while you are doing whatever it is you do. Also, google Flesh Wound.