# Nazi Germany vs.



## Captain Smoker (Aug 25, 2009)

Ok, all of us History sufficient people know that it took 3 super powers to defeat Nazi Germany. Britain, Russia, and US all worked together to take down the Ultra power.

BUT...I ask WHAT IF, Nazi Germany faced America, Britain and Russia one on one. NO outside help. So that means no extra supplies from allies, no allied troops on other fronts fighting your enemy, etc. They are ALL independent. 

IMO, Britian gets stomped. Thats obvious. Germany could have easily blitzkrieg Britain, but they chose to conquer Poland and France first. 

Russia puts up a fight but in the end, Moscow is taken. I mean they lost 20 million people to Nazi Germany and this was WITH US/Britain supplying the shit out of them with food, weapons, etc. AND this was with US and Britain occupying 30 % of the Nazi forces on another front.

Now we get to the great ol USA. Basically USA lucks out because of where they are located. USA is separated from Europe and Asia by two big oceans which benefits the shit out of them. No way Germany is crossing the Atlantic and invading the US successfully. No country can. I call a stalemate. Both countries decide it isnt worth it.


----------



## Omnirix (Aug 25, 2009)

In a one on one fight, we're all screwed because it took ALL 3 of us to beat it.


----------



## Lord Yu (Aug 25, 2009)

The US was divided between Europe and the Pacific theater. I think a focused US front could take Germany but I'm no military historian.


----------



## Minh489 (Aug 25, 2009)

Germany isn't taking over the US. We got two Oceans bewteen us and Germany. So when boats get close we shell the hell out of them.


----------



## Chaosgod777 (Aug 25, 2009)

uhm...in all my years of learning about battle (2 and a half...) i probably can tell that 1 on one it wudnt be possible to beat the damn Nazis...


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Aug 25, 2009)

Atomic bomb, that is all.


----------



## Minh489 (Aug 25, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> Atomic bomb, that is all.



Nvm I change my mind the U.S. can win this.


----------



## Chaosgod777 (Aug 25, 2009)

Minh489 said:


> Nvm I change my mind the U.S. can win this.



no one sayd they can get nukes??!?!?


----------



## Minh489 (Aug 25, 2009)

Chaosgod777 said:


> no one sayd they can get nukes??!?!?



And no said they couldn't have them either.


----------



## Zetta (Aug 25, 2009)

In this thread, people who failed history class, geography and need to read some books about military tactics. That is all.


----------



## Chaosgod777 (Aug 25, 2009)

for what history show us,yes the Nazis win,but with nukes! oh god! hittler wud be in a bad ,bad day


----------



## Minh489 (Aug 25, 2009)

Chaosgod777 said:


> for what history show us,yes the Nazis win,but with nukes! oh god! hittler wud be in a bad ,bad day



The Nazis can't successfully in invade America for a couple of reason one.

1: America is Huge Nazi Germany needs a whole lot of man power to cover all that land.

2: Germany will need a long ass supply lane to feed the troops and give them ammo.

3: They have to do that without being _*Shelled to Hell.*_

These reasons makes inavading America costly and entirely impratical.


----------



## Sasori (Aug 25, 2009)

Zetta said:


> In this thread, people who failed history class, geography and need to read some books about military tactics. That is all.


It's ok, I read manga.


----------



## Deleted member 45015 (Aug 25, 2009)

1. Nazi Germany would stomp the shit out of us with a focused, co-ordinated assault, that much is clear. The only reason they didn't is because they wasted too much time capturing Poland and dealing with Russia.

2. Given that they get no supplies or outside help Russia will give a tougher fight simply by having greater numbers, but inevitably go down.

3. As has been said, I doubt Germany has the sufficient strength alone to take down the U.S. since without the Japanese element there's no Pearl Harbour sneak attack and no massive weakening of American ocean strength.


----------



## Omnirix (Aug 25, 2009)

The Nazis were the first people to research nukes the only thing that keeps them from completion is its too expensive and Britain and USSR keep draining their resources. But in an one on one, they'll probably nuke us first before we nuke them. Plus Albert Einstein is german. The atomic bomb idea came from him afterall.


----------



## Marth6789 (Aug 25, 2009)

Minh489 said:


> The Nazis can't successfully in invade America for a couple of reason one.
> 
> 1: *America is Huge Nazi Germany needs a whole lot of man power to cover all that land.*
> 
> ...



Not at all. All Germany would need to do is capture the capital, happily that is a VERY hard task to accomplish. Though one could make the claim of Americans banding together and fighting a German invasion on American soil, as Germany's resources would be scarcely spread out if they attempted such a task.

In war you never "capture" the whole country, just the capital and its leaders, if you get those you're pretty much good.


----------



## Marth6789 (Aug 25, 2009)

Omnirix said:


> The Nazis were the first people to research nukes the only thing that keeps them from completion is its too expensive and Britain and USSR keep draining their resources. But in an one on one, they'll probably nuke us first before we nuke them. Plus Albert Einstein is german. The atomic bomb idea came from him afterall.



But Einstein fled to the Americas because of German brutality. If he stayed... well it would be a completely different world.


----------



## Lord Yu (Aug 25, 2009)

Omnirix said:


> The Nazis were the first people to research nukes the only thing that keeps them from completion is its too expensive and Britain and USSR keep draining their resources. But in an one on one, they'll probably nuke us first before we nuke them. Plus Albert Einstein is german. The atomic bomb idea came from him afterall.



I do believe Albert Einstein had defected during the rise of the Third Reich. He was a Jew. You know how the Nazis loved Jews.


----------



## Chaosgod777 (Aug 25, 2009)

Captain Smoker said:


> Ok, all of us History sufficient people know that it took 3 super powers to defeat Nazi Germany. Britain, Russia, and US all worked together to take down the Ultra power.
> 
> BUT...I ask WHAT IF, Nazi Germany faced America, Britain and Russia one on one. NO outside help. So that means no extra supplies from allies, no allied troops on other fronts fighting your enemy, etc. They are ALL independent.
> 
> ...



hum...i started without reading it closely...anyways,if the USA united ,fights them they have a huge chance for not saying victoy agianst the nazi


----------



## Omnirix (Aug 25, 2009)

The only true obstacle is the north atlantic ocean. Otherwise, Nazi Germany would really BLITZ U.S like it did to USSR.


----------



## God (Aug 25, 2009)

Germany couldve been a third superpower IMO.

Anyways, Britain gets stomped. America loses or draws, same with USSR.


----------



## Platinum (Aug 25, 2009)

Russia was strong enough that it didn't need the others allies help to defeat Germany, after Stalingrad the Russians were plenty strong enough to take this fight, America would be able to with our natural and military advantages over the Germans, Britain I am not so sure of, probably not.



Omnirix said:


> The only true obstacle is the north atlantic ocean. Otherwise, Nazi Germany would really BLITZ U.S like it did to USSR.



Because that ended so well for Germany .


----------



## God (Aug 25, 2009)

I change my vote. Britain gets stomped, America and USSR are toss-ups.


----------



## Shock Therapy (Aug 25, 2009)

Germany gets nuked by the US. Hard


----------



## Platinum (Aug 25, 2009)

Nazis almost completely abandoned research into atomic weapons to focus their resources on other programs they felt were more vital to ending the way for you "durr Nazi's gain nukes and pwn" people.



Cubey said:


> I change my vote. Britain gets stomped, America and USSR are toss-ups.



Were you persuaded by my argument ?


----------



## God (Aug 25, 2009)

Platinum said:


> Were you persuaded by my argument ?



Maybe... 


































Yeah


----------



## Caedus (Aug 25, 2009)

With no Japs and a US focused on just Germany, They likely draw or US wins due to atomic bomb 

I don't think the Germans had the Naval Superiority and likely would be unable to invade and conquer the US. Likewise can be the same for Americans, they are just to spread far out. 

Britian gets conquered but Nazi Germany takes heavy casualties. Russia is an interesting one though...it's too big to be completely conquered


----------



## God (Aug 25, 2009)

^ Britain cant put up a fight against Germany, they just get overwhelmed.


----------



## Caedus (Aug 25, 2009)

The Brits held on in Operation Sealion 

Thousands of German planes were destroyed and with Germany's small navy, a mass scale amphibious invasion would be real hard. 

The Nazi's would have need to kill every single Brit because I dont think the English intended on surrendering no matter what the Nazi's threw at them


----------



## noobthemusical (Aug 25, 2009)

Lord Yu said:


> I do believe Albert Einstein had defected during the rise of the Third Reich. He was a Jew. You know how the Nazis loved Jews.



True but he converted didn't he what if he converted while still in Germany.


----------



## Platinum (Aug 25, 2009)

Cubey said:


> ^ Britain cant put up a fight against Germany, they just get overwhelmed.



See the Battle of Britain.

You guys are also forgetting that Nazi Germany is being led by an incompetent dumbass.


----------



## MrChubz (Aug 25, 2009)

Britan gets stomped.

USSR wins. Germany was running out of oil so that's why they went intro Russia to begin with. So Russia fights until Germany starts to run out of oil, Stalingrad happens, then Russia kicks ass and takes names.

The biggest problem US would have is getting a foothold onto Europe. After that, they win after a long campaign.


----------



## God (Aug 25, 2009)

Platinum said:


> See the Battle of Britain.



See my convo thread response beeyotch 



> You guys are also forgetting that Nazi Germany is being led by an incompetent dumbass.



CIS off


----------



## Amatsu (Aug 25, 2009)

Germany would be too spread out. The fact that the German army was spread thin all over europe and north africa is one of the reasons the allies were victorious.


----------



## God (Aug 25, 2009)

In all fairness, that was because they were fighting three Allies. In one on one fights, the German forces will be focusing entirely on each country.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 25, 2009)

Germany taking Moscow "in the end" was largely futile Fyi. The Soviets had no plans to surrender and even if Moscow as taken, they simply would have moved East. Russia was too vast to conquer, and even during their "victory phase" (June-November 1941) their casualties rates were still pretty heavily, nearly 300,000. They couldn't keep up that kind of fighting for as long as the Russians were willing to simply move-further-East. 

On top of that by 1944 the Soviets had produced a truly capable army of modern equipment & tactics, trained personnel, etc.. They were capable of unleashing some serious whoopass on the Germans by that point. A classic example of this was Operation Bagration, where the Soviets annihilated 4 entire German Armies and inflicted over twice the number of killed & captured on Germany then they endured (200,000 vs. 450,000). This little known event is described as the worst defeat in Germany Military history according to Heinz Guderian and drove German Army Chief of Staff Kurt Zeitzler into a nervous breakdown. Basically, as the war went on the Soviets were getting better and better and were less of the mindless wave of zerg everybody makes them out to be.

The British and Americans were useful in defeating Germany, for sure. They bogged down some 1 million German troops between France and Italy. However the other 4 million were still in the USSR, and at the end of the day the war was largely decided in Winter 1941 when the Germans failed to capture Moscow, were hit by a huge Soviet counter-offensive, and had to retreat hundreds of miles (and this was before American involvement). Further reinforcements of inevitable German failure were Stalingrad, Kursk, and the Dnieper Operation.


----------



## Amatsu (Aug 25, 2009)

Cubey said:


> In all fairness, that was because they were fighting three Allies. In one on one fights, the German forces will be focusing entirely on each country.



Even so I'd say it would be impossible for Germany to take all 3 out. Even one on one. They'd be far too spread out. America is too far away, and Russia is just too big.

Not to mention Stalin's policy of "not one step back." would have further hurt the German army even if they took on Russia. The winters too would hurt the nazi's. There's a reason the French failed to conquer Russia too you know.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Aug 25, 2009)

Omnirix said:


> The only true obstacle is the north atlantic ocean. Otherwise, Nazi Germany would really BLITZ U.S like it did to USSR.



And that ended so well for them. In case your wondering If you're going to invade Russia, don't take after Napolean.


----------



## Platinum (Aug 25, 2009)

Amatsu said:


> Germany would be too spread out. The fact that the German army was spread thin all over europe and north africa is one of the reasons the allies were victorious.



That and the fact that Hitler was a dumbass .


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Aug 25, 2009)

Britain is light speed, we babyshake.


----------



## TheHolyDarkness (Aug 25, 2009)

Germany cannot take out America for the same reason they avoided Switzerland: Gun laws. When every citizen is a potential sniper, you don't screw with that. On the flip side, considering the quality of the US generals and their streamlined chain of command system (as opposed to Nazi Germany's convoluted chain of command system which made joint opperations nigh impossible), the United States would eventually take down Germany.

Britain would eventually fall to a focused Germany by attrition I suppose.

Similarly by attrition, Russia would beat Germany in the long run. They may lose their capital in the process however, but its too large to take an hold the entire thing. Especially considering Russia's scorched earth policies. They get far though if CIS is off. Perhaps they manage to take and hold half of Russia, call it a day, and new political lines are drawn.

~TheHolyDarkness Out~


----------



## God (Aug 25, 2009)

Amatsu said:


> Even so I'd say it would be impossible for Germany to take all 3 out. Even one on one. They'd be far too spread out. America is too far away, and Russia is just too big.



Germany is just too big and powerful to lose to Britain, this is my view. They were only winning the war due to Russia/America's involvement.

Not to mention Stalin's policy of "not one step back." would have further hurt the German army even if they took on Russia. The winters too would hurt the nazi's. There's a reason the French failed to conquer Russia too you know.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Emperor Joker (Aug 25, 2009)

Platinum said:


> That and the fact that Hitler was a dumbass .



This, the man while very good at the political side of life, was horribly lost when it came to the military. It's probably the reason why he forced his armies to stay in Russia as long as they did.


----------



## Amatsu (Aug 25, 2009)

Cubey said:


> Germany is just too big and powerful to lose to Britain, this is my view. They were only winning the war due to Russia/America's involvement.



and yet Germany couldn't force a surrender out of Britain no matter how much they bombed them with air raids, and they would do those several times a day. Not just once or twice.


----------



## Platinum (Aug 25, 2009)

Operation Barbarossa consisted of defeating the Soviets before the Winter came, once the Russians provided stiff resistance and the winter came Germany got pretty much stomped.



Emperor Joker said:


> This, the man while very good at the political side of life, was horribly lost when it came to the military. It's probably the reason why he forced his armies to stay in Russia as long as they did.



Most German soldiers weren't even given winter gear because Hitler thought they were just going to mow through Russia, that my good sir is a dumbass .


----------



## God (Aug 25, 2009)

Platinum said:


> That and the fact that Hitler was a dumbass .



CIS OFF 



Amatsu said:


> and yet Germany couldn't force a surrender out of Britain no matter how much they bombed them with air raids, and they would do those several times a day. Not just once or twice.



Once again, they had to target multiple enemies at once. In a one on one fight Britain just gets overwhelmed.



Platinum said:


> Operation Barbarossa consisted of defeating the Soviets before the Winter came, once the Russians provided stiff resistance and the winter came Germany got pretty much stomped.



I never said Germany wins against USSR, just that it's a toss-up since Germany will focus only on one enemy at once.



> Most German soldiers weren't even given winter gear because Hitler thought they were just going to mow through Russia, that my good sir is a dumbass .



On the other hand, it's a great budget adjustment, so we know he's an economic genius


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 25, 2009)

Cubey said:


> CIS OFF
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, they had to target multiple enemies at once. In a one on one fight Britain just gets overwhelmed.



Well Germany was basically forced to abandon invading Britain. They lost nearly half their whole surface fleet in the earlier Norwegian campaign (which wasn't all that great to begin with) and lacked the capability for a major amphibious op. The ocean has always been a bitch when it comes to fighting the British.


----------



## God (Aug 25, 2009)

Megaharrison said:


> Well Germany was basically forced to abandon invading Britain. They lost nearly half their whole surface fleet in the earlier Norwegian campaign (which wasn't all that great to begin with) and lacked the capability for a major amphibious op. *The ocean has always been a bitch when it comes to fighting the British.*



A point I made earlier in the thread


----------



## Amatsu (Aug 25, 2009)

Cubey said:


> Once again, they had to target multiple enemies at once. In a one on one fight Britain just gets overwhelmed.



Not exactly Russia had a treaty with Germany until an impatient Hitler broke it around 1941. At that point outside of the US giving Britian supplies now and then there wasn't anyone there to really help them. Even without the food and supplies we gave them. The brits could have put up a very good fight, and driven them back.


----------



## God (Aug 25, 2009)

Amatsu said:


> Not exactly Russia had a treaty with Germany until an impatient Hitler broke it around 1941. At that point outside of the US giving Britian supplies now and then there wasn't anyone there to really help them. Even without the food and supplies we gave them. The brits could have put up a very good fight, and driven them back.



Well, aside from the fact that had Germany faced Britain alone they would have gotten stomped, there is also the naval factor, which left Germany literally dead in the sea, and the fact that they had to defend the homefront, a point I've brought up before.

Concluding: If Britain had fought Germany one on one for the entire war, there' no question they would have gotten stomped.


----------



## Platinum (Aug 25, 2009)

Cubey said:


> Once again, they had to target multiple enemies at once. In a one on one fight Britain just gets overwhelmed.



I'll just post what I posted in the convo here



Platinum said:


> And here comes the kill shot .
> 
> Battle of Britain and Operation Sea lion (indefinitely postponed on September, 17, 1940) was before Operation Barbarossa (June 22, 1941) which brought Russia into the war, and this was before Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) which brought the U.S. into the war so the Germans weren't dealing with either of them at the time they were destroyed by the British.
> 
> Game. Set. Match .


----------



## God (Aug 25, 2009)

Platinum said:


> I'll just post what I posted in the convo here



So will I 



> That tickled. Time to end this with my Omniverse leveling one-shotter
> 
> Britain never destroyed the Germans they merely held up long enough for Allies to come help them. Along with however much help they got from France and revolting countries, that's still an unfair advantage over the Germans. Their geographic position didnt help much either. This time, they launch an attack from Normandy with enough force to crush Britain. GG Brits
> 
> Check. Mate.


----------



## Platinum (Aug 25, 2009)

So I am just going to summarize the apparent general consensus of most of us.

Britain-Stalemate or a hard fought loss (not winning unless of massive uprisings around Nazi occupied areas)
U.S.S.R.-Hard fought Win
U.S.-Hard fought Win

Agree or disagree .


----------



## Captain Smoker (Aug 25, 2009)

You guys forget Germany had troops spread out in Greece, Africa, Italy, etc. Fucking EVERYWHERE. They were taking names all around Europe and Asia. Germany had the most powerful military at the time, and the BEST trained soldiers aswell. You keep brining up Hitler like he was the sole commander of the military. You forget about mother fucking ERWIN ROMMEL, a Germany general. He was THE best general in WW 2, he was a genius. Nazi Germany was badass. Nazi Germany= Whitebeard Pirates.

Now think to yourself, PLATINUM. Imagine that germanys army isnt spread out, but CONCENTRATED on one country. That is what this thread is about. Britian gets stomped. They werent begging for USA's help for no reason, even though Germany had most of its troops in Russia. They were begging because they saw their demise. Russia would have put up a hard fight, but eventually would have fell. Moscow would have been captured, Stalin murdered, thus taking their confidence and then Russia would have surrendered, period. USA is the only one who likely survives based on their location.


----------



## God (Aug 25, 2009)

^ Fine, I guess that's the best I'm going to get out of you


----------



## Platinum (Aug 25, 2009)

Captain Smoker said:


> You guys forget Germany had troops spread out in Greece, Africa, Italy, etc. Fucking EVERYWHERE. They were taking names all around Europe and Asia. Germany had the most powerful military at the time, and the BEST trained soldiers aswell. You keep brining up Hitler like he was the sole commander of the military. You forget about mother fucking ERWIN ROMMEL, a Germany general. He was THE best general in WW 2, he was a genius. Nazi Germany was badass. Nazi Germany= Whitebeard Pirates.
> 
> Now think to yourself, PLATINUM. Imagine that germanys army isnt spread out, but CONCENTRATED on one country. That is what this thread is about. Britian gets stomped. They werent begging for USA's help for no reason, even though Germany had most of its troops in Russia. They were begging because they saw their demise. Russia would have put up a hard fight, but eventually would have fell. Moscow would have been captured, Stalin murdered, thus taking their confidence and then Russia would have surrendered, period. USA is the only one who likely survives based on their location.



*yawn*

Oh won't this be fun.

First of all, Germany moving it's armies in those countries away would inspire uprising in those countries so no they wouldn't move them.

Second Germany did focus all of it's man power on Britain trying to force a surrender before invading Russia, how did that work out for them Smoker? Do you know what the Battle of Britain was? Do you know that Britain was pretty much fighting by itself at that point in time?

Hitler had supreme command of all of the Reich's military forces and he overrode his generals many a time causing major defeats for Germany. No General could override Hitler as he was the head of command.

 And you calling the Nazi's badass makes you a truly atrocious human being if you believe that.

And get your timeline right. Operation Barbarossa was months after Operation Sea Lion was suspended, the Germans and Russians weren't at war yet.



Captain Smoker said:


> You must be a jew, Platinum. I love your objectivity.



Smoker you never cease to amaze me, resorting to petty insults.


----------



## God (Aug 25, 2009)

You guys need to all STFU. You're gonna get a potentially good matchup locked and trashed. Now I dont in anyway support the hate Captain is saying, nor any of you, but let's just stay on-topic for the sake of debating.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 25, 2009)

Captain Smoker said:


> You guys forget Germany had troops spread out in Greece, Africa, Italy, etc. Fucking EVERYWHERE.



Between all these fronts they only had about 600,000 troops bogged down. Greece and Yugoslavia occupation operations were mostly left to the Italians and Bulgarians (albeit poorly), the Afrika Korps never exceeded 75,000 troops, and Italy didn't even become a major front for them until late 1943/early 1944 when they massacred the Italians and took over the country. At that point Germany was already losing against the Soviets pretty badly. Now while this 600,000 or so is certainly a large amount by today's standards, make it relative to the fact they had over 4 million men on the Eastern Front, and it's not that big of a loss.



> They were taking names all around Europe and Asia. Germany had the most powerful military at the time, and the BEST trained soldiers aswell. You keep brining up Hitler like he was the sole commander of the military. You forget about mother fucking ERWIN ROMMEL, a Germany general. He was THE best general in WW 2, he was a genius.



Rommel is overrated to be honest. He never fought against the type of overwhelming odds so many other German commanders had to deal with. Erhard Rauss is often called the "Rommel of the East". He mostly displayed the same level of skill, yet fought pretty well in battles where he was outnumbered 10 to 1. Frederic Paulus is another candidate. He lacked initiative but was pretty vicious in defense.



> Now think to yourself, PLATINUM. Imagine that germanys army isnt spread out, but CONCENTRATED on one country.



Like they were in Operation Barbarossa then. Germany had no other major deployments at that time, yet still was decisively defeated at the end of the Operation. 



> That is what this thread is about. Britain gets stomped. They weren't begging for USA's help for no reason, even though Germany had most of its troops in Russia. They were begging because they saw their demise. Russia would have put up a hard fight, but eventually would have fell. Moscow would have been captured, Stalin murdered, thus taking their confidence and then Russia would have surrendered, period. USA is the only one who likely survives based on their location.



Lol, you think if Stalin was killed the USSR would have folded from morale? They were terrified of him, and a number of other individuals (Molotov, Beria, Khrushchev, etc.) were constantly vying for his position. The USSR wasn't going to surrender because given Germany's openly genocidal agenda against them it was a war of survival. If the Germans took Moscow (which they failed epically in doing, by the way) then the Soviets would have simply moved further East. You think the Germans could extend their supply lines all the way to Vladivostok when they were struggling with supply extensions from the Polish border to Minsk?

And for the record I am actually Jewish


----------



## Platinum (Aug 25, 2009)

Captain Smoker said:


> Why would you say that you cynical being! I'm just saying, he seems to show huge bias against Germany. I'm just guessing the most logical reason as to why he shows his bias. Britain, US, Russia, all of these countries have done horrible things in history. Lets single them out too?



It's called having an opinion.

And i'm not the one accusing others of being jews for having a differing opinion and calling the Nazi's badass, the same Nazi's that murdered millions of people and brutally experimented on them.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Aug 25, 2009)

Captain Smoker said:


> You guys forget Germany had troops spread out in Greece, Africa, Italy, etc. Fucking EVERYWHERE. They were taking names all around Europe and Asia. Germany had the most powerful military at the time, and the BEST trained soldiers aswell. You keep brining up Hitler like he was the sole commander of the military. You forget about mother fucking ERWIN ROMMEL, a Germany general. He was THE best general in WW 2, he was a genius. Nazi Germany was badass. Nazi Germany= Whitebeard Pirates.
> 
> Now think to yourself, PLATINUM. Imagine that germanys army isnt spread out, but CONCENTRATED on one country. That is what this thread is about. Britian gets stomped. They werent begging for USA's help for no reason, even though Germany had most of its troops in Russia. They were begging because they saw their demise. Russia would have put up a hard fight, but eventually would have fell. Moscow would have been captured, Stalin murdered, thus taking their confidence and then Russia would have surrendered, period. USA is the only one who likely survives based on their location.



You did not...You did not just call a regime of mass murdering psycotics badass. What kind of twisted world do you live in sir.

You do also realize that Germany's troops were spread very thinly as well, made even more thinner by Hitler's No Retreat/No surrender policy.


----------



## Captain Smoker (Aug 25, 2009)

Platinum said:


> *yawn*
> 
> Oh won't this be fun.
> 
> ...


Germany still had its troops spread around Europe when fighting Britain. For instance, Germany pushed hard for France, though it only took 2 months to conquer, Germany had alot of troops in France, Hitler also had his army set on invading africa, greece, and helping italy. Britain had one priority: Stop germany. Now if Germany was only fighting Britain, things would have been ugly for them. Dont get me wrong, Britain would have put up a fight, they WERE a super power. But they would have lost.

And FYI, Hitler fought in WW 1, and earned an iron cross. He was a very respected warrior and battle savvy veteran.

How am I an atrocious human being for giving respect to a truly dominant force of nature that almost took over the world? I never said I condone or agree with their ideals. I would have fought against them if I was living in that time. Quit being an emo. History is history. All empires and super powers have committed crimes in their reigns. Dont just single out Germany. I dont know where you are from, probably an ignorant American. In that case, you cant say shit. Indian genocide, anyone?


----------



## Azure Flame Fright (Aug 25, 2009)

I will be handing out strikes to anyone that continues to flame and bait in this thread.


----------



## Amatsu (Aug 25, 2009)

Azure Flame Kite said:


> I will be handing out strikes to anyone that continues to flame and bait in this thread.



Party pooper...

But fine. This threads already been won.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Aug 25, 2009)

Captain Smoker said:


> Germany still had its troops spread around Europe when fighting Britain. For instance, Germany pushed hard for France, though it only took 2 months to conquer, Germany had alot of troops in France, Hitler also had his army set on invading africa, greece, and helping italy. Britain had one priority: Stop germany. Now if Germany was only fighting Britain, things would have been ugly for them. Dont get me wrong, Britain would have put up a fight, they WERE a super power. But they would have lost.
> 
> *And FYI, Hitler fought in WW 1, and earned an iron cross. He was a very respected warrior and battle savvy veteran*.
> 
> How am I an atrocious human being for giving respect to a truly dominant force of nature that almost took over the world? I never said I condone or agree with their ideals. I would have fought against them if I was living in that time. Quit being an emo. History is history. All empires and super powers have committed crimes in their reigns. Dont just single out Germany. I dont know where you are from, probably an ignorant American. In that case, you cant say shit. Indian genocide, anyone?



Not apparently enough to know that his own commanders we're doing a better job at leading troops than he ever did.


----------



## Captain Smoker (Aug 25, 2009)

^ I agree. Im just giving respect where respect is due. 

Genghis Khan, Alexander the great, Hitler, all mass murderers, but I respect them for building their empires the way they did and I respect the power they had over their respective peers. I am FASCINATED by them. I don't condone their ideals though.


----------



## Watchman (Aug 26, 2009)

The only one Germany has a chance of beating is Britain. Only, of course, if you consider Britain beaten once the British Isles are taken, and ignore the rest of the Empire, because Nazis aren't feasibly going to be able to launch massive trans-continental assaults on Canada, India and Australia.

So, counting Britain solely as the British Isles, you've first got to note that it is, again, difficult to launch an assault on a well-defended island that has a capable, if not superior navy to you, and a capable, if not superior air force to you. Germany's massive army doesn't mean shit if they can't actually make landfall.

Secondly, we Brits were pretty damned resolute in resisting the Nazis until our last breath. One of the major reasons the Allies didn't go for a land-based invasion of Japan was because of the humungous casualties that would arise from such an invasion. Britain, whilst obviously not as fanatically devoted as the Japanese were, would again cause horrendous casualties as the Nazis initially made landfall.

Nazi Germany could conquer Britain but only at high cost, and with constant opposition from the public. Remember La Resistance in France? Imagine that at a higher level, considering the amount of the public that were prepared to never surrender. Considering those situations, it's feasible that the Germans never bother invading.

Of course, even if Britain falls, British India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. will all still be around and not very likely to take orders from a Vichy-esque government.

Against the USSR, there's not much to say - they took on roughly 70% of _all_ Nazi forces for the majority of their involvement in the war, and stomped them into the ground. They too, were prepared to never surrender - if the Nazis captured Moscow, they'd move to Stalingrad. If Stalingrad fell, fall back to Magnitogorsk. 

Stalin's autocratic regime proved _very_ efficient in moving the foundations of Russia's industry a huge distance in a short time, and they could conceivably keep the majority of their industry safe no matter how they were faring in the war. There is no chance in hell that the Wehrmacht could conquer the entirety of Russia; the logistics are just too far-fetched, and the population too large and too hostile.

Of course, that doesn't matter, as the USSR was the principal reason the Allies won in Europe - whilst the UK and USA were dealing with a million men in France, the USSR was taking on four times that number in Eastern Europe, and still beat the Allies to Berlin. Nazi Germany could not hope to defeat the USSR.

The USA, again, is impossible for Germany to beat. The following would have to occur for them to have a _chance_ to even make landfall in America

-Have overwhelming control of the Atlantic
-Have a staging point for their assaults (similar to how Britain was a staging point for D-Day)
-Have said staging point be able to hold out against the inevitable American attempts to conquer it and deny the Nazis access to it.

That's what would be needed to even attempt a landing. Once they have landed, they have to take on an army much larger than they did in reality, since this will include the forces that IRL were dedicated to the Pacific Theatre, a population that is armed, and _if_ the situation is dire will quite possibly be conscripted to aid the war effort, and somehow try to conquer a country larger than Europe, with a population many times their own. It goes without saying this is entirely unfeasible.


----------



## Plague (Aug 26, 2009)

No fuckin way, america would fuking murder them Nazis. Atomic the shit out of them.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Aug 26, 2009)

Well, to be fair, Hitler never got above Corporal. And he didn't earn _an_ Iron Cross, he earned two (Second and First Degree). I don't think any is disputing saying that Hitler isn't brave, but he was a rather poor strategist.

And this is a bad topic, really. You give no time-frame (Which, to be fair, would make minimal difference) or anything, which means there are a lot of questions up in the air as to the exact nature of Germany's inevitable defeats.

And yes, they are just about all inevitable defeats. Unless we include Dunkirk, by which Germany could win a Pyrrhic victory over Britain (Likely at the cost of their entire fighting force). My little bro demolished a similar topic last time.

- The myth of German invulnerability is still alive and well, I see. People don't understand that while Germany thought up a bunch of cool ideas, generally speaking they didn't work out strategically. The Tiger is cool until you realize it only works _two _days out of the week. It had miserable tracks, guzzled gas, and needed have special tracks put on it to travel by train. The ME-262 is cool until you realize that it's engine life topped out at 10 _hours_, and that it needs to be guarded by other planes during flight and takeoff, not to mention its short flight time. Germany's more common stuff, like the Panzer III/IV series were reliable, but their more famous later designs were wastes.
- People also forget that most other countries started out with better equipment, and the Germans were constantly adapting to try and copy it. Russian tanks sent the Germans through a loop when they actually encountered them, and they were absolutely superior machines in comparison to German tank designs of the time. The Germans were not the "ULTRA-TANK MECHANIZED FORCE!!!!!" that people associate them with. At their peak, they were 50% mechanized. The rest used horses. Now let that sink in for a second. The US, at the _start_ of the war, was 100% mechanized. Blitzkrieg may be a German word, but it was a British/Russian idea (Depending on who you give more credit to), and it was most successfully executed by the Russians and Americans.
- Also, their "ass-kickings" come with a lot of asterisks. For example, the BEF and French had essentially halted the Germans in Belgium. The Germans gambled on taking a two-lane highway through the Ardennes, which is a risky affair if the enemy decides to attack you while you're on that thin-strip. The British and French didn't believe it, and they got through. Another example would be Rommel's victories, which owed a lot to early German codebreaking. After the British clammed up and ULTRA started breaking German chatter with more frequency.
- Also, there's no way that Germany had the manpower or industrial base actually beat Russia or even challenge the US. Taking Moscow means nothing when the leadership is already gone and factories beyond the Urals are pumping out tanks and guns. It just means your supply lines are stretched that much more. Germany losing to Russia is always an inevitability. The Russians simply started worse off because they lacked
- And the Americans are even worse. A highly-developed industrial base, a habit of putting out reliable, working design concepts, and a motivated fighting force would put the spurs into Germany. I mean, if this is early-war Germany, the Lee is still a viable tank (despite its flaws) and it was always a stop-gap for the Sherman. Tank hunters were very effective against the Germans (Despite it being a doctrinal dead-end. DAMN YOU LESLEY MCNAIR!), and things like the Hellcat were the absolute _bane_ of German columns. Generally speaking, American machines are of much higher quality, with better optics, turret-turning speed, overall reliability and adaptability.
- And God, can you even imagine what the Pacific Fleet would do when it got to the Atlantic? I mean, they'd absolutely massacre the Kriegsmarine. The US fleet was ridiculously advanced in comparison to other fleets of the world. Perhaps they couldn't choke off Germany completely (Unless they are actually starting with their original borders, which would mean they'd be _forced_ to invade other countries to get access to food. The British blockaded the Germans in WWI to the point that millions died. Our Navy would put theirs to shame, despite the inclement weather of the Baltic and North seas.), but they'd allow the Americans to land wherever they wanted to. Operation Dragoon could very well have happened, if the US didn't decide to occupy Britain as a base for their troops.
- Oh, and American airpower. The Luftwaffe would have immense troubles with our Air Force, especially when we start to get better planes than what we started with. This was one of the biggest keys to German victory, and when it evaporated, so do their ability to put together winning offensives. This can be seen on both the Eastern and Western front.
- You really can't "easily" blitzkrieg Britain. If we say that Dunkirk didn't happen, British tanks are easily a match for anything that the Germans can throw at them. In fact, the Germans feared things such as the Matilda for a long time because it was the heaviest thing until they saw the KV-2 (Which they likened to a moving house). British Infantry are far better trained and supplied than any of the previous forces that the Germans have beaten, and they don't have an easy "in" for them to win quickly. The British countryside is also not very conducive to Blitzkrieg. If they won, they wouldn't be able to hold or subjugate the state in any way.

I mean, really, Nazi Germany is intensely overrated. I'm a fan of Guderian, Rommel, Doenitz, and others, but you have to be realistic. When they invaded Russia, they never had a chance.


----------



## Sazabi24 (Aug 26, 2009)

USA would have raped Germany 1 on 1
Russia would have ended up being raped in 1941 if Hiter decided to concentrate his forces on Moscow, or if Germany just decided to pay attention to anti- Stalinst feelings. 1943 Red army would rape Germany.
Britian only survived World War 2 because of the channel.


----------



## Platinum (Aug 26, 2009)

Guy Gardner said:


> Well, to be fair, Hitler never got above Corporal. And he didn't earn _an_ Iron Cross, he earned two (Second and First Degree). I don't think any is disputing saying that Hitler isn't brave, but he was a rather poor strategist.
> 
> And this is a bad topic, really. You give no time-frame (Which, to be fair, would make minimal difference) or anything, which means there are a lot of questions up in the air as to the exact nature of Germany's inevitable defeats.
> 
> ...



What a well thought out post. Good work sir .


----------



## neodragzero (Aug 26, 2009)

Captain Smoker said:


> Nazi Germany was badass. Nazi Germany= Whitebeard Pirates.


Ignoring the rest... You really didn't pay attention to anything that Jinbei had to say about Whitebeard at all. What's next? A claim that Charles Manson is Gutts badass? Pakistani terrorist in Afghanistan are suddenly the same level as the Vietcong?


----------



## Reddan (Aug 26, 2009)

Nazi Germany was no where near as powerful as people are making them out to be. Hitler was very lucky that a few huge things went his way.

1. Most of the leaders of Europe agreed with most of his expansions ie Sudatenland, Austria and marching the army into the Rhine.

2. All the major European countries like France and Britian were devastated by World War II and did not want to fight. 

Therefore when as a whole they realised Hitler had to be stopped they were not prepared to fight a war and it took them the best part of a few years to rearm. 

Other points is a figh between Germany and the USA is pointless. There is a massive ocean between them. They cannot fight without allies or invading other countries and therefore it no longer remains a 1-1.

As for Britain, Hitler tried and failed. Britain could match Germany in terms of naval ability and the airforce made any naval invasion impossible. Hitler tried to destroy Flight Command, but due to being an idiot changed tactitcs to the blitz (mostly to get revenge for the RAF bombing civilians.) Thus he had to target Russia to get the raw materials and oil needed to fund more military expansion.

So Nazi Germany if they were fighting Britain alone stalemates. Stalemates with America due to there being no way of reaching them and loses to Russia.


----------



## Ulti (Aug 26, 2009)

Britain's seaforces were really good during WWII it is what they were best known for, it really changes the course. Combine that with the airforce and it ends in a stalemate.


----------



## God (Aug 26, 2009)

Why this thread isnt being allowed to die.. I have no idea


----------



## Emperor Joker (Aug 26, 2009)

Guy Gardner said:


> Well, to be fair, Hitler never got above Corporal. And he didn't earn _an_ Iron Cross, he earned two (Second and First Degree). I don't think any is disputing saying that Hitler isn't brave, but he was a rather poor strategist.
> 
> And this is a bad topic, really. You give no time-frame (Which, to be fair, would make minimal difference) or anything, which means there are a lot of questions up in the air as to the exact nature of Germany's inevitable defeats.
> 
> ...



Damn good work sir, rep for you.


----------



## Akatora (Aug 26, 2009)

In what way?

In open battle yeah i could see germany taking em on 1v1

but occupying the countires and fighting rebels... gonna be a pain


----------



## Sylar (Aug 27, 2009)

SMH at people actually thinking Germany could stalemate America one on one much less win. 

Ignoring the sheer naval and aerial dominance America has, ignoring the sheer numerical advantage in troops America has, ignoring the much better weapons and technology America possesses, ignoring the sheer financial advantage America has, America literally has the instant-win button in atomic bombs.


----------



## Dark Evangel (Aug 27, 2009)

I think Nazi Germany vs. Japan is more interesting.


----------



## Fang (Aug 27, 2009)

Do people realize that any given time after June 22nd 1941 that 80% of Nazi Germany's army was dealing with the Russians, and that we faced less than 1/5th of Germany's troops since June 1944; most of which were the Waffen SS or their poorest, least trained or inexperienced soldiers?

If Germany didn't open up a second conflict on the Eastern Front, gods know how America and the British would've gotten into Fortress Europe without casualities that even with the most conservative counts would've been in the hundreds of thousands if we attempted anything similar to D-Day.

That said Germany did have the best and most well trained army in WW2. Not that I think anything like CAPTAIN SMOKER KUN but the Germany army conquered Brussels, Paris, The Hague, Belgrade, Athens, Warsaw, ect...within 9 months since the fall of Poland in October 1939.

It really speaks volumes of their army's quality that the Germans lost less than 40,000 men beating off France, Britain, Holland, Belgium, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Denmark, ect...


----------



## Fang (Aug 27, 2009)

Captain Smoker said:


> *IMO, Britian gets stomped. Thats obvious. Germany could have easily blitzkrieg Britain,* but they chose to conquer Poland and France first.



Are you serious?


----------



## Ulti (Aug 27, 2009)

He obviously failed history or something.


----------



## Gnome (Aug 27, 2009)

Winston Churchill solo's


----------



## Platinum (Aug 27, 2009)

TWF said:


> Are you serious?



That's Captain Smoker for you. Someone didn't learn about the Battle of Britain .


----------



## Emperor Joker (Aug 27, 2009)

My my Somebody's forgetting about the Blitz aren't they:rofl. Tell me Mein Fuhrur how do forget about something that lasted a good eight months, and only served to piss the Brits off.


----------



## Ulti (Aug 27, 2009)

Platinum said:


> That's Captain Smoker for you. Someone didn't learn about the Battle of Britain .





Emperor Joker said:


> My my Somebody's forgetting about the Blitz aren't they:rofl. Tell me Mein Fuhrur how do forget about something that lasted a good eight months, and only served to piss the Brits off.





Senior Partner said:


> He obviously failed history or something.



I stand by this. Mein Fuhrur?


----------



## Fang (Aug 27, 2009)

Emperor Joker said:


> My my Somebody's forgetting about the Blitz aren't they:rofl. Tell me Mein Fuhrur how do forget about something that lasted a good eight months, and only served to piss the Brits off.



In all fairness the Blitz was hurting the British a lot, despite their advantage in developing the precision bombing technology for their long-range bombers. 1940 to late 1941 saw U-boats sink more than a hundred thousand tons of supplies in the Atlantic almost on average per month.

Then again the Germans lost nearly 2,200 fighters and bombers to the British's 1700 since Hitler wanted Operation Sea Lion to become operable because of Goerings assurances.

Still, there was no way the British alone could've stopped Germany or broken out back onto Fortress Europe if the Reich didn't create a second front for themselves.


----------



## Sazabi24 (Aug 27, 2009)

Germany possible could have starved Britian if they decided to build better U-Boats, not more U-boats. They had the technology in 1942, but Hitler didn't bother looking at the designs for the New U-boats that moved twice as fast underwater than the ones they were currently using at the time.


----------



## Fang (Aug 27, 2009)

Same reason that Dr. Porsche screwed up the designs for new mobile self-propelled artillery pieces and the Tiger tank since Hitler again showed favoritism to his art and engineer buddies over the OKW.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Aug 27, 2009)

Thank god dictators forget that's why they have Generals in the first fucking place...


----------



## Sazabi24 (Aug 27, 2009)

Thank god Hitler put Heinrich Himmler in front of the eastern front


----------



## Fang (Aug 27, 2009)

A dumbass or not Hitler was the one who created and drafted the strategic overview and architecture of Case Yellow and almost all of early German military successes were do to his amendents or plans.


----------



## Platinum (Aug 27, 2009)

Hitler being an incompetent dumbass was one of the main reasons that the war ended in complete German defeat.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Aug 27, 2009)

TWF said:


> A dumbass or not Hitler was the one who created and drafted the strategic overview and architecture of Case Yellow and almost all of early German military successes were do to his amendents or plans.



He had a better grasp on things then, and less area for him to cover then when he took over in the later stages of the war.


----------



## Sylar (Aug 27, 2009)

Hell one of the reasons D-Day was as successful as it was was that Hitler made sure that the tanks could only be mobilized on his command alone and all of his subordinates were too afraid to wake him up.

Superior race indeed.


----------



## ChINaMaN1472 (Aug 27, 2009)

Platinum said:


> Hitler being an incompetent dumbass...



Except for PR skills.  IIRC, the country of Germany ELECTED him.


----------



## God (Aug 27, 2009)

I think Hitler had potential to be Anti-Christ level 

It was only a matter of time before he decided to destroy all religion and claim to be God


----------



## Quelsatron (Aug 27, 2009)

ChINaMaN1472 said:


> Except for PR skills.  IIRC, the country of Germany ELECTED him.



Sure they did why wouldn't they? The country was in the shittiest state it ever been and here we have a charismatic man who promises that everything is going to be better. It's not like he was all "rargh lets kill the jews and wage war on half the world" until later.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Aug 27, 2009)

ChINaMaN1472 said:


> Except for PR skills.  IIRC, the country of Germany ELECTED him.



Quite frankly though he was saying things that made sense to them at the time, as Germans after World War I were treated like second-class by the rest of Europe.

Thoguh at least they still existed after World War I, unlike what happened to Hapsburg Empire, who was only in it because Germany was attacked and their Prime Minister was assinated.

Edit for Cubey: Probably he was already working on the Christians when he died. Also he did sully a Bhudist symbol and forever mar it with Mass Murder.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Aug 27, 2009)

Really, we need to set a definite timetable for when this is occurring, because I'm not really sure how to argue some of these things without a proper timeframe. I'm also assuming that Japan is no threat to attack, just as Russia isn't a threat to Germany if they aren't involved, right?

Here are my very respectful disagreements.



TWF said:


> Do people realize that any given time after June 22nd 1941 that 80% of Nazi Germany's army was dealing with the Russians, and that we faced less than 1/5th of Germany's troops since June 1944; most of which were the Waffen SS or their poorest, least trained or inexperienced soldiers?



They were hardly the best trained, but they were the _most experienced_, as many of them had been in combat for at least a year before they met up with the Americans. But I don't see their training as being particularly spectacular in any way. The SS were very well-trained, but I'd say they benefited much more from having the best equipment available, too.



> If Germany didn't open up a second conflict on the Eastern Front, gods know how America and the British would've gotten into Fortress Europe without casualities that even with the most conservative counts would've been in the hundreds of thousands if we attempted anything similar to D-Day.



To be fair, the Americans and, to a lesser extent, the British were also fighting on two fronts as well. The Pacific Theatre, by its very nature, requires a lot more resources to trace across. Without the Japanese, the Americans and British could bring a lot more to bear, especially if they are the only ones doing so.

And D-Day would be significantly different, yes. But then again, I don't see the Allies losing Air and Naval Supremacy from Germany. With Strategic Bombing as well as simply better plane designs, they'll still be hammering German factories, and Hitler is still going to be fucking around with the air force. The Hedgehog Depth Charge deployment system, along with improved sonar, tactics, and contact-detonated depth charges essentially ended the effectiveness of U-Boats because Destroyers could find them with greater ease as well as continue to hunt them because their depth charges (no longer timed) aren't making sonar useless.

With Air and Naval Supremacy (Especially air supremacy), it's going to be relatively similar because anything that moves during the day is going to get bombed into the ground by Allied Air power. That's the biggest thing that the Germans complained about in France: Any time they did anything, they'd get bombed/strafed/rocketed by P-47s and other airplanes.



> That said Germany did have the best and most well trained army in WW2. Not that I think anything like CAPTAIN SMOKER KUN but the Germany army conquered Brussels, Paris, The Hague, Belgrade, Athens, Warsaw, ect...within 9 months since the fall of Poland in October 1939.
> 
> It really speaks volumes of their army's quality that the Germans lost less than 40,000 men beating off France, Britain, Holland, Belgium, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Denmark, ect...



That's ignoring a lot of factors there.

- Poland was invaded on both sides, and would have put up more of a fight if not for their own two-front war. Germany could have also been easily stopped if France had decided to continue it's invasion into Germany, which it had toyed with but decided against.
- Holland, Denmark, and Czechoslovakia don't count. The Czechs were sold out and there simply was no fighting. Denmark surrendered in a day because they knew they couldn't fight off with a much smaller, completely out-of-date military. The Dutch surrendered because of terror bombings after 4 days. Czechoslovakia is the only one of the three that could be considered more than a military speedbump, and that was gone after Hitler took his "Garden" (Along with the most defensible Czech positions) back.
- Belgium is somewhat justified, though they did contract a German builder to build their lynchpin fort against the Germans.
- The French and BEF had the Germans stopped in Belgium until the breakout in the rear area from Germans advancing through the Ardennes. That was a complete gamble, and admittedly it worked.
- Norway also has a lot of legitimacy, though the Brits splitting their forces due to political wranglings helped there as well.
- Greece was actually much later (Almost exactly two years after Poland), and done with large Italian and Bulgarian aid (In fact, most Greek units were fighting Italians, not Germans), but credit where credit is due. Greece wasn't much of a heavy hitter, but their terrain was certainly not nice to traverse, and they managed well.

Okay, now I'm not completely trashing their accomplishments. They crossed a lot of road by the time the Blitz came about. But I think that a lot of their early victories tend to lead people to overstate their effectiveness. Out of all of them, only two (France and Norway) were really big victories, and had critical Allied mistakes which allowed them to be done so quickly.

We're not going to just roll over Germany, but victory for the US is utterly inevitable. The industrial power and adaptability is so much greater than Russia's, and it has a lot more manpower than Germany does. Invading a much stronger German force presents a problem, but facing a much larger American force helps that. The Pacific Fleet in the Atlantic would also help a lot.

Britain would have the most trouble beating Germany, and I expressed as such. Germany might be able to go all out and beat Britain, but it's going to be a World War I-style sacrifice. There's no way they're taking the British Isles without a ridiculous amount of casualties. Britain could draw from their colonial resources and perhaps make it into France (considering German technology would be significantly different if they didn't face the Russian army), but it'll probably bog down into a stalemate.


----------



## God (Aug 27, 2009)

Emperor Joker said:


> Edit for Cubey: Probably he was already working on the Christians when he died. Also he did sully a Bhudist symbol and forever mar it with Mass Murder.



I think he wouldve attacked the Muslims first. IMO they are the most like Jews than Christians and they're right in his backyard.

Yeah, that is true. But was it a Buddhist symbol? I couldve sworn it existed in Hinduism.


----------



## Xaosin (Aug 28, 2009)

Without nukes, I'd say they can possibly beat Britain but not the other 2. We have a massive sea advantage,Germany couldn't pull off Operation Sea Lion so how will they fare against our better navy?

And as for Russia, Russian winter war+better leadership than Stanlin=dead nazi army. The only reason they got all the way to Moscow and Stalingrad was because Stanlin was a horrible leader who executed his best generals out of mere suspicion.


----------



## Endless Mike (Aug 28, 2009)

Cubey said:


> It was only a matter of time before he decided to destroy all religion and claim to be God



Isn't that self-contradictory? After all, if he wants to be a god, then there has to be a religion for people to worship him.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Aug 28, 2009)

Cubey said:


> I think he wouldve attacked the Muslims first. IMO they are the most like Jews than Christians and they're right in his backyard.
> 
> Yeah, that is true. But was it a Buddhist symbol? I couldve sworn it existed in Hinduism.



Both actually, from what i've read, the symbol itself is also part of Janism.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Aug 28, 2009)

Yes, that symbol is used in many religions as per Wikipedia.


----------



## God (Aug 28, 2009)

Endless Mike said:


> Isn't that self-contradictory? After all, if he wants to be a god, then there has to be a religion for people to worship him.



No one was using logic here mkay? There is no need for such a concept in the OBD 



Emperor Joker said:


> Both actually, from what i've read, the symbol itself is also part of Janism.



I suspected s such 



Tranquil Fury said:


> Yes, that symbol is used in many religions as per Wikipedia.


----------



## Fang (Aug 28, 2009)

Guy Gardner said:


> They were hardly the best trained, but they were the _most experienced_, as many of them had been in combat for at least a year before they met up with the Americans. But I don't see their training as being particularly spectacular in any way. The SS were very well-trained, but I'd say they benefited much more from having the best equipment available, too.



Your confusing the Waffen SS detachments with the regular SS and Gestapo units attached to the Wehrmact regulars on the Western Front.



> To be fair, the Americans and, to a lesser extent, the British were also fighting on two fronts as well. The Pacific Theatre, by its very nature, requires a lot more resources to trace across. Without the Japanese, the Americans and British could bring a lot more to bear, especially if they are the only ones doing so.



The British presence in the Pacific was almost non-existant compared to their naval and army forces in the Atlantic. The last major group of warships were a group of two heavy but heavily outdated WWI destroyers, a few other light cruisers and what not.

Once the Japanese crushed those in late 1940, it was really them just fighting the Japanese in and around Burma. I think your over-rating the British Empire at this point.

And as for industrial bases, Germany badly outproduced and developed tanks, artillery, U-boats, motorized vehicles for the infantry, ect...vs the British barely matching pace with the amoutn of Spitfires they were losing during the Blitz.



> And D-Day would be significantly different, yes. But then again, I don't see the Allies losing Air and Naval Supremacy from Germany. With Strategic Bombing as well as simply better plane designs, they'll still be hammering German factories, and Hitler is still going to be fucking around with the air force. The Hedgehog Depth Charge deployment system, along with improved sonar, tactics, and contact-detonated depth charges essentially ended the effectiveness of U-Boats because Destroyers could find them with greater ease as well as continue to hunt them because their depth charges (no longer timed) aren't making sonar useless.



No Eastern Front to drain manpower = a much much bloodier Ohama beach-head among others. 

Considering Speer was capable of tripling the production of Tigers and Panzer IV's along with various self-propelled artillery and anti-armour weapons in the final year of the war, I severely doubt this.



> With Air and Naval Supremacy (Especially air supremacy), it's going to be relatively similar because anything that moves during the day is going to get bombed into the ground by Allied Air power. That's the biggest thing that the Germans complained about in France: Any time they did anything, they'd get bombed/strafed/rocketed by P-47s and other airplanes.



This could be true, but the British never established true aerial supremacy and the French were consistantly begging Churchill to continually loan them fighters, which Churchill had to dig into the reserve squadrons alloted for England's own defenses. Which I believe out of 49 squadrons, 10 squadrons were already in France, with more than half missing more than 70% of their squadrons; as well as being low on parts, fuel and logistical supplies to keep them running.



> - Poland was invaded on both sides, and would have put up more of a fight if not for their own two-front war. Germany could have also been easily stopped if France had decided to continue it's invasion into Germany, which it had toyed with but decided against.



The USSR's invasion of Eastern Poland makes very little difference. They were still using out-dated fighters, I think out of the entire Polish Air Force, only 117 were listed as being modern. Not too mention they were still heavily reliant on bolt action rifles and had almost no modern tanks (post 1933+) at all in their military.



> - Holland, Denmark, and Czechoslovakia don't count. The Czechs were sold out and there simply was no fighting. Denmark surrendered in a day because they knew they couldn't fight off with a much smaller, completely out-of-date military.



Holland had German paratroopers launching into their port cities for one. It was less to do with their military's level of power (still beyond in quality to Poland's, even if inferior in quantity) due to Germany's effectiveness in capturing strategic industrial and economic centers early on.


----------



## Fang (Aug 28, 2009)

Continued Part 2: character limit blah blah blah.



> The Dutch surrendered because of terror bombings after 4 days.



I don't have my source on me now from my old WW2 Military History class but I think your wrong here.



> Czechoslovakia is the only one of the three that could be considered more than a military speedbump, and that was gone after Hitler took his "Garden" (Along with the most defensible Czech positions) back.
> - Belgium is somewhat justified, though they did contract a German builder to build their lynchpin fort against the Germans.



They still had more than 35 modern divisions to field, which were smashed like nothing.



> - The French and BEF had the Germans stopped in Belgium until the breakout in the rear area from Germans advancing through the Ardennes. That was a complete gamble, and admittedly it worked.



A more in-depth answer to counter this will be posted later.



> - Norway also has a lot of legitimacy, though the Brits splitting their forces due to political wranglings helped there as well.



I'm not sure this is true since like the Dutch Admirality, the Norwegians had to deal with heavy attacks from German paratroopers and gliders before they could mount an effective military response.

Or I'm confusing them with the Dutch again.



> - Greece was actually much later (Almost exactly two years after Poland), and done with large Italian and Bulgarian aid (In fact, most Greek units were fighting Italians, not Germans), but credit where credit is due. Greece wasn't much of a heavy hitter, but their terrain was certainly not nice to traverse, and they managed well.



Because of Italy's inability to persecute a proper dispatch of the Greeks due to Greece being such a mountaineous area (not very proper for tanks, weather conditions can also become violent enough for Stukas to be utterly ineffective) and the British as well as Canadian and Australian forces had to perform a much smaller version of Dunkirk to avoid annihilation of nearly tens of thousands BEF troopers.



> Okay, now I'm not completely trashing their accomplishments. They crossed a lot of road by the time the Blitz came about. But I think that a lot of their early victories tend to lead people to overstate their effectiveness. Out of all of them, only two (France and Norway) were really big victories, and had critical Allied mistakes which allowed them to be done so quickly.



Not true. Belgium was a major victory as well for the Wehrmact.



> We're not going to just roll over Germany, but victory for the US is utterly inevitable. The industrial power and adaptability is so much greater than Russia's, and it has a lot more manpower than Germany does. Invading a much stronger German force presents a problem, but facing a much larger American force helps that. The Pacific Fleet in the Atlantic would also help a lot.



I don't deny Germany will lose to combined American and British forces on a singular Western Front but like the British predicated with the Japanese Empire, it won't end till probably 1948 or 1949; if we're starting from 1944. The merger Austria and Germany established a huge manpower reserve for Germany, which already was fielding more than 3.5 million men on the Eastern Front against Russia alone. And that's not counting the Waffen SS, SS, and what not.

Their industrial capacity under Speer's guiding hand massively outscales everything in the world at that point barring the US and USSR. Their ability to create super tanks like the Tiger and Panzer IV as well as heavily effective Panthers and anti-armor weapons given them a huge edge as well.

Hell they have the oil fields of Roumania, Yugoslavia and the support of the Bulgarians and Hungarians as well.

And if the military industry's technicans and engineers actually listen to the advice of the OKW, the Air Force and Navy under Canaris and Goerings might actually be able to develop enough bombers, fighters and U-boats to continue the FAT YEARS of 1940 and 1941 to heavily cripple for example, the British fight if not possibly to the point of starving them out of the war and leaving the US on it's lonesome.

Remember, if we're talking about the Allies having to fight and breach Fortress Europe on the Western Front without the benefit of the USSR draining the majority of German military might, it could takes year before the losses would be considered worth losing all those military units to breach the beaches of Normandy or penetrate Italy.

The Western Front for Germany from France to Roumania is a smaller area than the Eastern Front ie Ukraine, south and western Russia (Kiev, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Caucaus mountain, Crimea) in it's entirety by a signifigant scale.



> Britain would have the most trouble beating Germany, and I expressed as such.



Truth be known Britain has no chance on it's own of breaching or invading Fortress Europe or taking on the entirety of the German army and air force.



> Germany might be able to go all out and beat Britain, but it's going to be a World War I-style sacrifice. There's no way they're taking the British Isles without a ridiculous amount of casualties. Britain could draw from their colonial resources and perhaps make it into France (considering German technology would be significantly different if they didn't face the Russian army), but it'll probably bog down into a stalemate.



If the Japanese were included, most of their resources between Burma and the Solomons won't be helping the British just like in the actual war. And Germany was also getting help from the Iraq and Iran due to their resentment of French and English colonialism.

Hell that's half the reason we Persians were invaded in the north and south by a detachment of British Expeditionary Forces and the Asiatic divisions of the USSR.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Aug 28, 2009)

TWF said:


> Your confusing the Waffen SS detachments with the regular SS and Gestapo units attached to the Wehrmact regulars on the Western Front.



I don't think I am. I wouldn't say training was the real difference with the units, but rather a high level of motivation and the best equipment the German army could provide.



> The British presence in the Pacific was almost non-existant compared to their naval and army forces in the Atlantic. The last major group of warships were a group of two heavy but heavily outdated WWI destroyers, a few other light cruisers and what not.
> 
> Once the Japanese crushed those in late 1940, it was really them just fighting the Japanese in and around Burma. I think your over-rating the British Empire at this point.



I'm not thinking as much warships as manpower. The British Navy was good enough to tackle the Germans, manpower and other resources are what really could help.



> And as for industrial bases, Germany badly outproduced and developed tanks, artillery, U-boats, motorized vehicles for the infantry, ect...vs the British barely matching pace with the amoutn of Spitfires they were losing during the Blitz.



This is true, however I didn't think it would be against the rules for the Americans to Lend-Lease vehicles. While it wouldn't be up to American capacity during the war, we could still sell to them.



> No Eastern Front to drain manpower = a much much bloodier Ohama beach-head among others.



Obviously, however I think we'd go the Operation: Dragoon route if Britain wasn't actively involved. Landing in French Algeria and using that as a staging point for a landing in Southern France would be much more beneficial. Considering the Channel's miserable weather, basing out of the Med would allow for new resources like Aircraft Carriers to come into play. Plus, the terrain in Southern France is much, much nicer than the hedgerows in the north.



> Considering Speer was capable of tripling the production of Tigers and Panzer IV's along with various self-propelled artillery and anti-armour weapons in the final year of the war, I severely doubt this.



True, but we're talk



> This could be true, but the British never established true aerial supremacy and the French were consistantly begging Churchill to continually loan them fighters, which Churchill had to dig into the reserve squadrons alloted for England's own defenses. Which I believe out of 49 squadrons, 10 squadrons were already in France, with more than half missing more than 70% of their squadrons; as well as being low on parts, fuel and logistical supplies to keep them running.



I'll concede this more for Britain; I'll state right now that I'm really arguing more for the US, as I'm far, far more knowledgeable about US equipment, followed by Russian equipment and a decent knowledge of what the Brits were running around in.



> The USSR's invasion of Eastern Poland makes very little difference. They were still using out-dated fighters, I think out of the entire Polish Air Force, only 117 were listed as being modern. Not too mention they were still heavily reliant on bolt action rifles and had almost no modern tanks (post 1933+) at all in their military.



While they still would have lost, the stunning speed at which they lost was largely due to Russia suddenly invading them from behind. I think it would have taken a bit longer with more stubborn Polish resistance if they didn't have two larger armies closing in on them.



> Holland had German paratroopers launching into their port cities for one. It was less to do with their military's level of power (still beyond in quality to Poland's, even if inferior in quantity) due to Germany's effectiveness in capturing strategic industrial and economic centers early on.



I'm not convinced they were that much superior in quality to Poland's, or at least as willing to fight as stubbornly as the Poles would have if they didn't have two armies smashing them from both sides. I'm not sure I see any real difference in troop quality and not enough in quality of technology to make much of a difference.

Continued in my second post.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Aug 28, 2009)

TWF said:


> I don't have my source on me now from my old WW2 Military History class but I think your wrong here.



The leveling of Rotterdam had a big part in surrendering like they did, although they did have holdouts for a few more days.



> They still had more than 35 modern divisions to field, which were smashed like nothing.



Belgium should really be included in with the BEF and France, now that I think about it. Not in that they were a real great army, but that they didn't do any fighting without them.



> A more in-depth answer to counter this will be posted later.



I look forward to it. But every telling I've had essentially has the British and French battling well in Belgium until the breakout behind them cuts them off and completely disrupts their rear areas. That's right from my own professors.



> I'm not sure this is true since like the Dutch Admirality, the Norwegians had to deal with heavy attacks from German paratroopers and gliders before they could mount an effective military response.
> 
> Or I'm confusing them with the Dutch again.



Well, I'm talking about the British response. Paratroopers did capture targets

However, we should bear in mind that after Crete, Hitler pulled a Wilhelm grounded all Falschirmjaeger units (When, to be honest, they just needed a few procedural changes).



> Because of Italy's inability to persecute a proper dispatch of the Greeks due to Greece being such a mountaineous area (not very proper for tanks, weather conditions can also become violent enough for Stukas to be utterly ineffective) and the British as well as Canadian and Australian forces had to perform a much smaller version of Dunkirk to avoid annihilation of nearly tens of thousands BEF troopers.



Yes, but the British and Greeks were outnumbered in the 2:1 area, with the British and Greeks barely had any equipment at the time.



> Not true. Belgium was a major victory as well for the Wehrmact.



For me, Belgium and France are essentially the same, because the French were still fighting in Belgium when the Germans busted into France. Simple misunderstanding.



> I don't deny Germany will lose to combined American and British forces on a singular Western Front but like the British predicated with the Japanese Empire, it won't end till probably 1948 or 1949; if we're starting from 1944. The merger Austria and Germany established a huge manpower reserve for Germany, which already was fielding more than 3.5 million men on the Eastern Front against Russia alone. And that's not counting the Waffen SS, SS, and what not.



See, I assumed before Barbarossa, since we are talking about individual allies fighting. I think we are talking vastly different armies here. The Panther and the Tiger are never going to be designed if their other tanks aren't tested against the Russians.

This means two things:
- Germany will be producing more reliable, faster tanks rather than resource hogs.
- British and American designs will still be fairly effective against the majority of German armor.



> Their industrial capacity under Speer's guiding hand massively outscales everything in the world at that point barring the US and USSR. Their ability to create super tanks like the Tiger and Panzer IV as well as heavily effective Panthers and anti-armor weapons given them a huge edge as well.



I disagree with a lot of Speer's "Guiding Hand". Super-Heavy tanks were effective tactically, but a ridiculous drain strategically and still vulnerable to air power. By 1944, we're seeing things like Firefly, the Jackson, and the 90mm AT/AA gun (Which had been around since the damned start of the war), as well as the British producing better Armor piercing ammo.

Plus, I believe German factories only started working a third shift in 1944, and never utilized the full industrial base of their holdings at all. I think Speer, while strong in some areas, really limited Germany's ability to produce in other ways due to ideology.



> Hell they have the oil fields of Roumania, Yugoslavia and the support of the Bulgarians and Hungarians as well.



This is an important point. There might have to be multiple Ploesti raids to slow them down, if at all.



> And if the military industry's technicans and engineers actually listen to the advice of the OKW, the Air Force and Navy under Canaris and Goerings might actually be able to develop enough bombers, fighters and U-boats to continue the FAT YEARS of 1940 and 1941 to heavily cripple for example, the British fight if not possibly to the point of starving them out of the war and leaving the US on it's lonesome.



True, but when have they ever? 

I mean, you can talk about similar things with the Americans, too. Imagine if Lesley McNair hadn't hindered US tank upgrades by trying to keep with the outdated "Tank Destroyer" doctrine? What if the US Admiral in charge of the Atlantic had decided to actually _listen_ to the British and not bring about a second "Happy Time"? I think it's one of the strengths of the Allies that they really learned more from their mistakes than the Nazis did.



> Remember, if we're talking about the Allies having to fight and breach Fortress Europe on the Western Front without the benefit of the USSR draining the majority of German military might, it could takes year before the losses would be considered worth losing all those military units to breach the beaches of Normandy or penetrate Italy.



Again, I'd land in Southern France. Ideal weather to use the superior American Fleet in the Med, as well as excellent landing areas. Just avoid Italy altogether (I'm just using Nazi Germany), and Normandy is too crowded with Hedgerows to want to mount an attack on.



> The Western Front for Germany from France to Roumania is a smaller area than the Eastern Front ie Ukraine, south and western Russia (Kiev, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Caucaus mountain, Crimea) in it's entirety by a signifigant scale.



No disagreement.



> Truth be known Britain has no chance on it's own of breaching or invading Fortress Europe or taking on the entirety of the German army and air force.



I don't know if it's impossible for them to breach Fortress Europe, but I don't think they stand a chance of actually making it into Germany.



> If the Japanese were included, most of their resources between Burma and the Solomons won't be helping the British just like in the actual war. And Germany was also getting help from the Iraq and Iran due to their resentment of French and English colonialism.



But the units that were in India and Australia to defend against possible invasion would be useful.

And on the Middle East, it's not like the British or French didn't deserve something for Sykes-Pico. 



> Hell that's half the reason we Persians were invaded in the north and south by a detachment of British Expeditionary Forces and the Asiatic divisions of the USSR.



Not just Persians, but Iraqis and others.

More interestingly, allow me to note a few more things: The Germans had problems getting Tungsten after Hitler (Rather surprisingly) kept his word to Japan and stopped supplying the Chinese with German equipment. In this scenario, are we assuming he still does? That would certainly help out with tank shell penetrators, among other things.


----------



## God (Aug 28, 2009)

Battle of the militants? ....


----------



## Guy Gardner (Aug 28, 2009)

Well, it's an interesting discussion. TWF is certainly more knowledgeable (I'm more of a 19th Century/Victoriana guy), but I'm just putting in my points.


----------



## God (Aug 28, 2009)

Well that's cool too


----------



## Fang (Aug 28, 2009)

I'm just curious but aside from the Tiger (which I admit thanks to Dr. Porsche being inexperienced when it comes to the skills of technican work), what tank is better all-around from the Americans and British to the Panzer IV barring the Russian T-34?


----------



## Lord Stark (Aug 28, 2009)

US solos the same way it defeated Japan.  Its massive fleet+Atom bomb makes Germany beg...on its knees for unconditional surrender.


----------



## Amatsu (Aug 28, 2009)

I thought this thread was over long ago. I'm surprised it's still going on.

But on the other hand I do have to agree with TWF. If Germany hadn't tried to conquer the vast lands of Russia it would have been a lot harder to take back France let alone get into it considering how much resistance the Germans would put into it.

Taking Normandy was one of the toughest battles on the European front, and we didn't even face the full extent of Germany's resistance at that point. I think that says a lot. Even so Germany won't be blitzing anyone. If Germany WOULD win it would be after a long, drawn out fight in which hundreds of thousands of lives would be lost.


----------



## Caedus (Aug 28, 2009)

Germany didnt have to deal with the United State's Pacific Fleet. I'm pretty sure that could have made a pretty big difference if they were at D-Day


----------



## Guy Gardner (Aug 28, 2009)

TWF said:


> I'm just curious but aside from the Tiger (which I admit thanks to Dr. Porsche being inexperienced when it comes to the skills of technican work), what tank is better all-around from the Americans and British to the Panzer IV barring the Russian T-34?



It's really a fist-fight between the Pz IV and the Sherman. The Pz IV is an adaptable design which provided the chassis for a variety of different gun platforms, carried a very good 75mm gun, and had good speed and profile. While it might have had slightly thinner armor than the Sherman, the difference doesn't mean much in comparison to the average gun the Western Allies were wielding.

On the other hand, the Sherman is reliable, fast, and built well for fast armored warfare. While it lacked the heavy armor of some German and Russian designs, it was more efficient than a lot of those, being simple to repair and generally nice on their crews (The Russians absolutely loved the Shermans as it had much more space for their crews than the cramped T-34. They were saved exclusively for Guards units.). It's just as adaptable as the Pz IV and served very well after the war, where it came into direct contact with T-34/85s in Korea. Improved ammo proved decisive in those cases. It also had better stabilizers and much faster turret traverse (Something common across most US designs compared to German designs). The biggest problems it has is using gas engines (FWOOOM!!) and having such a high profile.

Maybe after those, you can put in the Panther. It's not as inefficient or strategically limited as the Tiger, though I'd say it's more trouble than its worth considering how air power can be devastating to most heavy-armored tanks. Really, they missed the point of the T-34 by making it as big as they did. Oh well.

Another question: Rate the top 3 tank destroyers, and reasons why.


----------



## Fang (Aug 28, 2009)

Interesting. When you say tank-destroyer do you mean with self-propelled anti-armor weapons or infantry grade stuff?

Panzershrecks could wreck them, but then again I remember hearing from my Professor (admittingly that this was three years ago) that the T-34's were so resiliant that some special Task Force units ie Waffen SS had to use multiple grenades and satchel charges to take them down.


----------



## Amatsu (Aug 28, 2009)

C4 charges and land mines would be sufficient ways of destroying tanks as well. Except you'd have to get really close with the former.


----------



## Altron (Aug 28, 2009)

Captain Smoker said:


> Ok, all of us *History sufficient people *know that it took 3 super powers to defeat Nazi Germany. Britain, Russia, and US all worked together to take down the Ultra power.



You "History Suficient?" 



> BUT...I ask WHAT IF, Nazi Germany faced America, Britain and Russia one on one. NO outside help. So that means no extra supplies from allies, no allied troops on other fronts fighting your enemy, etc. They are ALL independent.


RAF > Luftwaffe, Royal Navy > Kriegsmarine. If Germany can't control the skies then they can't get a safe way to land on the British Isles without being blown into oblivion. German tanks were pretty much the best in WWII, Germans no doubt could make some kick ass tanks that are deadly. But those dangerous tanks are useless if they can not be used on land and bombed while transport across the english channel.



> IMO, Britian gets stomped. Thats obvious. Germany could have easily blitzkrieg Britain, but they chose to conquer Poland and France first.


 for someone who is "History Sufficient" you obviously have never heard of the Battle of Britain and the rescue at Dunkirk. 



> Russia puts up a fight but in the end, Moscow is taken. I mean they lost 20 million people to Nazi Germany and this was WITH US/Britain supplying the shit out of them with food, weapons, etc. AND this was with US and Britain occupying 30 % of the Nazi forces on another front.


Considering how every attempt to invade Russia ends in utter failure, Germany falls to scorched earth policy and harassment. You would think Hitler would learn from history about the near impossibility of controlling all of the Russian Territory. Sure they can probably get Moscow, St. Petersburg, though they would be near impossible to hold on to, especially with the harsh Russian Winter and the Russian's united in driving out the enemy and harassing/sabotaging everything from soldiers to supplies to tanks/vehicles.

Having the best equipment means shit if you can not use it to its full advantage.



> Now we get to the great ol USA. Basically USA lucks out because of where they are located. USA is separated from Europe and Asia by two big oceans which benefits the shit out of them. No way Germany is crossing the Atlantic and invading the US successfully. No country can. I call a stalemate. Both countries decide it isnt worth it.


Nazi Germany gets blown out of the water before they can even make it to the east coast, the fact that the huge distance and long wait times for resupply and reinforcements makes a long range siege of the US by Germany impossible considering it's size, and resources. This is not taking into account USA using its Navy and Air Force to harass and bomb any relief supply and reinforcements. Lay down some mines across the East Coast and watch Nazi ships get blown out of the water. Pretty much attacking the enemy unprepared will give the attack a huge advantage.

Postcount +1


----------



## Guy Gardner (Aug 28, 2009)

TWF said:


> Interesting. When you say tank-destroyer do you mean with self-propelled anti-armor weapons or infantry grade stuff?
> 
> Panzershrecks could wreck them, but then again I remember hearing from my Professor (admittingly that this was three years ago) that the T-34's were so resiliant that some special Task Force units ie Waffen SS had to use multiple grenades and satchel charges to take them down.



Really. I suppose the deflection from the angled armor would be irritating for something like a Panzershreck.

And I'm talking about the vehicles. Any vehicle whose primary function is towards tank destruction, from the Elefant to the Sdkfz 222 w/28mm tapier bore, if you so choose.

But as for hand-held weapons:

1) The Panzerfaust: I don't even think this is arguable. This thing made any person holding it into a tank-killer. Easy to use, easy to produce, devastatingly effective.

2) The Panzershreck: An excellent redesign of the bazooka with a few flaws (Watch your hands and keep your face behind that blast shield, son). Could take out just about any tank you could throw at it outside of the crazier ones. Eventually the US took the idea of sizing up and created the Super Bazooka.

3) The Bazooka: While less powerful, the concept behind it inspired the Panzershrek, and it was far more common. I might switch the two based on a "Standing on the shoulders of giants" and simple commonality, but I'll keep it as is.

The PIAT is up there, and after that things you'd have to throw or plan (Gammon Grenades, Teller Mines, Satchel Charges). The Sticky Bomb (The British one, not from _Saving Private Ryan_) would be dead last. Good luck _not_ getting yourself killed with that thing.


----------



## Amatsu (Aug 28, 2009)

Honestly I'd put more faith in anti-tank gun emplacements, but that's just me.


----------



## Altron (Aug 28, 2009)

Amatsu said:


> Honestly I'd put more faith in anti-tank gun emplacements, but that's just me.


Well pretty much it was the effectiveness and ingenuity of the German Tanks like the Panzer IV, Leopard, and Tiger that gave Germany the most powerful Mechanized divisions and helped out with the Blitzkrieg.


----------



## Amatsu (Aug 28, 2009)

Altron said:


> Well pretty much it was the effectiveness and ingenuity of the German Tanks like the Panzer IV, Leopard, and Tiger that gave Germany the most powerful Mechanized divisions and helped out with the Blitzkrieg.



True. Rommel and his men in North Africa proved just how strong the armored division was.


----------



## Fang (Aug 28, 2009)

Guy Gardner said:


> Really. I suppose the deflection from the angled armor would be irritating for something like a Panzershreck.
> 
> And I'm talking about the vehicles. Any vehicle whose primary function is towards tank destruction, from the Elefant to the Sdkfz 222 w/28mm tapier bore, if you so choose.
> 
> ...



The best part about the Panzerfaust was the lack of recoil and later additions featuring sights. 

Although it was pretty bad that the Wehrmact didn't develop one that could be reused with multiple shots till after October 1943 because of the mechanical firing charge being used up in one-shot for the Panzerfaust 60.



> 2) The Panzershreck: An excellent redesign of the bazooka with a few flaws (Watch your hands and keep your face behind that blast shield, son). Could take out just about any tank you could throw at it outside of the crazier ones. Eventually the US took the idea of sizing up and created the Super Bazooka.



It's an 88mm canon more or less. To my knowledge these things fucked up T-34's and KV1's; well in the former's case from side and rear hits. 



> The PIAT is up there, and after that things you'd have to throw or plan (Gammon Grenades, Teller Mines, Satchel Charges). The Sticky Bomb (The British one, not from _Saving Private Ryan_) would be dead last. Good luck _not_ getting yourself killed with that thing.



Wasn't there a poorly modeled self-propelled artillery piece dedicated to anti-tank roles designed by Dr. Porsche that had no anti-infantry weapons? I remember hearing that this think was killing the production of Panthers and Panzer IV's.



Altron said:


> Well pretty much it was the effectiveness and ingenuity of the German Tanks like the Panzer IV, Leopard, and Tiger that gave Germany the most powerful Mechanized divisions and helped out with the Blitzkrieg.



Not exactly true. During the fights with Poland and the battle of France and Belgium, the German Army had very few Panzer IV's or Panzer III's available to them. It was the superior tactics of Guderian and Hoth that won the day over the technically superior French armor.


----------



## Divine Saint Of Aries (Aug 28, 2009)

Well i believe Germany could of been all three Countries by itself but failed for many reasons, Well anyways 1 vs 1 Both Russia and Great Britain would fail miserably. But the U.S. on the other hand, I do not know.


----------



## Omnirix (Aug 28, 2009)

I don't think Blitzkrieg would work on America considering its so far away and it got 2 oceans separating itself from the Old World. The Nazis would need to take over Russia and get there via Bering Bridge or something.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Aug 29, 2009)

TWF said:


> Wasn't there a poorly modeled self-propelled artillery piece dedicated to anti-tank roles designed by Dr. Porsche that had no anti-infantry weapons? I remember hearing that this think was killing the production of Panthers and Panzer IV's.



_Ja, ja_, that's the Elefant/Ferdinand. No machine gun or anything. It's arguably the poster child for the "Bigger is better" excess that Germany indulged in.



> Not exactly true. During the fights with Poland and the battle of France and Belgium, the German Army had very few Panzer IV's or Panzer III's available to them. It was the superior tactics of Guderian and Hoth that won the day over the technically superior French armor.



Very much true. French doctrine (Which De Gaulle argued with endlessly before the war) used tanks solely in support of infantry, and had them spread rather than concentrated. The French Char Bis 1, while unreliable, was a monster for its time, along with good little tanks like the Souma. I'm not sure concentrating them would have worked (Since the Char Bis is miserably slow and Germany controlled the skies), but it would have made things significantly harder.


----------



## Platinum (Aug 29, 2009)

Divine Saint Of Aries said:


> Well i believe Germany could of been all three Countries by itself but failed for many reasons, Well anyways 1 vs 1 Both Russia and Great Britain would fail miserably. But the U.S. on the other hand, I do not know.



Please, Russia after Stalingrad was plenty strong enough to take out Germany by itself. There is no way that the Nazi's could have conquered all of the U.S.S.R.


----------



## Divine Saint Of Aries (Aug 29, 2009)

Platinum said:


> Please, Russia after Stalingrad was plenty strong enough to take out Germany by itself. There is no way that the Nazi's could have conquered all of the U.S.S.R.



Yes after Stalingrad the Wehrmacht started to fall apart on the Eastern Front.

But if i remember correctly Germany nearly reached Moscow at the beginning of the Invasion but the harsh Winter was what stopped them, And even then Stalingrad was nearly taken, If i remember correctly 90 percent of Stalingrad was taken by Germany and it's Allies at there peak.

Edit: If i also remember correctly the only reason why Stalingrad was defended so greatly was: Japan was meant to Invade the Soviet Union but called off the attack, This meant Soviet Troops that were meant to fight the Japanese were sent to reinforce Stalingrad.


----------



## Platinum (Aug 29, 2009)

Divine Saint Of Aries said:


> Yes after Stalingrad the Wehrmacht started to fall apart on the Eastern Front.
> 
> But if i remember correctly Germany nearly reached Moscow at the beginning of the Invasion but the harsh Winter was what stopped them, And even then Stalingrad was nearly taken, If i remember correctly 90 percent of Stalingrad was taken by Germany and it's Allies at there peak.
> 
> Edit: If i also remember correctly the only reason why Stalingrad was defended so greatly was: Japan was meant to Invade the Soviet Union but called off the attack, This meant Soviet Troops that were meant to fight the Japanese were sent to reinforce Stalingrad.



You are deluding yourself if you believe that the war would have ended if the Nazis captured Stalingrad or Moscow. The Soviets were fully aware that they were fighting for their vary survival.


----------



## Divine Saint Of Aries (Aug 29, 2009)

Platinum said:


> You are deluding yourself if you believe that the war would have ended if the Nazis captured Stalingrad or Moscow. The Soviets were fully aware that they were fighting for their vary survival.



Capturing Stalingrad or Moscow at there respective times would of greatly reduced Russian Supplies, Morale Etc. Eventually leading to a quick Russian defeat.


----------



## Zoidberg (Aug 29, 2009)

Actually even if Moscow or Stalingrad fell the Soviets still had a lot of strongholds they can fall back to, like Siberia or the Caucasian mountains.


----------



## Divine Saint Of Aries (Aug 29, 2009)

battlerek said:


> Actually even if Moscow or Stalingrad fell the Soviets still had a lot of strongholds they can fall back to, like Siberia or the Caucasian mountains.



You are correct, But let's say Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow were all captured by Germany and held too, Supplies, Soldiers, Morality, Etc. would fall greatly and MIGHT lead to a quick Russian defeat.


----------



## Fang (Aug 29, 2009)

The Russians had nowhere to fall back to once the Germans were within 33 miles of Moscow, even Stalin ordered a halt to retreats and escapes since he made it simple to the Commissars and his field Marshals: " There will be no further retreats. There isn't anywhere else to retreat to anyways. "


----------



## Zoidberg (Aug 29, 2009)

But weren't there Industrial facilities in the Caucasus, or am I going too far ahead and thinking of the Cold War?


----------



## Sazabi24 (Aug 29, 2009)

battlerek said:


> But weren't there Industrial facilities in the Caucasus, or am I going too far ahead and thinking of the Cold War?



Didn't they move their industries eastward because of the German advance?


----------



## Watchman (Aug 29, 2009)

There were industrial facilities past the Urals, and Stalin had major industrial facilities in Moscow taken apart and sent by train to these east-of-Urals locations. Hardly the action of someone who's willing to give up the moment Moscow falls. :S


----------



## Fang (Aug 29, 2009)

You are confusing manpower and political centers of gravity with the USSR's industrial bases and factories being moved past the Urals.


----------



## Sengoku (Sep 5, 2009)

US's mass production > Germany.


----------



## Rated R Superstar (Sep 5, 2009)

Let's not forget, Nazi Germany also had help. They didn't take on Britain, US, and Russia all by themselves.


----------



## HumanWine (Sep 5, 2009)

England wouldve been stomped hard by Germany I dont really seem them being wiped out if America stepped. Russia would do fine without much help like history shows. Russian winters>>>>>>>> Nazi's and Hitler's arrogance. Hell, if England falls and Hitler has the balls attack America's home land, lol, most of his Army would be trying to defeat "The Mother Land" Russia with the US sending in reinforcements. Eventually Hitler's army will give in. 

I'd call it a 10 year war if no nukes are involved and Hitler has his arrogance in check.


----------

