Which German army was more powerful for it's time?
Imperial German Army of WW1 or Wehrmacht of WW2?
>>318093
WW1, its not even close really
Ww2, if you count. 1939m although by 1945 most of their tech was stolen, they still where far ahead using thr v2, stg44, and jet fighters.
WWII.
Fought biggest alliance ever and almost win.
>>318093
WW2. the imperial german army was closely matched by that of France, as the static trench proved.
>>318135
>almost win.
Not even close m8
>>318135
where do people get maps like this? do they make them at home?
>>318135
What is that map supposed to show anyway? Its not really accurate.
>>318135
pffft what the fuck am I looking at.
>>318149
They did almost win.
If stalingrad hadn't been such a huge loss for them, the Nazis wouldn't have lost the momentum they needed to take Moscow. Get the Soviets to capitulate in 1943 and it's all ogre now for the Allies.
>>318135
Huh?
>>318164
>people actually believe this
>>318164
>muh stalingrad
>>318149
While saying that they almost won is a stretch, it's no lie that Stalin was toying with the idea of a peace talk.
Also, Stalin lost face in the initial phase of the war as he did not believe the germans would attack. He thought he was going to be arrested by the politburo. If he had been, the war would surely have been over.
>>318174
>>318175
Please explain how i'm wrong, because this was my understanding.
The Wehrmacht committed hundreds of thousands of soldiers to fighting for a city that was significant literally only in name, so when they got out maneuvered by the Soviets and committed even more resources to its capture, this force's defeat was calamitous for the Third Reich.
If they had ignored Stalingrad, captured the oil fields to the south instead, and then later attacked northward, how would the Soviets have stopped the Nazis?
>>318188
>If they had ignored Stalingrad, captured the oil fields to the south instead, and then later attacked northward, how would the Soviets have stopped the Nazis?
I'm pretty sure that OKH never thought of that and only an armchair general like you is correct. Surely Soviets would never launch an offensive to cut off the Germans in Caucasus.
>>318093
WW1 and its not even close.
WW2 Germany was a meme army prooped up by NAZI STRONK faggots. WW1 they could actually invade and hold their own against armies, but in WW2, they were only good at delivering a strong quick surprise attack and hoping it would knock their enemy out, but they couldnt really take a hit themselves.
Also, Germany actually had a chance of winning WW1 while they didnt in WW2
Everybody who said WW2 army is an idiot
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/brussels.htm
>Boredom gave way to wonder. The thing fascinated you, against your will, dragged you back to the sidewalk and held you there open-eyed. No longer was it regiments of men marching, but something uncanny, inhuman, a force of nature like a landslide, a tidal wave, or lava sweeping down a mountain. It was not of this earth, but mysterious, ghostlike. It carried all the mystery and menace of a fog rolling toward you across the sea.
>>318175
>murrika singlehandedly won
Please go grab burgers somewhere else, you fat subhuman piece of shit.
Imperial Germany for it's time, there was better military leadership, and not an army or nation starved by hyperinflation, depression, Versailles treaty etc.
German empire completely routed Russia, and that it ended in trench warfare in France can't be said to have been due to the equal strength of France and Germany, but that it was a logical consequence of the technologies of the time.
Nazi-Germany could build on the mistakes of Imperial Germany, but like Imperial Germany it was beaten by new technologies, tanks in WWI, radar in WWII, etc.
>>318188
You know, tankograd was pretty important. Also, if they ignored Stalingrad, their flank would have been wide open to the Soviets. They were overextended, their supply lines too long, they would have been in the middle of enemy teritory in the middle of winter with one flank wide open and inferior numbers. It's really not a question who would have won. The Soviets could also function without Moscow (that is implying they couldn't hold on to it, which they could), as some of their industry was moved eastward, behind the Ural.
>>318233
>dat inferiority complex
>>318188
1.The fact that the Soviet army was a mobile force, and one in equal strength to the Nazi's.
2.There was a very heavy insurgency behind German lines, and would only get worse and worse the further up the Germans moved
3.Once they breakthrough in the Caucasus they meet allied nations in the middle east which they have to defend against.
4.Their manpower at this point is already stretched to the breaking point
5.There would eventually have to be huge slogging sieges (Leningrad, Moscow, ect ect ect).
6.The soviets showed no signs of capitulating.
>>318264
(Just remembered a few points)
7.The Nazi allies expected to hold the supply lines (Italians, Hungarians, ect) were underequipped and heavily demorilized
8. There was still the developing second front.
9.Allied air campaigns were a bitch.
>>318093
Germany did much better in WW1, but that's mostly because their opposition was weaker.
The Wermacht and SS were more efficient in conquest and the violent suppression of potential uprisings. They had some tactically brilliant commanders, but high-up strategic failures (many of them caused by ideological idiocy) rendered much of that talent moot.
>>318093
Imperial German because WW2 Germans had fucking Goering for leader of the air forces.
Also, they were sexy Prussians.
>>318135
Hahaha the war was won before D-Day.
The Nazis were completely outgunned, outspent, and outnumbered by the US and the Soviets, and had the Pacific Theater not been such a significant distraction, many more American resources would have been directed toward Europe.
German idealism prevented them from surrendering to the Judeo-Bolshevo-Capitalist conspiracy that somehow controlled both the US and the Soviets, and their refusal to surrender until the occupation of Berlin meant that the war ended on horrible terms for Germany.
>>318093
WW1 Wehrmacht was better placed strategically.
WW2 Wehrmacht had relatively larger technological and tactical edge over their enemies.
But strategy>tactics so therefore: WW1>WW2 Wehrmacht
>>318320
>German idealism prevented them from surrendering to the Judeo-Bolshevo-Capitalist conspiracy that somehow controlled both the US and the Soviets, and their refusal to surrender until the occupation of Berlin meant that the war ended on horrible terms for Germany.
Thats more with Hitler being a selfish shitty leader
>>318329
>WW1 Wehrmacht
It's called "Deutsches Heer"
>>318436
I knew something was wrong there, thanks for the info.
>>318215
>couldnt really take a hit themselves
Somebody hasnt looked up combat statistics. German soldiers had the highest combat effectivenesa throughout the war.
Not gonna fetch source on phone, but in battles their k/d fluctuated between 1.3 to 10+. The lowest they ever had was 1.1.
>>318164
m7 the battle of moscow came way before stalingrad
Wouldn't Roon/Moltke Germany be the strongest Germany?
My impression is Germany is like Japan in that they had amazing leadership in the late 19th century (Bismarck/Roon/Moltke, the Meiji aristocrats) and that their strength in the next one was mostly inherited from them.
If you only use Western Europe as a comparison, the HRE at its best was the strongest power in Europe, as well.
Pic related gay af so Wehrmacht
>>318188
>If they had ignored Stalingrad, captured the oil fields to the south instead
They had to take Stalingrad for flank defense of Army Group A which was tasked with taking the oil fields. The "both sides fought for Stalingrad because of its name" myth has no basis in fact.
>>318135
>Islamic Empire
What the fuck? I think someone mixed up their map from 742 and 1942
>>318093
ww1 probably, well more so because its enemies were significantly weaker and the fact they were much closer to victory in ww1. In ww2 the Allies were never going to surrender or make peace with Hitler. In ww1 it was pretty likely that, had the Germans captured Paris, the war would end, the stakes weren't nearly as high for the Allies. So I would say the political.diplomatic factors were more important. As for the armies themselves, they were generally very similar, superior training, large numbers on an excellent reserve system and a top notch officer corps.
>>319403
They could have fortified, but they were still overextended. Also, the area is mostly steppe, it's hard to put up a good defence. Meanwhile, Soviets had a lot of raw materials and were building a lot of tanks at great speed. A war of attrition was not an option for Germany, that is why Hitler wanted to end it as quickly as possible. Maintaining occupation is incredibly costly - occupying Northern France put a terrible strain on Germany's budget. That's why they bought Soviet raw materials and Romanian oil en masse before Barbarossa. Germany really needed petrol, and they had to commit a lot of forces (which also required upkeep) to guard Northern France against a possible US/UK invasion and to keep the local populace from rebelling.
>>319449
This si a good point. Despite the grinding stalemate, the Germans were much closer to getting their way in WW1 than WW2. The WW1 army didn't collapse until the end and they actually rekt Russia and very nearly France.
>>318215
>in WW2, they were only good at delivering a strong quick surprise attack and hoping it would knock their enemy out
This was the plan in WW1 too. Germany is in a geographic disadvantage due to lacking natural resources and natural defences. A lengthy war will ALWAYS be in disfavour of the German war effort which is why the only reasonable thing for Germany to do is to knock out every threat as fast as possible in order to avoid wars on multiple fronts.
>>318245
>Nazi-Germany could build on the mistakes of Imperial Germany, but like Imperial Germany it was beaten by new technologies, tanks in WWI, radar in WWII, etc.
Tanks weren't nearly as relevant. Germany was mostly beaten most of all by the naval blockade constricting them and the sheer number of troops and artillery France and Britain were throwing at them. When it came to radar in WW2, German radar was actually more advanced than the radar the Allies had. What beat Germany there was again more strategic failure than anything else.
>>318106
Can someone else good with German clarify why they're called something like "Enlightenment Regiment?"
>>318149
almost win? I'd say its was competitive. Britian would have peaced out if they lost in Africa or if Germany didn't switch to the blitz.
Russia may have talked peace in that situation.
Remember Hitler wasn't seeking conquest or even political change. He would have asked Churchill resign but allowed him to live and write his memoirs in peace.
Stalin would lose territory west of Moscow and continue as head of state of the USSR.
Hitler didn't want total war with unconditional surrender. He wanted a 19th century style short war with exchange of territory.
>>318320
Hitler hoped the Brits and US would seek peace and fight the Russians which was his goal since the 20s.
Wasn't really a dumb strategy IMO. I wouldn't call the cold war a good thing.
>>322337
"Aufklärung" = Enlightenment, Sex Education, Reconnaissance
Take a guess which it refers to in this context.
German WW2 army was just cosplaying WW1 Prussian army of Germany .
And not very well either.
>>318093
ww2.
In ww1 they were ahead of the rest of the world but not enough to push through the combined british and french forces and take Paris.
In ww2 they blitzkried the shit out of every enemy they had and were only stopped by the brutal russian winter and their countless armies.
Would a Japanese invasion of the Soviet East have changed the war's outcome?
>>325984
Maybe If they focused on the soviets and left USA out of the war.
If the axis won the war then the japs would probably be able to crush the americans in a 1 on 1 war, they should've had patience.
>>325508
>blitzkried the shit out of every enemy they had
except for radar towers
>>325984
probably not - they got spanked hard by the soviets before the big war
and despite the soviets pulling troops from the east to the west, they something like doubled (!!!) the number of men they had in the east in the months after barbarossa
>>318341
Other Nazis should have started a coup desu
WW1
The army was more unified, experienced, its commanders were chosen by merit rather than ideology, it had a bigger manpower pool and was economically stronger
They were both shit. Allies stronk.
>>326804
If only they had started developing tanks earlier
And not build shit like this
>>319403
The allied bombing campaigns would have prevented that.
>>318164
They were fucked before they even stepped foot in Russia. Stalingrad just made them bleed out faster
>>318494
>muh k/d ratio
That's not even true: look up shit like 1944 onwards, like Operation Bagration, the Falaise Pocket, or Battle of the Bulge. An average compiled over the whole war is misleading in the sense that it conceals how fucking poorly they were able to handle the war in the last year...if you look at it, it's ironic that as the war went on, Hitler adopted more and more of the unsuccessful methods of Josef Stalin, while as the war went on, Stalin gradually reduced the symbolic retardation of certain battles and he gave his generals more leeway.
>>318288
>Germany did much better in WW1, but that's mostly because their opposition was weaker.
What?
>>326804
You're comparing the best of WWI Germany to the worst of WWII Germany.
WWII Germany had those qualities as well...important to note, but not often considered, is that WWII lasted six years and WWI for four: that's two long years for a lot of change and different developments to happen.
>>326007
Haha. No
The IJN and IJA leadership hated each other, and did cooperate very well. the IJN was obliterated by the USN, and quite frankly by that point japan was starved for fuel and supplies, something the USA had in mass quantities
The USN would of had total naval domination. Able to conduct amphibious operations at will and control the pace and tempo of the entire campaign.
Equipment wise the IJA couldn't hold a candle to the USA armed forces, the casualty rates were high in the taking of Manchuria, which was already starving, in the midst of a civil war and fought with outdated weapons and vehicles.
Hell the IJA had a hard time fighting raftag Brit/American units that were being supplied halfway across the world
The IJA had inferior tanks, crew served weapons, standard issue weapons and gear and were already strained/near depleted on fuel and raw materials.
They would not have stood a chance in a 1 on 1 engagement with the United States
Also they could not Pull of a invasion of the Soviet union. The logistical nightmare of invading a thousands of miles long patch of ice and snow would make most officers seppuku at the thought. Not to mention the soviets could muster more forces in the east than the entire IJA could send to invade the soviets, while fighting in manchuria and the brits in SE Asia
>>329274
*did not cooperate very well
Whoops
>>318093
to sum it up for you op, atleast how i see it in my humble opinion:
WW1:
German Army is highly motivated by jinguism at the start of the war, and has the industrial capabilities to rock out with their cock out. But the Brits, French and Russians on 2 Fronts are way to much to handle at the same time, also the French and Brits were atleast as high equiped as the germans, so well, you know what 4 years of trench warfare is might. Even if the US wouldn't have entered the war in 1917, the war couldn't have been won. The germans were drained out to the brim, their population had to reduce their food rations to support the army which was basicly hiking 4 years in stalement under heavy arty fire and huge meatgrinder battles. EVEN if the germany would have won, the population would be so fucked up that something like the weimar republic would've came up. It wasn't the socialists who revolted in 1918, it were soldiers who were fed up with the nonsensical fighting for 4 years. Please correct me if i got something wrong, i don't want to spread any bullshit.
WW2:
The Wehrmacht was only "superior" because of the blitzkrieg tactics. If germany wouldn't have steamrolled through france and through a huge plain of land in 1941 their military success wouldn't be that significant. Look at africa, even when germany jumped in to help Italy, it was a lost fight. And why? Because the wehrmacht wasn't that much better equipped than the allies, and therefore only the blitzing was their advantage. Take that away, as seen in autumm 1941 or winter 1941/42 and you'll get the same outcome as we have today. Even if germany would've won against french and britain and could concentrate their whole army on the eastern front, they wouldn't have the potential to 1. support that giant frontline and 2. Win the battles of moscow, leningrad and stalingrad.
