Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Germany 1944 vs modern USMC

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    How long before every German headquarters of brigade or larger was annihilated by an artillery barrage due to radio communication?

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Tiberius Duval View Post
      With what force modern USMC could paralyse German road and rail traffic? Yes modern aircrafts are powerfull, but there simply are not numbers enough to paralyse traffic network, bomb out every landline connection and so on. One plane and pilot simply cannot do missions round the clock. Of course where they concentrate their efforst effects can be devastating, but can they concentrate on every German command facility and formation at same time? WW2 US airforce +RAF had thousands of planes, all kinds of bombers, fighter bombers, fighters and so on, they had numbers to strike all around, something modern USMC does not have.

      But realistically speaking if you take Hitler out of picture, and throw doctrine of unconditional surrender out of window rulers of Germany might be quite ready to negotiate peace, especially if said rulers came from military high command.
      Why would they have to do this at the same time? A three or four week surge of air attacks on the transport nexi and nodes of command and communication would so confuse the old force as to negatively affect their ability.

      The precedent for these kinds of operations are Linebacker 2 and the air campaign in Gulf War 1. Simply eliminating or interdicting fuel and food resources would paralyze them.
      "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
      George Mason
      Co-author of the Second Amendment
      during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Cyberknight View Post
        Why would they have to do this at the same time? A three or four week surge of air attacks on the transport nexi and nodes of command and communication would so confuse the old force as to negatively affect their ability.

        The precedent for these kinds of operations are Linebacker 2 and the air campaign in Gulf War 1. Simply eliminating or interdicting fuel and food resources would paralyze them.
        Linebacker II was a complete failure in Vietnam, it did not stop the North Vietamese in defeating the Allies in that war.

        Losses in Linebacker II

        (US Claimed Figures)

        12 Tactical aircraft shot down
        15 B-52's shot down
        5 B-52's (Heavy Damaged or ecconomic write offs, inc 1 crashed in Laos)
        5 B-52's Medium Damage
        43 Killed in Action
        49 Taken Prisoner

        (PAVN Claimed Figures)

        1,624 Civillians Killed
        Unknown Millitary Casualties
        6 Aircraft Shot Down.

        Not bad for a bunch of Jungle Monkeys

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
          Linebacker II was a complete failure in Vietnam, it did not stop the North Vietamese in defeating the Allies in that war.

          Losses in Linebacker II

          (US Claimed Figures)

          12 Tactical aircraft shot down
          15 B-52's shot down
          5 B-52's (Heavy Damaged or ecconomic write offs, inc 1 crashed in Laos)
          5 B-52's Medium Damage
          43 Killed in Action
          49 Taken Prisoner

          (PAVN Claimed Figures)

          1,624 Civillians Killed
          Unknown Millitary Casualties
          6 Aircraft Shot Down.

          Not bad for a bunch of Jungle Monkeys
          OK you obviously do not have a serious approach to military history. I apologize to other members as I had forgotten Roddoss72's bias.

          http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nebacker-2.htm

          "On 25 December 1972 a Christmas Day bombing/tactical air attack recess went into effect during which none of the US air services flew sorties. Heavy raids around Hanoi, which resumed the day after the Christmas bombing halt, were eased as NVN showed indications of returning to the conference table.

          The impact of the bombing was obvious in the severe damage to the North Vietnamese logistic and war-support capability. By 29 December 1972, the 700 nighttime sorties flown by B-52s and 650 daytime strikes by fighter and attack aircraft persuaded the North Vietnamese government to return to the conference table. Linebacker II formally ended on 27 January 1973.

          Bad weather was the main limiting factor on the number of tactical air strikes flown during Linebacker II"
          "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
          George Mason
          Co-author of the Second Amendment
          during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Cyberknight View Post
            OK you obviously do not have a serious approach to military history. I apologize to other members as I had forgotten Roddoss72's bias.

            http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nebacker-2.htm

            "On 25 December 1972 a Christmas Day bombing/tactical air attack recess went into effect during which none of the US air services flew sorties. Heavy raids around Hanoi, which resumed the day after the Christmas bombing halt, were eased as NVN showed indications of returning to the conference table.

            The impact of the bombing was obvious in the severe damage to the North Vietnamese logistic and war-support capability. By 29 December 1972, the 700 nighttime sorties flown by B-52s and 650 daytime strikes by fighter and attack aircraft persuaded the North Vietnamese government to return to the conference table. Linebacker II formally ended on 27 January 1973.

            Bad weather was the main limiting factor on the number of tactical air strikes flown during Linebacker II"
            Bias, hardly.

            Remind us all who won in Vietnam!

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
              Bias, hardly.

              Remind us all who won in Vietnam!
              Sun Tzu tells us that wars are won through the application of both hard (military) and soft (politics) means. The formula for winning Vietnam was more with the soft and less with the hard. However, in a thread dealing the military might of the USMC vs Nazi Germany, analyzing the soft is moot.


              What you fail to understand is the paralyzing effect of accurate munitions on enemy forces. The USMC does not have to destroy all trains. All it has to do is demonstrate the awesome force of dropping one 500lb bomb through the smoke stack of a train by an aircraft that can travel faster than the speed of sound. After a few of these attacks, the message will sink in that anyone on a train is a target. Fear takes over and German transport nodes is as good as paralyzed.

              Secondly, electronic intelligence would determine where Germany's command and control nodes are through their radio traffic. Once these are located, F-18 would drop precision bombs in order to kill command centers of army groups, armies, corps, and divisions. Again, such an attack would basically bring paralysis to an army by destroying communication, the chain of command, and unit cohesion. This would lead to Marine ground overwhelming isolated German units who can't call for help or be reinforced. The German army would not even know that a Marine division is hundreds of miles to their rear.
              Last edited by IDonT4; 25 Apr 12, 21:28.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Cyberknight View Post
                Guys, seriously. Every Republican Guard battalion was not untrained or incapable of modern combined arms combat and the modern coalition forces creamed them.
                I agree, the Tawakalna, Hammurabi, and the Medina divisions that fought and died in 73 Eastings would tore the heart out of any SS Panzer force twice their size.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by IDonT4 View Post
                  Sun Tzu tells us that wars are won through the application of both hard (military) and soft (politics) means. The formula for winning Vietnam was more with the soft and less with the hard. However, in a thread dealing the military might of the USMC vs Nazi Germany, analyzing the soft is moot.


                  What you fail to understand is the paralyzing effect of accurate munitions on enemy forces. The USMC does not have to destroy all trains. All it has to do is demonstrate the awesome force of dropping one 500lb bomb through the smoke stack of a train by an aircraft that can travel faster than the speed of sound. After a few of these attacks, the message will sink in that anyone on a train is a target. Fear takes over and German transport nodes is as good as paralyzed.
                  Sun Tzu was a psychopathic poet.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                    Sun Tzu was a psychopathic poet.
                    And a general who wrote arguable the best military treatise ever. A military treatise that is still relevant 2,500 years after his death.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by IDonT4 View Post
                      And a general who wrote arguable the best military treatise ever. A military treatise that is still relevant 2,500 years after his death.
                      Yes and still the Americans lost Vietnam, so next point.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                        Yes and still the Americans lost Vietnam, so next point.
                        The next point is your line is argument is moot. Secondly, if you read Sun Tzu, you will why the Americans lost.

                        I'll make it easier for you..its in youtube.

                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR4PZExLyv0

                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dU0sBr8lJg

                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGps_gescMk

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by IDonT4 View Post
                          The next point is your line is argument is moot. Secondly, if you read Sun Tzu, you will why the Americans lost.

                          I'll make it easier for you..its in youtube.

                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR4PZExLyv0

                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dU0sBr8lJg

                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGps_gescMk
                          Thank you for a wonderful insight of Sun Tzu.

                          I was talking to a group of vets recently returned from Afghanistan and i actually asked them about the scenario that we are talking about, meaning the 1944 Wehrmacht v 2012 USMC and the background.

                          I asked them who would win, well they knew very well the strengths and weaknesses of both sides and they concluded that the USMC would lose. I asked them why?

                          They pointed that even with the advantage of technology and given that the Germans suffer 50% loss of entrenched positions at Normandy, the USMC landing parties will still come under sustained fire, just to establish a beachead, this is where the casualties will come from, they will land in protection, but most will disembark from vehicles to push forward, this is where thet are most vulnerable, the group concluded that in the first 24hrs the USMC will lose 2,000 to 3,000 dead, add another 10,000 wounded, this is before the USMC landing troops are in a position to even attempt to breakout, the amount of dead and wounded will overload the operating theatres on board the offshore naval vessels, almost half of available assets would be consigned to medi evac, helicopters, hovercrafts, Amphibious landing vehicles.

                          From this point on the whole USMC has to constantly reassign troops from other services to keep a constant number of ground troops, they will have no choice but divert men and materiels from the rear echelon. This means as each day comes and goes and more and more men and women are killed and wounded the USMC will have shift more and more men and women from the rear to the front, at some point we will have desk jockey's and pen pushes on the front.

                          Remember the USMC does not have the luxury of having millions of troops as reserves, but 250,000 that is it, the whole sheebang, the whole nine yards, enchelada (sic) and every man and woman killed can't be replaced, every man and woman wounded is out of the picture, every helicopter that has to be used in medievac can't be diverted to combat and that is just the ground war. Not only that but for every piece of equipment that is damaged and or destroyed can't be replaced, the USMC has a finite resource, as for tanks, yes the USMC has an absolute advantage over their German counterparts, but if this was a battle of attritian the Germans can afford to lose 25 to 1 in tanks and for every Abrahms tank destroyed or damaged is one they can't replace, soft skin vehicles are vulnerable to German mines, they don't have to inflict total destruction of the vehicle, but to make them unrepairable or in military jargon ecconomic write offs.

                          For every man and woman killed and injured, for every helicopter, transport aircraft, tank, and other vehicle is one that can't be replaced, the Wehrmacht can afford 50% losses but the USMC can't.
                          Last edited by Roddoss72; 26 Apr 12, 21:30.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                            Thank you for a wonderful insight of Sun Tzu.

                            I was talking to a group of vets recently returned from Afghanistan and i actually asked them about the scenario that we are talking about, meaning the 1944 Wehrmacht v 2012 USMC and the background.

                            I asked them who would win, well they knew very well the strengths and weaknesses of both sides and they concluded that the USMC would lose. I asked them why?

                            They pointed that even with the advantage of technology and given that the Germans suffer 50% loss of entrenched positions at Normandy, the USMC landing parties will still come under sustained fire, just to establish a beachead, this is where the casualties will come from, they will land in protection, but most will disembark from vehicles to push forward, this is where thet are most vulnerable, the group concluded that in the first 24hrs the USMC will lose 2,000 to 3,000 dead, add another 10,000 wounded, this is before the USMC landing troops are in a position to even attempt to breakout, the amount of dead and wounded will overload the operating theatres on board the offshore naval vessels, almost half of available assets would be consigned to medi evac, helicopters, hovercrafts, Amphibious landing vehicles.

                            From this point on the whole USMC has to constantly reassign troops from other services to keep a constant number of ground troops, they will have no choice but divert men and materiels from the rear echelon. This means as each day comes and goes and more and more men and women are killed and wounded the USMC will have shift more and more men and women from the rear to the front, at some point we will have desk jockey's and pen pushes on the front.

                            Remember the USMC does not have the luxury of having millions of troops as reserves, but 250,000 that is it, the whole sheebang, the whole nine yards, enchelada (sic) and every man and woman killed can't be replaced, every man and woman wounded is out of the picture, every helicopter that has to be used in medievac can't be diverted to combat and that is just the ground war. Not only that but for every piece of equipment that is damaged and or destroyed can't be replaced, the USMC has a finite resource, as for tanks, yes the USMC has an absolute advantage over their German counterparts, but if this was a battle of attritian the Germans can afford to lose 25 to 1 in tanks and for every Abrahms tank destroyed or damaged is one they can't replace, soft skin vehicles are vulnerable to German mines, they don't have to inflict total destruction of the vehicle, but to make them unrepairable or in military jargon ecconomic write offs.

                            For every man and woman killed and injured, for every helicopter, transport aircraft, tank, and other vehicle is one that can't be replaced, the Wehrmacht can afford 50% losses but the USMC can't.
                            Maybe this post can be brought out someone posts a moan that the second front should've been opened earlier as some had proposed both then and now....

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                              Yes and still the Americans lost Vietnam, so next point.
                              The US/Vietnam War ended by cease treaty signed in Paris in 1972. The North Vietnamese defeated South Vietnam in 1975.

                              The US consistently defeated the VC and NVA. There was never any policy or mission to go directly to Hanoi and eliminate the political and military leadership and minimal infrastructure in North Vietnam so your point is meaningless.

                              The technology, strategy and tactics of the modern US armed forces are substantially based on lessons learned in Vietnam of what not to do. The political lessons were not as well learned, which again is of no meaning in this discussion.
                              "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
                              George Mason
                              Co-author of the Second Amendment
                              during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Not sure what its got to do with Vietanm. But the North met their objectives the U.S did not. The US government did not wish to prosecute the war to its logical conclusion, north of the border so the the North acted accordingly...

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X