Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Germany 1944 vs modern USMC

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

  • Originally posted by Cyberknight View Post
    First of all thanks for your service.

    Secondly, remembering the name of this forum, as an Armchair General, I contend that I would do it right.

    My goal would not be to sieze Berlin. It wouldbe to kill Hitler and his high command after six weeks destroying German industry, transportation and major unit concentrations in France and Germany.

    A strong localized raid on the essentially demolished capital to take out a bunker that we know the exact location of is the plan. I am not even convinced that Normandy would necessarily be the location of the land invasion since LCACs and helicopters don't necessarilyhave the same beach requirements.
    And again you fail to contemplate casualties, you are doggedly determined to believe that the USMC will suffer no casualties, no equipment failures and worst of all you won't even acknowledge casualties as a result of accidents and friendly fire.

    Fact is that more Americans died in training for Overlord than was lost on day one of the invasion of the Normandy beaches, you rely on technology but you completely rule out the human factor.

    Superior technology can only get you so far, in the cold hard light of day the only way the USMC 2012 will defeat the Wehrmacht 1944 is putting feet on the ground and face to face combat.

    I mean look at the situation in Afghanistan, President Obama made that victriolic speech the other day and what happened 24 hours later a suicide bomber from the Taliban blew up a van killing 8+ people and wounding many more in the Aghanistani capitol and low and behold the USMC 2012 is deployed there, in 10 years (abbout the same length as WW1 and WW2 combined) the Americans/Nato have yet to defeat the Taliban and never will, we have deployed the best technology and with superior training and tactics and hundreds of thousands of troops over the years and we are in reallity no closer at defeating the Taliban, yes we have caused considerable damage but have yet to effect the killer blow and never will.

    You think that just because you may get lucky with killing Hitler will cause the German nation to collapse, you are mistaken, you think attacking German industries the German Nation will surrender, you are mistaken, you have undersold the resolve of the German Nation, it's armed forces, it's people and it's Government, to achieve what you want, you will have to destroy the Wehrmacht, The Government and the German Nation as a whole, as i have said before you will have utterly destroy Germany to force unconditional surrender.

    The USMC 2012, just does not have the Capacity to achieve that with just 250,000 personel.

    Comment


    • How many of those 250, 000 is actually front line. Because even though they sat every marine is a rifle man that dose not mean they are all on the front line.
      you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

      CPO Mzinyati

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
        And again you fail to contemplate casualties, you are doggedly determined to believe that the USMC will suffer no casualties, no equipment failures and worst of all you won't even acknowledge casualties as a result of accidents and friendly fire.

        Fact is that more Americans died in training for Overlord than was lost on day one of the invasion of the Normandy beaches, you rely on technology but you completely rule out the human factor.

        Superior technology can only get you so far, in the cold hard light of day the only way the USMC 2012 will defeat the Wehrmacht 1944 is putting feet on the ground and face to face combat.

        I mean look at the situation in Afghanistan, President Obama made that victriolic speech the other day and what happened 24 hours later a suicide bomber from the Taliban blew up a van killing 8+ people and wounding many more in the Aghanistani capitol and low and behold the USMC 2012 is deployed there, in 10 years (abbout the same length as WW1 and WW2 combined) the Americans/Nato have yet to defeat the Taliban and never will, we have deployed the best technology and with superior training and tactics and hundreds of thousands of troops over the years and we are in reallity no closer at defeating the Taliban, yes we have caused considerable damage but have yet to effect the killer blow and never will.

        You think that just because you may get lucky with killing Hitler will cause the German nation to collapse, you are mistaken, you think attacking German industries the German Nation will surrender, you are mistaken, you have undersold the resolve of the German Nation, it's armed forces, it's people and it's Government, to achieve what you want, you will have to destroy the Wehrmacht, The Government and the German Nation as a whole, as i have said before you will have utterly destroy Germany to force unconditional surrender.

        The USMC 2012, just does not have the Capacity to achieve that with just 250,000 personel.
        If anything the death of Hitler would spur on the German war cause. By 1943 he was a hindrance, not an asset, to Germany in the War. His top officers wanted him gone because of his complete lack of military ability and insistance on controlling every aspect possible of the military.
        Last edited by Ricthofen; 04 May 12, 10:22.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by andrewza View Post
          How many of those 250, 000 is actually front line. Because even though they sat every marine is a rifle man that dose not mean they are all on the front line.
          I did take that into account, actually. The Marines get to test the claim that Marines are riflemen first. Numerous support and clerical jobs get eliminated forthe duration of the emergency.
          "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


          • Originally posted by Ricthofen View Post
            If anything the death of Hitler would spur on the German war cause. By 1943 he was a hindrance, not an asset, to Germany.
            By1944 the German cause was Hitler's vision of Ragnarok. There was never any belief that there could be a victory after 1942.

            The destruction of the cities, countryside and a generatioh of German males was a bit of a hindrance to to Germ,any too, wouldn't you say?

            I contend that without Hitler and even more importantly without the threat of being overrun by Russia, Germany would surrender quickly after the fall ofthe Fuhrer.
            "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


            • Originally posted by Cyberknight View Post
              By1944 the German cause was Hitler's vision of Ragnarok. There was never any belief that there could be a victory after 1942.

              The destruction of the cities, countryside and a generatioh of German males was a bit of a hindrance to to Germ,any too, wouldn't you say?

              I contend that without Hitler and even more importantly without the threat of being overrun by Russia, Germany would surrender quickly after the fall ofthe Fuhrer.
              They'd either be occupied by the Soviets or by the Americans, either way they wouldn't surrender. It wasn't until the end of Stalingrad and the losses that brought that Germany began to suspect defeat as a possibility; Kursk and the destruction of so many German tanks and the endless onslaught of Soviet tanks was the real sounding of the defeat bell, considering the Soviet counter-invasion was never significantly hindered all the way to Berlin.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cyberknight View Post
                By1944 the German cause was Hitler's vision of Ragnarok. There was never any belief that there could be a victory after 1942.

                The destruction of the cities, countryside and a generatioh of German males was a bit of a hindrance to to Germ,any too, wouldn't you say?

                I contend that without Hitler and even more importantly without the threat of being overrun by Russia, Germany would surrender quickly after the fall ofthe Fuhrer.
                Um, er, am i missing something here but the OP has said that you ignore and quashes your rather false argument here is that in the scenario that the Soviets are no longer in the war (they got out three months earlier) so you argument is absolutley moot.

                So the Soviets are out as of 1st March 1944 giving the Germans plenty of time not only to redeploy to Western Europe, but also in that 3 month period to rest and refit the entire Wehrmacht, this would also provide new recruits plenty of time for more training.

                So your beloved USMC 2012 will face the entire Wehrmacht all 9,000,000+ of them and you only get 250,000 to do the job.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ricthofen View Post
                  They'd either be occupied by the Soviets or by the Americans, either way they wouldn't surrender. It wasn't until the end of Stalingrad and the losses that brought that Germany began to suspect defeat as a possibility; Kursk and the destruction of so many German tanks and the endless onslaught of Soviet tanks was the real sounding of the defeat bell, considering the Soviet counter-invasion was never significantly hindered all the way to Berlin.
                  I doesn't matter either way as the OP has clearly stated the Soviets are out of the war three months prior to the USMC 2012 invasion, meaning that as of the 1st March 1944 the Soviets have either reached an armistice or have surrendered, either way the Germans will be gettting back repatriated PoW's from the Soviets further bolstering their numbers.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                    Um, er, am i missing something here but the OP has said that you ignore and quashes your rather false argument here is that in the scenario that the Soviets are no longer in the war (they got out three months earlier) so you argument is absolutley moot.

                    So the Soviets are out as of 1st March 1944 giving the Germans plenty of time not only to redeploy to Western Europe, but also in that 3 month period to rest and refit the entire Wehrmacht, this would also provide new recruits plenty of time for more training.

                    So your beloved USMC 2012 will face the entire Wehrmacht all 9,000,000+ of them and you only get 250,000 to do the job.
                    Yes, you are missing an education as to how modern war is fought.

                    My scenario works with and equal nuber of any well trained modern force of equal numbers of 21st century jets with aerial refueling capability, MBTs, LAVs, ELINT capability, combat experienced modern infantry, etc. It is not a "beloved USMC" thing except for the amphibiousd capability which is unmatched in the world in the 21st century. Starting on the continent any modern British, French or German force wit those numbers would do wll.

                    Amphibious operation have been designed based on the lessons Anzio, Normandy, the Pacific campaigns and Inchon. A landing by the 2012 Marines will not in any way resemble Overlord. I would actually prefertat scenario as the Marnes.

                    I posted that there would be no Soviets, so pay attention.

                    Three months to train up the last dregs of old men and boys makes the equal to the experienced troops on either side, huh? You get maybe 6 million, most of them conscripts.

                    So deploy them, based on real life WW2 preperation and movement rates from their starting points as of 1 March. Or did you just plan to line them up from the Spanish border to Denmark and expect the Marines to bayonet charge? Lets game it.

                    I get real time intel and complete air supremacy. The OP gave combat capability for a ear. Do you know what that really means?
                    "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


                    • Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                      I doesn't matter either way as the OP has clearly stated the Soviets are out of the war three months prior to the USMC 2012 invasion, meaning that as of the 1st March 1944 the Soviets have either reached an armistice or have surrendered, either way the Germans will be gettting back repatriated PoW's from the Soviets further bolstering their numbers.
                      A large number of German forces, i.e. millions are either guarding the Russian border or occupying Russia in that case.
                      "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


                      • Originally posted by Cyberknight View Post
                        Yes, you are missing an education as to how modern war is fought.

                        My scenario works with and equal nuber of any well trained modern force of equal numbers of 21st century jets with aerial refueling capability, MBTs, LAVs, ELINT capability, combat experienced modern infantry, etc. It is not a "beloved USMC" thing except for the amphibiousd capability which is unmatched in the world in the 21st century. Starting on the continent any modern British, French or German force wit those numbers would do wll.

                        Amphibious operation have been designed based on the lessons Anzio, Normandy, the Pacific campaigns and Inchon. A landing by the 2012 Marines will not in any way resemble Overlord. I would actually prefertat scenario as the Marnes.

                        I posted that there would be no Soviets, so pay attention.

                        Three months to train up the last dregs of old men and boys makes the equal to the experienced troops on either side, huh? You get maybe 6 million, most of them conscripts.

                        So deploy them, based on real life WW2 preperation and movement rates from their starting points as of 1 March. Or did you just plan to line them up from the Spanish border to Denmark and expect the Marines to bayonet charge? Lets game it.

                        I get real time intel and complete air supremacy. The OP gave combat capability for a ear. Do you know what that really means?
                        I understand perfectly the situation of the capabilities of the USMC 2012, the USMC 2012 are almost second to none in the world and would in terms have a huge technological advantage of the Wehrmacht 1944, not only that but have superior tactics and training, and also can and will massive damage to the Wehrmacht 1944.

                        However i can also take into account of actual historical facts on Americans in warfare lose men and equipment to accidents and friendly fire as the case in point, the USA alone lost more men in training (actually killed) for the Normandy invasion than they lost in the first 24 hrs of the Normandy invasion.

                        You do casully dismiss the instance of casualties. Physics gets into this rather neatly, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, meaning that for every USMC 2012 is killed and wounded in battle the USMC 2012 will need to divert men and women from other support networks, just to maintain the status quo on the ground, you don't take into account that a USMC 2012 Marine can be killed by a 1944 bullet.

                        You also forget is that in the art of warfare that you may control the air and sea, but in the end to defeat your enemy you need to control the ground, you have very limited ground forces maybe 4 to 5 divisions at most and even taking into account a 25 to 1 superiority of USMC 2012 over the Werhmacht that still leaves the USMC 2012 a further 200 Divisions to take on.

                        Then the last fact is that you are stuck with a total capacity of 240,827 (as of June 2011)* troops from the front line combat and reccon units all the way back to the paper shufflers, as the casultie begin to mount again you have divert men and women from those areas and knowing modern armies that becomes a beureucratic (sic) nightmare, also you will not suffer 3,500 casulties over a decade of fighting as in Iraq, you will have lost 5,000 Killed and 10,000 wounded within a short period of time. Also loss of equipment, for every tank, lav, and the like you lose in battle there is no replacement

                        Your USMC 2012 has be triumphant in 100% of all fighting in 100% engagements and lose no casulties.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                          I understand perfectly the situation of the capabilities of the USMC 2012, the USMC 2012 are almost second to none in the world and would in terms have a huge technological advantage of the Wehrmacht 1944, not only that but have superior tactics and training, and also can and will massive damage to the Wehrmacht 1944.

                          However i can also take into account of actual historical facts on Americans in warfare lose men and equipment to accidents and friendly fire as the case in point, the USA alone lost more men in training (actually killed) for the Normandy invasion than they lost in the first 24 hrs of the Normandy invasion.

                          You do casully dismiss the instance of casualties. Physics gets into this rather neatly, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, meaning that for every USMC 2012 is killed and wounded in battle the USMC 2012 will need to divert men and women from other support networks, just to maintain the status quo on the ground, you don't take into account that a USMC 2012 Marine can be killed by a 1944 bullet.

                          You also forget is that in the art of warfare that you may control the air and sea, but in the end to defeat your enemy you need to control the ground, you have very limited ground forces maybe 4 to 5 divisions at most and even taking into account a 25 to 1 superiority of USMC 2012 over the Werhmacht that still leaves the USMC 2012 a further 200 Divisions to take on.

                          Then the last fact is that you are stuck with a total capacity of 240,827 (as of June 2011)* troops from the front line combat and reccon units all the way back to the paper shufflers, as the casultie begin to mount again you have divert men and women from those areas and knowing modern armies that becomes a beureucratic (sic) nightmare, also you will not suffer 3,500 casulties over a decade of fighting as in Iraq, you will have lost 5,000 Killed and 10,000 wounded within a short period of time. Also loss of equipment, for every tank, lav, and the like you lose in battle there is no replacement

                          Your USMC 2012 has be triumphant in 100% of all fighting in 100% engagements and lose no casulties.
                          That is your fundamental misunderstanding. The 2012 USMC does not have to take on most of those understrength divisions. It can destroy, disrupt, or isolate a great majority without ever getting near them on the ground.

                          In Kuwait in 2001 and later in Iraq, decimated, demoralized and starving Iraqi regments surrendered to individual squads and in one case to a single attack helicopter. Some attempted to give themselves up to press correspondents.

                          Secondly, armored vehicle units have a built in number of spares assigned.

                          Thirdly, it is axiomaic that the force which is advancing successfully recovers its hit armored vehicles while that which is defeated does not. More importantly, the crews get to fight again. Ask the Israelis about the importance of that when outnumbered.

                          You just don't seem to get that this is not WW2 although you are really describing WW1 with 250,000 infantrymen shooting across fortifications at 6(not 9) million infantrymen.

                          Worst case, if the Germans don' surrender with the death of Hitler and his inner circle, the Marines can still withdraw into defensive positions and hold off anything the Germans can throw at them until the next offensive.
                          Last edited by Cyberknight; 07 May 12, 11:30.
                          "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


                          • Originally posted by Cyberknight View Post
                            That is your fundamental misunderstanding. The 2012 USMC does not have to take on most of those understrength divisions. It can destroy, disrupt, or isolate a great majority without ever getting near them on the ground.

                            In Kuwait in 2001 and later in Iraq, decimated, demoralized and starving Iraqi regments surrendered to individual squads and in one case to a single attack helicopter. Some attempted to give themselves up to press correspondents.

                            Secondly, armored vehicle units have a built in number of spares assigned.

                            Thirdly, it is axiomaic that the force which is advancing successfully recovers its hit armored vehicles while that which is defeated does not. More importantly, the crews get to fight again. Ask the Israelis about the importance of that when outnumbered.

                            You just don't seem to get that this is not WW2 although you are really describing WW1 with 250,000 infantrymen shooting across fortifications at 6(not 9) million infantrymen.

                            Worst case, if the Germans don' surrender with the death of Hitler and his inner circle, the Marines can still withdraw into defensive positions and hold off anything the Germans can throw at them until the next offensive.
                            From what I have heard 1944 Germany probably could of beaten Iraq, I have heard the Iraqis sucked badly as a military, IIRC the Iran-Iraq war had small units of under equipped Iranians defeating larger and well equipped Iraqi units because the IIRC the Iraqis had little to no initiative of their own.

                            Equating the Germans with the Iraqi army is not the best comparison.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                              I understand perfectly the situation of the capabilities of the USMC 2012, the USMC 2012 are almost second to none in the world and would in terms have a huge technological advantage of the Wehrmacht 1944, not only that but have superior tactics and training, and also can and will massive damage to the Wehrmacht 1944.
                              Here is where you have a misconception. The USMC does not have to cause massive physical damage to the Wehrmacht in order for it to collapse.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cyberknight View Post
                                That is your fundamental misunderstanding. The 2012 USMC does not have to take on most of those understrength divisions. It can destroy, disrupt, or isolate a great majority without ever getting near them on the ground.

                                In Kuwait in 2001 and later in Iraq, decimated, demoralized and starving Iraqi regments surrendered to individual squads and in one case to a single attack helicopter. Some attempted to give themselves up to press correspondents.

                                Utter rubbish, they in Kuwait and later in Iraq had been attacked by coalition forces in the air, on the ground and faced a barrage from supporting coalition naval forces in the way of cruise missiles.

                                At no stage of those action did the USMC conducted offensive actions unilaterally, so this is an absolute falsehood.


                                Secondly, armored vehicle units have a built in number of spares assigned.

                                So you are saying that Armoured units have mobile repair sheds and carry all their spares into battle and no spares located back in storage in the rear area, also from 2003 to 2005 in Iraq over 80 Abrams tanks were forced out of action by enemy attacks, whilst several more were lost due to accidents, this again shows you up in regards to the lack of effectiveness of the Iraqi's and Insurgeants to take out Armoured vehicles.

                                So if the Iraqi's and Insurgeants can force out 80 Abram tanks i would hate to think what the Wehrmacht would do.


                                Thirdly, it is axiomaic that the force which is advancing successfully recovers its hit armored vehicles while that which is defeated does not. More importantly, the crews get to fight again. Ask the Israelis about the importance of that when outnumbered.

                                That is that your USMC 2012 is in a constant state of advancement and winning every single battle and that each and every single occassion that those in those vehicles are not either killed or wounded and manage to escape injury every single occassion, this again shows your adversion to recognise casualties on your side.

                                You just don't seem to get that this is not WW2 although you are really describing WW1 with 250,000 infantrymen shooting across fortifications at 6(not 9) million infantrymen.

                                Oh i get the situation perfectly, it is you that seems to think that the USMC 2012 will fight a clinical, sterile battle from a distnce and that is some utopian act of warfare that the USMC 2012 will never ever the face of their enemy, nor will any unit within the USMC 2012 whether they are front line troops to the supply columns and the like will get interdicted by the enemy, you actually believe in the Harry Potter's Cloak of Invisibility, that this force of the USMC 2012 are not only invisible to the enemey but the Germans will not fight back.

                                You honestly believe that once the first USMC trooper places his foot on the beach of Normandy the entire Wehrmacht will surrender on mass and that with 24hrs Germany will announce unconditional surrender without firing a single shot


                                Worst case, if the Germans don' surrender with the death of Hitler and his inner circle, the Marines can still withdraw into defensive positions and hold off anything the Germans can throw at them until the next offensive.
                                You are seriously kidding, you mean that if the Marines do withdraw and create a defensive position, you still believe that the USMC 2012 can still maintain full strength units and have no loss of either men or equipment, remember you only have 12 months supply, that is it you get no more and can weather month after month of defensive actions chewing through your limited supplies and then again launch an offensive action. Now i believe in fairy tales.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                • casanova
                                  Robi P.
                                  by casanova
                                  The Austrian soldier Toni P. of the Radetzky barack in Horn Nether Austria was forced by his commander to make an march with his comrades in 3th August...
                                  Today, 02:27
                                • casanova
                                  Beirut
                                  by casanova
                                  Gigantic explosion in the city of Beirut. 70 people were killed and 2750 men were heavy hurted. The explosion was like atomic bomb. The cause of that...
                                  Today, 00:47
                                • casanova
                                  Nuclear battleheads.
                                  by casanova
                                  A secret UNO report declares, that North Korea owns already nuclear battleheads for tactical rockets....
                                  Yesterday, 23:58
                                Working...
                                X