全 20 件のコメント

[–]CRISPY_JAY 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (1子コメント)

1914 Allies or 1918 Allies and 1939 Axis or 1945 Axis?

[–]Babombombum[S] 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (0子コメント)

1918 Allies(including Russkies) vs 1942 Germany(not all of Axis)

[–]All-Shall-Kneel 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (11子コメント)

When is this set for each. The technological and manpower changes throughout each war were vast. Start of WW1 there were no tanks for instance. Start of WW2 there were none of the large famous German tanks, and they did not have some of their far more important weapons.

Also when you say allies, does this include the USA? as they were not in all of WW1. And does WW2 Germany only include modern germany or can they use the men/industry of the areas that they took over (Czech, Austria, Romania etc.)

[–]Babombombum[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (10子コメント)

I replied to the comment above. And it's 1939 Germany borders, with 1942 Germany tech/industry/tactics/manpower.

[–]All-Shall-Kneel 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Oki doki.

1918 Allies ("Includign Ruskies" they were no longer in the war and were busy fighting themselves so I am going to ignore them because they were in a bloody civil war). Assuming that the soldiers are not war wearried will almost certainly beging to build trenches again. It kinda worked the first time. This will mean little to the German forces who can just bomb the fuckers whilst being untouched with their vastly superior aircraft. Hell they can even win in the sea due to Uboats. Tanks are only useful here if they are concentrated before the WW1 heavy arty get in place as these guns will fuck up even the biggest tanks.

The big issue for Germany here is that they have already taken heavy losses in 1942 due to the failing invasion of the USSR. The French and British are in a similar position due to years of bitter fighting and they will be less likely to fully commit, the Yanks do not have this issue and can go all in again.

Overall I think that the sheer difference in manpower and industry that the allies have will overcome the Air superiority of the Germans. The infantry of both sides are really not that disimilair, the main weapons of ww2 were ww1 weapons after all.

7/10 Allied victory due to massive number advantage and they are also mobilised for war. 3/10 to Germans because bombers are incredibly over powered here as the only things that can take them down are some howitzers (unlikely to happen). BUT the germans can win 6/10 if the Allies just decide to draw up trenches again instead of opting out of it.

[–]Babombombum[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I don't think WWI artillery was accurate enough to hit moving tanks.

Germany will have a massive advantage in maneuvers due to fact that they can move troops much faster because of motorization and air travel.

British wasn't very war weary by 1918, their casualties was only 40% of French and 25% of Germans. They just want to brag about how they lost half of their adult male population in WWI when it's not even remotely close.

And Germany will invade Russia regardless if they're in a Civil War or not, it's their ideology to destroy Slavs, Jews and communism. They won't wait for Russia to finish their Civil War just not to be jerks and go by the rules.

[–]All-Shall-Kneel 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I don't think WWI artillery was accurate enough to hit moving tanks.

They do not really need to though, If the trenches are up then they can see them coming from miles away and then just bombard the area the tanks want to go through essentially stopping them.

Most of WW1 soldiers were moved via boat and Train, not too different from Germany (who also used trucks). Considering where the fight is going to take place the Allies have plenty of infrastructure in place to move troops.

4 years of fighting still takes its toll. DORA will mean that the civies will stay happy enough though.

Why would Germany Invade Russia when the allies are on their doorstep? that's fucking suicide, not to mention to get to Russia you have to get through Poland and other nations who will defend themselves. You're looking at 1000 miles of land to get through before they even reach Russia. Let's not forget Germany has to deal with Italy, France, the Empire and the USA. There's also Nations such as Portugal, Japand and China who can supply hundreds of thousands more men (though will take several months) to the Allies that Germany can do literally nothing about.

Edit, it's a good prompt though.

[–]Westnest 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

You should take into account that moving heavy artillery in the WWI was quite an issue and they were railway guns 90% of the time, and most trench lines also evolved around railways because of this.(also to move troops) Even the smaller cannons required 12 horses to pull, and if terrain was muddy(like in the Passchendaele or Przemyśl), they were also not able to go through. Things like mobile mortars or anti-tank guns wasn't a thing in WWI too. Germans don't have this limitation, their firepower is much more mobile.

[–]All-Shall-Kneel 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Mobility is undeniably on the German side. Fire power is not (on land anyway).

[–]Westnest 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

1940s factories, machine tools and workshops are much more efficient than the 1910s so they can easily field more guns than the allies.

[–]All-Shall-Kneel 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I really don't think you know how many nations were at war with Germany in 1918...

[–]chewbacca2hot 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You don't understand indirect fire. I've experienced it personally. It's just that, indirect. It's random where it hits. It hits a general area. Shrapnel from it won't hurt tanks. Only a direct hit would hurt a tank. You'd probably lose like 20% of your force of tanks running through a constant barrage of indirect fire. And that is a generous number.

For troops, indirect fire is deadly because of the shrapnel. Not just from the round, but from the ground objects that are thrown around. You don't move troops through it ever.

But for WWII tanks... It might cost you 20% of your force, but they would get through.

I'd have the tanks go in, roll past and over the trenches and take out the Artillery batteries behind them. It would cause total chaos. All the Command and Control is there too. All the leaders and HQs. Ground troops could roll in while that is going on and it would be a total shit show. The forces in the trenches would probably be routed. WWII artillery is even more effective and precise. You could even open up with that on the trenches after the tanks roll through past them, and before ground troops go in.

It would be an utter rout for the entrenched forces. You could blitzkrieg right through the line to the capitol of France, just like in WWII. You could envelope the trenches and get them from the front and behind. It was be a mass surrender.

And this is without airplanes. With them alone, you take out artillery and ground forces do much better.

1: Germany

2: Germany

3: 60/40 in favor of Germany. They still have more precise artillery and don't need mass bombardment to open up holes in the line. Can still take out enemy artillery with their range.

4: Germany

[–]Imperium_Dragon 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

While WWII Germany and Italy didn't have the best logistics, they've still got armored formations and medium bombers which are pretty much untouchable to Allied planes.

[–]Jackamalio626 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

R1/2/4: Nazi Germany godstomps the allies. Blitzkrieg was specifically designed to counter the waiting-in-trenches style of warfare from WWI, and the German tanks/planes far surpass anything the allies had at the time (tanks and planes in WWI were considered borderline useless even back then due to their inefficiency)

R3, however, I don't think the Germans can pull it off. Even with their better technology, the allies far outnumber them, and without their tanks and planes to lead the charge, the hunkered down allies will mow them down and win.

[–]MAXSquid 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There were just over 42,000,000 allied troops in WWI, there were just under 19,000,000 in the Wehrmacht. Although the allies had more than double the amount of people, I would say the Wehrmacht technological advantage would overpower the allies 10 to 1. R3 does not restrict navy or submarines. Zero chance for the allies. The Wehrmacht could just launch missiles all day long until they could walk on in with their superior guns and bombs. Not to mention the fact that production capability was far more advanced during WWII, the countries that could last the extra mile are the ones who had tremendous production capabilities at home. Edit: Round 3, not 4.

[–]yash019 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The tanks and artillery win it for Germany. More than that even with much lower manpower, having automatic weapons and efficient supply lines (I'm assuming you're giving them all the amenities that ww2 Germany had) go a long way in winning land battles. All that combined with the blitz techniques of the Germans spell devastation for the allies

[–]felidos 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The prompt specifies that everyone's bloodlusted and there's no option to surrender. If that's the case, it's a stalemate every time - for reasons that should be obvious, wiping out every single citizen of the US and the British Empire would never (under any circumstances) have been possible for the Nazis even with total military victory in mainland Europe, the destruction of Britain, and the unconditional surrender of the United States.

So to make it interesting, I'm going to pretend that that's the goal.

Round 3: Allies maybe win. No planes and no tanks most likely means trench warfare. This isn't necessarily the case as there were a lot of other developments that killed it off late in the Great War, like the invention of the moving barrage and the gradual improvement in infiltration tactics. That said, I don't see how the Wehrmacht can break through rapidly without either of their main technological advantages on land, which means this turns into a war between people who are used to trench fighting (Allies 1918) and people who aren't used to it, and are trained to fight with tanks and air support (Wehrmacht 1942) so the Allies might be able to run out the clock until Germany collapsed economically. It'd be a near-run thing though as Nazi Germany wouldn't suffer from the naval blockade the Kaiserreich did as they can send the Tirpitz out to solo the Royal Navy, which it would do comfortably, and then put Britain under siege. Allies 6/10

Round 1: Germans win. They smash through the lines on the Western Front with tanks and push rapidly into France. Even by 1918, the type of relatively modern squad tactics used by the Wehrmacht weren't widely used (AFAIK) outside elite infrantry units - even with minimal differences in equipment, the Wehrmacht would wipe the floor with the Allies in mobile combat. They'd take France in a few months (at most) and then invade Britain after annihilating the Royal Navy. The US could probably be brought to surrender by wiping out its navy, blockading it, and then bombarding its coastal cities (i.e. almost all of the major cities) into rubble from the sea. Germans 10/10

Round 2: Germans stomp. They're able to destroy Allied artillery batteries with ease and rip up trenches by bombing and strafing. Obviously the Allied air forces offer no resistance at all to the Luftwaffe - one Me. 109 could probably take on a squadron of camels or SE5s and win. Once the Wehrmacht break through the lines on the ground, the story is similar to Round 1 - they use their superior training in mobile warfare to take France in a few months or weeks before moving on to Britain and then the US. The only difference is that this time everything happens faster, and Chicago and Dallas get flattened too before the US surrenders. Germans 11/10

Round 4: Germans roflstomp. Allied trenches are occupied within hours, France is gone in weeks, Britain gets wiped out very quickly, and the US suffers much the same fate. Germans 12/10

[–]engapol123 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

as they can send the Tirpitz out to solo the Royal Navy

This is beyond absurd, the Grand Fleet (which wasn't even the entire RN) had 160 ships, of which 40 were modern capital ships like the Queen Elizabeth-class which fought successfully in WW2. There is no way in hell the Tirpitz can solo that many ships even with unlimited ammo.

And second of all, the entire Kriegsmarine wouldn't be able to beat the RN of WW1. The German surface fleet in WW2 was pathetic compared to other major powers, and the ships themselves were pretty bad. The Bismarck-class was essentially a scaled-up version of a WW1 battleship, it's obsolete armour layout meant it would still be vulnerable to the best WW1 battleships.