- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: At full strength who was more powerful in ww2 Germany or US?
Posted on 11/3/21 at 9:50 am to Spaceman Spiff
Posted on 11/3/21 at 9:50 am to Spaceman Spiff
Ummm no…First, Germany needed resources and the right scientists to develop an effective atom bomb/two things it lacked. Then you have to protect your nuclear factories from getting the shvt bombed out of them
Second, let’s say Germany miraculously developed an effective bomb. Now you need effective air range and clear air superiority to keep this plane from getting blown up in the sky. There’s no way in hell they were going to be able to reach the US and I don’t think the Brits and Russians were just going to sit there and let German planes fly in their air space.
Third, Russia wasn’t sitting their jerking off waiting for the Germans to attack them. Operation Barbarossa was a do or die situation. If the Germans would’ve waited any longer than they would have ran in to a much stronger and well prepared Russia which defeats the whole point in blitzkrieg.
Second, let’s say Germany miraculously developed an effective bomb. Now you need effective air range and clear air superiority to keep this plane from getting blown up in the sky. There’s no way in hell they were going to be able to reach the US and I don’t think the Brits and Russians were just going to sit there and let German planes fly in their air space.
Third, Russia wasn’t sitting their jerking off waiting for the Germans to attack them. Operation Barbarossa was a do or die situation. If the Germans would’ve waited any longer than they would have ran in to a much stronger and well prepared Russia which defeats the whole point in blitzkrieg.
1
Posted on 11/3/21 at 11:38 am to sta4ever
quote:
Definitely the US. Nazi Germany was brainwashed into believing they could actually take over Europe and the West. They’re kind of like ULL in football. They wreck havoc on the weaker countries, but when it comes down to real competition, the Germans had no chance. They were too barbaric to fight strong and civilized nations.
Definitely ignore anything this guy has to say regarding history.....
Posted on 11/3/21 at 11:38 am to Palmetto98
quote:
Ummm no…First, Germany needed resources and the right scientists to develop an effective atom bomb/two things it lacked. Then you have to protect your nuclear factories from getting the shvt bombed out of them
Did or did not the Germans have their heavy water production? They needed time.
Now, hypothetically, they could have loaded a bomb on a sub and taken it into NY harbor, etc., and exploded it in place.
Since we are on the hypothetic subject, had Britain fallen like it was on the brink of, where would have we landed buildup supplies for DDay?
Posted on 11/3/21 at 11:46 am to Champagne
quote:
Hitler's biggest mistake was when he bombed Pearl Harbor.
touche'
Posted on 11/3/21 at 12:46 pm to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
Since we are on the hypothetic subject, had Britain fallen like it was on the brink of, where would have we landed buildup supplies for DDay?
It doesn’t matter because a 6 division landing isn’t going to last long enough to eat a meal if there’s no eastern front.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 12:51 pm to bdavids09
The United States.
Nukes were one humbling SOB. Ask the Japanese.
Nukes were one humbling SOB. Ask the Japanese.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 1:02 pm to southdowns84
At it's peak, the U.S. Army alone had over 11 million personnel in uniform. Granted those weren't all frontline troops- but Germany likely couldn't have produced close to those numbers. Add to that the industrial might mostly undisturbed by war, and this was a no brainer. Germany's defeat was going to happen- right along with Japan's. No quick KO, no chance.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 1:44 pm to Spaceman Spiff
They didn’t have an effective base to really build a bomb at all. The US had much more resources, didn’t drain its talent based on an ideology, and the luxury of not being bombed.
Britain falling would need a lot more changes because the Germans had no absolute way of sending a division successfully across the English Channel by air or sea, so either they develop teleportation or meet some aliens lol
Britain falling would need a lot more changes because the Germans had no absolute way of sending a division successfully across the English Channel by air or sea, so either they develop teleportation or meet some aliens lol
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:16 pm to oleheat
quote:
At it's peak, the U.S. Army alone had over 11 million personnel in uniform.
This is true, but even at our peak, leadership determined we couldn’t logistically support more than 90 divisions over seas. That’s not enough to take on Germany solo.
Nobody could’ve done what we did in WWII. I’m not arguing otherwise. I’m just pointing out what our generals knew to be the truth about our ability to defeat Germany by ourselves.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:35 pm to Palmetto98
quote:
They didn’t have an effective base to really build a bomb at all. The US had much more resources, didn’t drain its talent based on an ideology, and the luxury of not being bombed.
Britain falling would need a lot more changes because the Germans had no absolute way of sending a division successfully across the English Channel by air or sea, so either they develop teleportation or meet some aliens lol
Well if this is 1v1 then it’s a moot point. Ireland didn’t let us use their ports because they wanted to remain neutral. Britain would’ve been no different if neutral.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 3:32 pm to southdowns84
quote:
This is true, but even at our peak, leadership determined we couldn’t logistically support more than 90 divisions over seas. That’s not enough to take on Germany solo.
Nobody could’ve done what we did in WWII. I’m not arguing otherwise. I’m just pointing out what our generals knew to be the truth about our ability to defeat Germany by ourselves.
No, those are very fair points.
I think it's also fair to point out America was bearing the lion's share of the burden fighting Japan in the Pacific, as well. The Allies did contribute to the war in the Pacific, of course-but not nearly to the degree of the effort America put forth.
Even though the official policy was "Germany first"- Japan was a fanatical, powerful adversary. Sometimes I wonder how long Germany would have lasted had America not been fighting them both, simultaneously....
This post was edited on 11/3/21 at 3:36 pm
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News