Nation: Takistan

Infantry-British (totally underrated in my view)
Armor-German
Air Force-USA
Navy-USA
Artillery-USSR
Command Model-German
Logistics-USA

Oh, I'm not disputing that Germany had some very good commanders at the time. But besides Hitler personally directing operations, the German High Command was terribly ineffective. The OKW taking direct control of land campaigns, and as a consequence the rivalry between the different High Command in the Eastern and Western Fronts, is a good example of this.

Granted, Hitler is largely responsible for all this, but unless this is about the highly theoretical German Command structure as it was supposed to work, you can't take the German Command and ignore its vast problems.

Indeed, this was also a big issue for us, the rivalry, spurned on by Hitler.
Everyone wanted to prove to him that they were the best. Everyone wanted to outdo each other to be his 'favourite'.
Everyone wanted to avoid failure. For fear of failure was big.
Ultimately because of this, decisions were made hastily, often not being consulted at the low levels of command, on the ground in most cases with the ground commanders.
But i get your point. :salute:

Command rivalries aren't unique to the Germans. There was quite a bit between Montgomery and Patton as well as MacArthur and Nimitz.

That's an understatement :haha:

We think alike Oberon. ;)

:yeah:

You guys would actually take the British navy over the US Navy? I would think our fleet carriers alone would make the US the obvious choice in that area.

That's exactly why I picked them. The USN of WWII was very much the navy of the future. What I don't understand is the choice for the German navy. Sure, lots of submarines, but weak in the use of surface combatants and entirely lacking in air power. The Kriegsmarine was primarily an anti-shipping force; not at all well suited to major naval engagements.

The difference was not that great. Brit carriers didn't carry aircraft on deck until the end of the war, at that time they could carry about 75-80% of what a US fleet carrier could carry.

Plus the Spit/SeaSpit could whoop the Zeros @$$.

The Firefly was also a great multipurpose carrier fighter. A/A, A/G, Recon, ASW.

Think how many tanks you can build with the resources needed to build a battleship and you will have your answer. The German armed forces of the era were designed to conquer land via land ...:yep:


.

You're right. And that is why I would not select the German naval model.

I picked it on the idea that I am not constrained by the same economical problems that germany had in WWII.

Germany had a fearsome set of ships, but her admirals (and Hitler) were so afraid to use them (rightly so, because they didn't really have the ability to make more,) that they never left port, and got bombed there, or when they did leave port they got swiftly outnumbered and destroyed by the allies.

So I picked germany because, in my little country, I would have had enough metal for 6 Bismarck-class, a handful of Hippers (cute little rhyme innit?) and enough destroyers and auxillaries to guard them all.

I'm sure somebody will come along and blow huge holes in my ideas.
I will have my grain of salt ready.

Hmm, Task Force Land.

Infantry: German, with all the cool 44 weaponry.
Armor good mix of German and Soviet tanks.
Air:A mix of German aircraft and Soviet numbers.
Navy: British
Logistics:Soviet
Artillery: Soviet
Command German

Soviets had logistics ? The same guys who issued 5 bullets to each soldier but only 1/4 of them got rifles. Then when an armed guy fell an unarmed soldier picked the dead guys rifle, loaded in his 5 bullets and continued to fight until he fell.

THESE soviets ?

Thats messed up.

I'd play, but I see no division between logistics and production, R&D, or intel.

This seems kind of silly...but it also sounds like fun. I'll play:up:

Country- Pwnia
Infantry- German Waffen SS. I know, they were bad guys, but man for man they were damned good fighters!
Armor- German (post-1941. I know the Russians had more serviceable and more effective tanks, but I cannot endorse their crew training model. They just threw men away)

Air Force- Russian. An odd choice, I know, but the Russians developed a close air-support model based on the German model in relatively short order and then actually had the resources to employ it effectively. The US and the British did nothing of the sort. They just threw men and machines at the war until the Axis was literally without means to oppose them, and even then they didn't have any success accomplishing their stated objectives. Worse, the Western Allies engaged in massive and ineffective terror-bombings of civilians. Not in my damn airforce!

Navy- I'll take the US Navy. For all their considerable power and subsequent attempts to check the U-boat threat, the Royal Navy was precisely garbage until the US showed up. All they managed to do was to lose every surface naval engagement and fail to adequately address the U-boat threat on their own, in like, multiple ways.

Actually, now that I think about it, screw the US Navy. The only people who had any idea of how to use a Navy with the goal of "force projection" were the Japanese. They were proactive rather than reactive. Were it not for the incredible stroke of luck we had at Midway, they would have beat our asses black and blue before they succumbed to our material superiority. I want US material superiority combined with Japanese naval tactics.

Artillery - German

German artillery targeting and employment was so frakking good that the US uses it as a model for combined-force operations to this day, and it serves very well.

Command Model - German again. The German model of command is so good that their methods are embraced by the world's only remaining superpower. In fact, we go a step beyond that and have adopted German unit tactics, camoflauge, and even helmets.

Logistics- I'd go with the US, though Russians are a close second. There's nothing quite like mindlessly throwing vastly superior resources at the enemy until they give up because they no longer have the means to resist. It's not a good or effective strategy, but it does work. Actually, I take that back. I'd use the British model of logistics. There is nothing quite like throwing someone else's vastly superior resources at the enemy until they no longer have the means to resist.

So I guess what I really want is allied material superiority and axis troops. Can I do that?

The same Soviets whose war effort is so often substituted for by myths, yes. While it is indeed true that many Soviet units in 1941 and early 1942 were very poorly equipped (Because they were hastily raised, and because the rapid German advance captured many of their weapons and transportation capability), this situation, as far as I know, was never one that was horrible to the extent that you make it and was rectified very quickly.

In fact, I'd have chosen Soviet logistics, especially when one considers they have been able to supply vast offensives over long distances at the same time the Western Allies struggled to advance over much better infrastructure and shorter distances on the Western Front. The fact that Soviet sea supply ability was lacking (Because they didn't really need any) and that Soviet ability to supply their forces came partly because of lend-lease US equipment led me to choose the US/Western Allies instead, though.

Well, yes, the Soviets did have logistics. Getting such sheer masses of men, guns, armor, and artillery to the front count as logistics. I don't like the idea any more than you do, in fact I find it rather repulsive, but the Soviets did do the majority of the fighting and they did win the war pretty much by themselves. I'm not sure I could be persuaded to fight by the Soviets. I'd probably have taken arms against them, but then I'm not a Soviet.

Yep. THOSE Soviets.

Tell me about it.

I think you're confusing material superiority with the aforementioned concepts, but I might be wrong. Please elaborate.

Nation: Giggity Republic of Hotchacha

(Airborne) Infantry-Damian Lewis as Major Dick Winters
Armor-Erwin Rommel as himself
Air Force-some cute guy with an accent in a Spitfire
Navy-Jürgen Prochnow as der Alte
Artillery-whoever has the biggest gun
Command Model-I vill be giffink ze kommants, ja?
Logistics-we'll start with a game of nekkid Twister and go from there

:hmmm:

It's entirely possible that I've missed the whole point of this exercise. :shifty: :O:

:hmmm:lets see

Infantry: Germany
Best troops, best weapons,

Armour: Germany
Great tanks, short on mechanical reliability though

Air: US
american planes are of great quality, thats for sure
Japanese pilots often used up all their ammo and still fail to destroy a F6F

Navy: Japan
The best battleships, and the best carriers

Morale: Japan
Most determined troops in the war

Propaganda: Germany
So successful that there is a Goebbels' mass media in China

Troop numbers: Soviet & US
Well the soviet union was able to field the most troops, of course US numbers for the navy

Logistics:US
Well the US was able to supply many allied countries with equipment and supplies

Secret weapons:
this is a tough one:hmmm:
Germany had rockets, Japan had bio weapons, Italy had the human torpedo
but still, America had NUKES

BBs are powerful weapons, but air power rules the seas. Look what happened to Yamato, and she was one big, mean mofo.