Lets play world war II mix and match!

[Oberon]

Country: The Empire of Wotsitstan
Infantry = Germany
Armor = Germany
Air = Britain
Navy = Britain
Logistics = USA
Artillery = Russian
Command = Germany

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Country: The Empire of Wotsitstan
Infantry = Germany
Armor = Germany
Air = Britain
Navy = Britain
Logistics = USA
Artillery = Russian
Command = Germany

We think alike Oberon.

[August]

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.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

...
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.

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 ...


.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Diopos

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 ...


.

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

[Sledgehammer427]

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.

[the_tyrant]

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
Germany had rockets, Japan had bio weapons, Italy had the human torpedo
but still, America had NUKES

[tater]

I'm with August since you're talking organizational structure, not just equipment. That means if you pick German armor, you get their logistical train, too. No picking and choosing. Ditto german infantry—crappy logistics.

US tanks were not as good, but they were easy for us to keep running (the fact that most americans were familiar with their own cars or farm vehicles didn't hurt—US car ownership was grossly higher than anywhere else on earth, so the lads all knew about keeping their jalopies running).

[Bilge_Rat]

German 44 armor was not that great operationally. Panthers and Tigers were not very mobile off road, broke down often and the germans did not have dedicated tank movers/recovery vehicles. At Anzio, the Germans assembled a dream team of Tigers, Panthers, etc., but most bogged down or broke down before they reached the front line.

In spring 44 on the Ostfront, there is a story I remember of a Soviet tank division entering a town at the height of the spring thaw. In and around the town, they found 200 abandoned German AFVs, all hopelessly stuck in the mud.

[tater]

Bismark was a POS in reality for WW2. She had the weight per minute of AAA of a USN Fletcher Class or so (and far less effective since the KM had nothing like our 5/38 with VT shells).

She'd have been awesome in WW1.

Yamato was a waste of metal, too. Better to have 3 South Dakotas than 2 Yamatos.

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

I'm with August since you're talking organizational structure, not just equipment. That means if you pick German armor, you get their logistical train, too. No picking and choosing. Ditto german infantry—crappy logistics.

US tanks were not as good, but they were easy for us to keep running (the fact that most americans were familiar with their own cars or farm vehicles didn't hurt—US car ownership was grossly higher than anywhere else on earth, so the lads all knew about keeping their jalopies running).

Exactly.

The resources at hand, manufacturing capabilities, the skill and temperament of the troops, the vision of it's leaders, what it takes to transport troops and materiel out to the battlefield, it all has an effect on the type and quality of the weapons an Army or Navy fields and therefore what combat tactics are employed.

If we'd have fielded tanks similar to the German heavies it would have meant we'd have fielded far less tanks than we did. Even if you apply our manufacturing capabilities they'd still have to be transported thousands of miles across the ocean. That means less of them, and less of the other things that could have occupied the cargo space, that reaches the far off battlefields of Europe and the Pacific. It also means we advance slower. The Sherman's speed and reliability go a long way to trump armor thickness and firepower (and optics).

In short Tigers and Panthers may have been the best choice for the Germans but not necessarily for us.

As for troop comparisons, I don't really think there is such a thing as "the best" troops.

I'd put our top divisions up against any ones, friend or foe. For example Fraus boyfriend Dicky Winters took a half dozen men up against an entire Infantry company defending an artillery battery and kicked their butts. Who fields the better Soldier again?

The true picture is however that there was no shortage of guts or fighting ability on any side during the war. American, German, British, Aussie, Soviet, Chinese, Japanese and the rest, even the Italians, all have distinguished themselves on the battlefield.

When men are sufficiently trained, motivated, and led they can achieve great things. Nationality is immaterial except in the degree a nation can supply those things to their troops when they need them.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by August

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.

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.