Poll. Germany or USA - Which country has the more advanced technology

This is not exactly true, the flying wing concept was mainly developed by German Junkers company and German Horten brothers. The original idea was Austrian.

Many countries have stealth technology, we only don't know, because these airplanes are invisible

 

Good point 'Volker'..........yes we dont really know what our own countries stealth capabilities are.

All i can say is that the Americans have shown the world their stealth capabilities.

 

It's a marketing gag anyway. American stealth is pretty visible to modern Russian radar systems

And what is stealth good for, if there are satellites out there to watch them flying?

 

I'am sure the British and Germans, would be very good at Stealth technology!....mind you we wouldn't know if it was good as we wouldn't see it.

 

That was only an example, which explains a little bit the system ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm8KwP3ZxiI"]‪Israel & Germany Develop Secret Nuclear Missile Detection Sy‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


gr

 

This one is the best point. Germany actually has the by far biggest and most modern car industry. It could immediately be used for creating a huge armada of armoured vehicles. In this aspect Germany is even much more powerful than the Third Reich.
For example the "Werk I" of BMW in Munich, which is just one single manufactory by one single car company creates 800 BMWs every day.

I don't understand why the American patriots here completely disregard this fact.
The USA would never be able to invade Germany alone, not to speak about whole Europe.

 

That is not saying much. Compared to most modern nations, Nazi Germany would be very weak. We have had a half century to improve on their technology. It is not just Modern Germany that would be industrially superior to the Nazis.

Even 2nd and 3rd world nations today probably have superior manufacturing technology.

Because manufacturing cars and designing military technology are not the same thing. Thats why.

If you are manufacturing things that can be easily destroyed by the other side because their weapons technology is superior, then it matters a lot less how many targets you can produce. Numbers do not mean what they used to mean. Technology is a more significant variable.

LOL

The USA could not invade Germany without conscripting. But we outnumber them almost 4 to 1, we have far more resources, and we have superior technology. It would only be a matter of time. Germany does not even have a nuclear deterrent to fall back on.

Their navy is a joke compared to ours. Even if our fighter technology was not superior to theirs (which of course it is), we still out number them by a wide margin anyway...they have less than 300 fighters. The US has thousands. Our carriers alone probably have enough fighters to counter the German air force.

Europe as a whole might be a different issue, but Germany alone? They would not stand a chance in hell against the US. It might not be Iraq, but it certainly would not be WW2 all over again. We would walk right over them.

 

Cars and Modern MBTs don't have very much in common. Building the expensive and complex composite armor as well as the optics, and ballistic computers is an entire different ball game. This is why only few companies in the world (mostly American ones) build the majority of the the world's sophisticated military systems/weapons. It's a very specialized industry.

The Third Reich was significantly more powerful than Germany is today compared to the rest of the world. That's a silly statement.

 

That statement is also completely wrong.

Vehicle Productions by Country: (thousands)
China 18,264
Japan 9,625
United States 7,761
Germany 5,905

http://oica.net/category/production-statistics/

 

These numbers are relevant for the war, as it is the topic here. For the civil car industry it would be interesting how many of the Chinese, US, Japanese... cars are produced by German companies and vice versa.

Volkswagen e.g. produces an important contingent of their vehicles in Brasil or Mexico. By the way some of the 5905 vehicles produced in Germany some of them will be produced by US companies (Opel -> subsidiary company of GM).

 

Although again there are thousands of possible scenarios how such a war could take I am quite sure, Germany would be outmatched in nearly all of these scenarios.

The most important question would be if there is a neighbour which gives the US the right of passage than it would be a question of weeks. Maybe with much more casualites than e.g. in the Iraq, but it would not take much longer.

Much more difficult would be a landing at the coast, but even in this case IMO they should have the capabilities to manage it with a good preparation. After they establish a beachhead, again, it would be a matter of weeks.

 

Only in your dreams. USA needed 9 months to invade a completely war-sick and half destroyed Nazi Germany that was already fighting a huge enemy at the eastern.

What makes you think they could invade a sane Germany with a working, huge industry within weeks?

That is ridiculous.

 

LOL

The US is hardly in that position now...we have the most powerful military ever seen by the human race. We have the best technology.

None of that was true back then. We have everything now that we had back then except that now we also have the best technology and a massive installed base of equipment.

And um...the US was also fighting on two fronts btw. So drop the "OMG we were attacked from two sides!!1!" excuse.

Because a "working, huge industry" is not going to do anything against tanks and plans bombing and shelling them. Its a means to an end, not the end itself.

No, Germany is not going to "poof" all that military hardware into existence in a matter of weeks. LOL

 

In my consideration I was taking a scenario in which the US can ship their troops into a neighbour country and can directly begin the invasion of Germany. Not a march to half of Europe. As mentioned, other scenarios could be much more difficult.

Warfare simply became much quicker. Even if the US Army suffers terrible losses and even defeat in some battles they will have enough resources to keep the initiative. And the main production areas of Germany will fall into the hands of the US forces within a few weeks if the US Army would be willing to keep the initiative no matter what it costs.

Let's say there is an exchange of 1 to 1 in fighters, tanks and every weapon category the German army would run out of supply much earlier. I think one to one exchange is pessimistic due I would state a clear superiority with regard to military technology of the US forces (not in every discipline, but overall, I don't mean the Euro Fighter nor the Leopard II nor the Dolphin submarines, but from an overall perpesctive; e.g. I don't think we have any competetive drone technology, cruise missles, and so on) as well as superiority in number can reduce losses from time to time. Even if you see the opposite let's say there would be a 2:1 exchange in favor of Germany, they could simply overpower us.

I don't know what imagination you have of Germany, although it would have quite good equipment, it's a small country there is no space for tactic to let your troops withdraw, no good terrain to have protected to withdraw (many plains, few moubtains) recover and start counter attacks, after some battles this war would be over.

As an example the Swiss would have a rather terrible terrain to invade.

 

Not to mention we would just bomb them into rubble anyway. We would not need to use ground troops if our goal was merely to destroy their manufacturing capacity.

This is an example of why he cannot use WW2 as an analog...Planes in WW2 were much more vulnerable than ours are now. Stealth technology is a game changer. It gives the US a huge advantage when it comes to the initiative. B2s could bypass any German defenses and carpet bomb manufacturing centers.

Thats what we did in WW2...only now we have much larger bombs delivered by stealth aircraft equipped with night vision sensors and using laser guided technology.

 

I don't doubt that there are many ways to conquer an country like Germany, if the US is completely determinated to do so (else if the first loss raise the issue to withdraw). And maybe my scenario of 1 to 1 exchange is too optimistic, nevertheless it will work to be sufficient to end such a war in between weeks if you don't care about your losses.

Beside all these technology arguments Germany is a very good battlefield for an attacker with overwhelming forces. We should be interested to keep the peace with our neighbours.

Let's take Russia instead, this would be much more dangerous terrain. Even huge armies can be cut off supply there and must take long distances.

 

Invading Germany would not be trivial...it would not be a situation like Iraq or even Vietnam. It would be a fully involved total war like WW2.

But the outcome would not be in doubt...the US would surely win.

Obviously the US would never have a reason to attack Germany anyway. And even if it did, it is highly unlikely that Germany would not be allied with most of Europe against us. The likelihood of the US invading Germany (and only Germany) is so remote it might as well be zero.

Screw the terrain, Russia would be far more dangerous for other reasons. They have a larger population and far better technology. In many areas their technology (military technology) matches ours. They also have far more resources and the size of their nation would make bombing them difficult.

 

But Vietnam was extremely difficult to control. Maybe you would have losses in a completely other scale invading Germany, but if once conquered, it's over and there is no jungle in which German troops and withdraw and reorganize.

Hey, I hope so. Not that you take notes and make plans.

With the technological argument - be careful. Sure, they developed some impressing technologies, but are you really sure they have the capabilities to provide their best developments really for the army (at least in an adequate scale)??

The SU withdraw as a super power from East Germany and were anable to even take some of the material. So there were some 1500 tanks which we could inspect. Many of these tanks were in a very bad state.

I saw another documentary of the Russian army at the beginning of the last decade let it be 2003 or 2004 in Chechnya. Some units did not have enough jackboots, not to talk about rifles and so on.

Maybe the situation improved, but what technology Russia developed and what it is capable to use at the battlefield in a large scale are different questions.


What I mean is indeed the size of the nation. Their industrial areas are not that concentrated on such a small space so as you say, difficult to bombard plus they have buffer zones which Germany does not have. For an awful long period of such a war they would be able to withdraw their troops out of your distance always keeping the threat of attacking your troops, which on the other hand would an American onmarch slow down extremely. And the long distances as such are an extreme logistic problem for the attacker.

So lets say hypotheticially the German army protecting Russia from US forces would be a much tougher problem than protecting Germany.

 

I am wondering what your German flag means, but obviously you do not know my country.

Actually, Germany does NOT have many plains and if there are plains, it's mostly forest. There is always a place to hide (many hills despite what you are saying), lots of forests and many, many cities and villages.

So there is plenty of good stuff to hide and attack from it.

I was trained in the Bundeswehr about 20 years ago in a elite infantry company and we learned how to use trees, hills, rivers, ditches, houses etc. in order to defend. We never learned attacking tactics, just defending.

A classic, conventional invasion of Germany would be all but easy for any attacker.

Another thing is, as SS correctly says, if some country just wants to bomb Germany into oblivion with a superior air force... Elite infantrists like me are probably quite helpless against this kind of destructive warfare.

 

Nonsense... You should leave Berlin (?) for once and have a look at the pretty countryside of Germany, which full of forest, hills and villages. Plenty of stuff to withdraw, hide and reorganize.

 

They certainly have the technology. The only question is if they could deploy it. Their economy is where they are weak.

They also have a volume of men and hardware to pose more of a resistance as well.

I agree that is a major variable. But their best tech equipment is probably going to be better maintained.

By technology I was thinking along the lines of their fighters. Even their 4th gen fighters are dangerous, and their 5th gen fighters are formidable. And those are all likely well maintained.

Part of the reason I think the US would own Germany in an invasion scenario is because of our air dominance. Our numbers and technology are vastly superior to Germany's. That would be far more difficult to obtain with Russia. They have greater numbers than Germany and better technology.

 

Sure, I don't.

What a load of rubbish.

... because of that under 30% of our land consists of forrests. By the way a great place for tanks and airplanes to withdraw.

Yes, Germany consists mostly of lofty mountains.

Can you maybe clarify what you understand as a mountain?

So what you are talking about is partisan action. A good method to inflict losses on an occupying force which is not willing to tolerate this losses. If they decide to take the losses - what will you do then?

If you just defend as a regular unit I would be interested in how you defend from hevy artillery.

It's the question what losses the attacker could take.

Elite like you infantrists are normally not just learn to defend. Normally their training is extremely expensive and you don't train them to open engage the enemy by protecting a house or a hill. Interesting unit which you served.

Lol - if there is a great area for that there is hardly a better place here than huge cities like Berlin to organzise resistance (beside the Alpes or e.g. the Erzgebirge).

Maybe you should leave your region and ask in Bavaria what a hill is and what a mountain is.

I don't know where your disrespect for the Europfighter typhoon come from, but technologically is has definitely nothing to fear. No F-22, no F-16 and no Russian fighter.

 

From the fact that it has no real stealth capability. A stealth-equipped enemy could target and attack them long before they could respond.

I actually do not disrespect the Typhoon at all. Among non-stealth fighters, it is the best in the world IMO. Certainly superior to the F-16, and probably to the F-15 as well. It is probably at least a match for any non-stealth Russian fighter.

In BVR combat however its lack of stealth is a serious liability. Stealth is not an "I win" button of course, but it definitely provides a huge advantage.

In this invasion scenario, the US would be able to overwhelm German Typhoons with swarms of F-16s and F-15s. While they may be able to easily destroy them one on one, they would not be attacked one on one.

How exactly would it counter an F-22 in BVR combat? The F-22 could lock weapons on a Typhoon long before the Typhoon could do the same to the F-22.

 

Ahem Glücksritter, I was born in Germany, I am German, I live in Germany for 4 decades and I travel a lot within my country, by bike, by train and by car.

You are not teaching me how my country is looking like, are you?

 

It is common knowledge the Typhoon guys hype themselves up. They are either insecure or they are hiding something. It is a nice aircraft and would match well against my -15, but it has nothing on the F-22. I am not even sure how you derive the logic to continue that discussion.