If fighting on equal terms, who would win? The First World War German Army, or the Second World War German Army?

Right, tactics and leadership? Then it depends on which tech we settle on. Which ever side we set the tech level to has a huge advantage in preparation.

Attached: aa.png (1200x3936, 1.11M)

historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/operation-barbarossa-9-popular-myths-busted/

>I guess I should have posted this on /his/ after all.

I think people aren't getting that by "equal terms" you mean "give the WWI army WWII equipment to fight with".

Even with the same equipment, the WWII army would win. First World War armies had terrible small unit tactics and doctrine. WWII armies were superior precisely because the WWI armies beat their own heads against the wall over and over until they learned some painful lessons.

>Wow guys I had to correct myself in a post after hand to clarify my vague statement in OP

Kaiser's army was larger and had more resources. Hitler's army would never defeated it in war of attrition. Kaiser's army was also less centralized and Kaiser never get too involved in decision making. It evolved through 4 years and was adapting quickly thanks to commanders rising in the ranks and having freedom to try new things. Hitler's army depended on Hitler's stupid decisions and wasted resources on building death camps and other stupid shit.

Assuming technologically equal, the the WW1 German Army.
That was probably the single greatest military to ever exist, actually. Fought Russia, France, and Great Britain to a near stand still, defeating the first completely. France and Britain win via just waiting for America.

Otto with modern day weaponry is a horrifying thought.
There would be the ringing of sabers and the unmistakable German precision of artillery fire. Followed by deathly silence.
First world war, hands down.

This, but equally if you stripped the WW2 army of it's equipment and put them on WW1 terms, they'd have less experience with the more static fighting style. It'd probably be closer than the other way around though since WW2 army would still have some insight into the older tactics.

Why is this a question? The Nazi armies. They already figured out that static warfare was outdated. That's how they crushed the French.

The WWII Germans would plow the WWI Germans with blitzkrieg. Frenchies thought it would be trench warfare which is why they surrendered so quickly.

Depends on whose technology they are using, since they are using equal technology. Second WW German army was using tactics only viable with their technology, and First WW army would have little knowledge of such tactics. So if they are using WW2 tech WW@ army wins.

If they are both using WW1 tech, then I'd have to do more research, but I'm still leaning towards WW@ army because they had more dynamic army and their Generals were given more free will to form their own battle plans and change them based on circumstances.

1st ww because most great general that worked for Hitler were part of the Aristocracy.
Also well Prussia and the Kaiser.

the premise is utterly retarded.
tactics and strategies are tailored to the technologies of their time. they're intrinsically connected, so any attempt to seperate them just delivers meaningless results.

Oh, nice.
I can't believe I've never heard this before.
I enjoy his stuff.

Attached: IMG_20200402_191627.jpg (1600x869, 255.05K)

imperial army. No dumb fucks from SS draining resources, no NSDAP mixing into affairs of army, party nepotism etc

>single greatest military to ever exist
In absolute and relative terms that is bullshit that is an exageration.
Don't forget that Germany was fighting France 1v1 and was brought to a standstill long before Russia was able to mobilise. Combined with trench warfares huge advantages to the defenders meant that after that they were basically safe from the west.

Stupid question. Sage

A bulgar tatar calls Russian subhuman lmao the irony.

This.

How are you posting from your tent?

With WWI equipment WWI krauts win.
With WWII equipment WWII krauts win.

This is a stupid fucking thread.
Each era is superior with their own weapons and tactics they trained to fight with. You fucking mong. That being said WWII tactics were far superior as the tactics of WWI were proven obsolete 50+ years earlier in the American Civil War.

He's not wrong. If Kaiser had technology Hitler had you'd be speaking German now.

We are talking about modern warfare not trench though.

How far would have the third reich have went if htlers ideologies didn't get in the way?

Only the best officers were kept after WWI to conform to Versailles, and that is of those who managed to survive in the first place. The WWII German officer corps is perhaps the most elite in history.

Neither would fight against eachother and focus on the Frogs and the eternal Anglo, who are lusting over the destruction of Germany and introducing Democracy and Multiculturalism.

and would instead focus*

WWI.

Simply higher birth rates thus more canonfodder.

Attached: 1583583701893.jpg (446x720, 15.43K)

Go away Dan Carlin, this is stupid. Even assuming the First World War Germans get panzers and stukas, the Nazis still win because they have the theory to use those weapon systems while WW1 Germany would be starting from scratch. Guderian, Manstein, Hoth, etc. have operational doctrine designed to use tank armies, while WW1 Germany, given a few thousand tanks, would presumably parcel them out to their divisions the same way every WW1 army did with the tanks they had.

How would the WW1 German army even know how to operate WW2 equipment? Communications, aircraft, missiles, armor, mobile artillery? This is a dumb thread

This is a really stupid thread.

there would be no third reich without Hitler's ideology

OP's thread is too difficult for tards to comprehend. He's talking about the size, organization and resources.

If a circle was a square which one would be more circular, the circle or the square?

So you're saying that they're equal?

He literally clarified and said it was about “tactics and leadership,” not supply. This is a stupid thread either way.

>Disregarding technology?
The Keizer's Wehrmacht had decades of experience and the ability to mobilize millions of troops.
The post-Weimar Wehrmacht needed to grow from a few thousand to millions in 5 years. No matter how good the limited number of veteran NCO's and officers are, operational experiences would win the day.

The question itself is fucking stupid. It's meaningless unless he specifically addresses what he means by equal terms.

his question basically nerfs any differences in tech by saying "equal terms" so yeah I guess

You don't think proficiency in operating equipment counts in "organization"?

What does that matter? How would the WW1 army know how to use the equipment? That's part of "tactics".

The Kaiser was a better wartime leader — he didn't intervene in military matters. This resulted in better staff and organization and more competent tactical and strategic decisions on the part of the military. There's no question they would win if given equal footing with Hitler's men.