Operation Artemis

[Latorik]

OP doesn't make any sense: Greece 2020 is already quite likely to defeat Nazi Germany 1939 + Fascist Italy 1939 + Soviet Union 1939.
OP then adds even on Greece side those powers with tech and weapons they have 2020:
Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Yugoslavia, Poland, Hungary, China.

Alone, China 2020 is more than able to conquer the whole 1939 world.

Turkey 2020 would be quickly occupy Moscow, Rome and Berlin.

Just to understand, this is Greece:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... ttle_tanks

1939 Soviet Union + 1939 Nazi Germany have nothing to stop this, while 1939 Fascist Italy is a joke.

The other 2020 powers on Greece side don't even have to fight, they have just to send help (equipment, fuel, etc): their cargos cannot be stopped, 100% reach destination.

The 1939 enemies won't even have time to develop better weapons: they're going to be defeat well before reaching their 1944-1945 level.

total vehicle pool =/= combat capable vehicles or crew

[Neanderthaland]

Ah yes. The well known tactic of body armor. Invented in the 21st century.

Kevlar Bullet stopping body armour did not exist in 1939. The average grunt's skin was his protection, that is not the case today.

It's also not the case that this is a "tactic."

[Infected Mushroom]

Kevlar Bullet stopping body armour did not exist in 1939. The average grunt's skin was his protection, that is not the case today.

It's also not the case that this is a "tactic."

Tactic, broadly defined:
“…an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.”

Issuing kevlar+ to all/most front liners, putting them on… are types of tactics.

[The Two Jerseys]

It's also not the case that this is a "tactic."

Tactic, broadly defined:
“…an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.”

Issuing kevlar+ to all/most front liners, putting them on… are types of tactics.

It really isn't.

Just like how performing maintenance on vehicles isn't a tactic.

[Infected Mushroom]

Tactic, broadly defined:
“…an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.”

Issuing kevlar+ to all/most front liners, putting them on… are types of tactics.

It really isn't.

Just like how performing maintenance on vehicles isn't a tactic.

It depends on the definition you’re using. I think Ethel was using a more broad variation of it.

[Ethel mermania]

Kevlar Bullet stopping body armour did not exist in 1939. The average grunt's skin was his protection, that is not the case today.

It's also not the case that this is a "tactic."

Its a difference maker in the fight.

[Thermodolia]

I think it's winnable with USA and China on the Greek team tbh

How? Siberia is fucking massive. It’s going to be a slog. And the US isn’t going to be able to do shit as the Royal Navy, French Navy, and the IJN will blow the US navy to bits.

Alaska and Hawaii would be occupied by the UK and Japan

[Neanderthaland]

It's also not the case that this is a "tactic."

Its a difference maker in the fight.

This is the post you were responding to:

Germany winning Battle of France shows how important tactics are. 21st century tactics are superior to anything they have.

Name the tactics we have which they do not. Be specific.

Hopefully you can see how being a "difference maker" is not a tactic, and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If not, I honestly don't know what I could say to explain it to you.

[Neanderthaland]

I think it's winnable with USA and China on the Greek team tbh

How? Siberia is fucking massive. It’s going to be a slog. And the US isn’t going to be able to do shit as the Royal Navy, French Navy, and the IJN will blow the US navy to bits.

Alaska and Hawaii would be occupied by the UK and Japan

I still don't acknowledge that addition of China to this scenario, and you shouldn't either.

IM always does this. He modifies the hypothetical endlessly until he gets the answer he wants.

[Ethel mermania]

Its a difference maker in the fight.

This is the post you were responding to:

Name the tactics we have which they do not. Be specific.

Hopefully you can see how being a "difference maker" is not a tactic, and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If not, I honestly don't know what I could say to explain it to you.

Responding to the premise in context, its not that difficult to understand. Pendancy is more important, got it.

[Thermodolia]

This ain't Pokemon.



China won't manage to get out of Asia. The USA won't manage to cross the Atlantic (the enemy nations won't be able to make a landfall in North America either but that's beside the point). So no, it's not winnable.

USA got across the gigantic Pacific, they can get through the Atlantic. Just grab some islands as bases etc.

Unlike the Pacific the Atlantic doesn’t have enough islands to do an island hopping campaign. Also the US had Australian and RN support in the Pacific. They don’t have any of that.

If not, then blockade and cripple the British etc.

How? How is the USN going to get through the combined force of the Royal Navy, the French Navy, and the Kriegsmarine? The USN would be outgunned and outnumbered.

USA's main role is to restrict the impact of the British and French in the war, not necessarily to land. Create a naval front that drains resources.

The only resources that would be draining would be the USA. Hawaii and Alaska would be under enemy occupation. You thought Pearl Harbor was bad? Now imagine the Royal Navy and the IJN teaming up to knock the USN out of the pacific.

With the win conditions given you’d be absolutely wrong.

Well, assuming that 21st century Poland is stronger than Nazi Germany 1 vs 1

Modern day Poland is not stronger than Nazi Germany.

(and factoring in the French having some serious tactical failings

Why? They’d be allied with Germany. There would be no tactical failures on their part.

and the British being occupied with Canada and the Atlantic due to the US)...

Canada was independent by this point. Still the Royal Navy was the most powerful navy on the planet. They make the USN lives a living hell.

then the rest of the countries could tag the USSR for long enough (organize and split between two fronts) and do a lot of damage.

No they wouldn’t. The USSR at its peak had near 20 million troops. There is no way any of those nations in Europe are going to be able to withstand that human wall.

If German blitz worked so well, then with modern fighters and missiles it'll be even better.

The blitz worked because the victims of the blitz had worse equipment and manpower than the Nazis did. Dropping in modern, and they don’t even have modern guns, weapons isn’t going to change the fact that Nazi Germany still outmans and outguns them.

A real general could come up with a better way to divide the European forces to deal with France, Germany, USSR, Italy but you get the idea.

A real general would have shot himself with his service pistol at the thought of the hopelessness of the situation

[Neanderthaland]

This is the post you were responding to:


Hopefully you can see how being a "difference maker" is not a tactic, and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If not, I honestly don't know what I could say to explain it to you.

Responding to the premise in context, its not that difficult to understand. Pendancy is more important, got it.

It isn't though. IM said that 21st century TACTICS would make a difference.

We've been talking about the other stuff for pages, but this is the post you chose to chime in on. The one where IM made a claim about tactics. And was asked "specifically" which tactics? And then you proceeded to list a bunch of things that are not tactics.

If calling this pedantic is your way of saving face for posting obviously irrelevant nonsense, that's fine. But I still want to know what these amazing and innovative 21st century tactics are. And you clearly don't know either.

[Latorik]

The presence of China turns this into a stomp into the other direction.

All they have to do is slap some fuel tanks on their J-20s and drop precision guided munitions on just about every capitol in the world

even without nukes if you add china this turns into another stomp lmao

[Thermodolia]

The presence of China turns this into a stomp into the other direction.

All they have to do is slap some fuel tanks on their J-20s and drop precision guided munitions on just about every capitol in the world

even without nukes if you add china this turns into another stomp lmao

Not really. China is on the entire other side of the world and still has to get past the Royal Navy, the French Navy, and the IJN

And if they go by land they have to go through all of Siberia. It’s not going to work

[Infected Mushroom]

The presence of China turns this into a stomp into the other direction.

All they have to do is slap some fuel tanks on their J-20s and drop precision guided munitions on just about every capitol in the world

even without nukes if you add china this turns into another stomp lmao

Not really. China is on the entire other side of the world and still has to get past the Royal Navy, the French Navy, and the IJN

And if they go by land they have to go through all of Siberia. It’s not going to work

Which won’t be relevant against modern missiles and the USA being on team Greece.

[Infected Mushroom]

Responding to the premise in context, its not that difficult to understand. Pendancy is more important, got it.

It isn't though. IM said that 21st century TACTICS would make a difference.

We've been talking about the other stuff for pages, but this is the post you chose to chime in on. The one where IM made a claim about tactics. And was asked "specifically" which tactics? And then you proceeded to list a bunch of things that are not tactics.

If calling this pedantic is your way of saving face for posting obviously irrelevant nonsense, that's fine. But I still want to know what these amazing and innovative 21st century tactics are. And you clearly don't know either.

The use of modern weapons is, according to the dictionary, tactics.

I’ve quoted it. It just needs to be a decision about how weapons are distributed or used, about any aspect of warfare really.

[Thermodolia]

Not really. China is on the entire other side of the world and still has to get past the Royal Navy, the French Navy, and the IJN

And if they go by land they have to go through all of Siberia. It’s not going to work

Which won’t be relevant against modern missiles and the USA being on team Greece.

Logistics hasn’t changed and neither has the landmass.

The USA is also fucked in the ass.

[Neanderthaland]

It isn't though. IM said that 21st century TACTICS would make a difference.

We've been talking about the other stuff for pages, but this is the post you chose to chime in on. The one where IM made a claim about tactics. And was asked "specifically" which tactics? And then you proceeded to list a bunch of things that are not tactics.

If calling this pedantic is your way of saving face for posting obviously irrelevant nonsense, that's fine. But I still want to know what these amazing and innovative 21st century tactics are. And you clearly don't know either.

The use of modern weapons is, according to the dictionary, tactics.

“…an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.”

Only in the loosest possible definition of the word. By this notion, using a can opener is a "tactic." This is obviously not what we're talking about. And trying to pull this nonsense is nothing more than an admission that you anything about tactics generally, or 21st century tactics specifically.

I’ve quoted it.

Yes, I saw. It was very dumb.

It just needs to be a decision about how weapons are distributed or used, about any aspect of warfare really.

Which we call "logistics" not "tactics."

This was a pathetic attempt to pretend you had a point, IM. Next time don't talk about things you know nothing about.

[Infected Mushroom]

The use of modern weapons is, according to the dictionary, tactics.

“…an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.”

Only in the loosest possible definition of the word. By this notion, using a can opener is a "tactic." This is obviously not what we're talking about. And trying to pull this nonsense is nothing more than an admission that you anything about tactics generally, or 21st century tactics specifically.

I’ve quoted it.

Yes, I saw. It was very dumb.

It just needs to be a decision about how weapons are distributed or used, about any aspect of warfare really.

Which we call "logistics" not "tactics."

This was a pathetic attempt to pretend you had a point, IM. Next time don't talk about things you know nothing about.

It says “carefully thought out action or strategy.”

Issuing the vests to all frontline troops and factoring that into production and operational doctrines = “carefully planned strategy”

Wearing the vests, using the vests = “action”

[Infected Mushroom]

Which won’t be relevant against modern missiles and the USA being on team Greece.

Logistics hasn’t changed and neither has the landmass.

The USA is also fucked in the ass.

USA is basically immortal in WWII in its ability to replace all losses

Having USA on your team is like having a god backing you

[Thermodolia]

Logistics hasn’t changed and neither has the landmass.

The USA is also fucked in the ass.

USA is basically immortal in WWII in its ability to replace all losses

No it’s not.

Having USA on your team is like having a god backing you

You clearly don’t understand WWII and US industrial capabilities at all

[Neanderthaland]

“…an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.”

Only in the loosest possible definition of the word. By this notion, using a can opener is a "tactic." This is obviously not what we're talking about. And trying to pull this nonsense is nothing more than an admission that you anything about tactics generally, or 21st century tactics specifically.


Yes, I saw. It was very dumb.


Which we call "logistics" not "tactics."

This was a pathetic attempt to pretend you had a point, IM. Next time don't talk about things you know nothing about.

It says “carefully thought out action or strategy.”

Issuing the vests to all frontline troops and factoring that into production and operational doctrines = “carefully planned strategy”

Wearing the vests, using the vests = “action”

You can pretend this is what you meant when you said "21st century tactics" all you want. But you're not convincing anyone. We all know you weren't talking about technology or equipment.

And we also know you don't know anything about what you were actually talking about.

[Neanderthaland]

Logistics hasn’t changed and neither has the landmass.

The USA is also fucked in the ass.

USA is basically immortal in WWII in its ability to replace all losses

The USA did not win in WWII by "replacing all losses." They won by losing far fewer soldiers than the people they were fighting.

You're thinking of the Soviets. And even they were pretty close to running out of steam.

Having USA on your team is like having a god backing you

It's like having GM backing you.

[Infected Mushroom]

It says “carefully thought out action or strategy.”

Issuing the vests to all frontline troops and factoring that into production and operational doctrines = “carefully planned strategy”

Wearing the vests, using the vests = “action”

You can pretend this is what you meant when you said "21st century tactics" all you want. But you're not convincing anyone. We all know you weren't talking about technology or equipment.

And we also know you don't know anything about what you were actually talking about.

I don’t have to pretend. It’s dictionary-supported.

[The Two Jerseys]

The presence of China turns this into a stomp into the other direction.

All they have to do is slap some fuel tanks on their J-20s and drop precision guided munitions on just about every capitol in the world

even without nukes if you add china this turns into another stomp lmao

J-20 would never get to those world capitals, because it has the combat range of a WWII medium bomber.