Operation Artemis

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Even more damning, even if all of the enemy field armies we are considering in this scenario just mysteriously vanished by divine intervention , I’d not be confident of pulling off an occupation of even the civilian population of, let’s be clear, most of Europe, on anything less than several million infantrymen.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Erm, no? Present-day Greece with its present day army is in no position to fight a major conventional war that starts like a day from now. No European nation is, really. Greece's entire military doctrine is geared towards countering a Turkish military incursion against the Aegean Sea, coming from the East (a scenario in which Greece would probably still lose anyway). Why would they have their stuff together when suddenly faced with a land invasion of 30,000,000+ soldiers from the North?
(Nevermind that the Greek population would be considerably pre-occupied with the questions of A) why did we suddenly land in the 1940ies and B) why does everyone want us dead for no reason)

You have been asked this before: Why do the WW2 actors keep their historic IRL issues (like ethnic minorities hating Stalin and such) while 21st Century Greece somehow performs on an completely ideal level?

These are not unreasonable points. I think that our side would at least have the benefit of hindsight of history about how these WWII countries are likely to go about this.

That doesnt make any sense since you have completely changed the timeline by throwing 21st Century Greece back to the 1940s.

Its an entirely new war at that point as they are working together to kill one small country for no reason. And its allies who also join it for no reason.

[Kannap]

Counter-battery is a battlefield tactic rose to prominence in WW1. Greek artillery operators being aware of this tactic doesn't make them any better at it than WW2 artillery operators.

I wouldn't say targeting is "godlike" compared to WW2 days, it's improved - sure - but not as much as you have somehow let yourself believe.



Rocket artillery dates back to Medieval China, of course we found ways to make it mobile and put it on vehicles by WW2.

The Soviets had Katyusha rocket artillery in service by 1941

The Nazis had mobile rocket artillery as well, Panzerwerfers and Wurfrahmen 40s

The Americans put rockets on fucking tanks: T34 Calliope and T40 Whizbang



The British had self-propelled artillery in WW1. Then they made some newer ones for WW2, Bishop and Sexton.

The Nazis had self-propelled artillery in WW2 as well, Wespe and Hummel.

The Soviets had the SU-85 and SU-100 for self-propelled artillery of their own.

The Americans had the M7 Priest



Everything you've named so far was existent during WW2



We had all of these things during WW2, so this is an asinine statement to make.

Might as well say, "Could you imagine if we'd had planes and ships during WW2? That'd be wild, huh?"

With all due respect, exists =/= exists in anything resembling its modern 21st century iteration

I get you're operating under the flawed assertion that 21st century tech is somehow godlike compared to the technology of the 1940s but you made a statement that "We have self-propelled artillery, they didn't" - which is just blatantly wrong.

Even where Greece is using 1970s tech, that's still 30+ into the future and its doctrines and tactics wouldn't be those of the 1970s, it would be of the modern day.

A Greece and allies with meager amounts of 1970s equipment and "21st century military tactics" is still not anywhere close to a match against literally Nazi Germany, the British and French Empires, Imperial Japan, the USSR, and Italy lol

You're discounting almost 100 years of advancement in technology. A computer in the 1930s is a piece of junk compared to a modern computer; the same would apply to military tactics.

You've yet to provide any evidence or proof that modern military tactics are leaps and bounds more advanced than they were in WW2, you just expect us to trust "it's been 80 years guys, it must be!"

I mean looking at how badly the Allies blundered the opening stages of WWII and how the Nazis had serious weaknesses in lack of long range air, it was clear that military doctrines were being tested and figured out as the war progressed. Meanwhile, the Greek side would have their stuff together from square 1.

It doesn't matter how much they have their "stuff together" when they don't have the manpower to go toe to toe with the superpowers of the day.

[Kannap]

Let's take a quick Google search of the 21st century weapons each of these nations have militarily (quantities in bold if they're listed):

Land forces:
-VIS 100 (pistol)
-FB MSBS Grot (assault rifle): 48,000
-UKM-2000 (machine gun): 1,200
-Bor rifle (sniper rifle): 196
-WKW Wilk (sniper rifle): 80
-PPZR Piorun (handheld anti-air missile launcher): 420
-M120 Rak (self-propelled mortar): 64
-AHS Krab (self-propelled artillery): 72
-WR-40 Langusta (self-propelled artillery): 75
-SPZR Poprad (self-propelled anti-air): 77
-KTO Rosomak (infantry fighting vehicle): 903

Air Force: N/A

Navy:
-offshore patrol vessel: 1
-minehunter: 1
-mine countermeasure/forces command ship: 1

Overall, it appears that the overwhelming majority of the Polish military's equipment is dated back to the 1960s and 1970s. A lot of it being old Soviet equipment. The entire navy is pretty much pre-21st century and the planes in their air force are all pre-21st century.

Ground Forces:
-CZ Scorpion Evo 3 (submachine gun)
-CZ 805 BREN (assault rifle)
-M110 Semi Automatic (sniper rifle)
-H&K M320 (grenade launcher)
-EXPAL M-08 Combi (60mm mortar): 96
-Gidrán (armored combat vehicle): 10
-Skylark 1 (drone): 9

Air Force: N/A

Overall, Hungary is similar to Poland but in even worse shape because its smaller size. A lot of its equipment is outdated Soviet tech or tech from other countries from the 1970s and 1980s. Notably, unlike Poland, Hungary still has some active equipment from WW2 in its arsenal. The air force is entirely outdated.

Land Forces:
-Piranha V (armored fighting vehicle): 68

Naval Forces: N/A
Air Forces: N/A
Overall, as with Hungary and Poland, a lot of Romania's military equipment is outdated Soviet tech or tech from other countries from the 1960s-1980s. A sizable chunk of their artillery equipment is WW2 artillery. Their navy largely consists of ships from the 1980s. Their air force is likewise outdated.

Ground Forces
-Beretta Px4 Storm (pistol)
-Beretta ARX160 (assault rifle)
-H&K HK417 (battle rifle)
-Beretta ARX160 (grenade launcher)

Air Forces: N/A
Naval Forces: N/A

Overall, same criticisms as the aforementioned militaries. Notably, the standard issue assault rifles are 1950s tech and the country's 40 tanks are 1950s Chinese tech. The air forces and naval forces are likewise out of date, even worse so than the aforementioned nations.

Reminder that you've been told already that Yugoslavia no longer exists in the modern day. I'll assume you mean the six countries that were formerly Yugoslavia: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia.

Ground Forces
-FN SCAR (assault rifle)
-T91 (assault rifle)

Air Force and Air Defense: N/A

Overall, same as before. A lot of the tech of this nation's armed forces is from the 1970s-1980s or earlier, a lot of it being old Soviet and Yugoslavian tech. Almost all of their artillery is WW2 tech. Their air force is virtually non-existent except for some helicopters; their anti-air technology is from WW2 or the 1970s. I can't find that they have a navy.

Army
-HS Produkt VHS (assault rifle): 7,800
-HS Produkt VHS-2 (assault rifle): 20,000
-HK416 (assault rifle): 550
-HK417 (sniper rifle): 150

Air Force: N/A

Navy
-Omiš-class patrol boat: 1

Overall, once again largely consisting of 1960s-1980s tech and a lot of it being old Soviet or Yugoslavian tech.

Army
-Zastava M21 (assault rifle): 500

Air Force: N/A

Overall, same story as before. A lot of 1960s-1980s tech in their military supply, a lot of it being old Soviet and Yugoslavian tech.

Ground Army
-MPT-76 (assault rifle): 30
-HK416 (assault rifle)

Navy: N/A

Air Force N/A

Overall, again same story. Lots of old 1960s-1980s tech and old Soviet/Yugoslavian tech.

Army
-PASARS-16 (short range air defense): 2
-HQ-22 (surface-to-air missile system): 4
-Zastava M21 (assault rifle): 25,000
-Zastava M19 (assault rifle)
-Zastava M07 (sniper rifle)
-CH-92 (UAV): 6
-CH-95 (UAV)
-Aeronautics Defense Orbiter (UAV): 10
-Vrabac Mini UAV: 50

Air Force: N/A

River Flotilla: N/A

Same shit, different country. A lot of the tech is 1950s-1970s and a lot of it is old Soviet/Yugoslavian tech.

Ground Forces
-FN SCAR (assault rifle)

Navy: N/A

Air Force N/A

Same as before, less Yugoslavian/Soviet tech but still mainly 1950s-1980s tech in their military.

Land Forces
-FN 303 (semi-auto less-lethal riot gun)

Navy: N/A

Air Force: N/A

Same as before: A lot of 1970s tech and a lot of old Soviet tech

Hellenic Army: N/A

Hellenic Navy
-Roussen-class fast attack craft: 7
-Osprey HSY-56A-class gunboat: 4

Hellenic Air Force: N/A
A lot of 1950s-1970s equipment in this military. Some leftover WW2 tech, like some of the aforementioned countries. Quite a bit of old Soviet and West German equipment. Best navy out of this whole list of nations, unsurprisingly, but that's not saying a lot.

So, uh, 21st century equipment is not going to be a deciding factor here. Unless you're telling me you expect these countries to overcome the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Japan, Italy, Britain, and France relying on *check notes* 384 pieces of artillery, 13 ships, and 6 anti-aircraft guns as "superior 21st century technology."

I suppose the question you're really asking with this hypothetical is "Can a handful of countries with relatively small supplies of Cold War weaponry and equipment take down almost the entire world when that world has lots of WW2 equipment?" To which I'd answer: No, that's ridiculous, why'd you ask?



Just gonna pull the first numbers I find via Google:

• Greece has a wartime strength of 750,000 soldiers in the modern day. Only 100,000 soldiers are active duty in peacetime.
• Albania has 8,500 active duty personnel.
• North Macedonia has 6,100 active duty personnel; 12,500 reserves
• Bulgaria has 33,112 active duty personnel.
• Serbia has 17,850 active duty; 50,000 in reserves
• Bosnia and Herzegovina has 10,000 active duty personnel; 6,000 reserves
• Poland has 65,000 active duty personnel; 45,000 reserves
• Hungary has 37,650 active duty personnel
• Croatia has 7,514 active duty personnel; 6,000 reserves
• Romania has 68,500 active duty personnel; 53,000 reserves
• Slovenia has 7,300 active duty personnel; 1,500 reserves
• Montenegro has 2,400 active duty personnel

Now let's compare those to their enemies (again pulling first numbers I find):

• Nazi Germany had 13,600,000 soldiers
• Great Britain and her dominions had 8,586,000 soldiers
• France had mobilized 5,000,000 soldiers at the start of the war
• Japan had 1,700,000 soldiers
• By war's end, the Soviet army had 11,365,000 soldiers
• Italy had 2,560,000 soldiers

You want me to believe 1.3 million soldiers stand a chance against 42.8 million soldiers?



Hahahahahaha

Oh, you're serious? Let me laugh harder

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA



I can't be arsed to go about looking up Turkey and China's modern arsenal, you should've listed them with the rest of the countries I did above.



Wait, are these countries just automatically getting sent back via time traveling or are they given far enough warning in advance to study Indian history in depth and memorize it before losing access to the internet?



This is your brain on Hearts of Iron IV

Sorry I really want to give a good reply to this but it's getting too long for me.

Getting too long for you or poking too many holes and asking too many questions about this hypothetical that you won't give answers to?

I mean you can disagree with me if you want but I'll just add that these are just starting forces. 21st century nations could go into total war mode too (the WWII countries didn't look that good with their starting forces either in 1939)

Starting forces or total war mode, Greek and company are outnumbered by a long shot - in manpower and in equipment.

Basically, all the European countries in this hypothetical that are now at war with the superpowers around them that are hellbent on destroying them are wiped out quickly.

Your hypothetical becomes a question of "Can the WW2 era United States and modern China beat the rest of these powers?" and my respond to that is, "No, that's ridiculous, why'd you ask?"

[Kannap]

Erm, no? Present-day Greece with its present day army is in no position to fight a major conventional war that starts like a day from now. No European nation is, really. Greece's entire military doctrine is geared towards countering a Turkish military incursion against the Aegean Sea, coming from the East (a scenario in which Greece would probably still lose anyway). Why would they have their stuff together when suddenly faced with a land invasion of 30,000,000+ soldiers from the North?
(Nevermind that the Greek population would be considerably pre-occupied with the questions of A) why did we suddenly land in the 1940ies and B) why does everyone want us dead for no reason)

You have been asked this before: Why do the WW2 actors keep their historic IRL issues (like ethnic minorities hating Stalin and such) while 21st Century Greece somehow performs on an completely ideal level?

These are not unreasonable points. I think that our side would at least have the benefit of hindsight of history about how these WWII countries are likely to go about this.

Except that history they know about and have hindsight of no longer exists. 21st century eastern Europe and China didn't get dropped down into 1939 and all the superpowers didn't become hellbent on destroying them as a result. By throwing these people back, their historical knowledge is meaningless because you've changed the entire thing. These countries are no longer acting how they acted historically, they're acting in a way you've prescribed.

[Nitrana]

Well, according to ANs search, the Greeks would really have no chance. Also, don’t forget that the US were full isolationism in 1939

[New Baltenstein]

You've yet to provide any evidence or proof that modern military tactics are leaps and bounds more advanced than they were in WW2, you just expect us to trust "it's been 80 years guys, it must be!"

It's really the equivalent of believing that say, a 21st Century martial artist with 21 Century training gear and practice could take on 40 martial artists from 1900 alone and win because the passage of time simply makes you that much better.

[Infected Mushroom]

You've yet to provide any evidence or proof that modern military tactics are leaps and bounds more advanced than they were in WW2, you just expect us to trust "it's been 80 years guys, it must be!"

It's really the equivalent of believing that say, a 21st Century martial artist with 21 Century training gear and practice could take on 40 martial artists from 1900 alone and win because the passage of time simply makes you that much better.

military doctrine and tech has evolved way more

[Infected Mushroom]

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

[New Baltenstein]

It's really the equivalent of believing that say, a 21st Century martial artist with 21 Century training gear and practice could take on 40 martial artists from 1900 alone and win because the passage of time simply makes you that much better.

military doctrine and tech has evolved way more

This ain't Pokemon.

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

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.

[Infected Mushroom]

military doctrine and tech has evolved way more

This ain't Pokemon.

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

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.

Greece has a bunch of European allies with modern tech too.

[Heloin]

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

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

[Infected Mushroom]

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

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

Well, assuming that 21st century Poland is stronger than Nazi Germany 1 vs 1 (and factoring in the French having some serious tactical failings and the British being occupied with Canada and the Atlantic due to the US)... 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.

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

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.

[Infected Mushroom]

military doctrine and tech has evolved way more

This ain't Pokemon.

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

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. If not, then blockade and cripple the British etc. 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.

[New Baltenstein]

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.

Greece has a bunch of European allies with modern tech too.

Who even if with all their powers combined (Captain Planet!) couldn't bring half the numbers of either the USSR or Nazi Germany on the table.

[Neo-Western East Korea]

Albania easily crushes all other nations on earth using pure Albanian psyonic powers, destroying all non-Albanian life on the planet before ascending to the Imperium of Albania.

[Infected Mushroom]

Greece has a bunch of European allies with modern tech too.

Who even if with all their powers combined (Captain Planet!) couldn't bring half the numbers of either the USSR or Nazi Germany on the table.

Considering how much damage Germany could deal to numerically superior French and Soviet forces, I think 21st century armies could do better.

[New Baltenstein]

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

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

You'd assume wrong.

USA got across the gigantic Pacific, they can get through the Atlantic.

They got across the Pacific during a timespan of four years, fighting a single nation, one with vastly inferior industrial capabilities from the start. They did not have to face the Royal Navy, and the French navy, and the German submarine force, combined, at the same time.

Just grab some islands as bases etc. If not, then blockade and cripple the British etc. 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.[/quote]

Ah yes, the famous Atlantic island chains of...erm...er...
The pacific has a lot of islands. The Atlantic doesn't.
You'd have the Azores and the Canary islands and that's it. Both of these are faaar closer to Europe than to North America and require you to be capable of establishing transatlantic supply routes before even getting there.

[Infected Mushroom]

You'd assume wrong.



They got across the Pacific during a timespan of four years, fighting a single nation, one with vastly inferior industrial capabilities from the start. They did not have to face the Royal Navy, and the French navy, and the German submarine force, combined, at the same time.

Just grab some islands as bases etc. If not, then blockade and cripple the British etc. 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.

Ah yes, the famous Atlantic island chains of...erm...er...
The pacific has a lot of islands. The Atlantic doesn't.
You'd have the Azores and the Canary islands and that's it. Both of these are faaar closer to Europe than to North America and require you to be capable of establishing transatlantic supply routes before even getting there.

They just need to create a naval front of some kind, and to be able to keep replacing losses. Tie up British and French resources. They could also take Canada.

[New Baltenstein]

Who even if with all their powers combined (Captain Planet!) couldn't bring half the numbers of either the USSR or Nazi Germany on the table.

Considering how much damage Germany could deal to numerically superior French and Soviet forces, I think 21st century armies could do better.

Yes, and fifty 15th Century men-at-arms could obliterate 100.000 Ancient Hoplites in open warfare.

After, all they are 2000 years apart, meaning they must be 2000 years stronger and better.

[Infected Mushroom]

Considering how much damage Germany could deal to numerically superior French and Soviet forces, I think 21st century armies could do better.

Yes, and fifty 15th Century men-at-arms could obliterate 100.000 Ancient Hoplites in open warfare.

After, all they are 2000 years apart, meaning they must be 2000 years stronger and better.

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

[Nolo gap]

conditions insane. options insane. send u.f.o.'s and "military advisors".

[Heloin]

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

Well, assuming that 21st century Poland is stronger than Nazi Germany 1 vs 1 (and factoring in the French having some serious tactical failings and the British being occupied with Canada and the Atlantic due to the US)... 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.

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

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.

Every time you post another point here it’s basically a large flag for everyone to know that you don’t know a whole lot about this subject.

Poland in 1939 would have likely beaten the Germans in the end if the USSR hadn’t invaded. Poland now would still lose against being invaded by both sides. Poland exists in a stratigic position to lose a two front war.

The UK had a plan in the 1940s for if the Americans invaded Canada. Who gives a fuck. Sure Newfoundland was a direct British Colony and important for the grand bank fisheries, but the rest of Canada could burn to the ground and Britain really wouldn’t care.

The blitz was the bombing of civilians in the UK, and was a total failure. Blitzkrieg was a combined operations tactic that only works when the enemy is unprepared for the attack, famously failing in Kursk when the Soviets knew it was coming.

A good general could turn this around in the same way an elephant could climb a tree to get a coconut.

[Heloin]

Yes, and fifty 15th Century men-at-arms could obliterate 100.000 Ancient Hoplites in open warfare.

After, all they are 2000 years apart, meaning they must be 2000 years stronger and better.

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

Then why did the Americans just lose a war to guerrillas using the same tactics that kicked out the British in Afghanistan in 1842.

[Kannap]

It's really the equivalent of believing that say, a 21st Century martial artist with 21 Century training gear and practice could take on 40 martial artists from 1900 alone and win because the passage of time simply makes you that much better.

military doctrine and tech has evolved way more

How? You've not provided any evidence to support this claim