# Military Might: 1941 Germany vs 2003 Iraq **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 10, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-might-1941-germany-vs-2003-iraq/154146 "2003-02-10T17:48:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-might-1941-germany-vs-2003-iraq/154146/21 "2003-02-10T21:31:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by badmana \* > **A Pazer tank still has a pretty decent main gun. It might not stop a modern M1A2 (with one shot) but Iraq, AFAIK, as T-55s and T-80s doesnt it? And 4 to 1 odds are still 4 to 1 odds (against the Iraqis).** Actually, Soviet tanks outclassed out of Panzers in 1941, largely because of their sloped armor and large cannon. I’m in a hurry, so I don’t have time to look up cites. Took the Germans quite by surprise. It was the Tigers that were developed to counter Soviet armor. Iraq would definitely have the upper hand here. > [@](#): > > \*\*If Germany has some decent tactician and a little surprise I think they’d win. \*\* Considering the overall battle preparedness of the Iraqi army, I’d lay even odds on Rommel taking them, especially as he would capture modern technology as he went along. Keep in mind that America alone fielded roughly 5,000,000 troops against Germany, and 500,000 against Iraq - and that is a drop in the bucket compared to the Soviet military did against Germany. Modern warfare is about finesse and speed. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-might-1941-germany-vs-2003-iraq/154146/22 "2003-02-10T21:35:21Z")
I like this discusion better than what I had in mind. I was having a discussion with someone who was trying to make a comparison between hitler and hussein. I was wanting to be able to _cite_ references as to the major differences in the two situations. But I really like this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-might-1941-germany-vs-2003-iraq/154146/23 "2003-02-10T22:13:50Z")
Saddam has oil. Germany does not, and any capacity Germany might have to refine it, store it, or move it would be very quickly taken out by the Iraqi air force, and there is nothing Germany could do about it. The Iraqi air force could hit targets with a precision only dreamed of by WWII military strategists, and with far more destructive and effective ordnance. No oil, no German tanks or air force. German forces immobilised within two weeks, well within two weeks. ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-might-1941-germany-vs-2003-iraq/154146/24 "2003-02-10T23:29:49Z")
\*\* SimonX \*\* Which woulf you rather have? Saddam or Hitler? In truth, I would rather have Saddam. Why? Well, hes not so smart, no one likes him not even his people, and he’s crazy. I would rather have that than a charismatic madman with a skill to gather great minds to serve him. Hitler scares me. \*\* Whack-a-Mole \*\* You seem to be comparing the wrong army. I saw no evidence that the Iraqi tank gunners had the training or even the capability of firing on the run. Yes, the T-72 is capable of those things but is that state of the art tank in Iraqi hands? Iraqi tanks were blown away by Abrams tanks before they even knew the americans were there. That doesnt sound like they had the latest tank technology. My real point is that if the 1941 wehrmacht were to go against a 2003 Iraqi army, it wouldnt stick to using 1941 equipment. Heres a really scary thought. Think of the 1941 Nazis with 2003 military technology. Id bet France would piss in their collective pants and we wouldnt hear anything about letting arms inspectors have more time to inspect the Nazis. ---
**Author:** ![FranticMad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c68b51/32.png) [@FranticMad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FranticMad)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-might-1941-germany-vs-2003-iraq/154146/25 "2003-02-11T00:05:11Z")
> [@](#): > > My real point is…Think of the 1941 Nazis with 2003 military technology. Id bet France would piss in their collective pants It’s hard to know which scenario we are talking about. If Nazis had 2003 technology, of course they’d win – if you mean _American_ technology. Americans aren’t sharing their smart bombs with everyone. If Iraq was run by Nazis instead of Saddam, Iraq under embargo would still lack the leadership in industrial capacity that Germany had. Although the Nazis would have stronger social cohesion, and morale than Saddam’s regime, the Nazi’s political leadership (i.e. Hitler) would be erratic and prone to make major military errors – same as Saddam. There is one similarity between 1941 and 2003, which is the role of the French. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-might-1941-germany-vs-2003-iraq/154146/26 "2003-02-11T00:23:27Z")
Sometimes I start to feel sorry for France… then they do something stupid and remind me that they are, well, France. Kinda ironic that Americans, Germans, and Russians all like each other more than any of them like the French. 🙂 In the end, it turns out that dictators tend to verge on the edges of insanity, and shoot themselves in the foot. From some bizarre obsession with invading Russia in winter to pissing off the United States by attacking them overseas, dictators don’t have the clearest foresight. But we’re looking at the armies here, not the governments. Iraq just doesn’t have the discipline. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-might-1941-germany-vs-2003-iraq/154146/27 "2003-02-11T00:23:54Z")
Off to IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Umbriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/9de053/32.png) [@Umbriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Umbriel)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-might-1941-germany-vs-2003-iraq/154146/28 "2003-02-11T15:17:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*The Shermans ultimately ‘won’ the day because they outnumbered the German tanks (in total number produced) something like 4-1. Good thing too because the Allies themselves estimated it’d take about 4 Shermans to kill one Panzer (three dead Shermans and the fourth Sherman would get the Panzer). > > However, I think the technical disparity between a WWII era Panzer and a modern Russian T-72 is FAR greater than the difference between a Panzer and a Sherman. The German tanks wouldn’t stand a chance. > > Remember WWII tanks had to stop to shoot. Ok…they didn’t _have_ to stop but any chances for scoring a hit on another moving tank while moving at any decent speed were slim to none. Modern tanks have gun stabilization systems and laser range finders and all sorts of other goodies. They can fire quite well while tearing about the battlefield. I also wonder if a Panzer’s gun could even seriously damage a modern tank. I think the best they could reliably hope for would be to cause a modern tank to slip a tread. > > Add air supremacy into the mix, with or without helicopters, and Iraq would own nearly any German force pitted against it…certainly in the open terrain of Iraq. Germans had far superior generals but Iraq’s generals aren’t complete buffoons and I’m sure they’d manage well enough with their technical superiority. > \*\* I’m not so sure that the technological disparity is quite as Whack-a-Mole represents it. My recollection from the early '90s was that the number of Saddam’s tanks that had computer fire control and laser rangefinding was probably is in the dozens at best. The majority of his armor was T-55s and 62s, with some quantity of export T-72s without the all-important fire control technology. Most of his tanks still have to stop to shoot accurately, which is one reason they were utterly outclassed in '91. Nevertheless, the OP asked about the 1941 German army, whose tanks, as tomndeb pointed out, were much inferior to what was later developed to counter the T-34, and would, as Sofa King pointed out, have been outmatched by a BMP. If the 1941 Germans faced a foe 1/4 their size and equipped with _1945_ vintage Soviet equipment, much less 1985, they would have had serious problems. For the record, I think the gun of a Panther or King Tiger would be able to knock out a T-55 or 72 from the flank or rear at moderate to close range, but the gun of a PzKw IIIg (50mm medium velocity), or IVe (75mm low velocity), would have had a hard time hurting a JS-2 under similar conditions. While '80s vintage jets would certainly outclass the '41 Luftwaffe, I’m not sure that they’d be all that decisive in our hypothetical matchup, simply because of the trouble Saddam would have keeping an appreciable number flying without parts. Saddam could have local air supremacy wherever his couple dozen jets could fly, but the real nemesis of the Luftwaffe would be Saddam’s modern air defense. ZSUs and battlefield and shoulder-fired SAMs would shatter any Luftwaffe attempt at close air support. In contrast, I think German flak could put up a worthwhile fight against Saddam’s helicopters, but the Iraqis would get more useful support in the end. One element no one has mentioned that I think might have proved decisive is artillery. Saddam’s artillery arm includes modern MRLs and conventional artillery with range and rate of fire vastly superior to Germany’s at any time in WWII. Not to mention the fact that it’s all self-propelled or rapidly truck-mobile, while most of Germany’s was always horse-drawn. In the end, I think modern Iraqi artillery might be able to make up for a 4:1 numerical disadvantage all by itself, even without the air and armor. And I’m not confident that our time-traveling Nazi scientists would be able to duplicate captured Iraqi equipment in any reasonable length of time. The superior features of the T-34 were mostly functions of design. Once the Germans saw the ideas, they were readily able to incorporate them into their next model (though they still managed to muck things up by trying to incorporate overcomplicated “improvements”. The first Panthers to see action in 1943 had engines prone to spontaneously combust). To copy equipment 40 years more technologically advanced would require them to learn decades of metallurgy, solid-state electronics, and other engineering advancements, and then build a sufficient industrial infrastructure to be able to physically produce them in quantity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-might-1941-germany-vs-2003-iraq/154146.md?page=1)