Could the worst army of WW2 have beaten the best army of WW1?

Corps of engineers able to construct pontoon bridges and a MASSIVE artillery advantage capable of bombarding dutch fortresses makes the dikes a nuisance but far from decisive. in a war against a great power the dutch would need help from another great power and they knew it.


It was not a question of building pontoon bridges over a river. The Waterlinie consisted of a shallowly inundated area which was 3-5 km wide and inundated about half a meter, too shallow to allow shipping.

You can look on the wikipedia (i dont know to embed the link, unfortunately there’s no English version, but you can see the picture.

Of course 1916 Netherlands couldn’t stand against an 1916 experienced power, likewise in 1940. But we’re talking about 1940 Netherlands vs 1916 Germany. The 140 airplanes which were useless in 1940 could easily and with impunity attack any German attempt to cross the inundated land with 1916 troops and materiel.
 
Last edited:
It was not a question of building pontoon bridges over a river. The Waterlinie consisted of a shallowly inundated area which was 3-5 km wide and inundated about half a meter, too shallow to allow shipping.

You can look on the wikipedia (i dont know to embed the link, unfortunately there’s no English version, but you can see the picture.

Of course 1916 Netherlands couldn’t stand against an 1916 experienced power, likewise in 1940. But we’re talking about 1940 Netherlands vs 1916 Germany. The 140 airplanes which were useless in 1940 could easily and with impunity attack any German attempt to cross the inundated land with 1916 troops and materiel.

Nah, Just have to concentrate AA around the relevant areas and the attrition will soon make them inoperative. when you're limited to strafing and light bombing it will only be a minor nuisance.
 
Nah, Just have to concentrate AA around the relevant areas and the attrition will soon make them inoperative. when you're limited to strafing and light bombing it will only be a minor nuisance.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the German WWI anti-aircraft guns could only reach 1500 meters, while the Fokker T5 bomber from 1940 could easily evade them.
 
With the possible exception of the Swordfish pretty much anything flying in 1939 would eat any WWI aircraft or simply outrun it. Even the Battle (shudder) and some of the remaining biplane fighters still flying in 1939 would only be shot down by a WWI fighter by a combination of a bad pilot of the modern aircraft, getting ambushed, and dumb luck. The lightest armament of anything in service in 1939 (2x .30cal/7.62 or equivalent) was equal to the heaviest armament if a WWI fighter and they carried much more ammunition. 4x or 6x rifle caliber, or when you see .50cal or cannon will simply disintegrate a WWI aircraft. Twin engine bombers will simply be almost invulnerable. As noted bombing above about 1500 meters will mean AAA is a non-issue.

As I mentioned in a previous post, terrain can reduce the tech advantage on one side, or impede the larger army.
 
A fair few of the minor's in 1939 were very light on tanks and planes ( and what they had was old with questionable serviceability ). Bulgaria and Greece for two were regarded more as armed mobs than disciplined forces. As people have noted, in any restricted terrain, a 1918 army would not be at a massive disadvantage unless its up against a large air contingent.
 
Top