How well would have modern ISIS have performed in defending itself from Germany in WW2...

Early 20th century guns and rounds are more reliable and alpha than pansy medium caliber nu-male weaponry with pistol dick grips.

it's cool watching old James Bond movies where the generic bad guy weapon is WW2 surplus MP-40's because AK-47's haven't become widespread yet

how? did they actually get produced after ww2?

The Czechs made some if I remember right, the rest is surplus sold to the Mid East during the whole Israel 1948 thing, the FSA captured around 5000 at one point so supply isn't an issue

T-54/55 and RPGs would wreck German tanks
AK-47 would give an advantage in infantry combat
Their armor could still be taken out by 88mm from the sides
They'd still be vulnerable to artillery

In the end they'd do well in combat but would be defeated with superior numbers and mainly air power, against which they have essentially WW2 era tech

>against which they have essentially WW2 era tech
*blocks your flight path*

>bad guy weapon

kek

how can we be so prejudice against guns desu

all guns matter!

>RPGs would wreck german tanks

>Uses the same engine as the Tiger
>Is twice the weight
*breaks down*

>transmission and towing

How many of these do they have?

The average soldier having an automatic weapon is already a pretty big game changer.

On the flip side, the single biggest problem ISIS has is a lack of discipline, which the Nazis didn't have much trouble with.

kek

im sure they would have changed that through design if not prototyping

>air power
>when SAMs exist

>comparing 2017 ISIS to 1940 Wehrmacht

What makes you think that ISIS has a lack of discipline? They have definitely been the most disciplined force in both Iraq and Syria.

>german Infantry firepower was mainly from kar98s

>A total of 10 MANPADs
wew, the Luftwaffe sure is fucked
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment_of_ISIL

not him

but maybe he means in the beginning

as is the case i guess with any army, when ISIS first came about they took over the region by storm as iraqi """"army"""" just ran away, but now they are losing ISIS are just running away

same could be said for Wehrmacht in 1941 and1944

They had more Kar98s than they did StG44s or MP40s, obviously every section had an MG but you'd probably rather 7 AKMs than 1 MG42

How's ISIS' equipment status? Do they have a lot of artillery and mortars and stuff? You know, the stuff that's actually inflicting the heavy casualties

You could get that impression at the beginning of the conflict since they were winning so hard, but now that the Syrian and Iraqi Armies have got some experience ISIS have lost nearly half of their theater of control in a matter if months.

wouldn't surprise me, probably the usual soviet stuff tho

Both Syrian and Iraqi armies have suffered disproportionately more casualties than ISIS and they have managed to retake all of these territory only thanks to support from more powerful countries involved in the conflict (Russia and Iran in case of the Syrian army and the US-led coalition in case of the Iraqi army)

I think they've lost most of their heavier artillery like the Grads by now, probably still have plenty of mortars both military and improvised

heavy artillery is mostly early Cold War Soviet stuff in the low dozens or less
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment_of_ISIL

I don't know how accurate these sources can be, they could be over or under counting

Damn, a single infantry division probably fielded more artillery than that

Ofc more modern MBTs could wreck pretty much all WW2 era armour,but enough explosives rack any tank,and lighter fighting vehicles could be defeated by the common german AT arsenal of the day,technicals even by AT rifles.
If we talk about 1944/45 german infantry gear they arent at that much of a disadvantage.

>If we talk about 1944/45 german infantry gear they arent at that much of a disadvantage.
They absolutely are at a disadvantage against an enemy where basically every single infantryman has an intermediate selective fire rifle, Germany had to ration its StG44s

Yes, and rockets.

DESU, a lot of the core ISIS fighters (not foreign recruits) have a shit ton of combat experience against superior modern British, American, and NATO troops.

Some commanders fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, the fought in Sudan or the Balkans, then against the US for 16 years.

Even many core soldiers have experience from the Iraqi military and/or experience from Iraq War 2 which has lasted almost twice as long as WWII.

Suicide bombings would be hard to counter. Air support hasn't let Assad win. It didn't help the Soviets win Afghanistan either.

The Germans would have a massive problem with ISIS. You have to consider simple shit like how much better a Toyota Hillux is that what the Germans had and how effective cheap shitty drones are for survallience.

Obviously Germany could win by sheer numbers, but if ISIS is just one tiny front in a larger war they probably cause massive problems for Germany.

Modern IEDs would also rape German tanks.

ITT: retards talking about small arms

Germany literally had thousands of heavy artillery pieces, not to mention thousands of smaller caliber crew served weapons like mortars. Good luck with your AKM's though.

Did you even read the thread?

>How well would have modern ISIS have performed in defending itself from Germany in WW2?

it would have lost in like a month at most

No, I meant that the majority of posts was not in fact talking abut small arms

I find it amusing how much the Chechen's fucking hate ISIS, enough to say the Kurds are a better option
>Modern military with jets, complete air superiority, cruise missiles and reactive armoured tanks can't beat them in 6 years
>WW2 Germany would be done in a month though
Fuck off wehraboo, the grown ups are talking

you're implying that the modern tech you just listed is being used the same way as if a german invasion would have dealt with ISIS

i currently don't see 100,000 american soldiers in syria or iraq.

>Modern military with jets, complete air superiority, cruise missiles and reactive armoured tanks can't beat them in 6 years

USA BTFO yet again.

>Modern military with jets, complete air superiority, cruise missiles and reactive armoured tanks can't beat them in 6 years
No serious invasion, very timid when it comes to just mass murdering civilians. If the US went full Ostfront on those regions ISIS wouldn't last long. They can't do that though, oviously

100,000 Germans didn't stop the Yugoslavians shitting on them all the time, why would this go any better in Syria?

They did their job fairly well in Yugoslavia, securing vital transport lines which they held up until the end of the war allowing for the majority of German units to escape the Balkans. I dunno why you think the Germans ever utilized all of their resources to stop the Yugoslav, they had more troops in Norway for fear of invasion, when they were fighting, and losing, a two front war.

Great comparison though, you sure showed them.

>they had more troops in Norway for fear of invasion
And couldn't stop a bunch of guys on skis blowing up their heavy water plant, great example yourself

Yeah man, saboteurs flown in from England blowing up a factory is the exact same thing as defeating the German occupiers. No doubt you're an intelligent man.

I'm not the one claiming WW2 Germany could totally defeat ISIS in one month with absolutely no issues when Germany couldn't even do that with its own occupied territories after decisively BTFO them

are you really suggesting ISIS would actually bother or even organise a resistance type movement? they'd just pack their backs and move to arabia at most

>I'm not the one claiming WW2 Germany could totally defeat ISIS in one month
Neither did I but nice projection. It speaks volumes that the argument had to be transformed from a Germany vs ISIS to an argument of Germany vs Insurgent ISIS.

>Germany couldn't even do that with its own occupied territories after decisively BTFO them
Because you ignore the fact they were still fighting a war, secondly you ignore the fact that, for example, the Yugoslavs partisans only became a real problem post 1943 when their numbers started swelling up. Neither is the fact that Germany didn't have complete and utter control of the territories they occupied some sort of proof of Germans doing poorly occupying them. Occupying every mountain top and forrest was never on the table for the Germans in Yugoslavia, and those were the areas that the Partisans mainly controlled. They intentionally self-selected areas to defend, those areas being urban centers, communication and infrastructure lines. For example none of the major cities in Yugoslavia were not threatened by the Partisans until the arrival of the Red Army into Belgrade.

They'd do exactly what they're doing now, disperse useful ones abroad while using the idiots as martyr brigades to recruit more foreigners

>disperse useful ones abroad while

not if the gestapo at the border has anything to say about muzzies travelling to europe

>Modern military with jets, complete air superiority, cruise missiles and reactive armoured tanks can't beat them in 6 years
>WW2 Germany would be done in a month though
Different strategies.

Modern military can't afford to lose men as it would be detrimental to the morale at home, which is why the modern military tries to solve the issue technically through air power, drones, etc. - which are however incapable of actually controlling territory. WW2 Germany had no such issues however, and in that regard they would be much more successful since certain problems can only be solved with boots on the ground.

Well that shouldn't be too hard considering certain policies

>battle of ISIS
>6 days
>70 german casualties
>3,000 ISIS casualties

there, wiki page tldr

The US absolutely pounded Falujah with artillery and AC-130s. Rules of engagement were lose and tanks used main gun rounds to level buildings.

About 30% of structures were destroyed and it was still a hard fight, and Fallujah still fell again and became an AQI stronghold.

WWII Germany did not have better close air support and artillery than the US in Iraq or USSR in Afghanistan.

Germans had a hard time moving peices in Russia. Imagine moving them through the landscapes Jihadis use.

The Iraq War post 2003 was more the US trying to stop a civil war. Really a different strategy.

That said, the Soviets used high altitude bombing and very lose ROE in Afghanistan and has native communist troops and still got BTFO.

Being more brutal only works if you're willing to use massive amounts of manpower.

So either way, it's a heavy lift for the Nazis and they likely lose a disproportionate number of troops due to the advantages of modern communications, survallience, and weaponry, particularly IEDs, EFPs, and suicide tactics.

>The US absolutely pounded Falujah with artillery and AC-130s. Rules of engagement were lose and tanks used main gun rounds to level buildings.
>About 30% of structures were destroyed and it was still a hard fight, and Fallujah still fell again and became an AQI stronghold.
Love how you connect two entirely different events, 10 years apart, together to form an argument that falls apart the moment anyone with a brain comes up on it. Even more entertaining is when you call it a "hard fight". Yeah man those 100 casualties the US suffered while taking out thousands of insurgents was about to go any way, right?

>Imagine moving them through the landscapes Jihadis use.
You mean the flat desert as opposed to the Russian mud? Gee...

>I find it amusing how much the Chechen's fucking hate ISIS, enough to say the Kurds are a better option

Practically all Chechens are Sufis and ISIS hates Sufis just as much as it hates Shias

The Yugoslavs had loads which they sent over to the Middle East

>Suicide bombings would be hard to counter.
How so. See people who are not gerries on the horizon - shoot them up.