Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

The discussion has proposed traditional invasion, migratory cultural invasion and the possible launch of a widespread series of terrorist attacks. Lets consider the possibility of all three hitting full-force simultaneously.

The thing that ruins the idea for me is that Islam doesn't have an overwhelming numercial advantage, and the fact that China+India vastly outnumbers them, yet are being proposed to be left sitting on the sidelines. I can't reconcile that to reality, especially India having some serious bad blood with the world of Islam.

In Kim Stanley Robinson's book, "The Years of Rice and Salt', he details a world where Christianity was all but wiped out during the Black Death of the 14th Century, and one where Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism become the major religions in the western world as well. He describes a battle where the the forces of Islam unite (whether under one Madhi or not he doesn't make this clear) and their main protagonists are the Indians and the Chinese. In his story the Indo-Chinese alliance win against the Islamic alliance and the whole world settles into an uneasy alliance.

Anyway, the whole point of saying that was to illustrate that you can't forget about those 2 nations as population-wise alone they make up nearly half the world's population. In any scenario where a Madhi invades Western Europe you'd also need to account for what those nations would do.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Ok Gladius, I'll tell you why I think it's deeply flawed. I didn't really want to get into this and derail your thread but you appear to want an answer. BTW, I wasn't being condescending but if you believe I was then I can't help that. Is 'deeply or grossly flawed' a byword for condescending now? It wasn't the last time I checked.

Ok. The Soviet Union did not use any overwhelming numerical advantage to defeat Germany. They had a numerical superiority yes but that wasn't the reason why they won. Also, the Germans did not really have a technological edge over the Soviet Union. Ignore the Wonder Weapons as they were never a factor on the Ostfront. In most cases during the first year of Babarossa the Red Army had superior tanks. There was nothing to match the KV-1 and the T-34 was superior to all German tanks except perhaps the Panzer IV with the long-barrelled KwK 75mm gun. Even then my money would be on the T-34. Only when the Tiger and later on the Panther appeared did the Wehrmacht have anything to take on a T-34 and be confident of success.

This is where your argument is deeply flawed. You ignore the real reasons why Germany lost. You stated that the the Germans crushed several Soviet Armies and it only took the Red Army to crush one German Army for the tide to be turned. In truth there was no sudden turning of the tide. The Soviets gradually came out on top after a series of bad strategic mistakes by the Germans, and by the pressure being applied to them from other fronts. For example, whilst the German 6th Armee and part of 4th Panzerarmee were trapped and destroyed at Stalingrad the Soviets were busy losing half a million men and 1700 tanks further north in the Rzhev salient in the ill-fated Operation Mars.

If you really want to point at a decisive moment it's at Kursk and not Stalingrad. This battle is important not because it failed and not because of German losses (they were actually 20% of Soviet casualties) but because it happened in the first place. The Germans had a chance to completely collapse the entire Soviet South and Southwestern Fronts. IMO if OKH had used Manstein's 'backhand' plan instead the entire outcome of WW2 might have been different.

The Germans lost because of bad strategic mistakes, logistics (this was huge), the Allied Lend-Lease effort (this was critical), failure to exploit local population unhappiness (in the Ukraine for example), the massive industrial capacity of the Allies (in particular the US), fighting a 3 front war, failure to fight to their own strengths (i.e. mobility and tactical superiority), failure to adapt their own industry to a war footing quickly enough, frittering away of vital resources on Wonder Weapons, the frittering away of vital resources on the 'final solution'. Also, the impact of how the Red Army was able to recover and fight back cannot be understated. Although they never came even close to matching the tactical ability and professionalism of the Wehrmacht they were mightily effective in using Blitzkrieg for their own means.

Finally you give me an answer, with good reason to boot. I agree with most of your reasonings too. I know Germany lost alot due to strategical blunders, Hitler being one of the biggest factors in their defeat. And yes Germany would have won had they done the right thing.

But what I was trying to point out in simplest terms is that a country with superior manpower can overcome an enemy with somekind of either technological and or tactical advantage.

Yes I know the Russian had better tanks in the begining, but they never matched the sophistication of the way the Germans used their tanks and combined arms as a whole, in this German technology was far superior. Like I pointed out the Russians didn't even have radios in their tanks and planes and had to use hand signals. The technology doesn't have to be individual weapons per say, I was merely trying to make an analogy here.

Yes I agree Kursk is the decisive moment, but did not Stalingrad help to get to that point.

And yes also I agree with you the Germans lost because of all the points you said at the end. You gave very good reasons and I agree with them. If you look at this detail for detail I'd to say you're right. However my point was not to illustrate the fine points of all this, it was simply to give an example of how manpower can come into play. Perhaps we misunderstood each other when it came to this.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Also, the impact of how the Red Army was able to recover and fight back cannot be understated. Although they never came even close to matching the tactical ability and professionalism of the Wehrmacht they were mightily effective in using Blitzkrieg for their own means.

This is what I am trying to say, that a force with an overwhelming numerical superiority can absorb the losses even after tremendous blows are done to it by the enemy.

The Germans lost 3.5 million soldiers to the Russians 19 million, that's a huge lopsided toll, yet they still kept coming. This was my point.

If a future conflict were to occur with the Islamic empire against Europe this numerical advantadge will come into play.

I know right now there is a huge technological gap, but do you really think they're going to be dumb enough to go with only what they got now. If they do then they're idiots, all the better for us.

This is why I don't think Europe will have an easy time at this as some people are saying. Yes they will kill tremendous amounts of Islamics, but this ability to absorb the losses will certainly prove a factor if the conflict were to occur.

p.s.
Very good post on your part.

Peharps godofthunder is right in that the Korea conflict is a better example.

One point for consideration is logistics. The force has to get to its destination. To directly attack most of Europe, that would mean crossing the Mediterranean if you want to attack Europe directly. A crossing through Istambul or Gibraltar would be killed before it was given a chance to happen. Since Europe has an overwhelming Naval advantage, that limits the invasion to airborne attack, which is unlikely to be very successful on its own.

There are two nations that are pretty well guaranteed to be the first hit thanks to the lack of natural boundaries. Israel and Russia. Anyone can see that Israel is in a very big mess in the scenario. But its interesting to consider that Russia stands directly in the way of any proposed land invasion. Russia is the one selling them most of their military equipment, so how would this play out?

This is getting off-toppic and out of hand.

Originally Posted by gladius

This is what I am trying to say, that a force with an overwhelming numerical superiority can absorb the losses even after tremendous blows are done to it by the enemy.

The Germans lost 3.5 million soldiers to the Russians 19 million, that's a huge lopsided toll, yet they still kept coming. This was my point.

If a future conflict were to occur with the Islamic empire against Europe this numerical advantadge will come into play.

I know right now there is a huge technological gap, but do you really think they're going to be dumb enough to go with only what they got now. If they do then they're idiots, all the better for us.

This is why I don't think Europe will have an easy time at this as some people are saying. Yes they will kill tremendous amounts of Islamics, but this ability to absorb the losses will certainly prove a factor if the conflict were to occur.

p.s.
Very good post on your part.

Peharps godofthunder is right in that the Korea conflict is a better example.

I'll give you that then Gladius. On a very general level you're correct and it's true that the Soviets did have quite a bit more manpower.

God has a good point regarding logistics. How would you see Islamic Armies being supplied or their lines of communication protected, assuming they were to attack, perhaps through Iraq into Turkey, or even from Turkey itself seeing as it's a muslim nation. In your scenario would the Islamic Armies would also have a large naval presence, air support and the ability to supply them over ever lengthening lines of communication?

What about tactical nuclear strikes? Do you think either side would use them? Do you envisage sleeper cells in major western capitals perhaps exploding 'dirty' bombs en masse? What about the local muslim populations in each country? Do you see them rising up and joining with the invasion forces?

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

This is getting off-toppic and out of hand.

Perhaps, but specifically what do you mean? Off topic, or just too much discussion? Something else?

Ok, are you suggestung that the Iraqis, Iranis, Turks and a few others play nice with each other?! Thats not going to hapen anytime soon...The Shia and Suna are still at odds with each other. Many muslim nations are always on tthe brink of conflict with eachother...

Edit:I meant off-toppic....The rest wasent as bad...

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

Ok, are you suggestung that the Iraqis, Iranis, Turks and a few others play nice with each other?! Thats not going to hapen anytime soon...The Shia and Suna are still at odds with each other. Many muslim nations are always on tthe brink of conflict with eachother...

I agree. I just don't see all the Muslim sects (who really don't like each other very much) joining together anytime soon.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

One point for consideration is logistics. The force has to get to its destination. To directly attack most of Europe, that would mean crossing the Mediterranean if you want to attack Europe directly. A crossing through Istambul or Gibraltar would be killed before it was given a chance to happen. Since Europe has an overwhelming Naval advantage, that limits the invasion to airborne attack, which is unlikely to be very successful on its own.

I actually think they have a chance to cross both in two pronged pincer movent. They should be able to cross at least one if they coordinate the attacks at the same time.

If the fight were in open ocean they wouldn't have a chance at all, but with the fighting very close to land they can bring enough land forces to bear against the naval forces. One way is to bring mass quantities of artillery and surface to ship missles on their shores to to engange the enemy ships

There are two nations that are pretty well guaranteed to be the first hit thanks to the lack of natural boundaries. Israel and Russia. Anyone can see that Israel is in a very big mess in the scenario. But its interesting to consider that Russia stands directly in the way of any proposed land invasion. Russia is the one selling them most of their military equipment, so how would this play out?

Israel will be hit for sure given how much they hate the Jews.

Personally, I don't they will hit Russia, but that's just my guess. Since it probably a wise choice not to fight to many enemies at once, plus theres nothing really there worth taking. They may simply work a deal with Russia, cash for weapons and since Russia is straped for cash they may take it, or something like this to appeal to Russias prestige seeing that a war in Europe may actually increase their influnce later. But this is just my guess. At least this is what I would do if I was them.

I think they will simply go up through the balkans taking the same route they took centuries before to march toward Vienna, and . The same goes for Spain.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

The thing that ruins the idea for me is that Islam doesn't have an overwhelming numercial advantage, and the fact that China+India vastly outnumbers them, yet are being proposed to be left sitting on the sidelines. I can't reconcile that to reality, especially India having some serious bad blood with the world of Islam.

I actually think the war will start over in India, once done the Islamics will move on to Europe.

China may side with the Islamics in order to get cash and also oil which they are starting to need in large quantities. And they may also want the war to occur to weaken the West therby increasing their influnce and also take over Taiwan once the West is busy fighting a major war.

We are in fantasy land now...The Indians are not exactly meak...The entire Muslim world united against Israel before and did not prevail. The Europians, altough somewhat dorment right now, are serious about their wars two...Espcially the Brits and Germans...