What you think /his? Does 1939 Europe have a chance?
>>18737034There's no way. Germans couldn't even push back hordes of Russoids and were heading into Barbarossa with horse units. Modern Africa may be a shithole but it's a continent-wide shithole full of old Soviet era surplus
No.
>>18737034Africa can't even feed itself and has zero industrial base whatsoever. Does having a handful of fighter jets you bought off someone else and have no idea how to maintain without help allow you to beat a 10 million or so combined German - Soviet - French - British military who will easily be able to make a nuclear bomb in a couple years with their greatest minds all working together? I'm gonna say fuck no. The question is retarded.
>>18737034i honestly don't know
>>18737111Black Bulls stomp, Europe industry falls apart without stolen African goods
>>18737034Yea Europe folds them. Tune into some of the African shitshows like Sudan, Ethiopia, Congo. There’s no USSR to tard wrangle many of them toward organization anymore, so there is often a descent into marauding undisciplined bands instead of actual armies. The exceptions to this is North Africa, but they mostly lack domestic industrial bases, have maintenance issues, and are dotted with chronic corruption. 1930s Europe wouldn’t defeat a combined Africa together in the 80s, but since the 90s they would.
>>18737043>>18737047Europeans are white. Africans are black. You seem to have excluded that from your "analysis".
>>187370342026 Europe cant beat USA and USA cant beat Iran alone and is suffering the biggest humiliation since ever
>>18737311Iran's award for winning is that they're now a bigger shithole and nearly every other country in the middle east has now turned against them
One thing people don't get is that very few countries in Africa are capable of conducting mass mobilisation and as we know basically all countries in 1939 Europe were.Take Sudan. Civil war in Sudan is something that kept going pretty much since independence, it's a 50M country these days, not counting recently separated south Sudan at additional 12M.At no point in their history the combat operations in the country had more than 300k people involved(both sides). Just for comparison peacetime military of all powerful interwar Poland, a country of 25-28 million people was about the same, it could go up to about 1,2M at estimated peak mobilisation. Bulgaria after joining WW1 managed to mobilise 600k troops with merely 5M population.How many soldiers will DRK be able to mobilise out of their 100M people before they collapse into complete civil war(not just the perpetual mid tier civil war they've been since independence)?It doesn't matter that some African countries have fighter jets or modern tanks when European armies have the capacity to just absorb the casualties until these weapons are disabled or no longer functional while the Africans simply won't be able to muster the grunts to support all that fancy equipment.
>>18737034No. Read some books for once.
>>18737279Russians are the equivalent of Blacks so nothing changed.
modern north africa alone can probably solo, modern drones and missles would really change the game, not to mention fighter jets and abrahms
The combined might of 1939 europe (germany+ussr) is an S-tier level threat. I'm not even sure any country on earth could beat that even today. No not even america. >the technolgy advantageThis would work for 1-2 years before the 39 europe reverse engineers it and then you die
>>18737550the modern navy and air force would eliminate their 1939 counterparts probably without losing a single machinethe armies would never even get to fight
>>18737034Timmys act like bbc warriors with spears didn't btfo them at islawanda and the italo-ethiopian war.
>>18737034North africa and egypt carries but without it idk
>>18737561Airforce centrism is the best way to detect amerigan. Reminder desert storm - airforce claimed 10 times the casualties it actually inflicted, artillery still did 90% of the work.
/his/ - whatever was popular on social media a few days ago
>>18737546This, drones are hard to deal with today even for the strongest nations on Earth. Let alone the massive population difference, access to other modern technologies that are impossible to replicate even during an extended 10 year conflict, natural resources, etc.
>>18737546>>18737743>north Africa aloneNorth Africa is 'jeet tier, they made a passing effort at modernization but it doesn't amount to much due to overpopulation and corruption. The larger long range drones are still vulnerable to flak and fighter planes, they'd need high altitude jet powered drones, which are expensive, they wouldn't be able to mass produce enough before the combined Italian and UK navy makes a crossing and begins moving across north Africa with millions of troops and 10000s of fighter aircraft and tanks and the Europeans begin to adopt modern technology.South Africa is a better candidate for the savior of Africa, they have the wealth and the expertise, even black South Africans are somewhat more reliable than the typical black African. They would provide the backbone of war production and properly utilizing modern technology to achieve supremacy on all fronts. At sea underwater drones and guided torpedos would make short work of battleships and aircraft carriers and even catch lighter vessels and submarines. When the nigger swarm sweeping through Europe meets trenches with machine guns or an armored division, they authorize the use of battlefield drones to knock it out so they can continue their conventional zerg rush with ak 47s.As usually the white man can only be defeated by another white man.
>>18737314Look at this amerimonkey seething
We have a bunch of presumably anti-weharaboos in this thread ironically going on about how African wunderwaffen would surely win the day against massive disadvantage in everything else.
>>18737743>Let alone the massive population difference>>18737421>How many soldiers will DRK be able to mobilise out of their 100M people before they collapse into complete civil war(
>>18737889Europeans were literally fighting each other during this time you idiot. They are even more fucked if we assume that unity cannot be established. At least modern African countries are relatively peaceful with each other at the moment compared to WW2 Europe
1939 Europe? That's overkillThe Roman legions would probably crush modern Africoons lmao
>>18737111>>18737246>>18737279>>18737550Racists are so stupid and deserve to be mocked and locked in your sissy cages as the pathetic white racists you are AFRICA HAS DRONES, that alone makes it gg
>>18737782pic rel is old news now they have even more shit, locally made and from all over including powerhouses like Israel. South Africa isn't bad at all mind you but they are more suited to leadership positions in this situation>swarm sweeping through Europe meets trenches with machine guns or an armored division, they authorize the use of battlefield drones to knock it out so they can continue their conventional zerg rushBut why? Wasting your manpower on filling trenches with bodies is beyond retarded. With modern tech all they'll have to do is control the skies. You only really need to make them march at the end when you're taking over the capitals>>18737965lmao, what? AK 47s alone can take down your legion
>>18737965>a continent full of experienced combat veterans with AK-47sRomans would get absolutely slaughtered, as would any other army before the machine gun.
>>18737974>>18737981>implying the Romans wouldn't be able to reverse engineer the ak-47This is why Rome built aqueducts and modern africans can't even maintain the infrastructure left behind by the White Man
>>18737955The question is about who would win in a hypothetical war between 1939 Europe and modern Africa. This scenario assumes that the countries involved, themselves aren't at war with other members of their bloc. That's why I'm not going to assume that for instance there's a war between Ethiopia and Eritrea(that seems to be brewing), I'm assuming they are at peace. What I do however make note of is that internally in 1939 European states were stable enough for most of them to be able to perform through mobilisation, there was arguably one exception(perhaps Spain) but outside of that all of them could put significant amount of troops into the field within weeks and then sustain that number through enormous casualties.Are African states stable enough to do the same? Are Ethiopians going to be successful trying to mobilise reservists from Tigray or Ogaden? Are Congolese going to be able to do the same? Can Equatorial Guinea allow itself to give weapons to ordinary people to become grunts in their newly mobilised units? Can Mali just send a bunch of notices to areas controlled by Boko Haram and expect people to come to their gathering points? Can Sudan send such notices to Darfur and expect it to be successful? We can go on with it basically forever.There are some exceptions from it(Morocco and Algeria), but even there I wouldn't be so sure.
>german allied with england develops a nuclear V2 rocketafrica doesnt have the intel for long range strikes against europe,
>>18738044They also barely have the physical means for long range strikes. They'd need in-air refueling to reach the industrial centers of Germany, France and Britain, something that they have very little capabilities in, so they'd only be able to perform one sortie every few days, and they couldn't reach the Russian factories at all.
>>18737743A. how many of these do you think Africa has and is able to produce independently (the answer it not very many) B. why would this be a deciding factor when Europeans in WW2 dropped literal hundreds of thousands of bombs on each other for 6 years straight?
>>18737966>AFRICA HAS DRONESAssembled with components from...
>>18737561The ferocious Egyptian and Nigerian navies consisting of a few frigates they bought from Europeans would beat Britains 300 warships including 15 battleships and 6 aircraft carriers. For sure man
>>18737034The fabled power of African logistics, organization and industry
Bomber production ends the war. They would carpet bomb Africa into the stone age long after they're out of missile and ammo for their AA systems that they can't produce or resupply.
>>18737034Can we get some more info on this scenario?Do Britain and France have their overseas colonies at their disposal? (sans African ones ofc)Do the USSR and Turkey participate on Europe's side?What side do other continents/countries take? Are other continents/countries their 1939 selves or 2026 selves? There's a big difference between 1939 China and 2026 China
Drone swarms and mobile anti-tank armed Toyota ambushes wipe out any major European armored-led "assault," the pride of most WW2 advances with minimal difficulty. African states easily have the capability to do this and Angola, Ethiopia, Sudan are full of combat vets with decades of combat experience. They would be among the most important Sub-Saharan African countries leading the charge.
>>18738424I don't think we can include other continents anon, it's messy enough as it is.My take is that Europe wins if the USSR is involved, but probably Africa if not.I cannot see Africa being able to take Moscow.
The only countries in Africa that have any major MID is South Africa & Egypt. Take out those two and all arms production is reduced rapidly. While Africa nations that have fallen can bring its academic & technical elite with them like the Soviets in WW2, they simply don't have the will for total war like the soviets did; uprooting entire populations, production lines and infrastructure in a somewhat controlled retreat.While drones could be made with E-waste from a hypothetical future US & Europe, they simply have a limited number of said material capable of being reused in drone production. Without the industrial base large enough to mass produced specialised hardware, drone production will become bottlenecked as a result.Then you have to consider the aircraft of both powers. While it is true that nothing from 1939 WW2 could beat a MIG or Rafale; they do beat them in ease of production, cost, time for production. The planes won't be much good when the Soviets, Brits, French & Germans can produce a bunch of shitty biplanes and monoplanes and turn the runway into a replica of the moon surface.Without airfields, good luck trying to get most of the fighter jets airworthy for a prolonged period. in short term they could probably cope with dirt airstrips but not in a long term conflict. Specialised aircraft like the C-130 could cope but they are also large and easy targets for fighter squadrons to take out.Also you have to take into account the leadership of the two sides. Almost all of the European nations officer corps during this period completely outshines the African forces.Then there are other factors like Infrastructure, reliability of various governments, Chemical weapon usage, Biological weapon usage, guerrilla warfare etc.Europe wins but with heavy losses and will have to fight a prolonged guerrilla war with remnant forces and guerrilla groups unless they exterminate the entire continent or encourage ethnic tensions.
>>18738707Here is Volkel Airfield during WW2, now imagine the airfields in Africa.
