Turians would only win because of the same reason U.S.A,England and Soviet Union won the second world war against Nazi Germany,Fascist Italy and Japanese Empire,numbers,not because of expert soldiers or more advanced technology,simply numbers,and better defense positions.
As I said before,Turians would almost certainly win,but humanity wouldn't fall before causing a lot of damage to the Turians,and the same would happen if they started a war against any other council species.
Turians will kick Humanity's butt. Their number is in +hundreds billions, their tech is more advanced, they have more political influence, they have 30! more dreadnoughts that us, they are better trained than us and their mentality/civilization is focused on war.
Turians would only win because of the same reason U.S.A,England and Soviet Union won the second world war against Nazi Germany,Fascist Italy and Japanese Empire,numbers,not because of expert soldiers or more advanced technology,simply numbers,and better defense positions.
As I said before,Turians would almost certainly win,but humanity wouldn't fall before causing a lot of damage to the Turians,and the same would happen if they started a war against any other council species.
What?! The Allies+USSR were better than the Axis in every possible aspect minus genocide and the like.
What?! The Allies+USSR were better than the Axis in every possible aspect minus genocide and the like.
Stalin and Mao practiced genocide on a larger scale and for much longer. And don't forget Roosevelt, Truman, and Churchill ordered 100,000's of civilians burned alive to. What do think the firebombing of Hamburg or Tokyo did? The atomic bombs? But it's okay, they were Germans and Japaneses civilians, totally different the the German excuse of killing civilians because they were Jews and Gypsies.
And the Axis was not a pushover. Without the aid of the US all of Europe, Asia, and Africa would have fallen under their control. Your argument is the US was better, but why? Because the US didn't start fighting until their opponents had been in a state of total bloody war for nearly a decade. It was the all the supplies from America that kept the UK and USSR in the war, it was the endless tide of red infantry and Sherman tanks that won the war. Never mind the fact that they needed 5 of them for every German soldier or tank. It was a war of attrition in the end.
Stalin and Mao practiced genocide on a larger scale and for much longer. And don't forget Roosevelt, Truman, and Churchill ordered 100,000's of civilians burned alive to. What do think the firebombing of Hamburg or Tokyo did? The atomic bombs? But it's okay, they were Germans and Japaneses civilians, totally different the the German excuse of killing civilians because they were Jews and Gypsies.
And the Axis was not a pushover. Without the aid of the US all of Europe, Asia, and Africa would have fallen under their control. Your argument is the US was better, but why? Because the US didn't start fighting until their opponents had been in a state of total bloody war for nearly a decade. It was the all the supplies from America that kept the UK and USSR in the war, it was the endless tide of red infantry and Sherman tanks that won the war. Never mind the fact that they needed 5 of them for every German soldier or tank. It was a war of attrition in the end.
I didn't mention Mao, Stalin had purges and ethnic cleansing but not like Hitler and the level of which the Germans were doing (nor the scale they were planning to do after triumphing over the Slavic untermensch). The Allied leaders made some bad decision which could be categorized as war crimes but again, it was nowhere the scale as the Germans nor the Japanese. The atomic bombs were used to pressure Japan into submission, otherwise at least 100k+ American soldiers would have died (+Japanese soldiers and civilians) if they decided for invasion of the Japanese mainland, this brought swift end of the WWII but sure it is grey area. I never said that the Allies or the Soviets were blameless, they too have innocent blood on their hands but not nearly as much as the Germans and the Japanese. Also, don't put words in my mouth, I never said it was ok to kill Germans for the lulz or that the other side is blameless.
The Axis weren't a pushover, didn't say they were. Without US support Britain would have taken serious hits but it wouldn't have been enough to force them to capitulate, German invasion of UK was never going to happen because of the Royal Navy ruling the waves or the channel in this case which the Germans needed to cross. As for the land lease to the Soviets, it did help with Soviet logistics (US trucks were awesome), otherwise it didn't really change the war at all, it merely speed up the German defeat by few months. Well fk it dude, don't start a war with the most industrialized and populous country/ies next time perhaps? The vast majority of the German loses (80-90%) were on the Eastern Front where the German loss ratio to the Soviets was 1:1.3. So no, the endless masses of the Soviet 'horde' didn't win the war despite what Hollywood shows. They didn't need 5 Sherman for each German tank and... really 5 tanks for every German soldier? In a tank vs. tank engagement, the Allies always achieved victory when they held a 2.2-to-1 numerical advantage or better and were on the offensive while the Germans, despite being on the defensive and having heavier tanks, needed a 1.5-to-1 numerical advantage to ensure success. Take the Sherman and Panther losses during the Bulge, in order to meet the mythical Panther kill ratio, the Panthers needed to have killed 900 Shermans because they lost 180 Panthers. The First Army only lost 320 Shermans total. This isn't even a 2:1 kill ratio in favor of the Germans because so far we've only counted the Panther losses - and the Germans lost many more other tanks like the MK IV, Tiger, etc (their total losses were around 600 tanks and SPGs). Not to mention that most US tank losses were not even necessarily Panther kills - the majority were lost to ATGs and panzerfaust kills. If we take "unserviceable" tanks into account, the "kill rate" is even more catastrophic. A total of nearly 310 Panthers would have been out of action, compared to 425 Shermans out of action! That's not even 1.5:1, which is the weight ratio of the Panther vs the Sherman. Finally, the average daily strength of the First Army was about 1,200 tanks fighting 400 Panthers. That's a 3:1 ratio in favor of the Shermans and well below the stupid idea that "it takes five Shermans to kill a Panther", much less the even more stupid notion that the Allies "lost five Shermans for every Panther".
At the end it was a war like any war, it was a war of logistic. Logistic always win wars. Except if you are Iraqi in the 90s.
At the end it was a war like any war, it was a war of logistic. Logistic always win wars. Except if you are Iraqi in the 90s.
I don't mean to put words in your mouth but I found the tone of your earlier comment was very dismissive and arrogant, sorry. I am in no way a history expert but from what I remember of the battle of the bulge the german army rolled over the us until their tanks ran out of gas and the cloud cover broke allowing the allied air force to destroy them at will. You have your facts I respect that and since this isn't the forum to debate WW2, all of the politics and weather or not allied air superiority was the key factor in the war and everything else that goes into it so it's probably best to stop. But, I think you do see the point that the allies were no better at war then the axis, it was simply the american industrial complex that won the war, in the end the axis couldn't keep up. And that is not better in every way, just 1, the most important, but still just 1.
Turians will kick Humanity's butt. Their number is in +hundreds billions, their tech is more advanced, they have more political influence, they have 30! more dreadnoughts that us, they are better trained than us and their mentality/civilization is focused on war.
What?! The Allies+USSR were better than the Axis in every possible aspect minus genocide and the like.
1 - Their technology is basically the same the humans have,and most of our society is also focused in war efforts,like the U.S.A for example,a country that spends trillions of dollars in their millitary every year,not to mention other powerful nations like China,Russia,France and Great Britain.
2 - Nazi Germany defeated almost the entire Europe single handed.The Wehrmacht military equipaments were more advanced than anything the Great Britain had ever seen (for example,a single Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger outclassed 5 M4 Sherman at the same time).
Their army was the first in the world to use assault rifles (STG-44),and their tactics were responsible for destroying half of the Soviet Union.The submarines owned by the Kriegsmarine were able to easily cripple the British Navy,and the Luftwaffe bombers stomped the French armed forces.
So yes,they were only defeated due to the overwhelming allied forces.
1 - Their technology is basically the same the humans have,and most of our society is also focused in war efforts,like the U.S.A for example,a country that spends trillions of dollars in their millitary every year,not to mention other powerful nations like China,Russia,France and Great Britain.
2 - Nazi Germany defeated almost the entire Europe single handed.The Wehrmacht military equipaments were more advanced than anything the Great Britain had ever seen (for example,a single Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger outclassed 5 M4 Sherman at the same time).
Their army was the first in the world to use assault rifles (STG-44),and their tactics were responsible for destroying half of the Soviet Union.The submarines owned by the Kriegsmarine were able to easily cripple the British Navy,and the Luftwaffe bombers stomped the French armed forces.
So yes,they were only defeated due to the overwhelming allied forces.
1. The Axis had the edge at the beginning because they had war economy and the Allied finally caught up and surpassed them in 43/44. Some German designs were groundbreaking but used totally ineffectively (live V-1 and V-2) but in the majority fields the Allies had the advantage.
2. Nazi Germany conquered almost all of Europe because they had well trained and disciplined army, war economy and because none else was preparing for war. Elaborate please, what equipment have the British not seen? The British planes were better, Britain and France had slightly better tanks in 1940, M4 Sherman was pulling its weight versus it German counterparts. The Germans went with heavy tanks while US decided to pump out more tanks. Yea Tiger II and Panther were scary beasts but they were very expensive and less mobile, also one can argue that the Soviet IS family is just as good if not better. Yes the Germans pioneered the assault rifles. Blitzkrieg was successful in the USSR but ultimately it was a failure and the German invasion ended with the Red flag over the Reichstag. On a side note, the USSR were in the midst of enormous rearmament and the officer ranks were crippled thanks to Stalin's purges. The U boats have never crippled the Royal Navy, in fact the reason why the Germans were relaying on the submarine strategy was because they could have never posed a challenge to the Brits so the submarines were trying to cripple UK's logistics aka cut the supplies from the Commonwealth and the outside world going into UK. This strategy worked for like a year, with the development of new tactics, employing permanent escort ships, capturing the Enigma device and etc the Germans have lost the Battle of the Atlantic (also Battle of the Barents Sea is an interesting event). I have debunked the silly myth of 5 Shermans for 1 Tiger I in my previous post.
*Sigh* Whatever you say dude.
Realistically, Turians.
The Alliance is a fourth rate power, weaker economically and militarily than the Turians, Asari, and the Salarians. If the ME Universe was real, humanity would more than likely get curb stomped by any one of them.
Since the ME Universe isn't real however, and it is written by human writers with a boner for the Humans Are Special trope, the Alliance would probably win. The writers would likely come up with some nonsense about humanity pulling off the great underdog win by being better equipped genetically to think outside the box.
To be clear, since I'm sure the above will rankle certain posters, the Alliance military is actually my favorite faction in the first three games. I just don't like how far too often the humans weren't written as being inherently 'special' rather than just the scrappy underdog.
This.
If the setting was actually balanced according to the background lore, humanity shouldn't even be close to the military might of the Turians. Heck, the Alliance and humanity should be one of the lower ranked species in the galactic community, seeing as how we are the newest arrivals on the scene. We shouldn't be able to compete militarily, economically, or scientifically with an established interstellar community that has thousands of years worth of experience and infrastructure to back it up.
But seeing as how "Humans are special" we can not only outshine everyone else in military prowess; apparently the entirety of the galaxy was too stupid to think of the concept of carriers; but we can also outpace the Volus' economic powerhouse; despite the entire galactic economy being built on rules created by the Volus, and them having close to 2,000 years worth of experience in interstellar and interspecies trade. We can also baffle the combined scientific minds of the galaxy by whipping up some medical products that out preform all other existing methods on the market, and work across species; something that the thousands year old galactic community was apparently unable to accomplish.
On top of all that, we are the only species to get an embassy on the Citadel; with our own separate office to boot; and be considered for Spectre/Council status in just under 30 years, despite it taking everyone else a bare minimum of a century to even be lucky enough to have embassy status. Yeah, according to the law of the writers, (especially the leads) us humans could take on the entire galaxy; plus the Reapers; at the same time, with our hands tied behind our back and our eyes closed and soundly defeat all of them with our superior ingenuity and 'genetic diversity'. It's all very boring actually. The writers like to say that the Alliance are the underdogs of the galaxy, and drum up tension for our plight, but we really aren't.
It's like have a match up of the Incredible Hulk or Superman (humanity) vs. an average citizen on the streets (everyone else). Gee, I wonder who will win that fight? 
1. The Axis had the edge at the beginning because they had war economy and the Allied finally caught up and surpassed them in 43/44. Some German designs were groundbreaking but used totally ineffectively (live V-1 and V-2) but in the majority fields the Allies had the advantage.
2. Nazi Germany conquered almost all of Europe because they had well trained and disciplined army, war economy and because none else was preparing for war. Elaborate please, what equipment have the British not seen? The British planes were better, Britain and France had slightly better tanks in 1940, M4 Sherman was pulling its weight versus it German counterparts. The Germans went with heavy tanks while US decided to pump out more tanks. Yea Tiger II and Panther were scary beasts but they were very expensive and less mobile, also one can argue that the Soviet IS family is just as good if not better. Yes the Germans pioneered the assault rifles. Blitzkrieg was successful in the USSR but ultimately it was a failure and the German invasion ended with the Red flag over the Reichstag. On a side note, the USSR were in the midst of enormous rearmament and the officer ranks were crippled thanks to Stalin's purges. The U boats have never crippled the Royal Navy, in fact the reason why the Germans were relaying on the submarine strategy was because they could have never posed a challenge to the Brits so the submarines were trying to cripple UK's logistics aka cut the supplies from the Commonwealth and the outside world going into UK. This strategy worked for like a year, with the development of new tactics, employing permanent escort ships, capturing the Enigma device and etc the Germans have lost the Battle of the Atlantic (also Battle of the Barents Sea is an interesting event). I have debunked the silly myth of 5 Shermans for 1 Tiger I in my previous post.
*Sigh* Whatever you say dude.
Meh,Im too lazy to write another text.So I will just present you to this video and...
done.
I don't have the time to watch it plus the sound quality isn't really a good one.
Whatever you say fam.
You're just losing a great video....
Turians would win simply because they have a larger military.
During the franchise, I would say the Turians but given another decade or two humanity wins.
One assumption that I am seeing people make and that could very well be wrong, however, is that the turians are just much more numerous than humans.
Now, that may be true and may not be. For instance, Earth has a population of over 11 billion while Palaven's number 6 billion.
Naturally, the Turians could have many dozens of billions in other colonies but the numerical inferiority of humanity in comparison to other species has never been something that was extablished in the series.
I think the Alliance cannot mount an effective campaign against the Turians UNLESS Cerberus comes up with a mindblowing superweapon. The fact that the Normandy is the Alliance flagship but reliant on existing Turian technology tells us the extent which Turians have a technological advantage over the Alliance. HoweverI think the Illusive Man will come up with a mindblowing superweapon that can wipe out the Turians. Turians do not have a history of lateral thinking; the genophage was a Salarian invention after all. Otherwise, in a protracted war, the Volus finances and Turian technology and weapons superiority will crush the Alliance. Both the Alliance and the Turians are approximately equal in numbers, or at least that is what the lore suggests.
Verdict: Either Cerberus superweapon wins the war for the Alliance or the Turians crush the Alliance in a long war of attrition.
I think the Alliance cannot mount an effective campaign against the Turians UNLESS Cerberus comes up with a mindblowing superweapon. The fact that the Normandy is the Alliance flagship but reliant on existing Turian technology tells us the extent which Turians have a technological advantage over the Alliance. HoweverI think the Illusive Man will come up with a mindblowing superweapon that can wipe out the Turians. Turians do not have a history of lateral thinking; the genophage was a Salarian invention after all. Otherwise, in a protracted war, the Volus finances and Turian technology and weapons superiority will crush the Alliance. Both the Alliance and the Turians are approximately equal in numbers, or at least that is what the lore suggests.
Verdict: Either Cerberus superweapon wins the war for the Alliance or the Turians crush the Alliance in a long war of attrition.
Both the Alliance and the Turians are approximately equal in numbers, or at least that is what the lore suggests.
What lore supports the alliance equaling the turians in numbers. We know the turian had 37 dreadnoughts while the alliance had 6 at the start of ME plus however many more cruisers and frigates. The alliance fleets is cut in half in two battles and rendered inert in ME3 while the Turians are in constant battle throughout the game and are never crushed the same way the alliance is, in space or on the ground, despite the reapers attack with a relatively equal force and continuing to send more and more ships and personnel into Turian space where they loose actual capital ships to turian fire. Not to mention the fact that the turians have many colonies over a 1,000 years old, the unification war was fought before the Krogan Rebelions 1400 years before the start of ME, means that they likely measure their populations not in the hundreds of thousands like human worlds, but in hundreds or millions if not billions in addition to Palaven's own 6.1 billion.
What lore supports the alliance equaling the turians in numbers. We know the turian had 37 dreadnoughts while the alliance had 6 at the start of ME plus however many more cruisers and frigates. The alliance fleets is cut in half in two battles and rendered inert in ME3 while the Turians are in constant battle throughout the game and are never crushed the same way the alliance is, in space or on the ground, despite the reapers attack with a relatively equal force and continuing to send more and more ships and personnel into Turian space where they loose actual capital ships to turian fire. Not to mention the fact that the turians have many colonies over a 1,000 years old, the unification war was fought before the Krogan Rebelions 1400 years before the start of ME, means that they likely measure their populations not in the hundreds of thousands like human worlds, but in hundreds or millions if not billions in addition to Palaven's own 6.1 billion.
Palavan has 6 billion and Earth has 11 billion. Mars and other human colonies equal the Turians. The fact that the Alliance can take over patrol areas suggest numbers are not a big factor between the two races. We are not given exact numbers but safe to say that numbers are roughly equal and Turians won't win because of numbers. Just Turian technology and weapons advantage.
Accordig to the codex less than 3% of humans volunteer for the military, which does also includes national and colonial militaries, not just the Alliance. Which is lower percentage than any other species. Given that it requires around 200 to man a cruiser, that would mean the Alliance has serious issues manning ships, even if we forget about planetside formations and stationbound units. Furthermore the loss of eight cruiser depleted three Alliance fleets for well over three years, it safe to say the Alliance is fleet numbers much lower than that of other citadel powers.
Though in all honesty, Numbers weren't exactly the strongest points of the writers and since they couldn't make up their minds on whether humanity was new player on the galactic scene or a great power didn't help either.
The 3% is the current level. If the Alliance is at its peak, Alliance would have at least the same % of its population volunteering or drafted as the Turians. If it came down to the survival of the Humans, I think the Alliance will draft around 30% of its population or basically most the able men and women. Regardless, numbers are not that big of a factor between the two in a war. Technology and finances will be, as will Cerberus.
Palavan has 6 billion and Earth has 11 billion. Mars and other human colonies equal the Turians. The fact that the Alliance can take over patrol areas suggest numbers are not a big factor between the two races. We are not given exact numbers but safe to say that numbers are roughly equal and Turians won't win because of numbers. Just Turian technology and weapons advantage.
You are talking about the alliance taking over a portion of council routes. The council fleet is not the turian fleet. That is the same as saying that the US forces assigned to the UN peacekeeping forces is the entire US military when in reality it's a very small portion of the US's military might. The turians have to patrol and protect both the turian and volous territory which is far vaster then the human territory.
Not to mention that should you destroy the council the asari and salarian, I believe, give their responsibility to the Turians. The turians already make up the bulk of the council fleet so the fact that they can take over the responsibility of 2 more council races without unduly depleting their own defense should tell you how many ships they have.
And Mars has 3.4 million people. Elysium 8.3 million. Terra Nova 4.4 million Eden Prim 3.7 million. These are most of the major human worlds.
The Trians have Altakiril 13.5 million. Digeris 1.9 billion. Oma Ker 259 million. These are just a few of the Turain worlds we know of so saying human colonies equal Turian colonies is a joke.
All numbers from the wiki.
You are talking about the alliance taking over a portion of council routes. The council fleet is not the turian fleet. That is the same as saying that the US forces assigned to the UN peacekeeping forces is the entire US military when in reality it's a very small portion of the US's military might. The turians have to patrol and protect both the turian and volous territory which is far vaster then the human territory.
Not to mention that should you destroy the council the asari and salarian, I believe, give their responsibility to the Turians. The turians already make up the bulk of the council fleet so the fact that they can take over the responsibility of 2 more council races without unduly depleting their own defense should tell you how many ships they have.
And Mars has 3.4 million people. Elysium 8.3 million. Terra Nova 4.4 million Eden Prim 3.7 million. These are most of the major human worlds.
The Trians have Altakiril 13.5 million. Digeris 1.9 billion. Oma Ker 259 million. These are just a few of the Turain worlds we know of so saying human colonies equal Turian colonies is a joke.
All numbers from the wiki.
Well several things. We don't know the population of ALL Turian and ALL Human colonies. So speculating is pointless. Finally, numbers won't play that big of a part in the conflict because Turian superiority w/r/t weapons and technology will wear down the Alliance, especially that Turians have the Volus finances. It will likely be a long war of attrition, because Alliance will likely draft past the 3% mobilization.
The Alliance is a formidable foe as seen in the Alliance-Batarian war and the First Contact War. But aside from Cerberus coming up with a superweapon, the Turians will win based on sheer technological and financial advantage.
And you are saying 2 different things. I'm not arguing with you that the Turians have more ships, although the Alliance can match that in a short time. The issue is whether population will make a difference; I'm saying it won't because the Turians have so much more resources and technology that a war of attrition will be on their side. But if the Alliance wins, it will be with Cerberus' radical tactics.
Judging on technology from the alliance,Cerberus and Turians( assuming Cerberus would team up with the alliance) my personal opinion would be centred towards humanity. Cerberus not only managed to geneticly engineer multiple subjects but also rebuilt the Normandy with better upgrades. now as the 1st Normandy was a joint creation between Turian and human this shows the current techs for the Turians. I know the Normandy was built in the future after the conflict ended but it was only a few couple of years in the future. humans in mass effect are constantly evolving technology wise so my answer to the question is the fact that humans would most likely desolate the Turian army an population. 
Back to top
