>>28485846 >German model >more successful You typically don't call a country or its models successful when its legacy is Merkel, Islam, and a population of women half spawned from the mass rape of Slav dick in every orifice of their grandmother. >inb4 buttfurious wehraboos
>>28485906 On the eastern front the disparity was almost that high. The USSR casualty claims include civilians and the men who died in internal purges, however, so the picture isn't perfectly clear.
On the Western Front, the numbers disparity wasn't actually all that large, but that was considered a less desperate fight because Germany (if maybe not Hitler) knew defeat was inevitable, and they knew they could expect to be treated more or less well by the Western Allies, whilst everyone knew what the Red Army had been told to do.
Reguardless of the benefits of being on defence, they were rolled back so fast in the West that we had to restrain our advance for the sake of logistics. >>28485893 >almost won The Germans came no closer to victory than the Japanese, and it was known by the command on both sides prior to the battle of Midway that, even if the entire Allied Fleet was annihlated in the coming battle, that Japan's defeat was already inevitable, and we were merely fighting for the terms of that defeat.
A German infantry was basically an MG-34/42 operator, his assistant, and 5 guys who carried spare ammo, drew fire, and shot their rifles sometimes.
Americans gave everyone a Garand and expected the squad to take turns covering and advancing. The mass of fire came from the riflemen, the M1919 was too heavy to manuver with, and the BAR provided a smaller portion of fire coming from the squad.
The Brits has the same idea, but gave every squad 2-3 Brens rather than 1 BAR, since the SMLE shot slower than Garand.
The amount of fire coming out of a German, American, and British squad was about equal, the difference was who was responsible for it. In the German squad it was overwhelmingly the MG, in the American squad it was the riflemen, and the Brits somewhere in between.
>>28487150 In the context I think OP is referring to is more "eastern" styles of infantry tactics were based on sneaking up and surprise attacking in force while the "western" model or American can be summed up with a high noon showdown where a military flat out tells the enemy they coming for them with overwhelming force at a certain time and place (think Fallujah)
This is wrong though. Both of these are mixed together and used by all military ground forces to some degree.
So rather than the "German" or the "American" model, the one that most closely resembles modern infantry is the British. The Bren was a one-person LMG, and enough was issued to give every section a machine gun.
>already mobilizing >America was sitting around doing nothing >France and England repeatedly told Germany to stop conquering shit or they'd declare war, Germany refused, once they finally declared war they did basically nothing anyway >Russia signed a goddamn treaty with Germany and purged its military no you goddamn retard that's the opposite of reality
>>28487632 >yfw the British already knew how to do combined arms operations with tanks, aircraft, artillery and infantry during the later stages of WW1 >yfw that's why they were able to perforate the German lines at will during the Hundred Days Offensive
>>28486778 Modern post ww1 tactics do not focus on flanking on a strategic scale, but instead breaking through enemy lines and exploiting your breakthrough. This is what Russian deep battle blitzkrieg is about.
>>28487611 >>America was sitting around doing nothing In 1939, America had >passed a massive naval expansion bill that would double the size of the already huge navy >passed a bill to build 100s of B-17s in addition to fuckloads of fighters >spent fuckton of money on pilot training infrastructure
Britain and France were similarly spending 20-30% of GDP on their military. They "did nothing" because they weren't ready for war.
>Russia signed a goddamn treaty with Germany and purged its military USSR was also in the midst of a massive military expansion. You should try to get your history from books and articles that are based on facts, rather than making it up as you go.
>>28486778 Not at all, the goal at the outset of WW1 had more to do with the use of numbers and broad maneuvers to overwhelm the enemy in a decisive battle and infantry tactics didn't really resemble what we see today. The use of units like squads and platoons designed around mortars and machine guns was not common in WW1 and numbers, not speed was the key, hence the reason why the Germans brought up their reserves.
>>28487694 US began mobilization in 38 Poland was not an ally of britain or france or USA Nor did this "german aggression" even exist The allies declared war on Germany, they were not "defending themselves", retard.
You know most of the world was split up into colonies by the allied powers?
Motorizing here is just used in the context that every infantryman has a transport.
"Blitzkrieg" is actually designed with only partial motorization in mind. Only the spearhead and exploitation elements were motorized, the supporting infantry that would actually complete envelopment and digest the enemy troops were all foot infantry.
The Soviets could motorize larger portions of their army, and the Americans/British could motorize everyone. As a result their breakthroughs and envelopments were even faster and more devastating.
As far as 80's things go, the US only had one motorized division, everything else was light or mechanized/armored. The armies with big motorized formations are Denmark, because they could only afford trucks and not APC's, France so they can run away faster, and the Soviet Union,who equipped multiple divisions with BTRs.
Right, but that's because fighting proved that their doctrine wasn't perfect and has flaws (who would have thought?) and more BAR's were badly needed.
The American divisions that landed at Normandy had one BAR/squad in their TO&E's, the Brits landed with 2-3 Brens.
Note thou that the marines in the Pacific hoarded BARs like libertarians horde gold. I read that units would report their BAR broke so they'd get issued more when the one they have was in working condition.
>>28487830 You are confused because you are counting only fighting troops for Germany while counting fighting troops and support personnel for the Soviets. You may not know this, but the majority of the army is actually support personnel, even for the Soviets.
>>28487802 The US was extremely isolationist at the time and wanted no involvement in the European wars. They waited around until the Natzis were decimated then stepped on and finished them off. It was purely oppritunistic
>>28487935 >The US was extremely isolationist at the time Not even close. The US was selling weapons to Britain on credit, patrolling half of the Atlantic ocean, building bases in Europe, occupying Iceland to prevent a German takeover, fixing British warships, training British pilots, and consulting with Britain about what kind of weapons they wanted built.
>>28487763 What the fuck are you on about. The entire goal of any general is to play to his strengths. For a squad it's the same. All doctrines since the beginning of time have seen having larger numbers as a strength when waging conventional warfare. In any case armies favor ROEs which play to this strength. That's the only point anon's trying to make.
>>28487891 I'm with him m8, they're not very similar, in fact the approach of the U.S. going forward very obviously is an expansion upon the rifleman focused doctrine they employed in WW2 and doesn't really show much interest in anything the Germans did. The only worthy infy development the Krauts really had was the STG-44 and at the end of the day they didn't really employ them meaningfully enough for one to call it an evolution in German infantry tactics.
>>28487704 Not that anon but if I remember correctly smgs on the front line were generally issued to officers, with the exception of the Soviets who additionally created division (?) Sized elements for urban fighting that were armed with them.
>>28488216 No it's not. The US has their own interests in these incidents and were not even close to getting involved in the wars in Europe. In fact they were playing both sides. Ecinomically US private business was heavily involved with Germany and approached the war as a purely capitalistic endevour
>>28488335 >In fact they were playing both sides. No, the US was not playing both sides. How the fuck can anyone even argue this? In any case, Germany and Japan definitely did not think the US was anything but the British ally.
>Ecinomically US private business was heavily involved with Germany and approached the war as a purely capitalistic endevour Not at all. US private business had invested in Germany in the years leading to the war. There was no trade between US and Germany once the war started, and there was very little trade before as Germany did not have anything to sell and had no cash to buy anything.
>>28488429 Why don't you just stop posting? It's obvious you have nothing of substance to say. But if you want to continue asserting your position that the US was extremely isolationist, then try to explain away the fact that US supplied weapons to Britain and escorted convoys and attacked German subs.
>>28485893 >heres a few things that would have lead to a Nazi victory >US doesn't supply soviets >Nazis finish their nuclear weapons program >panzer divisions commander a few miles north radio was working on the night of June 5th >STG44 put into production at its invention >German troops attacking Moscow instead of Stalingrad >German commanders being able to retreat at Stalingrad >Pearl Harbor delayed a few months >Etc. Etc. Etc. > It's easy to say that the Nazis never stood a chance today, but there's a good reason Berlin was priority #1
>>28490984 >Theres a good reason that major world powers like Britain, France, and Russia got their shit pushed in by the Germans. >The Germans, a country twice the size of Pennsylvania, took on the largest army and nation in the world, the largest and most powerful navy ever, the #2 colonial power, and the #1 industrial power. >Individually, or even if one of them hadn't entered the war, the nazis would have won.
>>28491949 Another anon here, I disagree with you.
What you have suggested couldn't have plausibley happened in 1939 without ALOT more revising of history.
What>>28490984 suggested are things that either almost happened OR were extremely possible if not for flippant political leaders.
I'm not saying I think the nazis would have won had they done X, but I won't say those situation are as absurd as your's either.
One last point though, whoever developed a nuke first likely could have won. If it was the nazis, then I think only america would be left to oppose them (as the USA has distance to not be imdiately bombed, and could likely have had nukes shortly after too).
I think a nuclear germany may have resulted in a cold war between the USA and them with the same MAD principles in place, or worldwide nuclear holocaust.
Also the typical western allies literally fought the red russians at the end of WWI, and the public was none to happy with the USSR's actions right before they started fighting nazis. Shit even pic related existed showing how much the average person was against soviets at the time. I think the precedence for the US not supplying the soviets is there. I also remember that man officers gave first hand accounts of Stalin shitting and pissing himself when Moscow was almost taken. He was VERY willing to make concessions with the german which hitler would not listen to. What would be different? I can't say for sure.
I can say definitively that germany could have made much better long term and short term military decisions at a few key instances.
>>28485846 > Why did today's infantry tactics evolve from the American model rather than the more successful German model?
First we need source on "More Successful German Model"... which it was not. German Mechanized infantry was not even mechanized by American standards. German combined arms was primitive but was much better than Russian. German C&C was tremendously better than the Russians for two reasons, radios,telephones and good training. Modern Infantry tactics rely on techniques from many countries and modern technology. When you rely on bugles, voices, hand signals and flags to signal attacks at more than the immediate tactical level expect changes in tactics. When you have armored vehicles or aircraft in any role even potentially on a battlefield expect changes. Artillery had been done to death in WWI so we must be talking about post WWII. Go read some B. H. Liddell Hart and come back us to OP with a less bait like question.
>>28487895 US in ww1 had a reputation for using out of date tactics and taking above avearage casualties compared to other combatants. The majority of US troops never saw combat and overall had less of an impact than Canada (who produced some of the best troops/commanders of the empire).
That's not ment as a insult or to say Americans are inherently bad fighters, as that's not true. The US in WW1 was just extreamly inexperianced at war and took very little part in it.
France and Poland had a bilateral mutual defense treaty, so yes, they were allies. And the agreements at Munich specified guarantees by Britain and France of the Czech rump state, which Germany violated.
So while what they did was causis belli even without your libtard "international law trumps defense of sovereign national interest", yes Germany also attacked France and Britain's allies and violated treaties which were guaranteed by threat of war.
>contact! >find cover >pour lead vaguely at the enemy position >black on ammo! black on ammo! >we need apaches, 105s, AC130s, A10s, battleship bombardment, and mininukes on the enemy position! >shit specialist ramirez forgot to wear his kneepads and scraped his knee diving for cover! need a CASEVAC!
back at the fob >man this bootleg hadji porn sucks ass
>>28490984 >US doesn't supply soviets dude, the Soviets pretty much decided the outcome of the war in Kursk 1943 which was before the bulk of Lend-lease arrived or the ones that did took effect. They did helped greatly in the subsequent race to Berlin though which saved countless lives- Germany could very well still raised the forces necessary to prolong the war if they pussyfooted around. >STG44 put into production at its invention the Allies would invariably capture samples and then reproduce them. >Nazis finish their nuclear weapons program They were much far behind though- it was estimated that it will take an extra couple of years to what Manhattan needed at the very least, if not a decade for their program to yield a working weapon. Remember pretty much the who's who of Nuclear Physics of the day were working with the almost unlimited funding and relentless industrial support of the biggest industrial the world has seen and it still took them a couple of years- the Nazis couldn't possibly come close when their nuke weapons program are on the backburner compared to shit weapons like the V-1/2.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.