Why did today's infantry tactics evolve from the American

>>28485846
>more successful
>lost 2 world wars

File: SERVsister.jpg (49KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 604x453px

>>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

>>28485872
Stormfags BTFO

>>28485872
>outnumbered 10 to 1
>almost won

Meanwhile the Americans essentially used the human wave tactics that they accused the Russians of.

>>28485893
>almost won
Kek Okay jerryboo

>>28485893
Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades :^)

>>28485893
Germany had like 5 million in arms. I doubt there were 50 million solders combined fighting them.

File: 1306590607773.jpg (34KB, 263x253px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 263x253px

>>28485893
>almost won

>>28485846
All modern infantry tactics are based off of infiltration tactics of world war 1. Whatever differences there are between a country's written doctrine is a matter of semantics.

>>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.

>>28485846
>the more successful German model
Could you example what you are trying to say? Sources or something?

>>28486067
>that we had to restrain our advance for the sake of logistics.
More like because FDR wanted the USSR to reach berlin first.

Modern Infantry tactics boil down to a simple fix and flank.

Establish fire superiority, keep them pinned and the flank the bitches and shoot them where they have no cover.

>>28485893
>human wave tactics
you're fucking joking right

>>28485846
Didn't the US military pretty much perfect blitzkrieg? I mean look at the invasion of Iraq.

>>28485846
There is no "American model" modern infantry tactics were based of several long standing ideas (some from Germany) and adopted by all.

tl;dr basically every modern infantry force in the world has the same tactics more or less.

>>28486603
Which is the evolution of American WW2 tactics where the fire team would fix the enemy and the maneuver team try to move up to take advantage.

>>28486067
>On the eastern front the disparity was almost that high.
So it wasn't. Axis forces in fact OUTNUMBERED the Red Army on the front during Barbarossa.

>>28486735
Everyone did the same thing in WW1 too. Back then they all moved at the same speed trying to flank each other thus ending in the massive trench stalemate.

Speed is the major difference in similar tactics. Who can move the fastest wins.

>>28486603
Theres no such thing as "modern infantry tactics" because any modern fight involves artillery & tanks

>>28486776
We are talking late war, moron.

>>28486879
You mean the part where the Wehrmacht was getting its shit pushed in?

can somebody please explain in detail each of these "models"??

>>28487150

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.

>>28487105
>by sheer numbers
Germany was doomed from the start. Maybe if they played the political game a bit better for a decade and actually got decent allies instead of Pitily and Kamikazestan.

>>28487266

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.

>>28487329
The allies were already mobilizing for war, they would have started it, one way or another

>>28485846
>Why did today's infantry tactics evolve from the American model
>American Model
You do realize the US doctrine of Air-Land battle was stolen whole cloth from the Germans, right?

>>28486879
Don't be retarded. The Wehrmacht was even larger late war. They were never outnumbered 10:1 by the Soviets. It was less than 2:1.

>>28487563
>thinking that something called "doctrine of Air-Land battle" exists
>thinking that this "Air-Land battle" is relevant to squad tactics

>>28487562

>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

>>28485893
>Human wave tactics

except we didn't with the exception of a few fuck ups were they werent intended

>>28487563

>Airland Battle
>doctrine implemented in 1981
>Defensive in nature, being designed to stop the Soviets
>Literally just blitzkrieg with jets, precision guided weapons, complete motorization, and JSTARS

There is no doctrine but blitzkrieg and Rommel is it's prophet.

>>28487567
>>28487567
Show me battles where it was "ONLY" 2:1

>>28487632
The motorized infantry of the US would have been raped by the mechanized infantry of russia

>>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.

>>28487635
The Wehrmacht drafted a total of 20 mil in WW2. The Red Army drafted a total of 34 mil. Many more Soviets died. Do you think in 1944 Soviets outnumbered Germans by 10?

>>28487670

Meanwhile
>germany was conquering shit and attacking their allies
Sorry /pol/, but responding to German aggression isn't starting it, it's defending yourself.

>>28487266
Hmm, interesting.

In your opinion then, how did SMGs fit into this, especially specific to the country?

Also, where'd/how'd you develop your opinion?

>>28487567
Lol todays infantry it is against the ROE to engage if you do not have at least a 3:1 advantage. Imagine the american infantry being outmanned 2:1

>>28486735
That was invented by the germans in WW1. Look up the original stormtroopers.

>>28487266
US squads got 2, sometimes 3 BARs per squad later in the war because it was obvious that 1 BAR wasn't cutting it.

>>28487706
thats not today, the 3:1 rule has always existed since forever

>>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.

>>28487692
I'm gonna need some motherfucking sources on that AND context.

>>28487692
>dancing around the question more than Obama

>>28487727
Either way you are bitching about someone "only being outnumbered 2:1" then the US military refuses to do anything without a 3:1 advantage

>>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?

>>28487642

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.

>>28485846
Protip; most of the US tactics since WWII are crafted from what they learned from ze Germans.

>>28487635
Germany was outnumbered by less than 2:1 in Operation Bagration yet got absolutely curbstomped.

>>28487763
no, its called local superiority you dumb retard
even if they have 10x as many men as you, you can locally concentrate 3x they have in a single area to make a break through.

>>28487764

>allies declared war
Again, because Germany sat their conquering the world and shit.

worse than fucking niggers. Dindu nuffin. Germany a good boy.

>>28487769
Yeah that's obviously why US squad tactics revolve around a bunch of bolt actions supporting a crew-operated MG.

>>28487802
>because Germany sat their conquering the world and shit.
Go look at a map in 1939 you fucking retard
Maybe one of 1914 too
ignorant piece of shit.

>>28487772
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration

>~500k germans
>~1500k Ruskies

wat

>>28487719

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.

>>28487812
Your thinking is very limited

>>28487652
>Who is General Pershing

File: 10 out of fucking 10.gif (2MB, 352x199px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 352x199px

>>28485846
>Pitting the Ameriboos against the wehraboos

Genius OP

>>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

>>28487635

>Operation Desert Storm, 900,000 to 650,000

It's over 2 to one if Kebabs are like niggers and only worth 3/5th of a person.

>Operation Cobra, 11 Divisions vs 8 Divisions.

>>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.

File: avatar2.jpg (30KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x365px

>>28485846
All modern infantry tactics did evolve from the German WWI model.

The concept of firing on the move, blitzkrieg and general Stoßtruppen tactics all became adopted and widely used.

>>28487958
Maybe they were assisting the British war effort, but they were not sticking their neck out in any way as far as troops or assets or even resources

>>28487642
Good thing most American/NATO divisions were mechanized then. In any case the ones that weren't wouldn't have had to face the Soviets.

>>28488058
>they were not sticking their neck out in any way as far as troops
There were marines on Iceland and navy ships got in fire fights with German subs.

>assets or even resource
Can you try to be more vague? I don't think you are completely unintelligible yet.

>>28486576
Market Garden would have had us there by Christmas if the Brits weren't so bad at their jobs.

File: kill everyone in this thread.jpg (10KB, 235x214px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 235x214px

>>28485846

Every single person in this thread is retarded.

The current American model is a direct copy of the German WW2 model.
>fire and maneuver based around positioning your SAWs.

This thread is fucking embarrassing.

>>28486576
Who reached Berlin and who got to take what part of Germany were all things that the major powered had decided diplomatically well before WW2 came to a close.

>>28488138
>US infantry tactics of WW2 involve a fire team and a maneuver team
stupid niggers why do they keep posting here

>>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.

>>28488081
His comment seemed pretty straightforward to me. We weren't rationing stuff on the homefront so we could send it to the Brits or those ungrateful Slavs like we did from 42 to 45.

>>28488081
Sounds like some very low level stuff to me. Cool stories though bro. My point still stands and is ultimately correct.

>>28488161

And what's the missing element there, fuccboi?

>>28488186
>I am correct because I said so
Sure buddy.

>>28488186
Low level intervention in a war is definitely incompatible with being
>>28487935
>extremely isolationist

>>28488175
I say again, pretty much ALL modern infantry/ground tactics are an evolution of what the US learned fighting the Germans in WWII.

And many other aspects such as aviation and communication as well.

>>28488195
Germans

>>28488197
Pretty much. Trust me bro. I am not a professional internet bullshitter. I actually know this stuff.

Do the research. You will realize that I am correct.

>>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.

>>28488239
Only a half truth. Korean fighting showed some holes in US infantry doctrine. What started "modern" US infantry tactics as we know them today is the Vietnam war.

To say everything was based off of the western front in WW2 is not only wrong but stupid. Some aspects were and that's it.

>>28488138

>>28488195
The missing element is that what you described was not German infantry tactics in WW2.

See this post to get the difference.
>>28487266

>>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

>>28488317
Virtnam is were the US went to practice what they had learned.

Got anything else?

>>28488239
There is a difference between
>what the U.S. learned from the Germans
And
>And what the U.S. took from the Germans.

>>28488378
You are correct. They did both.

>>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.

>>28488405
You are wrong. Sorry

>>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.

>>28488484
Okay I wanted to take a nap anyway

>>28488403g
They did one and not the other. The Germans left them little to learn. They fucked and their ideas largely didn't work.

>>28485906
Bullshit, im sure each soldier at at least two arms!

>>28485893
>>almost won
Kekno.

They put up a good fight considering their disadvantages, I'll give them that. But they were miles away from "almost won"

>>28485846
Russell Volkman and the FM he wrote after WWII. /thread.

>>28488378

Correction, should be

> what the US learned from the Germans

> what the US learned fighting the Germans

>>28488138

except Germany didn't use a SAW, MG42 is a GPMG/MMG and uses MMG tactics

The MG 42 takes turns maneuvering with the riflemen, while SAW gunners maneuver with the riflemen directly.

MMG's being too cumbersome and limiting on squad mobility was shown during Vietnam, which was one of the causes for the US transitioning to Minimi's.

>>28485893
Is almost won the cool way of saying first loser? Did they get a participation award?

>>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.

>>28491136
>Largest and most powerful Navy Ever
>Which was busy assraping Japan so we could get Anime.

>>28490984

> the soviets could have beat Germany singlehandedly if they invented the T-90, 9K22 and AK-47 in 1939.

this is about as plausible as of the things you listed so why not.

File: superman3[1].jpg (192KB, 625x800px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 625x800px

>>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.

File: rf woody.jpg (16KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x480px

>>28485893
>almost won

>>28486806
combined arms is the phrase I think you're lookingfor.

>>28485846
>more successful
>resulted in their country going from legit empire to being split in two between America and Russia
that's some great bait m8

>>28485846
>more successful

Man Germany got dunked on twice in the last century. Wehraboos need to get the hell over it, y'all are sore losers.

>>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.

>>28485846
They don't. US infantry tactics take a lot from both german and English sources.

>>28486735
Which isn't something the Americans invented. It was already happening before tge US entered the war

>>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.

>>28487295
What the fuck are you smoking?

>>28485846
>American infantry tactics
>Not Marine Infantry Tactics
>Not originally Chinese PLA infantry tactics

Read this and get learned.

There are no "American Infantry Tactics" - it is all stolen from the Chinese, ironically.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/gung-ho-the-communist-origins-of-the-marine-corps-famous-slogan-379eacc4ce91

>Gung Ho! The Communist Origins of the Marine Corps’ Famous Slogan
>Maoist tactics, organization and philosophies influenced the U.S. Marines

Inb4
>war is boring

It is well researched and sourced, tho.
Another read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Raiders

>>28485877
But all that Germany is today is the result of decades of american influence baka desu senpai

>>28497741
The question is vague. Does Op mean small unit tactics or battalion or larger tactics. I was addressing differences on a bigger scale , not squad maneuvers.

The thread is fucked because there is no specific question.

>>28487764

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.

>>28485846
history is written by the winners, baby

>>28490984
>heres a few things that would have lead to a Nazi victory

all of the below could be attriubted to one single event: if hitler died in a freak accident the day after barbarossa.

american infantry doctrine:

>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

>>28493719
Reality is the Germans could not make an atomic bomb nor were they ever even remotely close at any point during the war.

>>28503016
>hitler dies in a freak accident
>goering takes over as chancellor

>>28487706
>rule
>wat

It's a strategy... A ratio that tells you that, if in an attacking force on a position, you need those numbers unless you want to want to get torn apart.

ROE's are restrictions that dictate wether or not you can engage the enemy in accordance with legalities/geneva convention (for those who haven't been issue with a brain...)

>>28487632
>complete motorization
Any serious European army had that since the end of WW2 though.

>>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.

>>28487266
Correct except for the M1919 being too heavy to maneuver with, the M1919A6 is only a few pounds heavier than the MG34/42. Though the M1919A6 was not a squad weapon where the MG34/42 were.