Who had the better infantry doctrine in WW2, the Americans (based

Well I don't know nigga who won?

The ones who won

File: id_m1garand_700_01.jpg (57KB, 504x334px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 504x334px

*PING*

> Americans
The Americans were well behind the times in tactics at the start of the war. It took all of the North Africa campaign for them to get up to speed. With the help of the British.

>>2242744
Were they up to speed by D-day?

>>2242728
>>2242737
dumb way to look at the question
Allies didn't win because they had a better infantry doctrine

>>2242752

Not him, but American infantry doctrine was still considered a bit sub-par, but their armor and especially artillery tactics were considered first rate. Overall, they were well ahead of the Wehrmacht in 1944.

Germany, but it didn't matter in the end. Having the best infantry doesn't matter if they're being suppressed by a gorillion artillery guns at all times.

Americans like to pretend it was a fair fight against the Germans, but HOLY FUCK did America just spam the Germans to death. The Soviets at least had a better grasp on strategic deployment of force.

Well, today every army builds their squads around the machine gun, so...

>>2242753
they won because they killed more germans

they killed more germans because they had a better doctrine

>>2242826
They won because the Allies combined had a larger warfighting potential than Germany did. It has nothing to do with the quality of troops or equipment. The Western Allies could have sustained casualty ratios of 5:1 and still won the war.

The Germans had a doctrine honed through years of experimentation post-WWI with a highly professional Reichswehr. The idea of America having a professional army is a modern concept.

Germany's tactics were effective, especially their blitzkrieg. Shock and awe helped them make large territorial gains quickly, that strategy isn't very sustainable though.

>>2242744
How so?

File: IMG_6749.png (165KB, 2000x1301px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 2000x1301px

>>2242826
The allies had way more casualties.

>>2243047
Nearly all of the "casualties" the Germans inflicted were executed civilians and POWs. The Wehrmacht killed shit in combat with their laughable tactics.

>>2242756
This. Only a relatively small percentage of combat casualties in WW2 were caused by small arms. Artillery was the big killer. I'm willing to believe American infantry tactics were outdated. Suppression via automatic weapons is clearly the way tactics would in hindsight develop, not an emphasis on accurate single-shot rifles. But American artillery was damn good.

>>2243047
they had more causualties because
1.) vatniks are vatniks with muh human waves
2.) civilian casualties because germans arnt human
when it comes down to combat doctrine, the Germans got slaughtered

>>2243325
>>2243370
>Nearly all of the "casualties" the Germans inflicted were executed civilians and POWs. The Wehrmacht killed shit in combat with their laughable tactics.


The graph specifically refute that.

>>2243325
>Wehrmacht
That's because the Wehrmacht was shit, no one considers them actually good. Plus all that meth didn't always help.

>>2243924
Shut your faggot mouth and get back to /pol/. I swear to fucking god I hate all this Nazi apologizing on /his/. Your wrong. NAzis are shit. End of story.

>>2243370
>vatniks are vatniks with muh human waves
That's a myth. While massed charges were used in certain extreme situations, doing so outside of that would be grounds for punishment and/or court martial.

>>2243998
t. shlomo

>>2242721

Why not both?

Browning
Automatic
Rifle

>>2242721
American infantry doctrine was based around actually having artillery, air, and tank support, instead of being poor machinegun niggers like Germans.

>>2242744
>it took them until they were fighting in the beginning of the war for them to catch up
Woah, really?

>>2244216
GET OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!

File: 1.png (136KB, 568x407px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 568x407px

>>2243982
>the Wehrmacht was shit, no one considers them actually good

>>2244799
>Tactically excellent
>Strategically incompetent
>pic even describes it as 'not necessarily fatal' "handicap" with a strong leader

Don't get me wrong, Wehrmacht *soldiers* were fine and dandy, if a little strung out, but the Wehrmacht itself was atrocious at its job.

>>2243924
that graph shows how many civilians died from Poland and Russia

not exactly combat fatalities huh

>>2244359
BAR was fucking garbage.

>>2243998
Polish autism

>>2243045
>especially their blitzkrieg
Blitzkrieg isn't a doctrine. Their doctrine is Schwerpunkt or centre of gravity and the basic premise is to break through at the enemy's weakpoints and then exploit the breakthrough with highly mobile units similar to the storm trooper doctrine they had in WW1.

>>2242756
They did decide to go in on D-Day with a short barreled howitzer M4, which means you cant really say the armor doctrine was good or ahead. Thing could not pen a tiger anywhere. Many american armor crews were massacred in the beginning, but because of our enourmous industry upgraded shermans were rushed in quickly. Remember this is why the British made the firefly, its firepower was incredibly lacking

>>2244954
Actually, not the guy you're responding to, but I want to refute this. It's a myth that the main gun that a normal M4 Sherman had couldn't pen the tiger.

At most ranges that occurred during Operation Overlord, I.E hedgerow country, The Sherman could pen the tiger's armor, even from the front. I know, I sound like a fucking lunatic, right? But, according to American Reports from sherman tank crews, and AARs, the sherman had little trouble with the tiger. A sherman could even fight a tiger 1 on 1 (as long as the range wasn't at NORMAL tank range) and would win. Either through speed, or abusing the mechanical short comings of the tiger.

German tank design's only starchild was the panther. Others were HORRIBLY exploited by the sherman. Contrary to popular belief, though, the sherman didn't spam tigers to death. Nor were they willing to 'sacrifice 4 to bring down 1'. After Operation Overlord, when Allied Airpower was firmly established, you didn't see very many normal tank battles, so the sherman was never TRULY exposed.

>>2243998
Jew or Polish either way scum of the earth.

>>2244954
The Sherman Firefly was specifically built in order to tank out the heavier opponents, like the Panther and Tiger, but it was quickly found that the Fireflys were often not entirely needed all that much.

Also, the short barrled howitzer M4s were decided as a contingent to the D-Day forces not due to the decision that it was going to be fighting tanks. They chose the howitzer in order to destroy fortifications, and as an infantry support vehicle.

Also, they chose to have a significant number of these, because they knew the German armor would not act. By the time they would act in any real dangerous number, the foothold would of already been secured.

>>2242826
>>2243325
>>2243998

Yep. This is possibly the worst poster on /his/

please leave

>>2244954
t. belton cooper
>They did decide to go in on D-Day with a short barreled howitzer M4, which means you cant really say the armor doctrine was good or ahead.
The 75mm M3 isn't a howitzer. There was a 105mm M4 version that was quite uncommon and requested by armored units as it provided additional firepower.
>Thing could not pen a tiger anywhere.
There wasn't a single Tiger in the American sector in Normandy. Furthermore, it can penetrate the side of the Tiger at ~800m.
>Many american armor crews were massacred in the beginning, but because of our enourmous industry upgraded shermans were rushed in quickly.
American tank crews were not massacred nor were many knocked out by enemy tanks. Most were lost due to AT guns, panzerfausts and AT mines. The losses to enemy tanks were so few that the 76mm wasn't requested by armored units but the 105mm howitzer version was because most targets tanks faced were soft targets.
>Remember this is why the British made the firefly, its firepower was incredibly lacking
The Firefly was a fucking meme. Americans never adopted the Firefly because the 17pdr was a shitty tank gun. Its recoil kicked up a ton of dust, making it hard to impossible to see the tracer at closer ranges and 76mm HVAP was superior in penetration and APDS couldn't hit shit.

>>2243924
How? I don't see the graph making a distinction between POW and combat deaths

>>2242787

The soviets just spammed dozens of men at 1 German until the German died. Not much tactic, m8.

>>2244835
>if a little strung out
cmon meth is great for combat
Like think of it how it must have been like being Ivan, having to pull double the guard duty with no amphetamines whatsoever.

>>2245011
layin da smackdown

>>2245021
Gr8 b8 m8

anyone here play company of heroes? I know it isnt 100% realistic but I feel like the tactics you have to end up using are the ones that were actually used in war, ie the whole artillery doing most of the work, considering infantry can be held at bay with machine guns/fortified emplacements

>>2243047
>executed/starved pows are millitary deaths

>>2244359
>hey let's make a weapon supposed to put down supressive fire with like, a 20 round magazine, lmao

>So much autism and retardation in one thread, holy fuck

>>2244359
the BAR was a catastrophe. fucking 20lbs and only a 20rd magazine

File: 1484724354356.jpg (361KB, 590x714px)

361KB, 590x714px

>>2242721
militaryfriend here

Here in canada we are told that our doctrine and command structure comes from the germans.

Our officer gives us his "mission intent" and an "end state" which is a general outline of what needs to be done, the rest of ths planning is done by the subordinate. Decentralized command is another reason why germans were so effective. During WW1 and 2 the british officers would micromanage every aspect of the planning leaving them unflexible on ground.

Post WW2 commonwealth doctrine is based off of the machine gun fore to pin the enemy while an assault element approaches to take the position. We also got that from the germans.

>>2244997
> But, according to American Reports from sherman tank crews, and AARs, the sherman had little trouble with the tiger.
Didn't the American crews keep reporting Tigers everywhere when they were actually seeing Panzer IVs?

>>2245417
>Decentralized command is another reason why germans were so effective.
it also has some pretty large drawbacks though, most notably the absolute shitfest that was german logictics in either ww

>>2245548
Pretty much. To the yanks every armored vehicle with a turret was a tiger.

>>2245548
There were two confirmed Tiger encounters for the US during D-Day. The British fought quite a lot of Tigers (and Panthers), which is why they made the Firefly because of difficulty in penetrating German heavy armor frontally.
That said, it's likely US forces were engaged by and engaged Tigers more than twice during the D-Day fight, but clearly with only two confirmed encounters those Tigers were not knocked out.

>>2243924
Dude, half of Russia's combat casualties come from soldiers who died in POW camps.

File: Owen_Hubbart_270kg_Deadlift.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>2242728
>>2242737
Yeah dude great I liked saving private Ryan too but "we" didn't win because of our doctrine. We won because of the behemothic scale on the eastern front. If there wasn't an eastern front and Hitler had betrayed Stalin after conquering Europe, it would have been a much different story.

>>2242742
>the sound that's made before they pop up and shoot you

>>2242721
There are applications for either. For example I'd rather have a unit composed of select fire rifles and carbines for kicking down doors and general urban warfare such as Iraq, and rifles with magnification (preferably more than the 4x that the acog offers) for open fighting like Afghanistan.

>>2242737
Soo the soviets

>>2243047
>balts
>allied

Ayylmao

>>2245975
When you realize most of Lithuanian casulties were holocausted Jews, it makes sense.

>>2246063
Same for hungary, but they're considered axis

>>2245548
Russians did that too.
Something about Panzer IV with armoured skirts around it's turret making it's silhouette look like a Tiger from long distances.

>>2245937
>select fire rifles and carbines
>general urban warfare
God you are retarded

>>2244835
If they were tactically excellent then they were not atrocious at their job.

File: 1354430669703.gif (1MB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 240x180px

>Hitler was stupid
>the Wehrmacht was actually total shit
>the Luftwaffe was actually total shit
>the High Command and German Generals were all actually total shit
>Germany didn't know shit about science
>German tanks and weapons were total shit
>somehow being outnumbered 3:1 they still managed to conquer most of continental Europe but they're still total shit

there is no nuance here it's just /pol/ vs. anti-/pol/

>>2247173
>Hitler was stupid
He was crazy, which is somewhat different. Whenever he took command over his generals he fucked something up, like sending two different tank armies through a region with only a single road, leading to both of them being disorganized and slowed down.

>the Wehrmacht was actually total shit
It worked well for what it did, and was probaly superior on the tactical level, mostly thanks to a much more efficient doctrin, including armored breakthroughs, close air support and decentralized command. Strategically it was sup-par though

>the Luftwaffe was actually total shit
Against other air forces? Sure. But they were goat at supporting ground assaults.

And so on. It`s retards being retards while not looking at the general performance, just focusing on one piece that support their worldview.

>>2245011

The Americans didn't adopy the 17pdr because of a gun that didn't exist at the time, and didn't find its way into Europe on an American tank until like three months before the war ended?

Superb logic.

>>2247205

I'm an empiricist. I think for you to make an assertion you have to have clear evidence of it first and foremost, before you can even get started on actually proving it. So you could say, "the Italian Army was subpar, I will start by listing the fact that they had numerous losses against weaker opponents such as Greece, then I will solidify my point by listing the details that made this so." I simply cannot conceive how someone could pretend that German organization and military tactics were "subpar" given the shit they gave the entire world around them for a solid 5 years before having to recede thanks to running out of gas. It seems like some of the most armchair intellectualism possible.

>Well look, the allies won in the end

Really can't hurt to have 5 times as many men and resources as the people you're fighting huh

>>2245011
>>2247212

Also HVAP rounds were never even issued to Sherman tanks, HVAP went to tank destroyer units also equipped with the 76mm gun.

Less War Thunder, more history books.

>>2247234

>An order for 20,000 HVAP rounds was issued in the late summer, but production never kept up to demand because of shortages of tungsten. This production was to be equally divided between 76mm and 3 inches, the latter for the M10 3-inch GMC tank destroyer. The HVAP ammunition underwent continual refinement throughout the autumn and was finally type-classified as the M93 76mm fixed shot HVAP-T in February 1945. The first distribution of HVAP ammunition to tank units took place in Belgium on September 11, 1944 to the 3rd Armored Division and the 746th Tank Battalion."
https://www.amazon.com/76mm-Sherman-Medium-1943-65-Vanguard/dp/1841765422

>>2247231
>Not ensuring adequate logistic support for Babarossa
>Not taking Gibraltar
>Trying to invade Britain when you lack the capacity to hold on to any beachhead
>No break out at Stalingrad
I could go on. These were major failures at the largest scale, each of them weakening the german forces.

On the tactical level Germany was goat though, just look at the battle for france, which was almost stopped by high command because they feared that they were advancing too fast.

>>2244845
What was garbage about it aside from your opinions?

>>2242787

>pretend it was a fair fight

Literally who says this

>>2247234

Here's another one

https://books.google.com/books?id=SOTDzoncMroC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=Our+tank+crews+had+some+success+with+the+HVAP+76mm+ammunition.+However,+at+no+time+have+we+been+able+to+secure+more+then+five+rounds+per+tank+and+in+recent+actions+this+has+been+reduced+to+a+maximum+of+two+rounds,+and+in+many+tanks+all+this+type+has+been+expended+without+being+replaced&source=bl&ots=xfQ04Z9bFK&sig=6wNjnxfARqrwf2CbVkGbIT5JgvY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwja-63M4c7RAhVH2IMKHfJXAOIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Our%20tank%20crews%20had%20some%20success%20with%20the%20HVAP%2076mm%20ammunition.%20However%2C%20at%20no%20time%20have%20we%20been%20able%20to%20secure%20more%20then%20five%20rounds%20per%20tank%20and%20in%20recent%20actions%20this%20has%20been%20reduced%20to%20a%20maximum%20of%20two%20rounds%2C%20and%20in%20many%20tanks%20all%20this%20type%20has%20been%20expended%20without%20being%20replaced&f=false

>As soon as the first M93 HVAP rounds came off the production line, they were transported by air to Northwest Europe around August 1944, and then to the tankers in the field. Each 76mm-gun-armed M4 series tank was supposed to have a moderate supply of this special ammunition.

>Major Paul A. Bane Jr., of the 2nd armored division, comments in a wartime report, "Our tank crews have had some success with the HVAP 76mm ammunition. However, at no time have we been able to secure more than five rounds per tank and in recent actions this has been reduced to a maximum of two rounds, and in may tanks all this type has been expended without being replaced."

>>2242721
1943+ Red army, no one besides Soviets had half of frontline toops armed with submachineguns.

>>2247275

I think you can look back on big picture failures mostly attributed to their HC, yes. As a fighting force though if I'm given a choice between an equal sized, equally supplied and positioned army derived from any of the major players in some kind of arena simulation I'm going with the Germans. It seems like the only military that actually faced a similar land challenge as them was the USSR, in the first place.

>>2247306

No one but communists or fascists could completely dedicate economic production to spamming tanks, planes, and smg's and I don't think the ghost of Germany was going to accomplish it at this stage.

>>2247317
>As a fighting force though if I'm given a choice between an equal sized, equally supplied and positioned army derived from any of the major players in some kind of arena simulation I'm going with the Germans.


Not him, but you might want to look up the progress of the Italian campaign from 43-45.

>>2247328

What do you mean? The joint Allied campaign in Italy?

>>2247345

Yes, the one where the Germans actually had numerical superiority against the Anglo-American forces, and still got steadily forced back and took heavier casualties than they inflicted.

Furthermore, operational failure (which happened quite a bit) could and did lead them to sticking themselves into inferior positions: You don't get Crusader without an overextended DAK on an offensive that its own staff knew it couldn't sustain. You don't get things like Bagration or Jassny-Kishniev without badly misplacing mobile assets in response to Soviet moves and deception campaigns. Overlooking that is foolish.

>>2247326
American weapons had 3x price of Soviet or German

File: dresden.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>2242826
They won because the USSR produced more T-34s than Germany produced tanks in total throughout the war, they won because the US produced more Shermans in total throughout the war than Germany produced tanks in total. They won because while Japan was struggling to churn out one aircraft carrier at a time, the US was easily shitting out seven aircraft carriers at a time, and likely could have adapted their productive capabilities to shit out more if they so wished. They won because Germany with all their additional territories was looking at about 80something million people to reliably recruit from, while both the US and USSR was at 120+ million, add to that the 25% of the world's population under the Commonwealth against the 60 something million Japanese. They won because the majority of South America was feeding the allies. They won because while the Germans and Japanese had taken them all with their pants down early in the war with tactics way a head of the allies, they failed monstrously to adapt to a losing war when they didn't get the quick victory they absolutely needed. Both the Germans and the Japanese could have been the absolute superman the axisboos want to belive, and it still wouldn't have helped them in the long run.

>>2247373

What makes you think they had numerical superiority? Maybe upon the initial invasion (naturally) but not after it was sustained. And these were poorly trained B-team German and Italian bastardized divisions with, again, bad supply lines as the last remnants of their strength were in Eastern Europe. Once you established a beachhead it was a matter of pressing the attack.

I don't deny Germany's biggest failure was in overstretching themselves in a war that saw them fighting 4 fronts, or that they didn't make mistakes. Their hope was rapid conditional surrender and once that didn't happen it was a gradual death. I'm still taking 1941 Germany over anyone else who bought time thanks to distinct geographical advantages over an aggressor that thought they had the oil and logistics to steamroll the planet.

>military """doctrine"""

Literally as autistic as calling out your anime attack names. Just use common sense and attack.

>>2243047
Yeah but no one cares about slavs, chinks and indians.

File: 42zsxjm78rex.gif (2MB, 1064x734px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1064x734px

>>2243047
>genocide shitloads of civilians in occupied countries
WE DID IT GUYS, WEHRMACHT BEST ARMY EVER, MUH KILL RATIO

>>2247434

>What makes you think they had numerical superiority?

By reading up about the campaign?

https://www.amazon.com/Path-Victory-Mediterranean-Theater-World/dp/0374529760

>Maybe upon the initial invasion (naturally) but not after it was sustained.

No, seriously. The Germans committed more divisions and artillery (but not airplanes or naval vessels) than the Allies did; this is part of the reason that the Allies ran into trouble in the mountainous areas, and had to advance by slow infiltration techniques instead of just blasting through.

>And these were poorly trained B-team German and Italian bastardized divisions with

No, they weren't. The Italian govenrment had surrendered and the overwhelming majority of their forces disbanded by the time of Operation Avalanche. Units like the 76th and 14th Panzer corps were not "B team"; in fact, I've never once seen the claim that the units on the western or Med fronts were substantially inferior than the ones on the Eastern Front, where, don't forget, we have people like the Hungarians and the Romanians filling out large portions of Wehrmacht orgcharts.

>, bad supply lines as the last remnants of their strength were in Eastern Europe.

Please cite ANY of those claims.

> Once you established a beachhead it was a matter of pressing the attack.

Except of course, that things like the Gothic and Bernhardt lines held up the Allies far more so than the beach defenses at Salerno.


>I'm still taking 1941 Germany over anyone else who bought time thanks to distinct geographical advantages over an aggressor that thought they had the oil and logistics to steamroll the planet.

If you're solely restricting your analysis to 1941, then yes, the Germans are ahead. By later on in the war, they had been passed, and they weren't just defeated by lack of fuel; they were outfought, and badly outfought, as things dragged on.

File: 1484569056570.jpg (176KB, 866x612px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 866x612px

I have no idea about infantry doctrine (leaning German personally), but as to armor doctrine, well, look at Arracourt.
>4th Armored Division loses 25 tanks (mix of Shermans and Stuarts) and 7 tank destroyers
>Germany loses 200 tanks, most of them Panthers
>so badly trained that a large chunk of the Panthers disabled themselves before reaching battle

>>2247497

>I've never once seen the claim that the units on the western or Med fronts were substantially inferior than the ones on the Eastern Front, where, don't forget, we have people like the Hungarians and the Romanians filling out large portions of Wehrmacht orgcharts.

I said this badly. What I meant to say was not that I hadn't seen the claim, but that I haven't seen the claim proven; it's often just asserted without any supporting evidence, or if evidence is given, it's that the beach defenses at D-Day were third echelon units, as if there weren't rearguard forces out East as well.

>>2247519
It's because it's blatantly false. The Western Allies faced veteran units multiple times after D-Day, notably during Market Garden, Battle of the Bulge and Fortress Metz.

>>2247212
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Firefly/
A Firefly was made available to the Americans for testing in winter 1943-1944.
The result was that in combat situations, the 76mm Sherman was more practical.

>>2245884
Very true, but i doubt a "centralized" logistics system wouldve changed the outcome of the war by much, the shortages also due to limited access to war resources overall. When the US got into the war (and before) the allies got logistic supremacy. In terms of resources the germans didnt have enough to sustain total war and its impressive they made it as far as they did.

Rommel definitely got fucked by shitty logistics in africa.

>>2248696
>Rommel definitely got fucked by shitty logistics in africa.


In large part due to his own strategic blundering. His biggest problem wasn't even getting supplies to theater; it was getting them out of Tripoli to a front line around Tobruk a lot of the time.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf

Which is, of course, why his mission was defensive, not offensive; but the problem wasn't one of overall resources that couldn't be divided up properly, the problem was the local infrastructure (or lack thereof) and refusal to plan taking that into account.

>>2247495
>background pic is a Russian soldier shooting cilivilans
Really makes you think

>>2244359
>design a weapon around literally walking forward across No Man's Land and shooting.
>make it a huge, heavy piece of shit with a tiny magazine.

That thing was a trainwreck. Its successes are largely from its ubiquity and solid action rather than actual tactical utility.

File: 1484685332105.png (12KB, 500x294px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 500x294px

>>2242742

>>2248741
Sounds like they should add "muh photoshop" to that gif

>>2245021
Actually not true, despite the famous quote by Stalin that quantity is the best quality.

There were many soviet innovation in infantry and urban military theory, like soviet deep combat that were responsible for winning Stalingrad, not waves and waves of meat shields as enemy at the gates or COD finest hour would have you believe.

>>2249169
When they were doing human waves and barrier squads, 1941, is when they did the worst. It went horribly for them.

>>2247281
Weight, shitty bipod in later versions, no single shot, shit capacity. It was grossly unsuited to the role it was use din, and too fucking heavy for anything else.

There's a reason the concept died entirely unitl the marines went full retard.

>>2243325
>Nearly all of the "casualties" the Germans inflicted were executed civilians and POWs
POWs are themselves casualties.
Civilians aren't even counted as casualties to begin with.

>>2245092
Officers in the borscht battalion got em too. And up until a friendly fire incident in the middle East, so did the us.

>>2247127
Try your hardest to be articulate and explain what was wrong with that statement

well today's infantry tactics seem to be closer to the american ww2 approach of fireteams rather than centering around the mg
they're different though

>>2250521
Uh?
Patently false my dude

>>2250521
Source: your ass

>>2242721
The swiss

Modern tactics with assault rifles are basically a big gay hybrid between German DAKKADAKKADAKKAing, Amerifat PINGing and Russian PPSh-ing, isn't it?

>>2250847
Oh jesus

Why even post? Did you want an answer or did you just want to express your idiocy?

>>2250873
wow, rude

>>2250875
Uh huh

Okay well then the answer is yes

You nailed it

Great job anon, well put

Gold star

File: IMG_5209.png (97KB, 800x423px)

97KB, 800x423px

Germany had a steady 2:1 kill ratio, 1:2 death ratio in the end. In that perspective no fighting force has been this formidable, at this scale, ever and makes them the best fighting force known to man. Their infantry relied on the panzer iii iv actually and although inferior it was the revolutionary in its aid. But being the best fighting force was actually their downfall, had they just met the enemy in the field it would've been a one year war, but for the first time ever mass action insurgency tactics and soviet deprivity (scorched earth retreat, war materials production and general human ammo approach) is what ultimately turned them back from the frontier land that Moscow was just at the tip of.

>>2250873
shut up that's a finely made shitpost you ignorant philistine

>>2245011
good lad

>>2250889
Around half of all german kills were POW's who died while imprisoned

Actual combat deaths were pretty close to 1:1

>>2243998
What is with this belief that saying the Germans were good at anything is inherently neo-nazi?

File: 1484664876527.jpg (57KB, 800x570px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 800x570px

>>2247406
Good post, anon.

>>2251213
Because it's usually neo-Nazi. People often confuse "usually" with "inherently".

>>2247503
That would be the German manpower issues late in the war. They simply couldn't train enough men to keep up, so they sent them out barely trained. Unsurprisingly, they preformed poorly.

>>2242721
>Who had the better infantry doctrine in WW2, the Americans (based around the rifleman) or the Germans (based around the machinegun)?
No contest.

The Americans knew theirs was shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle#World_War_II

>...a setback early in the war after U.S. ground forces encountered German troops well-armed with automatic weapons, including fast-firing, portable machine guns.[39] In some cases, particularly in the attack, every fourth German infantryman was equipped with an automatic weapon, either a submachine gun or a full-power machine gun.[39] In an attempt to overcome the BAR's limited continuous-fire capability...
>setback
>overcome
>limited

>>2246142
This so much, I know my experience is only vidya but playing WT and seeing a box in the foggy distance I assume it's a tiger but really is someone with a panzer for some reason at the higher tiers

>>2242721
Most of the poor performances of the Wehrmacht was caused by shitty equipment and absolute incompetence in terms of understanding the reality of the conflict and what kind of arms and vehicles are needed.

Actually, their tactical and operational doctrine was far superior compared to the allies and the actual reason the Wehrmacht even got this far. Their equipment and motorization was shit throughout the whole war, relying on horses and stuff. When it comes to the airforce, Görings absolute incompetence caused the crushing defeat in the Battle of Britain and even the StuKa was not used in the way in which they actually planned to use it.

The reason Americans have low casualties is because they had time and material on their side, there was no need to rush, they could easily just outsustain the Germans all the way to Germany. The Soviets pushed way harder for Berlin because of propaganda reasons and therefore have higher casualties throughout the last months of the war.

It's fair to say this has to be attributed to incompetence in strategic leadership and arms industry. Germany in WWI was actually way better off.