Here we trigger the Wehraboos

>tfw honestly believe three but think everything else is silly

File: 1483236871302.jpg (731KB, 1227x849px)

731KB, 1227x849px

>>2358805

>>2358805
>The Einsatzgruppen was an anti-terrorist organization
Are you saying it wasn't?

>>2358823

mate.....

>>2358826
It's a question of perspective.

>>2358838

Murdering civilians is not anti-terrorism from any perspective.

>>2358918
Un-uniformed combatants, anon. Not civilians.

File: 802.jpg (46KB, 600x816px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x816px

>>2358823
>Occupy foreign country
>Indiscriminately kill citizens of said country
>Get attacked by citizens of said country
>fucking terrorists

File: 1391011990434.jpg (57KB, 384x395px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 384x395px

>>2358985
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan

>>2358985
USA! USA!

>>2358932
4 year old un-uniformed combatants?

Soviet attack babies?

>>2358985
So Palestinian terrorist groups aren't real terrorist groups because israel was established by force?

I think a lot of the Wehrmacht were just men fighting for their country. Of course you can blame those who worked as guards in death camps, but little Heinrich half frozen to death in Stalingrad without any fresh food isn't that much of a villain in my eyes.

Then again, as an American I wholeheartedly believe the Japanese soldiers of World War 2 were absolute scumfucking vermin who killed women and children indiscriminately, so I guess I have some bias.

>>2359078
>but little Heinrich half frozen to death in Stalingrad without any fresh food isn't that much of a villain in my eyes.
You sound like typical goyim scum.

>>2359053

Did they ever really imply they were subhuman as part of their official doctrine? I thought they were viewed purely as political enemies and dangerous.

File: 1475026317472s.jpg (3KB, 125x121px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x121px

>>2359078
>death camps
You don´t have to be American to realize that the Japanese did commit war crimes in China.

>>2359093
shitty wikipedia article but still applies here.


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

File: images.jpg (3KB, 135x90px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 135x90px

>>2359035
yes.

File: 1486115405193.png (831KB, 536x666px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 536x666px

>>2359078
>I think a lot of the Wehrmacht were just men fighting for their country.
I think that's what most soldiers are supposed to be, but I could be wrong...

>>2359027
>Soviet attack babies?
You say this like the Soviets were above strapping bombs to dogs and ordering people to march over minefields.

>>2358810

>Germans sign over half of Eastern Europe to the Soviets
>Act surprised when the Soviets annex those areas

It's amazing how much anti-Jewish stereotyping applies to Nazis. The one about crying out in pain while striking you is a good one for here.

File: 1487004360322.jpg (561KB, 1360x2048px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 1360x2048px

>>2359035
t. Ezra Silverstein

File: redarm.jpg (14KB, 400x249px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x249px

Nothing gets me harder than thinking about the SS Honor Guard begging for mercy at the foot of the Reichstag.
>German
>Master
>Race

>>2359078
Ah yes fighting for the fatherland in the motherland.

>>2358985
Literally Chechenya.

>>2359035
As long as they target government institutions, then sure. By the way, Hezbollah is way more respectable than the IDF and they're not really respectable.

>>2359045
>Germany would have won WW2 if they built more Panzer IV and Stugs
But Germany was lacking tank crews in late-war. There is no point in producing more heavy equipment when there are no people to operate it.

>>2359518
Germany would have won WW2 if they built more robots

>>2359518
Also, they were out of steel and oil, but yes, if they had infinite manpower and resources, they would have won the war.

File: IMG_5784.png (49KB, 761x608px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 761x608px

>>2359388
Nothing gets me harder than remembering that for every dead German, there are three dead commies. Not even including starvation ;)

>>2359045
Older German models were becoming outmatched as the production of T-34s started kicking into high gear. Germany needed newer, better tanks to counter the Russians. Th Panther was advertised as being a direct counter to the T-34, while the Tiger was just plain scary and tough. However, these ranks were still very difficult to enter into production, expensive to produce, and fairly untested (hence the far more frequent break-downs than normally expected of a WWII tank), so to say that only these new, bigger tanks were the answer discounts alternatives that may have been produced. Again, though, the Germans were pressed for time as the Eastern Front raged on and the need for tank dominance grew, so they might have just taken the first proven designs they developed and rolled with it. I wouldn't know.

Sometimes I wish I was jewish so I can enjoy the butthurt of every wehraboo.

>>2359045
So they should have stuck with the pzr IV even though it was inferior to t34s, kv1s, and js-2s?

>>2359561
fantastic post

>>2359593
You mean civilians

File: enraged patton.jpg (35KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 960x540px

>>2358805

Friendly reminder that George S. Patton no friend of the Nazis was horrified at the discovery of Ohrdruf concentration camp

>but but... those unsourced Patton quotes and that one diary entry where he shit-talks concentration camp survivors

Anyone who's read a basic biography of Patton knows that he was a fighting man. He was not the kind of guy you could bully around. The idea that men could be so pathetic that they would allow themselves to be reduced to a status lower than slavery rather than fighting back was not contemptuous, but inconceivable to him.

File: swordfish.jpg (39KB, 714x535px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 714x535px

Nice battleship you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.

File: das_butt.jpg (1MB, 937x1226px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 937x1226px

>>2359045

>>2359388

>SS Honor Guard
>Defending the Reichstag

Most of the defenders of the Reichstag were Kreigsmarine sailors, Volksstrum, RHSA staff, and SS troops from the Charlemagne Division (French).

>>2359593
>china
>PRC flag
hmm

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

2MB, 1064x734px

>>2358819
Have the animated one, more slappy with the stiff movement.

File: schokolade_kaffee_kolanuss_by_erica1940-d9rrhzp.jpg (200KB, 900x1273px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 900x1273px

>>2358805
Send them valentine instead.

>>2359648
So they decided to build and produce the Maus tank and the Gustav Rail gun, got it.

>>2358805
>>2358805
>war crimes

wtf is a war crime?

THis concept is absurd

Life and death contest between two groups of people

The loser however is guilty of 'war crimes' that the winner is not capable of committing.

>you can blow up a man to bits but not gas him
>you can blockade a civilian population into mass starvation and famine and also roast htem to a crisp with napalm and atomic bombs but you can't use them in factories

I mean jesus christ how absurd is this?

Ribbentrop got hung for conspiring war against poland.

Molotov wasn't even tried.

war crimes is the biggest propaganda term in the business. Its used to rally public opinion and demoralize the enemy.

This is all well documented and planned too if you look at WWI propaganda.

Its amazing how even historians are wrapped up in it.

>>2359593
>America doesn't even chart
Lel how can Euros even compete?

>>2358805
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4ztOV2wrrkY

>>2359593
War isn't Call of Duty.
Your k/d ratio does not matter

>der tigers wuz shieeet xDDD meme

this is revisionist faggotry isn't it?

File: Tiger2-sSSPzAbt.501-France.1944-02 Abandoned by its crew.png (99KB, 650x326px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 650x326px

*breaks down*

File: image.png (2MB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1680x1050px

>>2360280
He got his history lessons from Call of Duty World at War. Pic related

>>2359593
>Greece was a pillar in stopping the war machine
>now gets treated like the leper of Europe

you bastards will pay, believe it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R_lXIFWHlc

>>2359027
DO you REALLY doubt the godless ruskies wouldn't be able to do that with their Jew magic when that Kenyan Muslim Obama was using planned parenthood abortions as mortar shells

>>2360280
>Charlemagne division
>naming a decision after the guy who turned away your volk from their true gods and to juedo-Christian idolatry

>>2360280
Was there even a battle at the Reichstag? I've heard that it wasn't even defended and that most of the action took place near the Reich Chancellory and Air Ministry.

File: 731e28106ede791be7e801281d2d40b732179e4af7c58acc5ce73b6cbc708914_1.jpg (71KB, 691x820px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 691x820px

Posting in a slavaboo thread, say hi to anons over at /leftypol/ for me OP

>>2361863
>SS honor guards wearing Heer helmets
Reminds me how historically inaccurate this game is.

>Fucking King Tigers in Stalingrad

>>2359027
TANK BOY
TANK BOY

File: F85EA21A-935C-4387-A02C-7163F813FFE7-4601-000003AB72187509_tmp.jpg (31KB, 500x383px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x383px

>>2358805
>tfw a 4
Not even upset

>>2362373
>Soviet national anthem=best national anthem
>Russia shit stomped Germany

These two are indisputable facts and aren't indicative of slavaboo tendencies

>>2361262
>edgy teens who's had his first philosophy lesson and now thinks he knows jack shit about history and war.

File: 1418064183039.jpg (43KB, 482x427px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 482x427px

>another German bashing thread

JUST FUCKING STOP ALREADY

I AM SORRY FOR THE 11 MILLION INNOCENT JEWS THAT WERE KILLED BY HEARTLESS GERMAN MONSTERS

I AM SORRY FOR EXISTING

>>2358805
>tfw second reich boo
>tfw also at about #3
feels

>>2362402
you shouldn't bra, get a hold of yourself *slaps twice*

it's the system

File: retard pepe.png (51KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 657x527px

>>2358985

So xenophobic attacks against muslims and niggers in Europe are completely justified.

>Emigrate to Europe
>Rape, murder and oppress Native-Europeans
>Get attacked by natives
>fucking racists

>>2362429
They aren't a monolithic foreign force and they actually are citizens so its not a good comparison.

Better example would be the US army in whatever their latest adventure is.

>>2362429
Watt?

>>2362448
No muslim or nigger in europe is actually european though, they are foreign invaders brought into europe by marxist swine such as yourself in order to undermine the essentially white society of europe.

>>2362453
t. american and/or asperger

>>2362458
t.marxist swede.

You know I'm right Sven, multiculti horseshit imposed by marxist eurocrats will be the death of the advanced secular society of europe.

File: belbaltlag_detail.jpg (114KB, 700x536px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 700x536px

Never thought that the rumors were true about this board being extremely leftist. Now I do.

However, personally I don't deny that the germans did wawr crimes that can be considered horrible. But if we look at the other nations that they were fighting, they were not really better down the line. In the case of the sovietunion they surpassed germans easily in terms of warcrimes. Not just to the enemies but their own too.

>>2362484
>this board being extremely leftist

just because we don't spout any shit that's infesting /pol/, doesn't mean that the "board is leftist". Quite mannihaistic of you.

>>2359593
What makes Germans so good at killing subhumans? Are they really the master race?

>>2362464
>>2362484
Racist fucks, get out. We defeated the Nazis once in WW2 and we will do so again. If you post racist/homophobic/transphobic/antisemitic/anti-islamic shit on /his/ you will meet utmost resistance. We won't let this board fall into the hands of /pol/.

>>2362484
>In the case of the sovietunion they surpassed germans easily in terms of warcrimes
No they didn't

The Germans let a fucking convicted child-rapist Oskar Dirlewanger and his band of criminals run rampant in Warsaw and destroy almost the entire fucking city for no reason.

>>2362509
oy vey

oy gevalt

how horrid of these germans

>>2362508
0/10. Nobody who actually posts here will fall for this.

>>2362508
Who is "we"?
/his/ belongs never to /pol/ nor to /leftypol/.
You seem buttmad and consider the latter tho.

>>2362516
>>2362517
>>>/pol/

Stay mad.

>>2362375
I thought that I was only one who's jimmies get rustled by this kind of inaccuracies. I go to every THICC thread to complain about historical inaccuracies when this picture gets posted.

File: image.png (4MB, 2480x3507px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2480x3507px

>>2362525
forgot the pic

File: sample-044f4431f8469d48e7506e91de6e1784.jpg (92KB, 1400x625px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1400x625px

>>2362493

Just look at the catalogue there are various threads just about how bad nazis are.

>>2362508

And with "we" you mean who exactly? Look, all I'm saying is that the nazis aren't innocent little snowflakes but that the other nations weren't that much better either.

>>2362509

Yes they did. By far. That you just put out of your ass. Just look at soviet gulags and how many russians were killed by russians because they dared to critique Lenin or Stalin. Without even counting in the horrible treatment soviet soldiers had to endure throughout the whole war.

>>2359045
The Panzer IV was inferior to Shermans and T-34s, and Germany was outnumbered on every front.

>>2362542
The Holocaust is a crime that is UNIQUE in human history. Its industrial scale and horror is unmatched and saying anything else is a crime in most of the civilized world. Racist Nazi sh*theads like yourself who try to shift the blame to others to make people ignore what happened belong in f*cking prison! GET OUT OF THIS BOARD! GET BACK TO /POL/ TO WORSHIP DONALD TRUMP AND WHITE POWER OR SOMETHING!

>>2362383
>Russia shit stomped Germany
Not really no. It was more that America, Britain and Russia combined shitstomped Germany. The Russians on their own would have done jack and shit.

>>2362542
>Just look at the catalogue there are various threads just about how bad nazis are.
>saying the nazis are bad is a leftist opinion

t. Goebbels

>>2362543

No it wasn't. The Sherman was more similar to panzer III and the T-34 while being a good tank that was cost effective, was not as versatile and precise than the Panzer IV.

>>2362567
Take your stupid Nazi Wehraboo opinions to /pol/.

>>2362548

Dear god, I think I'll just ignore you for a while.

>>2362556

Well no its just the way you talk about said nazis, you know?

Bomber Harris did nothing wrong

>>2362567
Sherman shits all over the Panzer IV m8.

File: British_Sherman_Firefly_Namur.jpg (315KB, 1920x1463px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1920x1463px

>>2358805

out of my way tiger fucking shits

>>2362567
>>Sherman similar to panzer III
lol no, the Sherman curbstomped the panzer III into the dirt and was depending on model either slightly better then or outright superior to the panzer iv and the T-34 was so much better then the panzer III and IV that the Germans promptly shat themselves in fear and developed the Panther specifically so they could counter it.

File: cbabebd86f95004a8f13b861032e82f1.jpg (140KB, 850x637px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 850x637px

>>2362573

That's not a stupid wehraboo opinion, you can look it up yourself if you'd like.

A good tank of the russians would be the KV-1 that was used in the beginning of the war with the sovietunion. Germans took quite some time to develop a tank to counter it effectively. While the western allies didn't have the best tanks all together they still had some good ones like the british Matilda used in north africa or at the end of the war the Pershing tank.

File: dead krauts.jpg (131KB, 985x529px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 985x529px

>>2359078

File: a0466db74b5fe5d52b4c14a800612296.jpg (1MB, 2480x1748px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2480x1748px

>>2362605
>>2362596

No it didn't, similar to other lighter tanks the sherman was used en masse against enemies. The panther and similar tanks were mainly used in the eastern front.

Also the sherman is a tank that was sold across the whole world because he was rather easy and cost effctive to build. Oh and also he was easy to repair! Instead of just scraping it outright once it got penetrated they just put some metal over the hole and could reuse it again.

>>2362628
>>sherman a light tank
Delusional wehraboo detected. The Sherman was a medium tank and was more then capable against panzer IV.

>>panther was mostly used in the east.
When? Once the Americans and British landed in France something like half the german tanks were panthers. The reason for this being that panzers 3 and 4 couldn't stand up to allied armor at that time.

>>2362635

>panzers 3 and 4 couldn't stand up to allied armor at that time.

desu they could, but the krauts were all in on the meme machines of tiger and panther tanks by 1944.

tiger and panthers were given priority in terms of production, spare parts, fuel, everything because they thought they could turn the tide of war with better weapons.

>>2362453
>They are foreign invaders brought into europe by marxist swine such as yourself in order to undermine the essentially white society of europe.

Oh shit, you got me Goyim.

I won't rest till your Aryan daughter is violated by a pack of feral niggers

File: americanbravado.jpg (859KB, 1693x1055px) Image search: [Google]

859KB, 1693x1055px

>>2362635

That's kinda funny, you can read on wikipedia that soldiers of both sides had a nickname for the shermans and despite being shot and destroyed a lot of times John Buckley had the opinion that the sherman is "superior to most german tanks." Is this what people call american bravado?

>>2359788
T-34, with the L/43 & 48 np to fight them
KVs and ISs, whats a Pak?

File: 1447103666070.jpg (124KB, 1157x772px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1157x772px

>>2362705
>wikipedia

I'm proud wehraboo and if these shits trigger you you are a bitch.

THERE was nothing wrong murdering millions of people, Germany s only fault is that They failed to do a thorough job, particularly letting alive gypsies left.

>>2362729

Wikipedia might not be the most trusted source but here we're talking about general information, I doubt they got that wrong too much.

>>2362705
Yeah what that doesn't mention is that the Panzer IV was also vulnerable and comparing just whether or not one tank can kill another is only a very small part of the overall effectiveness of said tank, a part that doesn't even matter here as even Shermans with 75mm guns were more then capable of taking out panzers 3 and 4. This isn't even getting into thing like the firefly or 76mm armed shermans firing HVAP rounds which were more then capable of dealing with panthers and tigers.

>>2362747

Like I said though, they needed much more tanks to do so. While germans just had one panther there americans needed 10 shermans to take out that one panther. As I also said the allies were not so popular for their tanks. What the western allies were more known for are their aircraft, their ships and paratroopers.

File: Shermans v Panthers.jpg (127KB, 680x1060px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 680x1060px

>>2362850

Not that anon, but that's just not true. Pic related is from this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Data-World-War-Tank-Engagements/dp/1470079062


You'll note that the Shermans are killing about 3 and a half Panthers for every Sherman brought down by a panther, and the big killers of the shermans are old fashioned anti-tank guns, not the big cats. And that the numbers of engaged is very rarely more than at a 6:5 ratio when it comes to shermans vs the panthers.

>>2362542
>there are various threads just about how bad nazis are.


ach du meine, ist ein other Dresden

>>2362850
Wew last I heard it was 5 shermans for a panther. Sherman inflation is crazy these days.

>>2358805
flip extreme and normal wehraboo

>>2359035
yes

>>2359078
the Japanese were basically evil incarnate.It's kind of hysterical that they'd ally with Nazi Germany

posting the
GOAT
O
A
T
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ztOV2wrrkY

>>2362910

That was me making fun of the sherman tank. You know why the hell the not?

>>2362862

That pic mainly talks about defence and the reasonable outcome of being in the defence. That said the picture doesn't actually pinpoint it wether or not shermans were effective or not. Or that the "old-fashioned" anti-tank guns were better in dealing with shermans than say panthers or similar tanks. Which I honestly thinkthey did, but you can't make that out of that single page.

I mean that just shows some examples of multiple engagements throughout the war. Nowhere does it even goes into detail about the single maschines. That said you can't say for sure if it was like you just said only based on that single page of that book you just posted.

Though if its a book about tank engagements, you should be able to find much better pages in it that may or may not back up your idea.

>>2362850
>>While germans just had one panther there americans needed 10 shermans to take out that one panther.
Oh look, more bullshit.

>>2363009
>. That said the picture doesn't actually pinpoint it wether or not shermans were effective or not.


Yes it does, if you bothered to read the graph. The Shermans manage to fire first 19 out of 20 times on tactical defense, AND 5 out of 7 times on tactical offense. You can add up the number of allied Sherman casualties from all permutations (21) and compare that number to the number of enemy mk v casualties (72), and realize which is much higher.

> Or that the "old-fashioned" anti-tank guns were better in dealing with shermans than say panthers or similar tanks.

Well, other than the part where you have significantly more casualties to fewer enemy weapons by the A/T rows than you do in the Mk V rows.

>. Nowhere does it even goes into detail about the single maschines.

Because SURPRISE, "effectiveness" is more than just an engineering comparison between the two vehicles. Tactics, doctrine, local intelligence, troop morale and training levels, they're all big factors in tank to tank combat, which was not some slaughter-fest among the Allied tank crews like you seem to imply.

>>2360280
>>2362366
Although unrelated, an interesting note is that the French Charlemagne division actually fought the Russians on a street called "La Belle Alliance" which means Waterloo, but this time they won by successfully defending it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Berlin#Inner_suburbs

>>2362390
...are you going to explain why he's wrong anon?

>>2361262
you're right anon, war absolutely obliterates the human psyche so that it can't even function properly anymore on an ethical level. it's why so many soldiers kill themselves even if they never deployed

>>2359388
sounds like you have ED

>>2363072

>Yes it does, if you bothered to read the graph. The Shermans manage to fire first 19 out of 20 times on tactical defense, AND 5 out of 7 times on tactical offense. You can add up the number of allied Sherman casualties from all permutations (21) and compare that number to the number of enemy mk v casualties (72), and realize which is much higher.

No it doesn't. I did read the graph and what is under the graph. It clearly is talking about what to expect when defending. Which I do not question.

The thing is that graph is just an example to prove what is said beneath it. So these were just random examples during the war. If you look at north africa or other parts of normandy you probably had different battles but if those in particular are shown in your graph is unclear.

>Well, other than the part where you have significantly more casualties to fewer enemy weapons by the A/T rows than you do in the Mk V rows.

Again same thing as above. That graph is not there to prove you that AT-guns are better against shermans, its just there to make clear what to expect when one army is in the defensive.

>Because SURPRISE, "effectiveness" is more than just an engineering comparison between the two vehicles. Tactics, doctrine, local intelligence, troop morale and training levels, they're all big factors in tank to tank combat, which was not some slaughter-fest among the Allied tank crews like you seem to imply.

I agree with that and I didn't say otherwise. Well and yes it was, as stated by the post I made your beloved sherman was known as "Tommykocher" or Rasons for a reason.

File: wehraboos.jpg (121KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 720x960px

>>2358805
This is how Wehraboos look like IRL

>>2358805
Their uniforms weren't designed by Hugo Boss

>>2358810
>people trying to create a more just and free world are worse than genocidal conquerors
nice

>>2359593
>we murdered the most civilians praise Deutschland

>>2363275
>No it doesn't


It quite literally says that. See the columns for "Number of Allied Casualties" and "Number of Enemy Casualties" over on the right?

> It clearly is talking about what to expect when defending. Which I do not question.

It also says other things, like who fired first most of the time, an enormously important part of armored warfare. But even when you're looking solely at the disparity between offense and defense, look at what's being said. When the Allies are attacking, they took 22.8% casualties and inflicted 33.3% casualties. When it was reversed, and the Germans were attacking, the Allies take 6.8% casualties, whereas the Germans take 60.1% casualties.

That is an enormously lopsided rate in favor of the Allies.

>The thing is that graph is just an example to prove what is said beneath it. So these were just random examples during the war.

You have that backwards, it's a selection of data points and conclusions drawn from the data, which is how intelligent people reach conclusions.


>Well and yes it was, as stated by the post I made your beloved sherman was known as "Tommykocher" or Rasons for a reason.

Yes, that reason is because idiots like you believe other idiots like Belton Cooper, instead of looking at actual combat statistics, because lord knows reading is too hard for dumbfucks.

I mean, follow the chain of replies, and you'll quickly grasp (well, an ordinary person would quickly grasp, I'm not sure about you in particular), that I was responding to this anon's claim >>2362850 that you needed 10 shermans to take out a panther and that the Allies weren't known for effective tank usage.

>>2363307
>more just and free world
>65 million dead

>>2362402
>being sorry
My grandfather was in the Kriegsmarine and I don't feel the slightest bit of remorse or that I'm being targeted in any way from this.

The sins of my ancestors don't matter to me for jackshit.

>>2359392
So you have to be physically within your own borders to fight?

>>2363307
but Stalin was a genocidal conqueror too

>>2358805
>Einsatzgruppen
>bad
everything they did was morally justified.

>>2363325

>It quite literally says that. See the columns for "Number of Allied Casualties" and "Number of Enemy Casualties" over on the right?

Again no it doesn't. We don't know anything about those battles in particular, we don't even know if we are talking about engagements that only had those maschines faced against each other. We can only assume things here. That's why you can't safely make assumptions like that.

Like the very first engagement. It says 41 allied weapons, so what 41 M4 Shermans that fought exactly 17 Mk. V? No infantry, no help from aircraft, no other maschines involved? Were they surprised, did they flank them what happened? We simply don't know.

>It also says other things...

No it doesn't either. It just mentions how many maschines were lost on either side while defending.

>You have that backwards, it's a selection of data points and conclusions drawn from the data, which is how intelligent people reach conclusions.

It clearly has a big title there, that indicates what the graph is about. Sure its a selection but a random one of random battles. Not to make clear wether one maschine is superior to the other one but to make clear that if you defend, you probably make less casualities. There is no other indication here.

>Yes, that reason is because idiots...

But you don't have those statistic that you need to prove your point, that's what I'm trying to tell you. Now I'm not in the mood to look up statistics that prove my point either right now. But thing is what you present isn't much better, in fact its completely irrelevant right now. Because it doesn't really put said maschines in comparison. It just shows a couple of battles, which we don't know how they went.

By the way I'm that anon and its true, the allies were never good with tanks in WW2. They knew that very well and changed that later on with several other tanks but the sherman itself was just cheap and filled a role. That's it.

File: 1487085054488.jpg (45KB, 498x498px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 498x498px

DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS

>>2363640
do it again Bomber Harris

>>2363618
>Again no it doesn't.


Yes it fucking does you fucking idiot. It delinates quite clearly the number of losses.


>Like the very first engagement. It says 41 allied weapons, so what 41 M4 Shermans that fought exactly 17 Mk. V? No infantry, no help from aircraft, no other maschines involved? Were they surprised, did they flank them what happened? We simply don't know.

You are a fucking illiterate moron. It is not a single engagement, Because it says under "NUMBER OF ENGAGEMENTS" : 5 It was not one big engagement.

And see the columns where it says "other"? Guess what that's for! When you have OTHER factors involved.

>No it doesn't either. It just mentions how many maschines were lost on either side while defending.

And who was attacking, and who fired first, and the numbers involved. Clear data points that escape you.

>It clearly has a big title there, that indicates what the graph is about

Yes, it does. ENGAGEMENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO ALLIED AND ENEMY WEAPONS TYPE. Nice and in caps, for people who have trouble reading.

>Not to make clear wether one maschine is superior to the other one but to make clear that if you defend, you probably make less casualities

READ THE CHART. When you have a 95% firing first rate on defense, and an over 50% on offense, you have a clear advantage, especially when the other tank supposedly has a longer range gun.

>But you don't have those statistic that you need to prove your point, that's what I'm trying to tell you.

Yes, I do, but you keep inventing objections, most of which are borne out of your complete inability to read.


1/2

>>2363683
>>2363618


2/2


>But thing is what you present isn't much better, in fact its completely irrelevant right now.

It's very relevant, but it doesn't support your preconceived idea, so you whine and try to throw up a protective wall of shit, to deflect away from your point.

>Because it doesn't really put said maschines in comparison.

First off, it's "machines". Secondly WE ARE NOT COMPARING MACHINES ON AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE. WE ARE COMPARING BATTLEFIELD EFFICACY, YOU STUPID, GODDAMN RETARD. Yes, I'm mad. I literally want to hit you, you goddamn moron. You have completely demonstrated that you Do. Not. Get. It. Tank battles are much, much more than comparing engineering perspectives, which is why the very technically inferior German tanks prevailed in the early war against heavier Frnech and British tanks in 1940, or the Soviet tanks in 41.

>By the way I'm that anon and its true,

Except for the part that it isn't and you have 0 metrics other than your bald and baseless assertions to the case.

> the allies were never good with tanks in WW2.

More unsupported statements!


> They knew that very well and changed that later on with several other tanks but the sherman itself was just cheap and filled a role. That's it.


That role being the destruction of enemy assets on the offense, which it did very well.

File: 4L_5yOAKSaH.jpg (204KB, 1240x869px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1240x869px

dresden wasnt a war crime and was completely justified

Dirlewanger getting beat to death by Polish guards was completely justifiable

>>2363683

>Yes it fucking does you fucking idiot. It delinates quite clearly the number of losses.

And guess what, this graph only shows a rather small part of all the conflicts during WW2, it doesn't even mentions where or what happened. Nothing.

>You are a fucking illiterate moron. It is not a single engagement, Because it...

That was just me trying to make my point clear to you, which you simply don't want to understand. Again the graph isn't clear about that. How did those engagements went, did all 41 maschines fought against those 17 enemy maschines, 5 times in a row or what? We don't know because its too vague. It just states that there were so many maschines involved, that they had 5 engagements and how many both lost at the end. There are no details to it. You can make up all you want in that case.

>And who was attacking, and who fired first, and the numbers involved. Clear data points that escape you.

Yes as I said who was attacking first for example and who fired first. Sure, important if you want to prove that you are able to have less casualities when you defend. Exactly what I'm saying.

>Yes, it does. ENGAGEMENTS GROUPED...

Yes just a general graph to prove what is underneath. Still no information about the actual maschines that fought there.

>READ THE CHART. When you have a...

We don't know how it went, again. You simply don't have the information about it. This graph doesn't count in those other factors that you need to prove if you want to prove the efficiency of one maschine in comparison to the other.

>Yes, I do, but you keep inventing objections, most of which are borne out of your complete inability to read.

No I don't and it still stands. That graph doesn't show anything else but the defense thing. Not more not less. You're just the one that got this book found a random graph in it and now you go apeshit about the sherman being "oh so" great when it really just surpassed maybe italian tanks.

cont.

>>2363684

>It's very relevant, but it doesn't support your preconceived idea, so you whine and try to throw up a protective wall of shit, to deflect away from your point.

No my point still stands, the sherman was below average and that's exactly the reason why you people sold that shit to all kinds of nations after WW2.

>First off, it's "machines". Secondly WE ARE NOT COMPARING...

I don't, I'm also talking about combat efficiancy. But especially there the graph doesn't tell anything in that regard. Don't you get it, you just have nothing to grasp on with just this graph. Because it just shows a "generic attack" and "generic defence" at that time. There is nothing more to it. I could now talk about the tiger and show that they shot multiple tanks when it was released. But that would not prove the Thesis that the author of the book wanted to show. I'd have to dig deeper get some engagement between soviets and germans that were on even standards. Make a graph like that and then I could write about the difference between defending and attacking just like the author here did.

>More unsupported statements!

Its a well known fact, I brought you evidence already you can even search the net about american veterans still crying today how horrible the sherman was. Go ahead, surprise yourself for once.

>>2358819
>Come and See is just propaganda
It literally is.

>based on the Khatyn massacre in Belarus which was conducted by UKRAINIANS from Ukrainische Hilfspolizei who even got tried and sentenced for it
>in the film they're all ethnic Germans going around spouting Nordicist racial theories and dancing and cackling as they gun down little children like cartoon villains
>the film specifically omits the fact they were Ukrainians in order not to spark animosity and ethnic hatred between Ukrainians and Belarusians living in the USSR
>film is literally begging for an emotional response from the viewer

I mean I'm not saying Germans never committed war crimes or anything but Come and See is literally one of the most blatant pieces of propaganda you'll ever come across.

>>2361262
Wow, it's like you all have guidelines on what to say. Stormfags are so easy to spot because their posts are all so similar, right down to the wording.

>>2363793
>And guess what, this graph only shows a rather small part of all the conflicts during WW2, it doesn't even mentions where or what happened. Nothing.

Actually, if you bothered toeven go so far as to read the Amazon blurb on the book, you'd know that all engagements happened from actions of the 3rd and 4th armored divisions between Normandy and the close of 1944.

>It just states that there were so many maschines involved, that they had 5 engagements and how many both lost at the end. There are no details to it. You can make up all you want in that case.

Which is already quite compelling combat data, and something that you'd actually want to remove extraneous factors if you're trying to get an overall look at how different AFV's performed. Yes, tanks do well if say, they're ambsuhing and the other guy is caught in it. So what? That doesn't prove tank A is better than tank B, it proves that ambushing is better than getting shot at when you have no idea where the shells are coming from.

>Yes as I said who was attacking first for example and who fired first. Sure, important if you want to prove that you are able to have less casualities when you defend. Exactly what I'm saying.

Then why are the Americans firing first on both offense and defense more often than not if it's SOLELY ABOUT WHO IS DEFENDING? For that matter, given that this is 1944 France, and you have the Americans on strategic offense, the fact that they're defending against Panthers almost 3 times as often as they're attacking doesn't indicate superior positioning to you?

>No I don't and it still stands. That graph doesn't show anything else but the defense thing. Not more not less.

Please learn to read and how to count. Such as how while defenders tend to win over attackers, the Panthers are doing about half the damage in terms of overall engaged vehicles when they're defending as opposed to the Shermans when the Shermans are defending.

>>2363835


>No my point still stands, the sherman was below average

You've yet to illustrate how, or defend any such assertions.

>and that's exactly the reason why you people sold that shit to all kinds of nations after WW2.

Are you high?. If the fact that a piece of wargear is sold to a nations allies proves that it's shit, then the Panther is shit, since the Germans sold them to the Romanians and Bulgarians, as are half the other pieces of wargear the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe used. Not to mention that nations want their allies to have effective wargear, and will sell accordingly.

>I don't, I'm also talking about combat efficiancy.

Oh good, then in armored engagements, the Shermans tended to win, advance rapidly, and crush German opposition, from North Africa to France to Germany. How were they inefficient?

> Don't you get it, you just have nothing to grasp on with just this graph. Because it just shows a "generic attack" and "generic defence" at that time.

Anon, when you're trying to compare two vehicles, you WANT a generic attack and defense, to filter out other tactical elements which could muddy the issue.

>. But that would not prove the Thesis that the author of the book wanted to show.

LEARN TO READ

>Merriam Press Military Monograph 321. Seventh Edition (February 2012). This monograph is a reprint of BRL Memorandum Report No. 798, published by the Ballistic Research Laboratories (BRL), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, in June 1954.


This isn't an essay you imbicile. This is an internal memorandum to evaluate army performance. It is quite literally a set of data points. THERE IS NO THESIS YOU FUCKWIT.


> I'd have to dig deeper get some engagement between soviets and germans that were on even standards.

Yes, engagements between the Soviets and the Germans proves the efficiacy of an AMERICAN Tank. Were your mother and father brother and sister?

>Its a well known meme

FTFY. And it's always 'muh grandpa said', never actual combat data.

>>2363879
>based on the Khatyn massacre in Belarus which was conducted by UKRAINIANS from Ukrainische Hilfspolizei who even got tried and sentenced for it
xatyn is just the one thats on wiki, there was a lot of instances of simmiliar behaviour from Dirlewanger's brigade

>in the film they're all ethnic Germans going around spouting Nordicist racial theories and dancing and cackling as they gun down little children like cartoon villains
There is precisely one German spouting about subhumans and he's not even a caricature, but well behaved well articulated one. The rest acts as one would expect from Dirlewanger's minions.

>the film specifically omits the fact they were Ukrainians in order not to spark animosity and ethnic hatred between Ukrainians and Belarusians living in the USSR
I doubt Whites would get mad about few rabid Ukies. Besides there is one collaborant: the retarded soldier that get's locked in the burning barn

>Come and See is literally one of the most blatant pieces of propaganda you'll ever come across
No, it's actually one of few pieces of Soviet cinema that wouldn't belong in the category. There is no gloryfication of the fighters, no glorification of communism, just a portrayal of what was happening on Belarus. If you want to see actual propaganda try "The Story of Real Human"

>>2363979
>one thats on wiki
The movie is outright based on Katyn.

>Dirlewanger brigade
I think Dirlewanger brigade has become kind of a scapegoat when it comes to atrocities. Like everyone knows how they acted like complete animals in Poland so people pin every atrocity on them if they were in the area even if there's no evidence. Like say during the Slovak national uprising, people were quick to blame the Dirlewangers for burning some Jews in a mountain village and it turned out to be an act of the Slovak POHG. I'm not trying to defend them, they were scum, but like I said they are now an easy scapegoat.

>There is precisely one German spouting about subhumans and he's not even a caricature, but well behaved well articulated one.
He is a caricature.

>>2364004
>The movie is outright based on Katyn.
No, not really. There were hundreds of "khatyns" on Belarus. The depicted one one is from memory of A. Adamovic.

The 40th anniversary of the Great Victory was approaching. The management had to be given something topical. I had been reading and rereading the book I Am from the Burning Village, which consisted of the first-hand accounts of people who miraculously survived the horrors of the fascist genocide in Belorussia. Many of them were still alive then, and Belorussians managed to record some of their memories onto film. I will never forget the face and eyes of one peasant, and his quiet recollection about how his whole village had been herded into a church, and how just before they were about to be burned, an officer of the Sonderkommando gave them the offer: "Whoever has no children can leave". And he couldn't take it, he left, and left behind his wife and little kids... or about how another village was burned: the adults were all herded into a barn, but the children were left behind. And later, the drunk men surrounded them with sheepdogs and let the dogs tear the children to pieces.

>He is a caricature.
How?

File: jidf.png (2MB, 970x2233px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 970x2233px

>>2362402
It's not enough goy. You need to take in more refugees.

>>2360170
George 'America loves a winner' "I'm literally Napoleon" "fought across Europe thrice and still wanted to kill commies" Patton was a fighting man eh, who would have thought.
Americans are good at killing.

>>2363379
Because the kriegsmarine were apolitical hard ass mother fuckers. They were just good German boys killed in a senseless war for Hitler's little dick. The admiral even yelled at Hitler and walked out of a meeting. Nobody else could have done that.
Despite much of my family killing fascist scum, much props to the kriegsmarine

>>2363946

>Actually, if you bothered toeven go so far as to read the Amazon blurb on the book, you'd know that all engagements happened from actions of the 3rd and 4th armored divisions between Normandy and the close of 1944.

Exactly a random tank battalions to prove a point. The one with defensive and attacking remember?

>That doesn't prove tank A is better than tank B

Finally you get it.

>Which is already quite compelling combat data, and something that you'd actually want to remove extraneous factors

Not in our case though. We are talking how well the Sherman performed in WW2. We can't do this, without knowing what was going on there.

>Then why are the Americans firing first on both offense...

Well my much more intelligent friend... that might have to do with comparison. He obviously wanted to make clear that while defending you have less casualities. So it only makes sense to mix attacks and defences together.

>Please learn to read and how to count. Such as how while defenders tend to win over attackers...

Again, the graph doesn't show that. Maybe more then just one sherman shot at a panther? We don't know that.

>You've yet to illustrate how, or defend any such assertions.

If you look at single battles you'd see it also I did posted a picture about just that.

>Are you high?. If the fact that a piece of wargear is sold to a nations...

Sure they sold their military gear too but not in the amount the americans did with their shermans. A couple of years after WW2 america sold so many shermans that it was widely known as the most widely spread sherman tank in the whole world.

>Oh good, then in armored engagements, the Shermans tended to win, advance rapidly, and crush German opposition...

They didn't. As I said you can't just be a stubborn child and just hold unto one single graph. There is much more to it and after all you lost just as many tanks in general.

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

>>2363924
That's not an argument tankie

>>2362448
Us gave a lot to asov battalion but pulled out because they were all wheraboos

>>2364028
>How?
A sadistic sociopathic German soldier going around parroting racial theory is cartoon tier. It's on par with a random Soviet paratrooper dropping Marx quotes in the middle of a battle.

File: review.jpg (83KB, 1168x247px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1168x247px

>>2363950

>This isn't an essay you imbicile. This is an internal memorandum to evaluate army performance. It is quite literally a set of data points. THERE IS NO THESIS YOU FUCKWIT.

What? Bullshit. That author just has random information about random battles. Maybe that theory about the defense might be straight from there. But that's it. Even if you look up your beloved book, you'd see that there is atleast on guy agreeing with me.

>Yes, engagements between the Soviets and the Germans proves the efficiacy of an AMERICAN Tank. Were your mother and father brother and sister?

No offense but the biggest, most important tank battles were fought in the east. Also Germany and the Sovietunion both had the best tanks. Germany probably had better ones, that were more precise and so on. But after that only the soviets had tanks that could match german ones.

>FTFY. And it's always 'muh grandpa said', never actual combat data.

Who said grandpa? Ask any Sherman tank commander of that time. Some even wanted reparations I heard.

>>2364079
>sadistic sociopathic
No, he was just doing his what he through is best for Germany, he did not engaged in violence for the lulz like his subordinates did.

>parroting racial theory is cartoon tier
He was asked why he did what he did. And he gave a well articulated answer that would fit in Nazi ideology.

>It's on par with a random Soviet paratrooper dropping Marx quotes in the middle of a battle.
Bad comparism. First it would be pro-Soviet, second it would be out of nowhere as opposed to the plot.

>>2359388
not even the thought of seeing your jewish mother being raped by Daesh ?

>>2364107
>comparism

>>2362402
>>2362407
>>2363379
>>2364036
I've yet to see anyone in this thread say that Germany has to take in more refugees. Germans don't have to hate themselves, but don't try to bullshit us and claim that you wuz gud bois who dindu nuffin.

>>2364136
There is literally nothing wrong with killing communists.

>>2364135
Did you run out of argument or sumfink?

>>2364161
And there is literally nothing wrong with killing Nazis in self-defense

>>2364069
>Exactly a random tank battalions to prove a point


The only pure armored divisons (if not only armor, remember, the U.S. distributed it fairly widely) in the biggest tank battles of the Western Front. They're not exactly "randomly" selected.

>Finally you get it.

Learn to read. I was explicitly pointing out why your criteria of looking at varying tactical factors don't prove which tank is superior, rather prove that in this or that instance, tactics are good.

>Not in our case though. We are talking how well the Sherman performed in WW2. We can't do this, without knowing what was going on there.

We are looking at what's going on there, while reducing the factors down to the armaments used, and not looking at extraneous factors.

>Well my much more intelligent friend... that might have to do with comparison. He obviously wanted to make clear that while defending you have less casualities. So it only makes sense to mix attacks and defences together.

Then why is the effect far more pronounced in the american's favor, whether on attack or defense?

>Again, the graph doesn't show that.

Yes, it fucking does. This can be determined by reading, which I've come to realize is very difficult for you.

>Maybe more then just one sherman shot at a panther? We don't know that.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything to determine engagement wide efficacy?

>If you look at single battles you'd see it also I did posted a picture about just that.


You posted a wiki article, which contains no mention of actual combat statistics concerning the Panther, rather the opinion of John Buckley. You want to look at tank battles? Here's the wiki for the biggest tank battle of the Western Front once the Americans got involved.

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

Oh look, the Shermans crushed the German tanks.

1/3?

File: 2016-04-18.jpg (102KB, 798x572px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 798x572px

Luckily, I have a whole folder devoted to triggering Wehraboos. Dumping a few pics now.

>>2364069

>Sure they sold their military gear too but not in the amount the americans did with their shermans

What in the fucking hell does that have to do with quality of the kit?

>They didn't. As I said you can't just be a stubborn child and just hold unto one single graph. There is much more to it and after all you lost just as many tanks in general.

Now prove that those losses came from German tanks, and not say, mines, anti-tank guns (towed, fixed, self-propelled) handheld weapons like the Panzerfaust and Panzerschenk.

Oh look, other (smarter) people have already done that work for you!

http://www.theshermantank.com/category/at-guns/

With a total of 5,709 Sherman tanks destroyed to all causes, and only 54% of that, or 3082 and a fraction, destroyed by direct gun fire. So even if EVERY SINGLE ONE of them was destroyed by a tank, and not say, an anti-tank gun, or a SPG, or a casemate gun, or a bazooka, you're talking about roughly 1:1 losses, given the fact that as the attackers, the American aren't mining or using towed anti-tank weapons, and airplanes are generally ineffective at directly destroying tanks.

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/


>>2364088

>What? Bullshit. That author just has random information about random battles. Maybe that theory about the defense might be straight from there. But that's it. Even if you look up your beloved book, you'd see that there is atleast on guy agreeing with me.


Proving once again, that you and reading proficiency aren't on speaking terms. First off, nothing you've said nor the guy's quote demonstrates that the book is an essay, or has a thesis. Secondly, yes, it's a compilation of basic combat data, and a guy claiming that the book is too expensive for what it gives doesn't change that there IS NO THESIS.

2/3

File: 2016-04-18 (1).jpg (128KB, 820x572px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 820x572px

>>2364245

File: 2016-04-18 (5).jpg (112KB, 771x572px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 771x572px

>>2364250

>>2364088

>No offense but the biggest, most important tank battles were fought in the east.

That is true, but irrelevant. The Sherman was primarily doing its thing in the west, not east. If you want to see how the Sherman measures up against German tanks, you should be looking at how the Sherman performed against German tanks, and not how other tanks performed against German tanks somewhere else.

>Also Germany and the Sovietunion both had the best tanks

Ahh, arguing from your conclusion, good job there boy.

>Germany probably had better ones, that were more precise and so on. But after that only the soviets had tanks that could match german ones.

You can start supporting your assertions any day now.

>Ask any Sherman tank commander of that time

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/91572-us-guns-german-armor-pt-2/


>We visited Lt Col Abrams, C.O. 37th Tank Bn, 4th A.D. on 3 October. Col. Abrams stated that his battalion thought very highly of the 76mm gun. They felt the HE was as good or better than the 75mm and apparently had more blast effect. They were highly pleased with the ease at which they were able to hit the German tanks at ranges from 1500 - 1800 yards

>10 October 1944
Subject: Visit to Ninth Army Armored Units.

> The 105mm tank is well liked for its fire power. Battalion C.O. 741st Tank Battalion would like one platoon per company

>14 October 1944

Subject: Visit to Armored Units XII Corps.

>The 6th Armored Division has received no 76mm tanks and have no great desire for them…


>The 105mm tank is liked very much. Would like them in proportion of one platoon per medium tank company.

Boy, they seem to be panicked and on edge about how shit their vehicles are.

>Some even wanted reparations I heard.

So, again, you're repeating memes instead of actually knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

3/3

File: 2016-04-18 (4).jpg (64KB, 432x572px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 432x572px

>>2364252

File: 2016-04-18 (2).jpg (117KB, 991x542px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 991x542px

>>2364257

File: 2016-04-18 (9).jpg (86KB, 719x444px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 719x444px

>>2364261
Who knew that Germans were such faggots?

File: 2016-04-18 (8).jpg (93KB, 746x572px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 746x572px

>>2364273
More Nazi faggotry

File: 2016-04-18 (6).jpg (85KB, 956x572px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 956x572px

>>2364274
Muh master race

File: 2016-04-18 (7).jpg (35KB, 633x453px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 633x453px

>>2364277

File: 2016-04-18 (3).jpg (121KB, 572x572px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 572x572px

>>2364280
That's enough German faggotry for now

>>2362549

Without the Soviets, the Germans would have had an extra 3-5 million men available. The Allies never would have been able to get a foothold in Europe, and Egypt would have been overrun.

File: NO3UMZU.jpg (861KB, 1742x4614px) Image search: [Google]

861KB, 1742x4614px

>>2364283
And finally, for all the faggots who wish they owned a Luger. That's all for now, I might post more later though.

>>2364298

Nice colour scheme apart from the star.

>>2364291
>>an extra 3.5million men
Half of which would be focused on garrison duty in eastern europe.

>>The Allies never would have been able to get a foothold in Europe,
Wrong. The germans had more then enough ground forces available to drive any invasion into the sea, the problem for them was that they lost air superiority.

>>egypt would have been overrun
ahaha

lol no. The British and later American navies controlled the Mediterranean. Nothing Germany does in eastern europe will allow them to ship more men across a hostile sea.

>>2364354
>Wrong. The germans had more then enough ground forces available to drive any invasion into the sea to begin, the problem for them was that they lost air superiority and that combined with US/UK naval superiority allowed the beachheads to be established and for the Germans to be pushed back and destroyed.
Fixed.

>>2364368


Not him, but it really was more from air superiority than naval superiority. The Transport Plan was done entirely from the air, and was the main reason that while the Germans had 54 divisions in France on D-Day, most of them couldn't move.

>>2364380
I know, but I was clarifying a bit more and wanted to mention the naval stuff too.

>>2364298
Yeah what a genius, he fucked up a valuable gun he owned.

>>2358810
In that case, why the fuck didn't Germany just ally with Britain, France and Eastern Europe to go to war with them instead of insist on annexing everybody to suppress internal revolutionaries?

>>2364254

No offense, but you should really just lay off world of tanks and rather look into some history books, real history books from better known authors. Because I can't really tell what this shit is supposed to be, seems too fabricated.

But to really confirm that sherman wasn't such a good tank here have some links:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2014/oct/24/fury-movie-tank-veteran-sherman-verdict-realistic

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/11174599/Fury-what-a-real-life-Brad-Pitt-saw-from-his-tank.html

http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/sherman-tanks-tiger-tanks-the-battle-of-the-bulge/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZCouxM4grk

https://archives.library.illinois.edu/blog/poor-defense-sherman-tanks-ww2/

>>2362359
HAHAHAHAHAHAH whew

>>2364947
>Because I can't really tell what this shit is supposed to be, seems too fabricated.

Yes, reading is hard. I'm sure that this, which is where the quotes are ultimately from

http://www.history.army.mil/news/2016/images/gal_armorInBattle/Armor%20in%20Battle_opt.pdf

is a fabrication.

> look into some history books,

Why don't you recommend some, instead of 2 newspapers both of which are talking about a fucking film0, a youtube video by Belton fucking Cooper, a known moron, blog, again citing to Cooper, and another blog, this time with no citations.

File: 23t3zer.png (25KB, 1371x197px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 1371x197px

>>2364240

>Learn to read. I was explicitly pointing out why your criteria of looking at varying tactical factors don't prove which tank is superior, rather prove that in this or that instance, tactics are good.

Oh, so you agree with me that your graph is useless now? Good, we don't know what fucking happened, so you can't make such assumptions.

>We are looking at what's going on there, while reducing the factors down to the armaments used, and not looking at extraneous factors.

Again, we don't know how it went we can only assume. Maybe one panther shot 5 or 10 of those alone? Maybe those shermans attacked in big groups and attacked just one panther, we don't know that.

>What the fuck does that have to do with anything to determine engagement wide efficacy?

A lot, if they needed a lot of shermans to take out one other tank that does prove that a sherman alone is not a fearful sight.

>You posted a wiki article, which contains no...

it states how many tanks were lost from each side, that side germany lost most its tanks in the eastern front. While western allies and germans lost roughly the same. Alone about 5000 shermans were destroyed in this case.

In your example, you had much more diverse troops mixed with all kinds of units. Not just tanks. Also most tanks were not even destroyed by shermans but by other means, mostly as I stated bombers from above. So that's not a valid example.

But even here it states that they were able to flank them and attack "from the fog" so yea, not that impressive. Considering the losses the shermans still took its actually a bit embarassing for america...

>>2362484
>Never thought the rumors were true about this board being extremely leftist. Now I do.
>HURR YOU DON'T WORSHIP HITLER AND YOU DISAGREE WITH ME SO YOU'RE A LIBERAL

Are you retarded or something?

>>2364249

>What in the fucking hell does that have to do with quality of the kit?

It shows that its cheap and known to be increasingly outdated.

>Now prove that those losses came from German...

I was talking to your graph, because your graph doesn't show that. I know too, that AT-guns destroyed most tanks but your graph doesn't show that.

That and that's especially bullshit what myth? What are stukas then? They were one of the big advantages they had over france's tanks.

>Proving once again, that you and re...

Well yes it is, if I say defending is better than attacking I make a thesis. Wether I am able to prove it or not is a different story.

Boy, you really should take out that "M'urrika" stick out of your ass and face the truth. Like what do they teach you in school there? America is the best at simply everything and if its not the case its simply a myth or made up by commies?

That's it. I'm sick of all this "death traps" bullshit that's going on on /his/ right now. Humble Shermans and their brave tankers deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine M4 Sherman in United States for $2,400,000 (that's about 67,300 pounds) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even put a round through the front of a slavshit T-14 tank, and that's without using HVAP.

American free laborers spend less than an hour working on a single Sherman tank and don't even need to refine it because it is the finest tank known to entire galaxy.

Sherman are thrice as numerous as Panzer IVs and thrice as reliable for that matter too. Anytime a Sherman breaks down it can be repaired in 10 minutes flat, a Panther tank under the same situation have no choice but to end up scrapped in 1 month. I'm pretty sure an American general could easily use Shermans to overrun whole Asia with a simple plain strategy.

Ever wonder why Nazi German never bothered fighting Western Allies? That's right, they were too scared to fight the brave American tankers and their Shermans of galactic conquest. Even in Korean War, Communist tankers targeted the Shermans first because their outnumbering power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? M4 Shermans are simply the best tanks that the world has ever seen, and thus, require a better reputation on /his/.

>>2364996

What more proof do you need? So everybody that disagrees with you is a lier now? Very grown up, that and I just guessed that its fabricated because you linked me to a fucking video game forum.

But even there, you can't really can't make up how well the sherman performed there unless you really start searching into it and spending a lot of time with that and what tells me that this dude on your videogame didn't just cherrypick the best parts and left out the more gruesome things huh?

File: There.jpg (128KB, 845x246px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 845x246px

>>2365030
Oh wait a second I just took that screenshot for you.

File: Besttankever.jpg (371KB, 875x592px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 875x592px

>>2365030

There you have it again.

File: You'rewelcome.jpg (296KB, 845x476px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 845x476px

>>2365030

And more prove, one panther shooting down 5 shermans.

>>2362549
Remove Britain and you're somewhat correct.

>>2358823
In my view the citizens are evil

>>2365052
>>2365064
>>2365077

All of these taken from the pdf data you just posted here.

>>2364996

So yea, that dude on that forum just cherrpicked the best shit that there was about the sherman and left out the important parts.

>>2365011
>Oh, so you agree with me that your graph is useless now?

No, I'm saying that your criteria are stupid, and explaining why the graph is set up as it is. When you're trying to create a comparison between to objects, you try to keep out all extraneous data which can confuse the issue. If you start talking about the totality of all tactical elements, you can't come up with any sort of comparison, as your model is no longer simpler than the actual reality.


>it states how many tanks were lost from each side

Actually, if it's this post >>2362705, it doesn't, because it's talking about a tank and not a particular battle.


>that side germany lost most its tanks in the eastern front.

How is that relevant when comparing the performances of two different tanks?

>. While western allies and germans lost roughly the same. Alone about 5000 shermans were destroyed in this case.

I can't even tell what this is intended to communicate.

>In your example, you had much more diverse troops mixed with all kinds of units. Not just tanks.

So? The number of panthers alone at Arracourt were in excess of the entire American force present.

> Also most tanks were not even destroyed by shermans but by other means, mostly as I stated bombers from above. So that's not a valid example.

No, actually, most were destroyed by the Shermans, because bombers were shit at destroying tanks. I'll re-iterate that link, since you apparently didn't read it .

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/

>But even here it states that they were able to flank them and attack "from the fog" so yea, not that impressive.

Since when are effective tactics "not impressive". You sound an awful lot like you're looking for excuses here, anon.

>Considering the losses the shermans still took its actually a bit embarassing for america...

Since when is a 3:1 (actually more, counting German damaged tanks, but whatever) "embarassing"?

>>2365028
>>2365028


>It shows that its cheap and known to be increasingly outdated.

No it doesn't, you idiot. The Germans sold Panthers to Romania and Bulgaria. Does that mean they're cheap and outdated in 1944? Same thing with their 109 and 190 fighters. I guess those were cheap and outdated too.

Governments sell weapons to their allies to bolster their allies, not get rid of cheap crap.

>I was talking to your graph, because your graph doesn't show that.

That is quite honestly what the graph does show, you just decided that it's too vague because your head is so far up your ass you need a clear navel to see.

> I know too, that AT-guns destroyed most tanks but your graph doesn't show that.

Actually it does, because here in the reality I live in, 35 is a higher number than 21. Maybe it's different wherever you live.

>That and that's especially bullshit what myth? What are stukas then? They were one of the big advantages they had over france's tanks.

The Ju-87 was an effective dive bomber. But most often, its targets were artillery pieces, communication junctures, repair shops, etc. I'm not aware of any statistics concerning their striking at Char B1 tanks directly, and their normal munition load would have a hell of a time hitting something small and mobile.

>Well yes it is, if I say defending is better than attacking I make a thesis.

No, you're only making a thesis if you're building a work around a claim and then offering information to support it. Your conclusion is not your thesis.

File: IMG_1917.jpg (60KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1024x768px

>>2365081

>>2365028

>Boy, you really should take out that "M'urrika" stick out of your ass and face the truth.

Nice ad hominem.

>Like what do they teach you in school there? America is the best at simply everything and if its not the case its simply a myth or made up by commies?

No, and if you want to go into the cold war, you can freely determine that Soviet armor eclipsed American armor in the 60s and would retain that edge until the mid to late 80s. But this idea that German tanks were invincible machines and the Americans zergling rushed with their own tanks, dooming most of them, is quite simply bullshit, which is of course why your support for your own arguments that they are shit is so paper thin.


>>2365043

>What more proof do you need?

How about some actual combat performance of German armor vs American armor over a frontwide perspective. Not an isolated ambush here or there, something which shows the # of Shermans killed by Panthers as opposed to the number of Panthers killed by Shermans, or how each were able to secure their operational objectives.

You know, actual, statistical work.

>So everybody that disagrees with you is a lier now?

No, I'm saying that if you're going to rail on someone for not providing scholarly enough evidence, when the source is a U.S. Armor School paper, and you're rebutting it with newspaper articles, you've pretty much lost the battle of sources.

>But even there, you can't really can't make up how well the sherman performed

I actually can and have, you just decided that it doesn't count because it doesn't fit your arbitrary standards, and then throw down a bunch of anecdotes.

>o yea, that dude on that forum just cherrpicked the best shit that there was about the sherman and left out the important parts.

Remember how you wrote this:

>>2364088


>Ask any Sherman tank commander of that time.

I.E., there were NO Sherman commanders who liked it. Guess what? YOU'RE WRONG!

>>2365125

This what germany sold were nothing i comparison. I mean america sold chile alone about 600 of those sherman tanks. 600!

>That is quite honestly what the graph does show...

No it doesn't, it just shows random engagements to prove the thing beneath the graph.

>Actually it does, because here in the reality ...

No it doesn't again. Because you see, those are random engagements, if he would have taken engagements with the panzerfaust into account you might be saying now that "the panzerfaust" was the best weapon of the german army against american tanks. But that's not the case.

>The Ju-87 was an effective dive bomber. But...

France's tanks were usually slower and were quite big for their time, stukas were extremely effective against those tanks. The german army even relied on them because they were taking out tanks behind enemy lines.

>>2365125

Yes it is. I never said its a conclusion. If I stand up and assume that chocolate makes people sick because of the brown color, I make up a thesis. Its the other way around, if I would actually gather information and "prove" it in a way then it would be a conclusion.

>>2362628
Saori stick to relaying messages and cooking, leave talking about tanks to Yukari

>>2365122

>No, I'm saying that your criteria are stupid, and explaining...

But in our case its literally impossible, if we are talking about effectiveness, to leave these things out.

>So? The number of panthers alone at Arracourt were in excess of the entire American force present.

Further undermines what I just said. You had mixed units there, if you actually read that article you would quickly find out that mostly bombers took out those panthers.

>No, actually, most were destroyed by the Shermans, because bombers...

Again, take out your "murrican" stick out of your ass. That is just one article and its not even a very influential site at that.

Lastly is embarassing because you had everything going for you there was no reason to even have that many casualities on your site. The battle was a disaster for the germans, not only because of america. Other nations may would have won the battle with much less casualities.

>>2359593
>almost 6 gorillion Poles

Remember the Polocaust

>>2365152

I just posted 3 examples of how badly the shermans performed from your own sources.

That and you won't find any actual, true statistics. Not even what you posted back then can be really taken as "granted."

Also I said most didn't like it. Which is true I just posted multiple links about it.

Also you are just like a irrational little child. If I wouldn't know better I'd say you are mad about the sherman tank not being a good tank in your favorite videogame, which seems to be world of tanks. That's why you get mad if you face the truth and you start posting that one side, out of that small book that barely anyone knows. You just tell yourself everything is a myth but you know it better. Which is just childish.

>>2365156
>This what germany sold were nothing i comparison. I mean america sold chile alone about 600 of those sherman tanks. 600!


And how does that prove that anything about the quality of the tanks exported? Or any other piece of wargear exported? Yes, the Americans sold a bunch of tanks.

>No it doesn't, it just shows random engagements to prove the thing beneath the graph.

You keep assuming that, instead of working with the stated page and how the text is a conclusion from the data points, not a thesis to be proved by it. You do realize that theses are generally put in the front, right?


>France's tanks were usually slower and were quite big for their time, stukas were extremely effective against those tanks

[citation needed] Please show me something, ANYTHING, showing how many French tanks were knocked out by Stukas.

>The german army even relied on them because they were taking out tanks behind enemy lines.

[citation needed]

>Yes it is.

No, it fucking isn't. Consult your local dictionary.

>If I stand up and assume that chocolate makes people sick because of the brown color, I make up a thesis.

No, you've made an assumption. You only have a thesis when you write an essay, saying that in this essay you'll be attempting to prove that chocolate makes people sick because of the brown color.

> Its the other way around, if I would actually gather information and "prove" it in a way then it would be a conclusion.

Finally, you've said something sensible. But you've yet to prove that the text at the bottom of my graph is a thesis statement, or that the work it's contained in even has a thesis.

File: 1485277348359.jpg (36KB, 428x384px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 428x384px

Im a german american

Nazi's killed my great uncle in the battle of the buldge.

I don't understand you neo nazis. What makes you think your genes are special?

>>2365183
You posted a few anecdotes where Panthers won out against Shermans while ignoring that the actual statistics the guy your arguing with posted shows that the Shermans did a lot better against the big cats then most wehraboo dipshits like yourself like to think.

>>2365171
>But in our case its literally impossible, if we are talking about effectiveness, to leave these things out.


Of course it isn't. What do you think statistics are?

>Further undermines what I just said.

No, it doesn't.

>If you actually read that article you would quickly find out that mostly bombers took out those panthers.

No, it doesn't. In fact it says that due to the bad weather, CAS was almost nonexistant, and CAS was generally ineffective at dealing with armor at the best of times.

>Again, take out your "murrican" stick out of your ass. That is just one article and its not even a very influential site at that.

Fine, here's some other stuff.

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gabel.pdf

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gabel3.pdf

>Lastly is embarassing because you had everything going for you there was no reason to even have that many casualities on your site.

You're basing this on what exactly?

> Other nations may would have won the battle with much less casualities.

How the fuck do you reach that anile conclusion?

>>2359593
>PRC
>not KMT

this is high level bait

>>2365183
>I just posted 3 examples of how badly the shermans performed from your own sources.

No, you made an ass of yourself, again.

First, in this post>>2364088

You claim

> Ask any Sherman tank commander of that time. Some even wanted reparations I heard.

I.E., the Shermans were shit and ALL of the Sherman commanders hated it, some wanted reparations for how bad it was (still waiting on evidence for that one).

I in turn posted a number of interviews of tank commanders who were very favorable to the Sherman, and you shout CHERRYPICKING.

You made a claim, and I refuted it. If you don't like that, you should make more snesible claims.

>That and you won't find any actual, true statistics

Sure you will. Trawl through CSI articles, Zaloga's works, Army material. But you're not interested in statistics, because it doesn't satisfy your autism for modeling individual engagements.

>Also I said most didn't like it.

No, you said that all disliked it, and how you could tell by asking "any tank commander". You haven't offered any statement as to how your guys are more prominent or disposative, or any comparative framework at all.

> That's why you get mad if you face the truth and you start posting that one side, out of that small book that barely anyone knows.

No, I posted a book of statistics because I was looking at a statistical analysis. I wanted to show frontwide performance of the Sherman vs the Panther. You keep whining and not actually providing any evidence of anything you say, just bizarre anecdotes.

>>2365197

Where? Everything I said was true.

The nickname on both sides, truth.

5 shermans again 1 panther, the shermans get blown to shreds.

The dude himself admitted that the sherman was not nearly as good as a russian or german tank. There you go. Everything that I said in those three pics highlighted in blue for you.

File: 1381303372849.jpg (174KB, 523x720px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 523x720px

>this thread

File: Patton quote.jpg (359KB, 1234x961px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1234x961px

>>2365215

>5 shermans again 1 panther, the shermans get blown to shreds.


>Since August 1, 1944, when the 3rd army became operational, our total tank casualties have amounted to 1,136 tanks. During the same period we have accounted for 2,287 German tanks, of which 808 were the Tiger or Panther variety, and 851 on our side were M-4

>These figures of themselves refute any inferiority of our tanks, but let me add that the 34d army has always attacked and therefore better than 70% of our tank casualties have occurred from dug-in anti-tank guns and not enemy tanks, whereas the majority of the enemy tanks put out have been put out by our tanks.

>>2365214

>I.E., the Shermans were shit and ALL of the Sherman commanders hated it, some wanted reparations...

Yes some went even for court on that, if you want you can look it up yourself.

>I in turn posted a number of interviews of tank commanders who were very favorable to the Sherman, and you shout CHERRYPICKING.

Oh I make an ass out myself? I just got the material you gave out and exactly showed you how shitty the sherman were, but you refuse to acknowledge that. Even if presented with harsh truth you still deny it. So who makes an ass out of himself? I literally just turned your own source against you.

>Sure you will. Trawl through CSI articles, Zaloga's works, Army material....

Because even those aren't really truth, maybe if you really get into that matter and search through it but I doubt you will find another conclusion. Also why should I? I just proved to you the sherman is shit, with your own "army material."

>No, you said that all disliked it, and how you could tell by asking "any tank commander". You haven't...

I exagerrated a bit I think on different places hey may were more "okay" with it but generally I doubt that most were happy to sit in a tank widely known as "Tommykocher." Basic human sense.

>No, I posted a book of statistics because I was looking at a statistical analysis. I wanted...

That was made by some random dude and bought maybe what? A hundred times? That's nothing. Might as well put some statistics out of my ass. That and I just gave you plenty of material, sites to look up on and again your own material that you did cherrypick on.

>>2365234

Hah! That's Patton making an ass off himself, not knowing a single lick about the actual fighting on the ground. The whole thing is just again bravado. "M'urrika the best" and yet they got blown to shreds poor Patton is got all wrong again... but hey we all know how fair Patton handled his own soldiers huh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton_slapping_incidents

>>2365254
Let's see now, an ad hominem towards a fine military commander plus a wikipedia link completely unrelated to anything else being discussed here.

Yep, you're a faggot.

>>2365240

>Yes some went even for court on that, if you want you can look it up yourself.

No, I want you to substantiate your claim, which is how this is done.

> I just got the material you gave out and exactly showed you how shitty the sherman were, but you refuse to acknowledge that.

You presented interviews, and moved the goalpost in doing so.

> Even if presented with harsh truth you still deny it.

I have never pretended that the Sherman was universally popular. I have however, claimed that it was effective in battle, and presented evidence to support that.

>I literally just turned your own source against you.

Since I cited it to contest the claim that all sherman commanders hated it, no, you have not.

>Because even those aren't really truth, maybe if you really get into that matter and search through it but I doubt you will find another conclusion.

And you're basing this damning appraisal on what exactly? Your own bizarre preconceptions?

> I just proved to you the sherman is shit, with your own "army material."

No, you didn't. You proved that Sherman tank commanders existed who didn't like the tank. You did not prove anything about battle efficacy over the scope of a front.

>That was made by some random dude and bought maybe what?

Anon, it was made by the Ballistic Research Laboratories , Aberdeen Proving Ground. That is not "some random dude", and it is not nothing. It's the center of tank research in America, and almost everyone who does WW2 tank comparisons goes to their work.

>That and I just gave you plenty of material, sites to look up on and again your own material that you did cherrypick on.

You gave Newspaper articles and blogposts. That's the real nothing.

>>2365255

There you obviously have a letter of the 75 mm gun. But even there its a bit complicated. Was it really that gun, is he sure that it was actually the gun giving the killing blow, most of these "brew up."

But even here we talk single cases that you can't take for granted. Who knows how those battle went and how much own tanks were lost during the battle. But its interesting to note that the crew of the german tanks always were able to "bale out."

File: W-Profile-feb13-4.jpg (145KB, 652x436px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 652x436px

>>2365255

>>2365215
Oh come the fuck on you moron. US armored platoons operated on a 5 tank structure, that is why it was always 5 shermans against a panther, a tiger, a panzer IV or even some captured early war french tank because whenever armored support was required they would send a platoon as the basic unit, if more support was required they would send additional platoons.

Holy fuck you're an idiot. Furthermore, individual engagements do not matter as much as the overall statistics and those statistics do not fucking support your claim idiot.

>>2365306
Oh please bitch, if this was about a German tanker you would be praising him and his teutonic wonder machine to the heavens.

>>2365295

Alright enough of that, the thread is already full enough as it is.

I gave you enough prove, with multiple sources not only wikipedia, I used your own sources against you and you, yourself only give out questionable material yourself.

>Anon, it was made by the Ballistic Research Laboratories , Aberdeen Proving Ground. That is not...

That is bullshit, the dudes name is clearly on the side, maybe he himself says that he got some informations out of said research laboratories. But wether or not that's true is another story...

But anyway! You just try to turn around the whole and try to dodge the actual problem here. Or maybe you just don't want to see your own failure on posting that graph.

Here is a list of the best german tank commanders:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=507478

And Knurt Knispel:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Knispel

To give you a vague idea and we're mostly talking about single tank commanders...

Oh well was still a nice talk. Even though you're not nearly as smart in the matter, it was fun nonetheless. Just stop imagining things and just take things how they are and not sugarcoat everything so it fits you...

>>2365327

No I wouldn't not based on a single letter. Official things is another story. But that who knows how valid that is and what the situation were.

>>2358918
If you murder all the civilians, you won't have any terrorists.

>>2365370
>literally an official report from a col to his hq
>who knows how valid that is
wew lad

>>2365391

Yes, it just states how many german tanks were shot and some in what way. It doesn't go into detail what happened only how much shots were made and where they might have landed.

Did infantry play a role, air support, how was the weather? We don't know once more.

>>2365391

That and you just got that from a site called
http://www.theshermantank.com/tag/reports/.

So, yea... where is the rest of the documents? Surely there are more of them? Why did they only post that single site? Questions over questions... strange huh?

>>2365423
I didn't get it from there.

>>2365366
>I gave you enough prove, with multiple sources not only wikipedia, I used your own sources against you and you, yourself only give out questionable material yourself.


No, you haven't. YOu've posted 5 links, 2 of which are newspaper articles, one of which is a youtube vid, and 2 of which are blogs, only one of which cites anything, and it's primarily to Belton Cooper. That's garbage.

>That is bullshit, the dudes name is clearly on the side, maybe he himself says that he got some informations out of said research laboratories. But wether or not that's true is another story...

WRONG AGAIN!

>Merriam Press Military Monograph 321. Seventh Edition (February 2012). This monograph is a reprint of BRL Memorandum Report No. 798, published by the Ballistic Research Laboratories (BRL), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, in June 1954. The report was unclassified on 29 August 1972 under Department of Defense Directive 5200.10 (which actually stipulates that the material was to be downgraded at three year intervals and declassified after twelve years, although such is usually not accomplished until someone actually requests such to be able to utilize or copy the document)

> You just try to turn around the whole and try to dodge the actual problem here.

Pot, meet kettle.

>Here is a list of the best german tank commanders:

And how does a list of tank aces show overall tank superiority. The Luftwaffe fielded far more aces than the Western Allies, yet still got stomped hard in the air.


>. Even though you're not nearly as smart in the matter, it was fun nonetheless.

Oh please, as if your judgment means shit. You still haven't even theoretically supported a huge number of your inane assertions, like how the fact that a nation gives or sells some of its wargear shows that said wargear is second rate.

>>2364354

And yet they managed to get Rommel across and keep him somewhat resupplied. Without the eastern front, Germany would have had thousand more aircraft available. Allied air superiority would be lesser than it was. There's only so much air superiority can do when two million men rush the beaches.

File: 1483143461873.png (186KB, 853x1432px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 853x1432px

We need to make a version of this that just answers all of these retarded points

>>2365515
>>And yet they managed to get Rommel across and keep him somewhat resupplied.
Still not enough to take egypt dude, there's no way in fuck that was possible.

>>Without the eastern front, Germany would have had thousand more aircraft available
All of which would have been practically useless compared to the sort of air force the US can field.

>>Without the eastern front, Germany would have had thousand more aircraft available
On a very trivial level, maybe.

>>There's only so much air superiority can do when two million men rush the beaches.
Annnddddd here we get to the stupid. There were already slightly over 1 million german soldiers in france. They didn't "rush the beaches" because they fucking couldn't due to aerial interdiction, naval bombardment close to the beaches, logistical concerns and Hitler being an idiot.

Actual warfare isn't starcraft.

>>2365515

Not the guy you're responding to, but the big problem in North Africa was infrastructure, or lack thereof. Supplying Rommel was much easier in Tripoli than out by Tobruk; even if they have men piling up, it's far from clear that they could have effectively used them, as Rommel already had trouble getitng the men and supplies he had further forward.

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

>Without the eastern front, Germany would have had thousand more aircraft available.


But most of them would be single engine fighters and strike craft, of little use patrolling the Mediterranean (too short an operational range), and basing guys over land in Africa eats into your already thin supply margin.

> There's only so much air superiority can do when two million men rush the beaches.


Two million men won't rush the beaches. If you land them, they'll starve to death. If we're talking Normandy, let's not forget that the Germans had 66 divisions on the "Western Front" by June of 1944,

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/134-campaigns-a-operations/campaigns-a-operations/2085-number-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii

Most of them in France or the Low Countries. That's more than enough men to swarm under the landings, which lifted about 5 divisions, if they were all assembled on the beach.

The problem is transport and knowing where to mass your forces; and not having the burdens of the Eastern Front wouldn't help with that.

>>2364071
>if someone disagrees with me they must be a Stalinist!

>>2362484
>ignoring all the nazi glorification threads and the other thread talking about how the right will rise again.

Yes anon, this board is full of leftists.

>>2363640
do it again bomber harris

>>2358819
Some of these are true tbpaqhmf

>>2365525
you go first

>>2365525
>>2365770


There was an archived post I once saw about them. Not sure if the answers are good enough to immortalize.

Here's an archive link.

https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/1966080/#1968038

The paranoia is in bloom, the P-R
Transmissions will resume
They'll try to push drugs
That keep us all dumbed down and hope that
We will never see the truth around
(So come on)

Another promise, another scene,
Another package lie to keep us trapped in greed
With all the green belts wrapped around our minds
And endless red tape to keep the truth confined
(So come on)

They will not force us
They will stop degrading us
They will not control us
We will be victorious
(So come on)

>>2365682
>sees an argument with premises that back up aconclusion

>doesn't like the conclusion

STORMFAG!!!!!!!

reddit faggots are always the same. Sadly you don't have downvotes here to hide stuff you dont like

Just prove him wrong dude. I'm sure you have an argument in there somewhere

>>2362359
Kek

>>2359257
Who is this boner owner

>>2359093
Poles are Slavs and thus are second from the bottom in the Nazi shit list

>>2359518
interesting, didn't know that. so it was the same as WW1

>>2358918
It's the only surefire way of getting rid of partisans.
A peasant can lie to you. A dead peasant can't. He also can't provide material aid or intelligence to partisans. Brits knew this and implemented internment during the Boer War. Won. Mongols knew this. Murdered everything living. Won.
Its always been a question of how far are you willing to go for victory.

>>2362484
Bait

>>2365525

Just directing them back to baby school and telling them to pay attention to the bits that aren't about guns as well,, would probably do the job.

>>2362514
Kys

>>2366393
Which is why Croats, Slovaks and Bulgarians (all SLAVS) were treated like any other regular ally and even used as examples of Aryan nations in nazi propaganda materials.

You can talk about Hitler's anti-polonism or russophobia but there was hardly any anti-Slavism at large.

>>2365485

You just splurt wrong and the book just merely hints at those things, its unclear wether or not it truthfully to its sources. Just like I would make a book about modern tanks and talk about conflicts in Iraq or something. Of course that means I'm talking of experience the USMC made, therefore I write exactly what the USMC knows about that? No, I don't I merely use it as a source. How precisely is unknown too. That and he himself says at the end he gets some of his charts, tables and photos from some general adjutant. So there's that. Who the hell knows how classified this really is and how much it covers. So Nope sorry book's still useless.

>And how does a list of tank aces...

To give you a general idea of a legendary tank.

>Oh please, as if your judgment means shit. You still haven't even theoretically supported...

Yes I did, you're just too fucking dense to recognise any of it. Just following your own shit religiously, not even leaving a bit of place to actually critique. You're literally just some ameritard, brainwashed by its own shit that he finds in the darkest corner of the net. Trying to make the US army seem unbeatable, when it was indeed flawed. How can anyone be so extremely dense and so immune to any reasoning is beyond me.

Like you literally act like some indoctrinated slug. Like a commissar in WW2 on soviet side that has to confirm that the soviets have the best weapons or he might get sent to a gulag, but in your case you're just dense for the sake of being a ameritard.

>>2359648
Panzer IV and III still shat on T-34s because Russians cannot into radios and gunsights that aren't shit, what shat on them were Shermans which were basically T-34s without the problems caused by being Russian made.

Also, Germany could have produced a shitload more tanks if their industrial doctrine wasn't shit.

>>2358805
The place for retarded shitposting is on /pol/ you retarded faggot

>>2362373
>Slavs are automatically commies and pro-Russia

>>2367010
Technically /pol/ isn't supposed to be a shitposting board either if you read the rules of the sticky, but this isn't enforced by the mods.

>>2367025
Who the fuck cares, keep shit threads like this off of /his/

File: 1485008266525.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>2362508
>NAZIS WATCH OUT

>>2368336
>Kicking strawmen

>>2368348
Please read >>2362508 again and tell me where I fallaciously misrepresented it.

>>2368336
falling for bait

>>2368405
Are you retarded or merely pretending to be so?

>>2362508

Setting aside that this is weak bait, isn't it amazing that there are literally people going around who think the reason why people disagreed with the nazis was because nazi doctrine was racist and antisemitic as opposed to stuff like totalitarianism and aggressive expansionism?

>>2368466
The reason can be summed up in three letters, members of the reason would wrongly guess that one of the letters is "e"

>>2362429
>Rape, murder and oppress Native-Europeans

Ahahahaha
http://www.baka.com.au/world/newspaper-report-of-mass-sexual-assault-by-refugees-in-frankfurt-was-baseless-police-say-20170215-gudybw.html

>He actually believes the far-right lies

Let me guess, you're going to cite Sweden rape rates next without mentioning how Sweden changed rape law, rapidly expanding the number of cases as a result?

>>2369566
Nice fake link nerd.

>>2363640
DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS

YOU KILL THOSE FUCKING KRAUTS HARRIS

>>2369579
replace baka in the url with baka you fucking nerd.

>>2369594
FUCK

I meant
s
m
h

not baka

>>2358985
Israel

Like pottery

>>2369597
>a full two (2) years after the word filter was put in place
>people still get tripped up over it

File: 1418184257521.png (156KB, 280x272px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 280x272px

>>2366463

File: 1939.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>2358805

>tfw jewish controlled plutocratic democracy could have been stamped out if not for the asshats in Moscow and Berlin

File: murka3.jpg (56KB, 437x611px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 437x611px

>>2370207
>tfw you manage to destroy the British Empire, both the second and third reichs of Germany, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union

File: america bear.gif (29KB, 482x800px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 482x800px

>>2370211
And people still hate us, just goes to show how ungrateful Europeans are.

>>2362509

Dirlwanger was a poacher, Himmler decided that was what was needed to deal with Partisans.

They let Oskar off the leash because the Polish insurrection and the Soviet drive towards Warsaw put the fear of God into them. Under most other circumstances the Heer and the Waffen-SS would forget whatever difference they had to get Dirlewanger out of their fucking sector.

File: panzerfaust4.jpg (23KB, 400x277px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x277px

>>2362604

>"Oh whit, he's got a weapon that was 30 reichsmarks to make!

File: A Bridge Too Far IRL.webm (3MB, 718x404px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 718x404px

>"They did it, they actually did it! They jumped into the Netherlands those absolute madmen!"

>>2362574
There is nothing leftist about the way we talk about nazis, political alignment has literally nothing to do with acknowledging that nazis committed war crimes.

I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

>>2362729
>laughing at wikipedia sources
i bet my left nut you've never tried to edit a wikipedia article

>>2364161
Yes, political radicals must be destroyed if they challenge the traditions and firm guiding principles of a state, which is why all nazis now go to gulag :)

>>2370233
>that fucking slow binociular raise at 0:04
Why do Germans always look evil?

>>2370217
>lets ignore mess and only economically be involved at some point until someone attack us
>lets give half of Europe to Soviets no matter what side they were
Gee I wonder why USA is disliked.

>>2362484
Saying "Nazis are bad" isn't really a particularly leftist viewpoint don't you think?

>>2371195
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU

is it true that the clutch on the tiger II would blow out after just 50 miles?

>>2362549
remove america and you're somewhat correct.

>>2371680
>BAWW WHY DIDN'T YOU INTERVENE SOONER

>when the US intervenes sooner
>BAWW IMPERIALISM THEY DINDU NUFFIN

Jealousy is never a pretty thing.

>>2373885
L E N D L E A S E
E
N
D

L
E
A
S
E

Stalin get out

>>2374092
It's land lease, not lend lease.