daily reminder to all wehraboos >the german offensive began

>>2592860
Wasn't the Wehrmacht's entire strategy built around decisive battle? And as we all know, the USSR was anything but.

Hitler not allowing retreat on a strategic level after everything went to shit didn't help matters.

Daily reminder that if the US and UK had not supplied the soviets with materials and intelligence it could have gone a lot different.

>>2592912
It would have been different, but the Nazis wouldn't have won either way. The Nazi retreat was already happening by the time lend-lease was in full swing. The Soviet advance wouldn't have been as swift without Western assistance, and whether or not it would have stalled is arguable, but the Nazis still wouldn't be able to turn the tide.

>>2592881
>Wasn't the Wehrmacht's entire strategy built around decisive battle?

The problem with this is, it only works if the enemy is also basing their strategy on it. It is typical of Teutonic autism that they never even considered that the Russians might not share their doctrines.

>>2592860
>During the Battle of Britain, the British developed innovate tactics and advanced technology while the Germans relied on obsolete ww1 doctrines and chivalry

>>2592955
Not him, but that wasn't the problem in the USSR. The Germans assumed that the political structure of the Soviet state was a lot like the Czar's in WW1 Russia. Maul them badly in the field, make quick advances into their state, and they'll collapse politically.

That turned out to be wrong, of course, but they weren't relying on the Soviets seeking a decisive battle too.

>>2592860
>the german tank doctrine was so bad that they had to completely rework it after being BTFO by russian tanks
Wrong, their doctrine was excellent. What was wrong was German intelligence, which didn't anticipated that Russian were mass producing well armored tanks (compared to contemponary standards).

It was actually Russians who didn't had a clue what to do with those machines.

>german tanks were almost always terribly overengineered and terriblt designed
Some were some, were not. The mass produced (Panzer x, Stug) ones were not.

>>2592955
Not exactly. The German strategy was to mass encircle Soviet troops to prevent escape into the Russian wilderness (a la 1812) and to break the "corrupt" Soviet government in one fell swoop (as evidenced by Hitler's "kick in the door" quote. The fact that the Soviets gave no fucks was the unexpected part.

>>2592860
You know, the weirdest thing I find about Wehraboos is that they don't focus on the things that the Wehrmact legitimately did well, their great junior officers on average, or their extremely good communication apparati both horizontally (between branches of service) and vertically, within the same branch of service.

It's always muh tanks muh jets muh rockets muh 44 muh human wave zerg rush tactics, muh overwhelming allied resources.

>>2593032

Low level details are not as interesting even if they're important applied on a broad scale

Although there is the occasional "which platoon structure was superior" thread on here

>>2592912
>Daily reminder that if the US and UK had not supplied the soviets with materials and intelligence it would have gone a lot different.
FTFY

*cues battle of france*

this triggers the allyboo

File: Was Hitler really incompetent 2.png (157KB, 1776x621px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1776x621px

>>2595431

File: Was Hitler really incompent 3.png (276KB, 1784x1116px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1784x1116px

>>2595432

File: Soviet tanks.png (197KB, 1764x451px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1764x451px

>>2595433

File: Why the germans didn't use sloped armour.png (152KB, 1598x759px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1598x759px

>>2595441

>>2595431
That is some quality retardation right there.

>>2593032

its called the wunder-waffle/wunder-waffen/wunder-marine

>>2592860
>the german offensive began being pushed back weeks before the russian winter started
Okay

>horses outnumbered ALL vehicles about 4:1 in the german army
True, the German army was not as high tech or mechanized as we often times imagine it. Behind the Americans but ahead the Russians.

>the german tank doctrine was so bad that they had to completely rework it after being BTFO by russian tanks
Nigga what the fuck

>german tanks were almost always terribly overengineered and terriblt designed
That may be true for tanks such as the Tiger and Panther but those were a minority of German tanks or armored fighting vehicles. The Stug 3's and Panzer 4's were the most numerous of German tanks and played a much more important role in the war. The Tiger is only something autists obsess about.

>>2593043
The one centered around a HMG/LMG, as the US realised decades later

>>2595459
Not OP, but Stugs aren't really tanks, you know. They're far more analogous to self propelled artillery, both in usage and in construction.

>>2595451
>Wunder-waffle

>>2595464
Yeah but as the war progressed Stugs were being used and treated like tanks. Something like 10,000 were produced and they racked many more kills then Tiger or Panther tanks. I remember seeing something like stugs destroyed 20,000 tanks in WW2.

File: 1490827355226.jpg (117KB, 634x613px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 634x613px

>>2592860
>>the german offensive began being pushed back weeks before the russian winter started
wrong
>>horses outnumbered ALL vehicles about 4:1 in the german army
wrong
>>the german tank doctrine was so bad that they had to completely rework it after being BTFO by russian tanks
wrong
>>german tanks were almost always terribly overengineered and terriblt designed
wrong

See? That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

>>2595482
>Yeah but as the war progressed Stugs were being used and treated like tanks


They were never used or treated like tanks. They were almost never used in offensive or breakout roles. They were used in 'sniping' and ambush roles, a lot like anti-tank guns or mortars, except these were attached to armored vehicles.

>Something like 10,000 were produced and they racked many more kills then Tiger or Panther tanks.

And the good old fashioned 7.5 cm anti-tank gun did as well. Does that make it a tank?

> I remember seeing something like stugs destroyed 20,000 tanks in WW2.

That seems extremely unlikely. Total allied tank losses of all sorts were in the 50-60,000 range, and that's counting an enormous number of Soviet tanks destroyed before the Stugs were even being used, and losses to things like mines and towed anti-tank weapons, which at least did more damage to Allied stuff in France.

File: IMG_1716.jpg (37KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 443x332px

>>2595470
BEHOLD ZE ZUPARVEPON