After studying Germany in WW2 for some time I have come to some

if you study military history you wont be rating countries but individual units and engagements because you have sources for that

>>3206149
Of course you can rate countries

This is a carry over from the martial prowess of Prussia-Brandenburg from Fredrick
It's incredible that their prowess could last 200+ years,only entering a slight slump with N*poleon who actually strengthen it

>>3206158
To elaborate, the tradition of having a highly trained officer corps helps greatly in battle,with officers having their own initiative and the lack of overt bureaucracy or burden by long chain of commands

>>3206102
Basicaly the only reason why did Krauts dominated between 1939-1941 was because they either zerg rushed equal opponent, or attacked weak country. Zerg rush (Blitzkrieg) stopped working after their enemy actualy prepared for attack. (Soviet Union, unlike Deep battle, Blitzkrieg doesnt work if you loose the advantage of surprise.

>>3206102
I wonder if it's the same person doing these bait threads, seen a few recently.

Regardless, enjoy your 100 posters and 300 replies.

>>3206465
Ah yes, France was in no way prepared for an attack after waiting and preparing for 8 months

>>3206470
Anything WW2 related is a bait thread at this point

>>3206102
>technologically undeveloped
False
>their tactics were outdated
Extremely false
>their tactics were outdated
True

>>3206471
They were prepared, but not for offensive through low countries.

>>3206510
>>their tactics were outdated
>Extremely false
>>their tactics were outdated
>True

Really makes me think

>>3206549
Apparently it did not made you think, since you failed to understand the error.

The third one was clearly
>extremely lacking in industrial might.

>>3206465

>what's the maginot line?

Besides that, your post reads as >the only reason the Krauts dominated is because they used tactics their opponents weren't prepared for or had a stronger military

>>3206564
*whoosh*

>>3206533

They did expect that, they just didn't think they would also thrust through the Ardennes. Either way, that's not a "zerg rush" by any definition.

>>3206470
No, this is the first thread I've made in a long time, I'm a history student, and it's not bait.

>>3206510
>False
They went into the war with hardly any tanks and the ones they had were hardly fit for warfare. Then they spent the entire war making inefficient "super" tanks that broke down every 5 minutes.

>>3206102
>their tactics were outdated

File: 1501885399777.jpg (37KB, 720x794px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 720x794px

>>3206886
>make shitty tank
>-IT'S NOT FIT FOR WARFARE
>make good tank
>-IT'S INEFFICIENT AND IT EXPLODES IN 5 MINUTES

Another non-thinker talking about the Reich.

>>3206877
Then finish your first year before posting another

>>3206886
>1943-44 rolls around
>hey we're running out of people and we're severely outnumbered
>let's make better machines for them, because manpower is becoming more valuable than industry
>LMAO STUPID NAZIS JUST BUILD SHERMANS

>>3206971
Well yeah, that's what happened isn't it?

Who won the bloody war anyway?

>>3207022
We both know they made the wrong choice. They clearly should have focused on making either the Panzer 4 or Pather (depending when they start) into a much simplier and easier to produce line. They finally realised this with the E series but it was too late

Their tank policy simply was wrong.