>The Wehrmacht had the best training and equipment during

That is a true statement

>>31175574

Concur. The Nazis were bad guys, doesn't mean they couldn't have had really good guns and tactics but got overwhelmed.

Some of them did.

Their standard small arms were MP40s and bolt guns, which are inferior to the Garand.

Their de facto standard tanks were Panzer 4s and Stugs.

They had a thing for wunderwaffen, which didn't really correlate with the average quality of their equipment.

>>31175574
Very true, WW2 was basically "whoever has people Zerg rush the Germans and throw bodies at them till they die". A Tiger could fight a Sherman and win, but fighting 3-4 Shermans for every 1 Tiger? Someone is bound to kill it.

>>31175574
Yup. True. Fucked americans, fucked the russians, fucked poland, fucked france.

They just ran out of.. stuff

>>31175679
>but fighting 3-4 Shermans for every 1 Tiger?

Christ is this myth still so pervasive?

>>31175671
No they weren't. If they had won we wouldn't be dealing with today's level of degeneracy. Whites would rule the world. Faggots would be deathly afraid to express themselves. Communism would be a failed history lesson.

>>31175690
>Myth

I could get you the statistics, but you know you're wrong. The sherman was produced exponentially more than the tiger, please stop.

>>31175574
Germans had the best technology at the time hands down. That doesn't mean they were fighting the zulu war. 1 man with an MG42 could easily be neutralized with grenades, artillery, garand, hell even an sks. I'm not even going to pretend I know what "kill or be killed" instincts are like.

>>31175729
Realistically a Sherman was going to be supporting infantry. The chances of it coming up against a tiger was much lower than a panzer 4.

How many tigers were killed by shermans specifically.

>>31175574
The k98 was actually rather outmatched by other primary rifles of the war, strange that they kept it so long, given how modernised the rest of their army had become.

>>31175718
boy, you are quite the weebmarch

>>31175718

i honestly can't tell if this is a shitpost or not because it truly is this easy to trick a naziboo into saying something retarded.

>>31175729
>The sherman was produced exponentially more than the tiger

And?

>>31175574

Battleships cost Germany the war. If they had built more U-boats instead of wasting resources building the Bismark and Tirpitz, they might have won.

Battleships: history's most dangerous naval meme

>>31175773
simply put they couldn't produce modern rifles fast enough. The German Reich had alot of problems with producing their high quality equipment, which was why they developed the Blitzkrieg doctrine (fast war) so they could end their wars as soon as possible and not have to waste equipment on prolonged fights and sieges.

they were also wasting time and manpower with the final solution.

>>31175817
>If they'd built more of the most destroyed vehicle they ever built they'd have won

File: 2mhw799c-1401980785[1].jpg (122KB, 668x423px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 668x423px

>>31175773
>strange that they kept it so long, given how modernised the rest of their army had become.
Yeah the Wehrmacht was famous for being so modernized.

>>31175837
>which was why they developed the Blitzkrieg doctrine
There was no such thing as a Blitzkrieg doctrine.

>they were also wasting time and manpower with the final solution.
The manpower and resources spent on the camps were a drop in the bucket.

>>31175840

U-boats worked out pretty darn well for America in the Pacific.

>>31175817
Germany's only hope to win the war was to knock out the Royal Air Force and for Moscow to fall and have the Soviets break up because communism was still pretty new at the time

Having the British be a constant thorn in their side, and not finishing the job in the Soviet Union finished them, declaring war on the United States after Pearl Harbor was just the final nail in the coffin that sealed their fate

They had shit suppy lines, shit allies, and shit commanders.

>>31175846
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_DnRn9hyFU

>I think of this every time I encounter a Wehraboo

>>31175574
well, that and Hitler was a stupid fucker

File: zw13Y.jpg (663KB, 3060x1628px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 3060x1628px

>>31175574
>implying the Germans lost in spite of having superior equipment and not because of it

In reality shitier but easier to make and cheaper equipment is superior when you need to outfit an army for a long drawn out land war.
Of course, they only had such success initially because of blitzkrieg strategy anyway which was dependent on superior equipment, but I digress.

File: la-me-donkeys7-2009jul07.jpg (61KB, 500x335px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x335px

>>31175846
To be fair, the US still uses beasts of burden as well.

>>31175718
this shows how much of a cancerous shithole /pol/ and the effects after a week

>whites would rule the world
whites still rule the world

>>31175922
Yeah but not for 90% of its logistics.

>>31175574
Its true

>>31175855
>Blitzkrieg
>Lightnig war
>a method of warfare whereby an attacking force spearheaded by a dense concentration of armoured and motorised or mechanised infantry formations with close air support, breaks through the opponent's line of defence by short, fast, powerful attacks and then dislocates the defenders, using speed and surprise to encircle them.

>Doctrine
>a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs.

>The manpower and resources spent on the camps were a drop in the bucket.
>implying congesting train lines, feeding prisoners, and wasting oil and chemicals on fighting strength citizens didn't have an effect on the war effort.

>>31175690
You know 3-4 shermans or not we could do something with shermans german tanks couldnt.


U-Turn

>>31175574
yeah everyone knows that

They lost, all that matters really. "Oh man if the V3 wasn't stopped, oh man if they started conducting air combat with their jets...". No one cares, you're just gay for Nazi's.

>>31175574
few tanks were produced that turned the tide of the war, too little plane development, sure they build amazing weapons but they were complex and their was a lot of interindustry fighting (look at the stg 44 rifle alone and it history ot see the history of German small arms industry) they simply lacked the ability to keep up with things good enough to turn the tide and the lack of a strong intelligence organ crippled them

>>31175928
> jews
> white

>>31175872
Shit commanders not so much, a few of em did pretty well, Erwin and the feller at Bocage did pretty good.

>>31176073
a shit supreme commander though.

>>31175671
>The Nazis were bad guys
Keep believing that Soviet/American propaganda.

>hehe fuckin nazis rot in hell
>man i hope a muslim doesnt rape me, I'm only allowed to carry a whistle but if I blow it i'll be charged with disturbing the peace and hate speech

>>31176100
I wont argue with that, ever.

Fucking amazing how one guy could fuck up so badly by just not letting someone take fucking charge.

File: 1467652299072.jpg (119KB, 700x661px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 700x661px

>>31175574
true

>>31175750

In American service in Europe?

1

The British killed a bunch more, since they met all 4 of the Schwere Abteilungs dispatched to France.

On the other hand, the number of American Shermans killed by actual tigers ranges from 0 to 1.

>>31175860

Because the IJN didn't even have sonar on most of their destroyers at the start of the war, ASW simply wasn't a concern to them.

Fucking Canada made more ASW escorts during the war than Japan did.

The US alone made 350 destroyers, 450 destroyer escorts, 120 escort carriers, and thousands of subchasers/smaller escorts.

The British then added in a thousand escorts of their own.

Of the 20,000 or so B-24 Liberators made, over 3000 were used for maritime patrol, just to catch submarines.

100 more Uboats the Germans could have made in place of Bismarck and Tirpitz wouldn't have done shit.

>>31175677
>their standard small arms were inferior
false. the k98 and mp40 were just basically pdws for the infantry. Many british commanders reported never seeing a german soldier fire their rifle. Their real small arms were the mg34/42 and the m24 hand grenade. Their tactics were centered around these, and they worked together brilliantly.

>>31176286

> LMG gunner dies
> entire squad is now useless
> Soviets deployed more snipers than anyone else

Fantastic doctrine hans.

>>31175574
Patton.

>>31175750
American Shermans fought tigers on 3 occasions. On all 3 occasions the Shermans knocked out the tiger.

There are no recorded kills by a Tiger against a sherman.

Shermans have 5 confirmed kills against Tigers.

Tigers have 1 confirmed kill against a Pershing.

>>31175773
besides a semi-auto like the SVT or the M1, name a rifle that "outmatched" the k98.

Only argument I can see would be for LE for its capacity.

Anyone here able to identify this SS Combat Uniform>>31176215

>>31175840
and also, don't forget:

>if they had built more of their most effective vehicle

>>31175574
Also, good Russian war planning.

File: image.jpg (98KB, 900x652px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 900x652px

>>31175718

Their combined arms strategies were better than their adversaries' and they utilized new field tactics most others were unaware of or unwilling to use. Their gear wasn't that fantastic. Most of the early generation Panzers sucked compared to Russian and French tanks. What made the difference was skill.

That's the salt-in-the-wound everyone avoids. In the early stages of the war, Germans were simply better at fighting. They lost, because people adapted.

>>31176303
>crew weapon
gunner dies. Rest of crew gives up? no.
CREW WEAPON.

if you kill the whole gun crew, by definition the squad has suffered mass cas and it combat ineffective. That just by numbers.

File: M1918 BAR.jpg (86KB, 800x268px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 800x268px

>>31176286
>Their tactics were centered around these, and they worked together brilliantly.

The Marines did this against the Japanese, too. It worked out.

>>31175773
On a strategic scale, the small arms of an individual infantryman is generally pretty irrelevant. Don't think on an infantry unit as a single man, think of it as a platoon. In a German infantry platoon, the focal point was the MG 34/42. This is what would dish out the lion's share of the platoon's fire, everything else existed to support the MG in accomplishing this task. Therefor, all you need as far as small arms for everyone who is not the machine gunner goes is something that fits into the "good enough" category. The k98 fit this category. It was a rugged, combat proven design that was easy for German factories to produce en mass.

>>31176303

>thinking snipers can effectively engage under mmg fire.

keep watching movies kid

File: wakemeup.jpg (7KB, 149x169px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 149x169px

what am I in here, a high school discussion with wehraboos?

>>31176441
>Sniper fires on squad
>Gunner is dead instantly
>Squad hits the ground
>Hanz is going for it
>Hanz is kill
>Rolf is going for it
>Rolf y
>Soviet sniper is barely able to see through vodka bottle scope
>Can still see very clearly what a bad idea looks like

>>31176448
imagine how well it would have worked if the BAR didn't suck.

>>31176455
In what situation do you think an MG is safe from sniper fire?

You know that these guys dont have to be in danger in order to actually be snipers right?
Thats kinda the point.

File: 1472160113358.png (1MB, 1440x1787px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x1787px

>>31175574
I won't deny that they had superior tactics and equipment, but some of their leaders (namely Hitler) were, say to least, incompetent.

>tfw when Rommel isn't your Fuhrer

>>31176489
They got what they deserved when they let a politician control actual battles. German High Command lost the war for the nation by being bitches and refusing to stop him.

>>31176489
>Rommel
Yeah, let's go with mister "Fuck grand strategy 'cause I wanna look cool for the camera crew I brought" as head honcho.

>>31176132
cheeki breeki indeed

>>31176432
nice try jew. /pol/ is /k/'s closest friend.

>>31176462
or, in the land of reality...
>Sniper fires, but is scared and tired: misses
>Sniper is immediately suppressed by squad and MMG
>If Sniper is far, he is killed while he attempts to displace, or runs away, wondering what he thought would happen.
>If Sniper is close, he hides until M24s land in his lap and he dies.

Snipers are scouts and at the MOST a moderately effective psychological weapon. If you think snipers are winning the day and laying out squads, you need to watch fewer movies.

MMGs are more effective than sniper systems and require much less expertise to engage at much longer distances.

>>31175574

Depends on what exactly you're talking about, and also importantly when. Even"best" is hard to quantify, as almost all military equipment and doctrine involves various tradeoffs between competing qualities. Do you include non-combat fields like logistics, strategy, and intelligence operations but are of vital importance of to the performance of an army I the field? Are you cherrypicking the very best units and equipment while ignoring the more numerous and presumably less effective found in more mundane units? For example most people are aware that the Tiger I and Panther were rare on the battlefield, but fewer seem to realize that that it served alongside the much more common Panzer III and IV, in addition to various assault guns and tank destroyers that were often actually inferior to what their British/American/Soviet opponents fielded (again with the caveat that that can be difficult to quantify)

As another Germany actually had worse tanks than most of their opponents during the first half of the war, but they managed to utilize them much more effectively on a tactical and operational level. By the end of the war their best tank crews had been wiped out, many of their replacements were rushed through training to get them to the front (not that they had the gas available for proper training), and the Germans found it increasingly difficult to concentrate their armored formations like they had earlier in the war. And that's just one area in the vast array of particular skills, doctrines, equipment and more unquantifiable things like 'willpower', 'fighting spirit', and 'morale' that ultimately constitute militaries. The German armies of September 1939, June 1941, and December 1944 were very different beasts.

I would say Germans probably did have the overall "best" army of the war, but their opponents outshined them in many areas, particularly as the war dragged on.

>>31176455
If the gunner doesn't know where the sniper is, and isn't putting accurate suppressing fire on the sniper's position, they most certainly can effectively engage the machine gun.

However, I would reckon that the primary destroyer of machine gunners were mortars and artillery.

File: image.jpg (41KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x333px

>>31176539
>/pol/
>friends

>>31175574
That's a tad bit of a gross oversimplification. The Germans lost for several reasons. If you believe the USSR zerg rushed all the way to Berlin with nothing but massed conscripts armed with nuggets and an angry commissar behind them you'd be wrong. The Soviet army of 1944/45 was probably the single strongest fighting force on Earth. It didn't just have numbers, it was extremely mechanized, was battle hardened, had competent leadership, and were masters of mass assault, superior firepower, and large front operation.

>>31176234

The real wunderwaffe (other than the atom bomb) was that factory cranking out a B-24 every 63 minutes. In contrast, IIRC none of the Axis powers ever had a proper heavy bomber at all.

>>31176559
Please, just stop.
Snipers were a tool of terror. They shot the grunt taking a shit. They were for area-denial and demoralization. They didn't noscope generals or eliminate machine gun crews.

>>31175574
Training maybe at the start.

Equipment? just a couple of guns.

They were indeed vastly outnumbered. I don't think any one could take on the Soviets at that time. Not even the americans.

>>31176541
Have you seen actual combat footage? Snipers can hold up entire companies. Even the best trained units can't immediately tell where a sniper is firing from a lot of the time. This is especially true if the sniper is mobile, and working in a team.

Even shitty snipers can waste a lot of time and ammo. Just look at footage out of Afghanistan.

>>31176482
Well, since it's not a movie or a video game, the MMG has a much greater range and firepower than a sniper.
Only under rare or extreme circumstances would a sniper engaging an MMG team be considered NOT a suicide mission.
Unless you can kill the whole crew with your first shot, you are dead.
In the real world you wont hit with your first 2 or 3 shots, depending on the range.

Source:
Good friends with an Army Scout Sniper PSG.
Also,
Any degree of military bearing.

>>31176462
Topkek

>>31176489
>Rommel was the world's greatest general meme

Rommel was a competent tactician, no doubt. He could be frequently relied upon to achieve objectives with minimal resources. But he was a field commander through and through. He was the guy you have in command of a division of --at most-- a corp. The worst thing to do would be to stick him in the general staff, that just wasn't his forte.

>>31176564
everyone has a bit of /pol/ inside.

>>31176589
I don't think you have an accurate conception of the realities of combat. Snipers were very much a part of direct combat operations. Have you not heard of snipers providing overwatch?

>>31176596
delay? yes. Never denied that.
That is all they are good for.
Actually that's exactly what I said.

You were saying they can glide in an take out MMG teams at will.

Pick a position

File: image.jpg (25KB, 398x343px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 398x343px

>>31176616
Only because /pol/ ignores the concept of consent.

>>31176600
>have squad engage enemy unit and machine gun crew
>while enemy machine gun is distracted trying to suppress your squad, have sniper flank unit and knock out machine gun

Alternatively,

>enemy unit attacks FOB, multiple machine gun crews
>don't see sniper in hills providing overwatch
>sniper picks off machine gun crews

>>31176596
And US battledrill for react to sniper is centered in a counter-insurgency. If you think they would react the same way to a lone shooter in a full-scale conflict, you really need to think that over again.

There is occupy mode (Combat footage you refer to) and steamroller mode.

Guess which one WW2 was.

>>31176631
I didn't say shit to you, that was another anon. I'm telling you that snipers can play an effective role on the battlefield in a direct contact situation. While they can be used in an area-denial role to delay an advancing enemy, or against an occupying force in a guerrilla role, they can also be used in a straight up firefight.

>>31176596
>can't tell where sniper is firing from

Good thing an MMG is an area effect weapon.

(As opposed to a sniper system)

Once rounds starting getting in the ballpark, only someone with no training is going to stick around.

>>31176658
If the enemy mg was in position where it could be flanked it was too far up in the first place. Only the greenest of 2nd Lt's would send a MG crew into a forward position unsupported. Also, if an enemy FOB doesn't have those surrounding hills pre-sighted for fire support to counter EXACTLY what you described, then they are once again led by literal drooling retards.

Do you seriously believe you are the first one to think of this shit? These are elementary tactics that any decently lead/supported platoon to deal with.

>>31176559
Known, LIKELY, AND SUSPECTED positions. It's not too hard to narrow it down. And because you have a MMG, you can lay down a lot of suppression.

The Wehrmacht was relatively weaker compared to its contemporaries in terms of equipment quality, technological advancements (wunderwaffen don't fucking count), and pretty much everything else, when compared to the situation of the Kaiser's army in WW1 relative to it's own contemporaries.

They got by with "good enough" in the early years but after a while, the technological advances that your enemies are actually putting into large scale production are going to overwhelm you, when you're still using prewar designs as your mainstay (PzIV, Bf109), albeit upgraded. Germany had the most dysfunctional armaments industry in fucking recorded history.

>>31176658
If there is such a gross imbalance of power that a sniper is able to move with impunity after a single MG crew is distracted, then the defenders have already lost.

Your examples hinge on the idea that these engagements are going on in a vacuum. A vacuum that is devoid of artillery, fire support, proper positioning, and human error.

That did not happen in WWII. That does not happen ever.

File: 1470939779799.jpg (32KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x374px

>>31175718
Go back to /pol/, we don't like your kind around here

I'm no wiz at this, but aren't Shermans just for supporting infantry? Want to knock out a Tiger use a tank destroyer? I don't think the two can be used interchangeably.

>>31176658
ok dude, you clearly don't know the first thing.

>snipers flanking

This isn't how this works.

Flanking with infantry element, sure.
Flanking with snipers? Stupid. Wrong role. Wrong Weapons. Wrong

Using them as SBF, stupid. Using them as suppliment to SBF, ok that something. But they are not going to be nearly as effective as you think, based on that you are drawing all these ideas from games and movire.

Snipers call for atry- true
Snipers call in changes in enemy presence- True
Snipers provide meaningful combat multiplyer- No, just no.

Howerver, No-frontal harrassment / Psychological combat multiplier- true

Direct combat multiplier- no. just no.

>>31176709
>>31176756

Spot on guys

>>31175679

Battle of Stalingrad. Literally le epic Russian human wave tactics may may de jour. Literally the "one guy gets a rifle, guy behind him picks it up when he dies" trope making battle. This was before the industrial capability of the Soviets allowed them to RAPE to utterly DESTROY the "vastly superior" Germans.

During the battle of Stalingrad the Germans suffered 850,000 casualties. The Soviets (with their "vastly inferior" weapons and "human wave" tactics) suffered 1,129,000 casualties.

Sure, the Soviets lost more, about 25 percent more, but that is HARDLY the Nazis just getting swarmed and a single brave Aryan holding off 10,000 Soviets or some horseshit.

Get over it, the Nazis got, literally, held down and raped by the "inferior" Slavic army.

>>31176801
>Literally the "one guy gets a rifle, guy behind him picks it up when he dies" trope making battle.
Didn't happen in Stalingrad. Having no fucking supplies was mostly a siege of Leningrad thing.

>>31176539

/an/ is /k/'s best friend

fuck off back to /pol/

>>31176678
>They can be used for area-denial.
lol no. they can be used for harrassing, disrupting, or delaying attack. But to say they are area-denial is absurd.
>against an occupying force.
As a scout or psychological weapons, yes.
>Can be used in straight up fight.
Yes, but with less effect than an ordinary rifleman. Too far, too little suppression, and no operational pressure. The enemy can literally not even know they are being fired on by a sniper if they are taking another direct contact. That would be meaningful if a sniper was actually able to represent a reliable killing force, but they aren't. They can help, but they are barely a multiplyer at all.

>>31176824
/m/ isn't /k/'s futuristic weapons buddy? Just a neighbor?

>>31176801
>Literally the "one guy gets a rifle, guy behind him picks it up when he dies" trope making battle.

Fuck I really hate Enemy At The Gates for popularizing this meme.

>>31176441

Problem is that Germany didn't have enough ammo to train every soldier to use the MG-42 effectively.

Usually, only the machine gunner and his assistant got decent time with the MG.

After Hans a Fritz bite it, Lars and Muller have never fired the machine gun in their career and are basically useless on it.

>>31176841
I suspect /m/ to be the ones who keep starting threads on /k/ and arguing that mecha is viable.

It isn't.

/an/ is our waifu, /fit/, /o/, and /tg/ are our bros.

>>31176812

Did happen to a certain extent on the "German" side of the Volga.

On the Russian side the supply situation was a good bit better, since a rail line ran from the Urals to Stalingrad.

The closest "point of desperation" in Stalingrad was when the workers at the Felix Dzerzhinsky tank plant were told to drive the tanks they just produced into battle, since they already knew how to operate the tanks mechanically.

>>31176847
and russian snipers had legendary marksmanship training?

between 2 people, both with low-level training, one with MG and one with sniper system. The MG wins.
That's assuming no-cross training. You don't need bullets to know how to pull a trigger. If they have seen an mp40 or mg ever, they can work it. It's not hard. Area of effect.

>>31176847
In my unit only the 249 gunners get range time, but everone dry-trains the hell out of the mgs. When your tactics relay on fire superiority, you train everyone on the mg. We do it, they did it.

File: 1471847535125.png (428KB, 493x853px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 493x853px

>>31176616
Everyone has a bit of shit waiting to be excreted. Doesn't mean you have to smear it on someone else's wall

>>31176801
Stalingrad wouldn't exactly be a good example, since the Germans still managed to inflict ~25% more casualties on the Soviets despite being encircled, starving, and mostly devoid of any sort of supplies in the brutal cold.

Add to the fact that Stalingrad involved a lot of close quarters fighting, which has a penance for being far more bloody and far less elegant. High casualties on both sides were inevitable.

That said, battles such as Kursk and the like had a significantly higher number of Soviet casualties. You can attribute that to a number of reasons, but the fact of the matter is that the Soviets lost a fair few more troops than the Germans did in every significant battle.

Nazi Germany was raped by the Red Army (quite literally in the aftermath of Berlin), but it's fairly clear the Soviets cared less about the life of the average soldier than their counterparts or adversaries.

However, the "human wave" shit needs to stop.

>>31176877

Didn't imply Russian snipers were the only things that could kill the machine gunners. So could mortars, grenades, a Kentucky farmboy who hunted a lot with daddy's 1903, etc.

Making the squad overly reliant on the sole MG to provide firepower makes it extremely brittle. The best overall squad in WW2 was a mid-late war marine squad, with 3 teams of 4 and each team having a BAR in addition to the Garands.

>>31176539
>/pol/
>having friends

I was going to laugh, but now it's just kinda sad.

>>31175773
>given how modernised the rest of their army had become.

Yeah, that horse drawn artillery and logistics were real game changers.

>>31176927
The Cholm pocket in 1942 would be another instance of plain German superiority at the stage in the war. 5,000 Germans held the pocket, completely cut off from January to May, and inflicted awful casualties on the Russians. By the time they'd been relieved I think under 1/5th of the Germans were not considered casualties

>>31176132
>The russians won world war two, US did nothing
delet this meme

>>31175729
>The sherman was produced exponentially more than the tiger

That's a bad thing? Production is why we won.

File: 1472623176651.jpg (64KB, 513x510px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 513x510px

>>31175817
Doenitz pls go

File: 1469069850769.jpg (42KB, 480x642px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 480x642px

>>31175574
>they only lost because they were vastly outnumbered

I would also add that Hitler went retard and let the dictator shit go to his head. He started ignoring his general's suggestions and made plenty of tactical mistakes against the commies.

>>31175904
THIS

I've heard that they were polishing the tanks before they rolled them off the assembly line, meanwhile the soviets were sending tanks out with holes in them and not enough ammo.

Many historians have admitted that the Germans had superior technology at the time, but that it was overly expensive and overly complicated, making it hard to produce in mass.

>>31175872
>the axis had shit commanders
>that's why we copy the tactics and methods they developed, because they were so shit

confirmed underage

>>31177007
No its not a bad thing, he said it was a myth.

>>31177053

>100 more Uboats the Germans could have made in place of Bismarck and Tirpitz wouldn't have done shit.

That's okay except for the fact that the Bismark and Tirpitz didn't do shit either. So U-boats still would have been more effective.

>>31175574
I say you're baiting the /pol/ posters. This is the 2nd (at least) thread like this today. Kill yourself OP.

>>31176438
fucking this

>>31175922
>bridgeprort
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>31176132
>italy bigger than japan

File: ludwig.jpg (75KB, 640x961px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 640x961px

>>31175904
>blitzkrieg strategy anyway which was dependent on superior equipment

False. During most of the successful blitzkrieg campaigns, they were using panzer 3s, panzer 2s, and Czech tanks.

>>31175837
>simply put they couldn't produce modern rifles fast enough. The German Reich had alot of problems with producing their high quality equipment, which was why they developed the Blitzkrieg doctrine (fast war) so they could end their wars as soon as possible and not have to waste equipment on prolonged fights and sieges.

True.

>they were also wasting time and manpower with the final solution.

Not really. They kept dissidents and potential troublemakers in camps, the exact same thing the US did.

>>31175962
>this sperg doesn't know that many of the labor camps were actually used to produce uniforms, munitions, and other useful items

>>31177053

>that's why we copy the tactics and methods they developed

That's what America does. Whenever it defeats somebody new, it picks out the best bits of the defeated opponent and adopts them as her own while discarding the rest into the rubble of history.

>>31176972
yeah, it's way worse than the alternative, be like the US and don't field any viable suppressive weapon.

And no, the marine unit wasn't the best, only 3 squads on a plt instead of 4. Then you have BARs which are straight garbage at suppression.

It isn't "too reliant on mg". They simply fielded the best suppresive weapon of the war at the squad level.

Saying that is saying,
Lets have a quarter mile race,
well an automobile is overly reliant on it's engine. We should instead use a team of horses.

The squad wasn't being "overly reliant" on the MG. The MGs were fielded individually with a compliment of genadiers to kill suppressed enemies.

Anything you say can't counteract the blaring fact that germany was the only country to equip its squads with sufficient equipment to carry out their small unit tactics.

>>31175574

tfw you go on offensive and forget about the 3:1 rule

>>31176073
People still believe the Wittmann meme?

>>31177137

The US had the advantage of having semi-automatic rifles deployed in large numbers. Sure, the Germans and Japanese also had a few, but not in numbers high enough to be tactically relevant.

>>31175574
its a damn shame...the fourth reich will fix it.

>>31177159

Elaborate.

>>31176455
>thinking snipers operate within range/eyesight of machine guns

>>31177172
Not the guy you're replying to, but usually people want to bring about 3x as much resources to bear on a target when attacking to increase the chances of winning.

>>31176972
3 men with BARs
3 men on an MMg

>brittle

still have 3 men carrying suppressive weapons.

Teams in squad are more flexible, but squads in platoon less flexible. That screams frontal-attack.

Platoon of marines vs Platoon of germans.
9 hard-to control, heavy, poor/no bipod, 20rd mags....20rd mags.

Look at one squad:
Germany:
MMG on trpod: effective suppression range: 1800m 1200rds per min max (200 sustained)
3 men in crew, fast reloads/barrel changes

US Marines:
3 BARs hip, shoulder, bipod (if you can loosen then tighten 4 thumb screws fast enough), or unsupported prone 300-500m effective range. (remember that the marines claim that the IAR has a burst-auto effective range of only 200 meters, and that is much easier to control than the BAR) 20-rd mags, how many mags carried/rounds per min can really vary, but can't come close to german squad.
still only 3 individuals,

>>31177172

Rule of thumb to have at least a 3:1 local advantage before attacking.

When the Germans launched the battle of France they actually had less people committed than Britain+France+Belgium+Netherlands.

The other notable time when an attacker succeeded with less people than the defender is Desert Storm.

>>31176541
Again, where do you think snipers work from? Right on the front line? Like Call of Duty?

Snipers stay several hundred yards from where the actual fighting is. That's there thing. They stay concealed and pick you off.

If you want a guy to shoot at the enemy right in front of them, you use a regular rifleman.

>>31177235
>20 round magazines
>suppression weapon

anon...

>>31176589
Do you have any idea why officers don't like wearing markings or being saluted on the field.

The Soviets in particular trained their snipers to target German officers and NCOs, and they would operate near forward command posts. The Japs did the same, and targeted medics as well.

>>31177072
How in the fuck is that related to the axis commanders? You fucking idiot, the US Army uses the same mg based squad doctrine the germans developed. We all do.

I didn't say a damn thing about subs, who gives a shit anyway. Germany was a LAND POWER. They were defeated on LAND. Mostly by the USSR, with the Western Allies assuming a support and logistics role.

Calling the greatest generation of generals the world ever knew shit commanders, you should be horse whipped, sir.

>>31177164
This isn't even true though. you would have ~100rd/day for a M1 rifle, so yeah, you COULD shoot faster, but you wouldn't because you didn't have the ammo to keep up a higher rate of fire. Stop getting lost in the tactical mindset and think about the logistics for a sec. You get an advantage of not leaving the sights between rounds, but your fire output is not much higher than anyone else because you don't carry the ammo to support it.
So, the riflemen still were totally dependant on a suppressive element. Which they absolutely lacked.

>>31177251
thats my point here
>>31177235
I'm saying the BAR is trash

>>31177215
>>31177244

Don't go on the offensive unless you have a 3:1 numbers advantage to quickly overwhelm the enemy. Got it.

>>31177131
see
>>31177281

>>31176769
Yes. That was US armored doctrine. Shermans were for infantry support, and tank destroyers, AT guns, and air power would deal with the rest.

>>31176539
Can we stop this
>90% of /k/ visits /pol/
Shit?

90% of /pol/ visits /k/. That's a very different case. Stay on your containment board, please.

>>31177249
>thinking snipers can actually make several-hundred yard shots in combat reliably. Stop playing video games. Talk to a non-arrogant prick sniper and they will tell you that that's not realistic. They scout, they call for fire, they don't "pick people off". That's what ive been saying

>>31177317
oops didnt mean to greentext

>>31177315
10% of /pol/ is about the same as 30% of /k/. The point being that you can't really avoid all this due to the sheer numbers of /pol/ posters. I get that /pol/ should stay in /pol/, board topics and what not. And that's fine. But realize that this thread appears to have been created with the exact purpose to draw out /pol/ tier posting. If the mods were not being faggots, this thread would have been nuked.

>>31177281

>Germany was a LAND POWER. They were defeated on LAND.

This is Earth.

2/3 of the earth's surface is covered with water, so you cannot ignore the ocean during a war. Germany lost both world wars primarily because they could not defeat the Royal Navy. The Bismark and Tirpitz were both disasters for Germany during the war because they ate up tons of resources during construction and then got sunk before they even got to do any real damage. U-boats would have been more useful. Or hell, forget about U-boats, why didn't Germany have any aircraft carriers?

>>31177374
>why didn't Germany have any aircraft carriers?

Because it would have gone as well as Bismark and Tirpitz

>>31175574
I concur, but it was also due to what was called Schönwetterbewaffnung and the lack of sufficient supplys for both the army and industry.

>>31177235
>>31177137

You are not getting the point that the firepower is a lot more distributed, and multiple automatic weapons in a squad allows for much more effective fire and maneuver.

So lets look at the squads as a whole.

US Marine squad

> 1 squad leader with Garand/M1 Carbine

> 3 fire teams of riflemen, each with 1 BAR and 3 Garands

Jarheads should find this familiar, since they haven't changed the structure in 70 years and modern marine squad just replaces Garands with M4s and the BAR with a M249/M27.

A German Panzergrenadier squad had

> 1 Squad leader with MP 40/98k

> 1 MG section with 1 MG-34/42, two assistants with 98k

> 1 Rifle section with 6 98k, occasionally another MP-40

The rifle section of the Panzergrenadier squad has minimal fire presence with their 6 bolt action rifles. They are handily outgunned by any one of the marine fire teams. That leaves two whole fire teams to deal with the MG section.

While one fire team is at a disadvantage against the MG section, all they have to do is to reduce the effectiveness of the MG section and not die. This gives the other fire team the chance to move to a better position, and allows the teams to do proper fire and maneuver tactics.

The German squad had distinct fire and maneuver phases. The MG section would establish fire superiority and allow the riflemen to maneuver, but when it came time for the MG section to move, they were only covered by riflemen without automatic weapons. During this time the MG team was vulnerable, and the rifle section can't protect them all that well. This is why German squads tried to work in at least pairs at all times.

>>31177374
m8, Germany wasn't Japan. You're not going to defeat France with fucking ships. And Germany lost ww1 because they couldn't take Paris, not the fucking RN. The anglos were a sidekick of France in ww1, wich was all about France, Germany and Russia.

If you're in mainland Europe, you don't need to worry about a navy or fucking England of all places to win an European war. You need to worry aout the 3 countries mentioned above and defeat them ON LAND.

Fuck the Navy.

>>31177395
The US didn't adopt the 1/3 type of fire-team until after Vietnam. If you google "fireteam and infantry tactics" you can familiarize yourself with the evolution of it and why they changed the composition.

During WW2 and up to Vietnam, the standard squad was 12 individuals.

1 Squad leader
1 Squad Assistant Leader
2 Scouts
1 BAR
1 Assistant
1 Ammunition Carrier
5 Riflemen

Their experiences in the Korean War, Vietnam, and other conflicts later forced them to change their composition. Also, only the Squad leader and assistant squad leader were given SMGs.

>>31177308

Wrong as all shit, Belton Cooper needs to be exhumed and dumped into the ocean.

Tanks were for fighting everything, because they were an offensive weapon designed to deal with everything they meet on the attack.

Tank destroyers and AT guns are defensive in nature. Their role is to support the infantry in breaking up an armored attack. They can be used in an offensive role if enemy opposition is light.

Note the ways the divisions were organized and used in the European Theater. Breakthroughs and exploitations were made by armored divisions, which had no tank destroyers in their TOE. The German doctrine for dealing with a breakthrough was a counter attack, preferably with armored units. The Americans knew their tanks would come into contact with enemy tanks and would be expected to destroy them.

Then you look at tank destroyer organization. TD's were organized into independent battalions parceled to the infantry divisions by need. This is a reflection of the original doctrine use, which was to mass these independent TD battalions in response to an armored attack and break up the enemy offensive. The "Blitzkrieg counter attack" never happened so the TD battalions got attached to individual divisions for the long term and essentially served as a second tank battalion for the infantry divisions.

File: 1429666507848.png (142KB, 1380x1600px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1380x1600px

how has no one posted this yet?
I'm SURE this thread has a bingo by now

>>31177235
completely wrong. see >>31177476

File: Marine Rifle Platoon 1944.jpg (43KB, 375x642px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 375x642px

>>31177476

That's army, talking about Marines here.

US Marines TOE, approved 27 March 1944

>SECTION II : The Rifle Squad

> The squad is a group of men organized primarily as a combat team. The squad is usually kept intact but may be broken into fire teams which are used on special missions. The squad leader himself may desire to use one fire team as a maneuver element while using the others as a base of fire or direct attack element.

> The squad consists of a sergeant, squad leader and three fire teams--a total of thirteen men. Since the squad leader carries a Carbine, the total armament of a squad is:

> Nine Ml Rifles.
> One Carbine.
> Three Automatic Rifles.

A portable Flame Thrower, M2, is carried in the supply section of battalion headquarters for use by the squad when needed. Each squad may also carry a demolitions kit.

>>31177244
Really? Wikipedia is telling me the coalition had nearly double what the Iraqis had.

>>31177285
No it is true. With the m1 you could give suppressive fire, as you can with any semi automatic rifle. Not at the devastating rate of a machine gun, but you're not pulling back the bolt after every shot.

>>31177395
One, the liklihood of 1 v 1 squad is low, and anytime you fight 8 on 12, having 50% more manpower is big.
But platoon on platoon, with equal numbers, the germans have more firepower.

garand and carbine represent little improvement over k98 in practice, because you could shoot faster, but you ACTUALLY DONT because you would run yourself out of ammo. In the military you have a sustained rate of fire, and this is a function of how much ammo do i have? how long can i make it last while keeping the enemy suppressed. If you fire the garand fast enough to make a meaningful difference, you up your rate and deplete your ammo. A bolt rifleman and a semi rifleman with equal combat loads are compelled to fire at an optimum sustained rate, despite the semis ability to fire faster.

Secondly, 3 fireteam in a Support, Assault, Security format like the Marines have does have flexibility on the squad level, bu less on the platoon level.
Just for argument, say we have qual size platoons, but marines field 3 squads, and with the same number, the Germans field 4. now you have 9 BARS vs 4 MG42s

MG42 has 4x the range, so the chances the marines would get close enough to maneuver is slim. The volume of fire goes to germany, the duration of fire goes to germany, the only claim that can be made is that the marines have more flexibility in distributing their fire, but the MGs are mounter to T&Es rather than bipods, so searching and traversing fire is much more effective, so at the most, it's a tie.

When you look at it, the Germans dominate in every arena, and the advantages the marines seem to have are fleeting.

>>31177584
yes, obviously i understand that, but what you don't understant is even though you can shoot fast, you are still limited by your supply (what you can carry) and are such restrained by the effective sustained fire rate. Yeah, I can shoot twice as fast if i want, but ill be out of ammo in 5 min, and they won't be.

>>31177476
He was talking about he USMC not the Army. Late in WW2 the Marine s had 3 BAR's to a squad

File: ASLSanMarinoCeccoliss.jpg (998KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

998KB, 1024x768px

this game recreates the combat potential of WW2 combat units very well. I hope other anons take it up.

File: image.png (2MB, 1074x1107px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1074x1107px

>>31176539
/int/ is better

>>31177485
>Belton Cooper
Who?

>Tanks were for fighting everything
Yes, I suppose they are meant to fight anything, as any weapon on the battlefield does when it finds itself in that situation, but their primary mission was supporting infantry.

>Tank destroyers and AT guns are defensive in nature. Their role is to support the infantry in breaking up an armored attack.
In German doctrine yes, in American doctrine, no. You have to realize the doctrines evolved under different circumstances. The weapons filled different roles accordingly.

The Americans expected massive German armored attacks and knew their m4s were not up to the task, so they developed tank destroyers specifically to deal with these attacks. But these attacks never happened, and so TDs basically also became infantry support weapons when they weren't killing tanks, which was most of the time.

>>31175891
This so fucking much
> StG 40 delayed 4 years because Hitler didn't like it
> sees literalally first fully operational fighter jet
> "make it a bomber"

>>31176286
Fun fact by 42/43 the germans were rationing ammo. Good thing their doctrine revolved around a MG lol.

>>31177712
that's a reality of war, and doesn't have anything to do with how well theire tactics and gear worked. If the US had to ration bombs and missiles we would suffer too, but that's no indictment on a doctrine of air superiority and CAS

>>31177712
yeah they should have switched to marshmallow shooters or something that didn't need ammo

File: 1466962854571.jpg (18KB, 305x361px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 305x361px

>>31175574
But why were they vastly outnumbered? Der Fuhrer decided he could fight two wars at once. Lesson learned: Don't invade Russia in winter unless you have a lot of heavy coats

>>31177682
pease watch this. It pains me to see you spreading that old nonsense
https://www.youtube .com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

>>31177685
Maybe it had something to do with him being a highly decorated WW1 veteran? All soldiers and military disciplines suffer from this to some degree like the Marines wanting a fucking 1911. Soldiers use what works, and I think Hitlers strength was his weakness in so far as his iron will took him to the seat of power but then blinded him from seeing a better option. That being said there really was way more than this to the difficult decisions he made.

File: 1458434342783.jpg (85KB, 480x319px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 480x319px

>>31177732
Won't the rationing start soon, though? I remember reading that the Chair Force said that bomb production is not meeting demands with all the shit we're dropping on ISIS

>>31177765
this is one of the more insightful things ive read recently

>>31177586
wow, did i win?
is noone going to fight me on this?

>>31177765
your argument falls apart when you realize all the dumbshit that didn't work that Hitler put a ton of resources

File: 1453835281943.png (768KB, 1181x897px) Image search: [Google]

768KB, 1181x897px

>>31176914
>That post
>That pic

REDDIT
E
D
D
I
T

>>31177682

Yes in American doctrine as well, it just happened that since the massed tank attack never materialized, the tank destroyers were pressed into assault gun duty.

German TDs played out the other way. They started as assault guns, a budget way to get armor into infantry units, and were instead pressed into the TD role when Germany started losing ground.

The designs of the weapons reflect this as well. While doctrine doesn't always translate well into field use, procurement is always done with high adherence to doctrine. Lets take a look at the poster boy American and German TD's, the Hellcat and Stug 3.

Hellcat is extremely lightly armored, extremely fast, and well armed. Attacking with a hellcat would is madness, it simply doesn't have the armor to spearhead an offensive. Doctrine was to use the high mobility of the Hellcat to put a ton of them in front and on the flanks of an enemy armored attack. The primary defense of the Hellcat would be concealment and re-positioning after firing.

The primary advantage of Stug 3 was that it was cheap, the Panzer 3 was going obsolete, but Germany still had a great demand for all the armor it could get it's hands on, and Stug 3 could use most of the same tooling. The first versions of Stug 3 were strictly HE throws with the 75mm/L24. It was only later, when the number of Allied tanks grew that they were re-armed with the 74mm/L40 that allowed them to act in the proper tank destroyer role.

Doctrine was changed at this point, and now you can clearly see the influence of doctrine on the Jagdpanther and Jaghpanzer 4, now properly called "Jagdpanzers" and not "Sturmgeschütz".

>>31177682
>but their primary mission was supporting infantry
No. That's what assault guns are for. Granted, the American assault gun -was- actually a Sherman tank with a howitzer in place of the gun.

>>31177485
>Belton Cooper needs to be exhumed and dumped into the ocean.
Start one of those web petitions please

>>31177485
>The "Blitzkrieg counter attack" never happened
Didn't it happen exactly once in North Africa?

>>31177667
/int/ is /pol/-lite.

>>31175574
Turns out industry wins those kind of wars, not soldiers.

>>31176071
Jews are white. The problem with them is they want to be the only whites, ruling over a world of degenerate mulattos with no ambition.

>>31177586
the army later adopted the same format as the germans and I think we still use that format today. The average platoon is 6 fireteams and 2 machine gun teams. If you assign that same ratio to the individual german squad, it is exactly the same.

>>31175574

They lost due to poor logistics.

>in before someone spazzes out and tries to say I'm implying this is the ONLY reason they lost

File: IMG-20160801-WA0013.jpg (3KB, 80x80px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 80x80px

I came to /k/ not on /pol/ god damn it go back to /pol/ you dip shits

>>31179853
The complaining about /pol/ cross-boarding is just fucking retarded, why are you surprised it leaks out? You're trying to contain one of the most fucking controversial subjects of discussion to one board when it fits in MILLIONS because politics and society in general comes into play everywhere.

You might as well say "Stop shitposting" because that's basically what it is, think for a minute you take away the jews and all the other buzzwords and replace them with /k/ buzzwords. You'd get average /k/ spam.

>>31179851
That and being unable to bomb American factories

File: 1471497176771.jpg (342KB, 1005x1243px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1005x1243px

WW2 should've been an American, British, French, German, and Italian Alliance against communist Russia.
Im okay with the US fucking Japan up though

>>31180160
Something nice about that picture, can't say what.

>>31175574
Air training sucked.

You had these pilots with triple digit kills supported by novices. Chuck Yeager took advantage of this by shooting down five that were waiting for the rest of their group to show up.

You also know that it was the Germans that destroyed half of their tigers. If they had good equipment, it wouldn't break down so much, they could repair it easily enough, and they could have had dedicated recovery equipment.

So aside from the bad training and bad equipment, the Nazis made poor decisions.

>>31175891
The greatest allied general. There were some that wanted to assassinate him. Imagine if someone competent was put in charge.

>>31180181
It's like a Norman Rockwell of Saving Private Ryan.

>>31176539
>gun controlling Nazis
>friends with /k/
Pick one

>>31177682
Tank destroyers were often used as tanks by the Americans. Read of Audie Murphy's actions. He set up in a drainage ditch in front of one tank destroyer, and had the other one on the other side of the road.

>>31177790
Dropping ordinance on plebs isn't really a showcase of doctrine.

>>31176595
>I don't think anyone could take on the Soviets

The Japanese did and won. The Germans could have done it, had they not decided to invade the time of the year they did and had they not got caught up in the mess that was Stalingrad.

It doesn't matter how many bodies you can throw at your opponent if he has all your supplies and resources under his boot.

>>31179851
The only reason you really need.

File: image.jpg (52KB, 494x739px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 494x739px

>>31176515
If only they all had the sac von Saucken had, if Hitler had more generals like him he could've won the war.

A true gentleman and officer, all the hitler worship is irritating when there were truly admirable and upstanding Germans like von Saucken during WWII

>>31175574

The Germans had early success for the same reason the South did. They were prepared for war.

They crushed the standing armies of Europe because theirs absorbed a tremendous amount of money and were expecting to invade other nations. By comparison other countries were not prepared to fight another war, and they were not as well funded as the Germans.

Once the rest of the free world kicked into gear, and they were prepared to fight and knew how to, the Germans didn't stand a fucking chance. The war was a foregone conclusion, the Germans couldn't hope to keep up with Allied production or manpower.

>>31175862

>Moscow to fall

would've done nothing, not to mention that Moscow was turned into one of the largest fortresses on Earth, it would've been worse for the Germans than Stalingrad.

>RAF

Impossible, there was absolutely no way the Germans were going to fight against an opponent in the air over enemy turf against entrenched RADAR and win.

Plus, there was no real way for the Germans to beat the Royal Navy, and past that they didn't have near the sealift capacity to stage an amphibious assault against the British and be successful.

>>31177373
The post is pretty reasonable, and if not for the fucking autist /pol/ faggot invasion of this board, we would have a reasonable discussion. The post shouldn't be removed, the edgy /pol/ kids should be banned.

>>31177059
He didn't say that superior American industrial capacity was a myth, he said that "1 tiger is better than 1 sherman XD u need to have several shermans to stand a chance" is a myth. Learn to fucking read.

>>31177204
>Thinking WW2 snipers had x12 scopes

>>31176972
What about a paratrooper squad with all fg42's?

>>31175574
But they had far worse equipment and training than the US.
> US sent their aces back to training the next sets of pilots
> Germany kept them on the line for propaganda purposes

> US had a far better Navy and Army airforce

>>31175718
Fuck off, fascist.

>>31176539
>/pol/ is /k/'s closest friend

Is there something more pathetic than a monomaniac autist pretending he's best friends with someone who hates their guts, just so he can pretend to have an excuse to hang around and rant at people?

>>31181367
>The Japanese did and won.
Wut? You mixing up Kalhkin Gol in the 1930's and the 1890's Russo-Japanese war?
Japan lost when it tried to mess with the Soviet Far East. It was Tsarist Russia they stomped.

>>31177586
I've read through the thread and I have to agree. Why did the marines use the 4 man fireteam? I assume it was because they were on the offense and the flexibility of the squad was necessary?

File: 90400423.jpg (50KB, 680x510px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 680x510px

>>31175718

File: quote-i-won-t-insult-your-intelligence-by-suggesting-that-you-really-believe-what-you-just-said-william-f-buckley-jr-26592.jpg (54KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 850x400px

>>31175817

>>31177374
>more U-boats

>more resources for the force that lost 75% of its men and 90% of its boats by the end of the war
>the force that was rendered largely ineffective by 1943 due to radar technology and advancements in ASW

>implying schnorkels would have won the war
>implying the Russians would have been stopped by U-boats
>implying even 500 more U-boats could have stopped the Allies at Normandy or the Americans in Italy

By reading Charles De Gaul's book and applying it. The Wehrmacht invented modern combined arms maneuver warfare. Though it is called the Blitzkrieg, when talking about ww2 Germany.

>>31185526
>The Wehrmacht invented modern combined arms maneuver warfare.
A British theorist invented it -- forget his name. The Werhmacht *implemented* it.

>>31185567
Wasn't it Percy Hobart?

>>31180356
>Tank destroyers were often used as tanks by the Americans.
I think you mean Gun Motor Carriages were often used as tanks.
Tank destroyer is the name of a doctrine and a battalion-level unit, not equipment.

File: 1420673269958.jpg (141KB, 652x488px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 652x488px

>>31175574
They lost due to the following factors

>the Russian weather
> Hitler sacking any officer who dared to suggest "this plan is stupid" when discussing a stupid plan
> vast underestimation of russia's ability to conscript soldiers and their lack of giving a shit about qualifications. (Old enough to hold a gun? Good enough comrade)
>the African campaign failed
>fucking with Russia in general

It didn't help that stalin who had originally micromanaged everything began to let his generals control more and more while Hitler did the exact opposite as the war went on

I honestly think the war could have had a massively different outcome if he'd just left the bear alone until way later

>>31186539
>history memes 101

They lost because they kept picking fights far beyond the capabilities of their logistics AND industry. No amount of strategic genius or disciplined and experienced soldiers would have made any difference other than prolonging the agony.

>>31176286
any british commanders reported never seeing a german soldier fire their rifleh
hello lindy

>>31175885
>try to insult people in a language they don't speak

>>31176303
>hit anything with a mosin beyond 300m
nice try ivan
but you blew hit

>>31186539
Hitler began micromanaging more and more because his generals were not delivering the results they told him they would deliver, and were suffering setback after setback. People like to blame Hitler for everything, when in reality the army commanders fucked up just as much.

Also, Stalin never let off his own micromanagement. Instead he gained a good sense of what his forces could and could not achieve, and used that sense to outmaneuver the Germans on the strategic level. Hitler, and most of the German army commanders, kept fighting like it was 1940 when it was 1943 and everyone had caught up in the game.

>>31177006
>US did nothing
That's what you got out of that? Don't you see how it's terrifying that Jap dino?

>>31186399
In official terms you are correct but its pretty common to refer to the M10/M18/M36 as TD's

>>31175922
Qt donker

>>31175574
They lost because they were racist asshats who killed 12 million Jews for no other reason than to be plain evil.

Racism, sexism, and homophobia can never win. As a mostly white society, this blood is on our hands, and we must ensure it never happens again.

>best training
True, Germany inherited the Prussian mastery of warfare

>best equipment
Mostly true but exaggerated

>Vastly outnumbered
True, USSR+US+UK vastly outnumbered Germany in industrial capacity, GDP, and manpower.

3 Superpowers vs 1 Regional power, it is very obvious which side will win.

>>31177051
even if they could make more tanks
they have no one to crew them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

>>31187789
Nazis did not have the best anything. Don't even speak of them in a positive light. Don't even think that.

Hate can never win. End of.

>>31177101
>>31175904
its more dependant on total air superiority and always being able to bypass choke points

>>31187810
When you put it like that, I agree, Hate can never win.
Nie Wieder

>>31187810
Wow. Really makes you think.

>>31187832
I'm glad we're on the same page then.

Also, I know we're on a gun forum, but we both realize there are more important things at stake than guns when it comes to the next election, right?

>>31187887
Of course
#I'mwithher

I will agree that the Germans really shined in the machine gun field, but many of there "greatest" weapons were very user-unfriendly.

>Tiger I breaks down more than it fires it's gun and has no sloping

>Panther was a rushed project with just as unreliable engine

>G43 jams and breaks all the time,

>Every tank project is held back because they want bigger guns (for some reason)

If you really want to argue about this then go to the most basic fighting unit, the riflemen, and then compare the M1 to the fucking K98 and G43.

If only the manufacture of jet fighter keep go on produced for intercept to protect the heavy industrial from mass bomber fleets instead of fighter bomber

>>31181494
This.

It took too long for an intelligent post.

>>31175685
That tends to happen when fighting a 2 front war when your homeland cannot produce enough resources to keep fighting that war. This is in part why America was so sucessful. We were not getting our shit blown up by the russians and British so we were able to use our resources to equip the allies and ourselves with plenty of arms and supplies. The Krauts were brilliant engineers and produced great feats of engineering and if it came down to even numbers on even numbers im sure the germans would have at least got Europe. Like I said they were simply not able to produce things in great enough quantity to change the outcome of the war. It is interesting to see where their technology was incorporated into both the US military and the Soviet military. I have a friend who was a submariner during the cold war and he was talking about taking a tour of a soviet sub and seeing the exact piece of equipmemt with russian markings vs english. He said the only conclusion he could make was the base technology for it must have come out of Berlin after the war. He couldnt say what the equipment was or what it did or how it functioned because NDA but it really made me think about where we got our military tech from because either that piece was a result of german technology being used or soviet espionage.

>>31175862
I've read that if the Germans had gone into the individual SSR's as liberators (rather than get the purge machine going) they would have faired far better. It wasn't like the Ukies or Tartars were enthused to be apart of Stalins gulag-land

>>31176620
DM's and Snipers are not the same thing

>>31177914
>German TDs played out the other way. They started as assault guns, a budget way to get armor into infantry units, and were instead pressed into the TD role when Germany started losing ground.
What an ignorant meme. Antitank role of German assault guns was included from teh start in initial memorandum in 1935 by Manstein:

>Assault artillery fights as escort artillery within the framework of the infantry. It does not attack like the tank, does not break through, but carries the attack of the infantry forward by quickly eliminating the most dangerous objectives through direct fire. It does not fight in large numbers like the tank units, but is normally employed at platoon strength. The platoon, or even the individual gun, makes a surprise appearance in and then quickly vanishes before it can become a target for enemy artillery. The gun must be able to take enemy machinegun emplacements out of action with a few rounds. It must also be able to knock out enemy tanks; in comparison to them it has inferior armor, but a superior ability to observe and shoot first

>The first versions of Stug 3 were strictly HE throws with the 75mm/L24.
>what is Pzgr. 39, what is Gr.38 Hl

>>31175749
>sks

>>31175574
Something like, "HAHAHAHAHAHA FUCKING WEHRABOO"

>>31176234
These escorts were not available in 1940-1941. Most rampage was done with barely 50-100 submarines deployed. Doubling and tripling these numbers really can put Britain into crisis during 1940-1941.

>>31175718
/pol/ please. Nazis were socialists.
Hitler wanted control of the world, which is a form of globalism.
Make up your mind.

>>31175718
Alright, I know this is a shitpost, but I'll say it anyway:
> Faggots would be deathly afraid to express themselves
Some of us still believe in freedom, even if we disagree with people's ideals/sexual motivations.
>Communism would be a failed history lesson
But it already is.

File: go back to pol.gif (620KB, 410x226px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 410x226px

>>31176539
>>31175718

>>31176572
>IIRC none of the Axis powers ever had a proper heavy bomber at all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177

>>31176596
Sniper detection systems are stupidly fucking good now, just FYI.

>>31189002
>The type eventually matured into a usable design, but too late in the war to play an important role.

axisweapons.txt

at the last and final moment, what really fucked the nazi fuckbirds was that they never accounted for lend-lease; if the soviet union was running only on what they could produce domestically, they'd have gotten fucked worse than a ten year old pashtun boy on thursday, but lend-lease gave the, what they needed to ride or die on a national scale. It's honestly fairly similar for the brits; the nazis never even considered american industrial stronk when they were putting together their master plan, and in the end it's what did them in

>>31175690
my godfather told me he saw a Tiger destroy 5 shermans in France. Face it, Shermans a-shit.
You're just as bad as those AR fags who claim that their $500 dollar piece of plastic shit is better than a AK.

>>31176824
/an/ that memes been dead for god knows how many years, /k/s changed far too much

>>31176432
>>31176764
>>31183864
>>31188789
>>31188839
All these plebbiters, newfags, and Bible belt jagoffs. /pol/ has always had a presence on /k/, it's only getting stronger and stronger as /pol/ continues to grow. Just deal with it you fucking fruits, old /k/ is dead.

>>31188789

Well it would have been better than the miscegenation and denegration of morality we have today. There wouldn't be nearly the amount of bullshit if the third Reich had control instead of the fucking godless communists and then the Federalist EU.

>>31175574
>The Wehrmacht had the best training and equipment during the war.......they only lost because they were vastly outnumbered.

i respond by showing the nazi bro how shit german logistics were and explain how that is the most important equipment to own.

>>31175574
German here...
>Best training? True!
>Best Equipment? Lel no! The Wehrmacht didn't have enough motorized transportation, many units travelled on bikes in the early stages of the war and even later there wasn't enough vehicles. Hell many artillery guns were towed by horse!

>>31176539
It's kind of funny because it seems like it's always the /pol/tards saying this and not the other way around

>>31177091
in the sierras right? used to drive past there all the time to go backpacking. Any stories?

File: 14250721668.jpg (18KB, 468x316px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 468x316px

>>31175750
>>31176142
>>31176343
Dear God people stop.
The Americans encountered Tigers 3 times during D-DAY not in THE ENTIRE WAR

For fuck's sake the first time the Tiger saw combat it was deployed against the Americans in North Africa.
Many times AFTER D-DAY and ALL THROUGHOUT ITALTY the Americans faced Tiger tanks.
Fucking shitballs I swear, how are people STILL confused about this?

>>31175718
>>31176108
Have you ever considered that both sides were controlled by the same people, like Palpatine in the star wars prequels?

>>31176897
Yeah, I would believe that if you are good with rilfles, and know how the mechanics of a LMG works, you wouldn't have that much trouble operating one somewhat decently.

>>31176914
>Marxist shitting on anarchism
typical, fashy shill. Go back to your reading club, intellectual filth.

>>31176801
>Stalingrad

OK, so the Germans had their supply lines stretched out too far, were attacking an entrenched enemy, and were encircled by a superior armored force.

And still, they suffered less casualties than the Russians.

File: German_infantry_division.png (481KB, 755x2187px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 755x2187px

>>31190229
Hence the need for a veterinary company in every division. Over 5,000 horses to a regular infantry division.

>>31186791
>comparing accuracy of a weapon that you probably shot or heard of someone shooting that has 70 or so years of use
>They don't even make ammo specifically for the Mosin anymore and the surplus you shoot is for PKTs

Nice try Fritz

The Wehrmacht lost the war due to logistics and Hitlers micor management.

Logistics wins wars boyos

>>31175574
>How do you respond?
By classic copypaste
1) We were disturbed by Hitler. Hitler was fool. The German soldier was awesome. The German commander was as Great Friedrich, but without vicious bents.

2) Russians filled up us with meat. Russians had a lot of meat. The Russian soldier - the child of the nature, he eats that won't be able to escape from it, sleeps standing as the horse, and is able to filter. The author repeatedly witnessed how the whole tank armies of Russians filtered through a front line, and nothing gave out their presence. Yesterday usual artillery preparation, bombardment, assault of Russians - and suddenly Russian tank army in your rear!!!

3) SS sometimes went to far a little. In the sense, if everything was limited to usual robberies, executions, violence and destructions which were made sometimes by the German soldier from surplus of valiant force, much more people would accept a new order with pleasure.

4) Russians had a T-34 tank. It was dishonest. We had no such tank.

5) Russians had many anti-tank guns. Each soldier had an anti-tank gun - he hid with it in poles, in hollows of trees, in a grass, under roots of trees.

6) Russians had many Mongols and the Turkmen. The Mongols and Turkmens supported with commissioners it is a terrible thing.

7) Russians had commissioners. Commissioners it is a terrible thing. By definition. Most of commissioners were Jews. Even kikes. We killed our Jews, it was not thriftily. Himmler was the fool.

8) Russians used an unfair method - pretended that are given, and then - RRAZ! shot to the German soldier at a back. Once the Russian tank corp, pretended that he gives up, shot in a back the whole heavy tank battalion.

9) Russians killed the German soldiers. It in general was terribly unworthy, after all on honest, these are the German soldiers were supposed to killed Russian! The Russian are all bad.

10) Allies betrayed us. In the sense Americans and British.

>>31192923
>commissioners

>>31176365
Lee enfield for capacity, arisaka for strength of action and the garand was still a better infantry rifle, regardless of action :^)

>>31189981
either subtle troll or stupid beyond belief

>>31189993
Fuck off, /pol/ack

>>31175574
>>The Wehrmacht had the good training and decent equipment during the war.......they only lost because they were vastly outnumbered and out produced.
ftfy

>>31175718
fuck off /natsoc/

File: 1469662478074.webm (341KB, 350x263px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 350x263px

>The Wehrmacht had the good training and decent equipment
>horses for the majority of logistical supplies
>shit quality ores
>no fuel
>bolt action rifles
>machine guns with no ammo
>over-engineered machines that broke down before they reached the front

>>31175671

>Nazis = badguys
>Soviets = totally cool.

fuck, not even Patton believed this.

>>31176539

Truth.

Everyone who buys a gun for 'self defense' or 'shtf' realizes that non-whites are a menace and are prepared to deal with them with lethally.

/pol/ and /k/ bff.

>>31175574

I'd respond by saying they also had flawed military doctrine.

Naval warfare had a huge focus on U-boats and battleships. Allied powers saw the benefits of carrier based warfare.

Infantry combat was centered around automatic firearms being the focal point to kills. Allied powers had a doctrine of using automatic weapons to suppress, while others maneuvered into better position to close and kill the enemy.

There are instances of overegineering equipment. Tigers were great tanks, but they cost more to build and fuel...if your enemy can field more gear and manpower than you, you lose the logistics war.

I'm oversimplifying, but nazi Germany made many mistakes...including listening to Hitler for strategic decisions.

File: 1467677409163.jpg (78KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 600x450px

>>31196408

>>over-engineered machines that broke down before they reached the front

Not to mention they were useless in anything but a lightly-forested environment

>>31177374
lol, look at this delusional chav

>>31176600
You're an idiot m8 not even gonna refute your point

>>31175574
>true, true.

>>31189993

> Even though large tracts of 4Chan and many old and famous boards have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Trumptards and all the odious apparatus of /pol/ rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end.

File: 1472246757301.jpg (37KB, 368x480px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 368x480px

sheesh this board is infested with slavaboos/tankies, I didn't imagine it was this bad

>>31175777
>>31175805
>>31175928
>>31176432
>>31176764
>>31184778
>>31188807
>>31196112

Wow I didnt realise /k/ was such a faggot board. Ive lost so much respect for you guys.

>>31199589
this board needs to purge the commies

File: doitagain.jpg (34KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x600px

>>31199589
kys

File: Wehraboos thread.png (187KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 640x360px

>>31175574
Because their logistics were fucking retarded, and their chain of command was an absolute mess. The little things added up and bogged them down.

>Many German officers train in the Soviet Union before Barbarossa; Still vastly underestimate the size of the Red Army
>Have Officer uniforms that are dry-clean only; also you couldn't sit down in them without taking your pants off
>Nearly every command decision must be relayed to Berlin first
>Damaged planes are shipped all the way back to Germany for repair
>Don't rotate pilots
>Decrease pilot training time towards the end of the war
>Get mad after a small bombing raid on Berlin, change tactics and target civilians, allowing the RAF to regain its strength, eventually forcing the Luftwaffe to cease daylight bomber operations over Bongland
>Have a tank with an engine so unreliable it must be dragged everywhere, and only use its own engine when it absolutely had to
>Don't listen to their surviving top aces and use the Me-262 as a bomber as opposed to an interceptor
>Ve only use zose purebred aryan horses, not zose filzy untermenschen trucks!

I could go on.

>>31199670
Do it again Bomber Harris

File: RAF pepe.png (1MB, 1240x869px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1240x869px

>>31199670
Time for chili night fellas

>>31175574
They lost because Hitler kept doing stupid shit. If they had not invaded Russia first and took saudi arabia they could have starved the UK into submission. But nooo, lets do what everyone else failed to do, lets invade Russia. Lets stop right outside Moscow and go for the caucasus.

>>31201405
They weren't going to take Saudi Arabia. The Italians were a net drain on equipment and fuel. Adolph had such love for Bennie that they just had to be allies, but Italy was beyond a terrible ally.

>>31201405
>starved the UK into submission

No, they were only sinking enough tonnage to negatively impact the UK's imports for about two months out of the whole war.

>>31175574
true at the beginning but as the war went on all german training declined and by 43 german and allied training was equal

File: 5cea9d44068228c88d748f7567aa5d9a.jpg (18KB, 236x207px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 236x207px

>>31189993
>Just deal with it you fucking fruits
Why do you think I'm a gun owner? It's because I know you're out there.

>>31196973
>U-boats and battleships
>Carrier based warfare
>Europe
U wot m8
Money shouldnt have gone into battleships, should have been spent on more u-boats to blockade england from merchant/supply ships.

The idea of carriers aroudn europe is just fucking dumb

>>31175574
They lost because the Spandau was inferior to the Bren.

>>31175574
Why did issue a semi-auto as our regular gun while literally everyone else had bolt actions?

>>31175574
All that superior training and equipment and they decided to wage war on three fronts.

>The Wehrmacht had the best training
Hitler chose to invade Russia
>The Wehrmacht had the best equipment
Still used bolt-action rifle
Didn't know how to take care of their guns in cold Russian weather
Were known to use Russian weapons instead

>>31175817
German submarine crews had 15% survival rate.

Sure they "would" bring Allies down. If only they had more of them...

>>31202217
For several reasons. First of all - Garand wasn't THAT great. Majority of armies wanted something better(sometimes completely retarded - like they wanted to have bolt-action accuracy, great reliability etc. for a price of bolt-action rifle so basically semi-auto in the price of bolt-action). Secondly in order to not break patent law(Americans had to pay TONS of money for making 1903 basically mauser knock-off in 30-06, nobody wanted to repeat that mistake) they experimented with different actions. Thirdly - some of the armies were on the way of getting their semi-autos ready but it was all stopped in one way or another - Czechoslovakia got cucked, Italy had to restructure their army completely AND replace 6,5mm Carcanos with 7,35 ones(as you probably know, it never really happened), Soviets were getting SVT-40's running and produced few hundreds of thousands of them by the time Germans attacked but - yeah, hundreds of thousands on a Soviet scale is basically nothing. Japanese decided that they'd rather spend money on other things. French were just starting to issue theirs in 1940 but then we all know what happened. I think of the "big" nations only British weren't really interested in semi-autos.

>>31175718
I bet you're a fat white kid with no chin, a Chris Chan level of toys and about as much muscle mass as him. Truly you're an Aryan superman that gave Der fuhrer wet dreams.

>>31202366
I love the people say the grand isn't great. They are sour grapes who can't afford one. It's my favorite battle rifle to shoot. Tame recoil and accurate as hell.

>>31202386
Anon, I don't have Garand, neither have I shot one however I don't hate it MYSELF, but back when it was tested there were people objecting to it. For variety of reasons, really. Some governments wanted to one-up Garand and some wanted to get the best of their patent-avoiding actions which ultimately ended in shit.

Most of those people were asshats - similar examples include the retards in French army who, during interwar period decided that they absolutely have to convert some of the semi-automatic rifles they've produced during WW1 to bolt-action. Because reasons. The more of these asshats given army had, the more fucked-up the army itself was. That being said those people had influence on "why did Americans widely adopted semi-autos like a decade before the rest of the world?".

>>31185493
A few hundred more u boats in 1940 could well have made a huge difference. It took the allies quite a while to organize effective u boat countermeasures and convoy tactics, and wolf pack tactics worked brilliantly early on when they could be managed. Lots of wolf packs early in the game may well have succeeded in strangling Britain into submission.

The Germans merely had the highest amount of properly trained soldiers at the beginning but by the end their troop quality had gone to shit whereas the allies had more well trained troops to field.

WW2 should be renamed "The Russo-Germanic war also the US fucks up the japs"

File: 1443281269342.png (2MB, 1830x3212px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1830x3212px

>Germaboos

>>31175671

>bad guys
>good goy

History is always written by the winners and whatever bullshit they always say.