Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: 20150604190413.jpg (314KB, 900x592px) Image search:
[Google]
314KB, 900x592px
>most of army used horses for transportation
>V projects cost as much as Manhattan Project yet they were literally useless
>tanks were either worse than tanks of their opponents, or over-engineered expensive shit that couldn't go 50 km before breaking down
>had good pilots and planes but used them in a retarded manner which meant they all fucking died after racking up irrelevant kills which made Luftwaffe impotent late in war
>inferior in every area except rocketry and submarines to UK and USA
>had numerical advantage, both in terms of troops and manpower, and almost entire Europe at their disposal, yet they were wrecked by Soviets fighting on basically one front until late 1944
>m-muh LL is not an argument, Battle of Moscow was a defeat before any relevant quantity of LL equipment reached Soviets, and LL was around 10% of Soviet production
>m-muh K/D is not an argument, Eastern Front was 1.3 to 1 in Axis avor, slaughtering civilians and POWs doesn't relate to combat prowess
>had a retarded bavarian corporal for a leader
>leader who was high on meth and actually believed a 1000 ton tank was a realistic project
>leader who tried to micromanage everything and tried to control battalions fighting 2000km away, and involved himself in shit like tank design for some reason
>leader who sent 300,000 troops to Tunisia to get captured, unable to comprehend that Mediterranean was lost and there would be no way to supply them properly
>leader who sentenced the 6th Army to destruction because he was bamboozled by Goering
Tell me why some autists still revere Nazi military as some pinnacle of warfighting when all of their victories were a result of inaction of their enemies
>>
Cause they were stylish, ya dingus.
>>
>>34329366
All of this true. Also:
>when your leader prohibits you from using your army's own defense doctrine because it is "defeatists"
>So when Russians attack you are prohibited from using defense in depth with mobile reserve. All of your troops must be in static defenses all within range of enemy artillery.
>instead of s lightly defended line with an out-of-range mobile reserve for counterattacks in key areas using your superiority at mechanized offense.
>literally the doctrine your armed forces developed through years of experience in the field.
>>
>>34329366
>Here are thirteen of my opinions and a question whose answer I don't really care to hear.
You're the reason /his/ sucks, please don't bring it to /k/.
>>
>horses
this is a meme. horses were used for local movement. germans had tons of trucks that ran supplies between railheads and army/corps headquarters than the horse wagons would roll em forwards and reposition the guns.
saved on fuel. didn't read the rest of your rant but i'm sure it is just as stupid.
>>
File: 1497452395183.jpg (47KB, 480x484px) Image search:
[Google]
47KB, 480x484px
Don't forget how their leader wouldn't allow development of a new standard issue weapon because he used it 30 years ago so obviously it's the best.
>>
>>34329366
to be edgy and contrarian
>>
>>34329366
Tell me about Tiger, why does he wear the little man?
>>
>>34329519
Didn't he use the G98 instead of the Kar98k? It's already a different weapon.
>>
>>34329366
The majority of these are wrong, go prepare for that hot enema fool.
>>34329461
Essentially no one cared and defended however they could, see Model.
>>
>>34329366
>>34329366
The paraphrase from the book "Strange Victory": the more you read about the Third Reich, the more you will come to realize how much of Germany's strength was an illusion concocted by Nazi propagandists. These propagandists did their jobs very well, so well that the image of Nazi Germany as a nigh-unstoppable juggernaut has long outlived the regime itself.
>>
>>34329366
I know the "horses kek" thing is true. but does anyone here have any links to how motorized the armies and supply system of Germany, USSR, Britian and US were in 1940-45?
Sounds like something that would be an interesting read
>>
>>34329366
You say it like attacking the enemy when they're down with their pants is a bad thing? Are you one of those guys admiring only Subutai and/or pitched battles?
The Nazis are not only adept at winning battles by catching enemies off-guard, but also possessing high organisation / planning on a tactical level. Only when High-on-weed-ler takes personal command did everything went right to shit.
He uses experiences from WWI as an excuse, but in reality, he's just out of touch with modern warfare. Had he let generals run about as freely as they want like a council, even though he's not so grand supreme fuhrer anymore, I can't imagine how the Germans would do worse really. In fact they might do even better.
TL:DR Blame Hitler. He did everything wrong.
>>
>>34329647
He could have used one of several variations there of.
>>
>>34330828
One of the main German issues was in 1941 for the invasion of Russia they took trucks from all over Europe. All these different trucks needed different spare parts which could not be supplied. The Germans could only make 1 spare tire per month for 16 trucks. In contrast the United States gave the Russians well over 1 million trucks to use in addition to a shit ton of other equipment. The Germans were a semi-mechanized army fighting armies that were increasingly fully mechanized.
>>
>>34329366
>had numerical advantage, both in terms of troops and manpower, and almost entire Europe at their disposal
Germany and Italy and is not the majority of Europe.
England, Poland, France, Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, The USSR and Czechoslovakia are the majority of europe
Thread posts: 16
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3