Nazi Germany

>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
>had a 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 2000 km 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

And there's more. Why the fuck are you idolizing these clowns?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II#Germany
youtube.com/watch?v=9f8zv7dNxQI&list=PLv0uEimc-uN-xmvYYHmcCSSZzPOEu0vEu&index=5
youtube.com/watch?v=YWKfpOtFtBc
ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/
youtu.be/ALH2LazrzgE?t=2m42s
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Oh, and the famous ''muh K/D ratio nigguh'' argument.
>in reality, combat deaths on EF were like 1.3 to 1 in Axis favor, slaughtering and starving civilians doesn't relate to combat prowess

true


nazis were/are retards

>> /k/

>>tanks were either worse than tanks of their opponents, or over-engineered
As if you knew anything at all.
More like shortage on materials made it neigh impossible to build the tanks the way they were designed.
Older engines had to be used and materials for the alloy composition had to be changed as they became unavailable which made the armor brittle.

Bullshit. Their designs were flawed. I'm not talking about quality of construction.

>zio slave tries to justify his actions as the fire rises

>V projects cost as much as Manhattan Project yet they were literally useless

but you know that the americans used the design of the v2 to build their saturn rockets (the Apollo rockets)

>buzzwords
>if you help your enemy, you win

and btw only ONE county which was crippled after WW1 was able to conquer whole europe in less than a year

>had numerical advantage, both in terms of troops and manpower, and almost entire Europe at their disposal

????

Obvious bait

the Germans had the number advantage on the eastern front? Hahahah

>tanks were either worse than tanks of their opponents, or over-engineered expensive shit that couldn't go 50 km before breaking down

OP believes Shermans were superior to Panthers and StuGs.

Losing twice is not winning l. Naziboos are as retarded as Communists. You are virtually the same thing with a little racism thrown in the mix. Your economics were as much of a joke as the commies'

>LL was around 10% of Soviet production
thats a massive amount

they were
>leave 20 shermans on enemy territory
>enemy captures them
>the sherman catches on fire (as expected) while german troops are transporting it
>the fire kills the crew
>???

What does that even mean?
They simply exploited strategic opportunities and inaction of their opponents. Once they attacked a real power (Soviets), they got their teeth kicked in.
1. Check Barbarossa numbers.
2. Check Soviet population in 1940, then remove Ukraine and Belarus which were lost quickly.
3. Combine manpower of Axis powers, and consider that they had shitload of collaborators too.
They literally were. Cheaper, more reliable, good protection, good weapons, and when they got 76mm guns they could wreck any German AFV they faced.
StUG is not a tank, it's an assault gun. You can't compare them. And it was based on Panzer III chassis.

It's not irrelevant but claiming Soviets won only thanks to that is absolute bullshit. It helped a lot, sure, especially in terms of logistics (trucks), but Soviets won because they fought better and marshaled their resources better. Simple as that.

>can make 10 shermans for 1 panther
>they gangrape it to death and lose 2-3
>can make 20 t-34s for 1 tiger
>they gangrape it to death and lose 5-6

Nazi Germany lost the war because they made awful tactical decisions in battles, awful logistical decisions in campaigns, and were so focused on wunderwaffen that they didn't just make something that was viable both combat-wise and manufacturing-wise

>>most of army used horses for transportation
Stopped reading there

Provide sources or gtfo, Chaim

>le ronson meme
Post-war mythology. Sherman was not more flammable than any other tank in service.
And also, while it was a mass produced tank, it had shit like gun stabilization. Germans never got to that point.

Sutgs and pz4 where decent even being low armored, then some retard decided to push for the tred biger better and fucked it all up.
>Tiger 1: Big, slow, bad design, getting stuck into mud, fuel consumption high...
That was the problem of most late designs tanks produced after the pz4.

You guys can cry all you want on how good the jagdpanther was but in reality an important factor in battles is to be able to retreat minimizing loses and not lose them from fuel shortages

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II#Germany

That's a well known fact to anyone who knows shit about WW2, but I guess you don't fall into that group.

Germany was hardly 'crippled' from the Treaty of Versailles. It was still the biggest economy in Europe during the Wiemar period before the Nazis ever rose to prominence.

[citation needed]

More people will take your rant seriously if you cite your claims next time, hick. Such as the V-project costing as much as the Manhattan project.

Pic related shows the invasion of Poland on horse-drawn carriages, Hans. What did they teach you in Geschichtsunterricht?

t. William Sherman

Yeah that's good >Ironicflagobviousbait.jpg

Enigma

Flawed Tanks but still fought a 2 front war against 2 incoming superpowers, stating they lost is an afterthought and tries really hard to ignore the fact that they raped quite a bit of units on the way to their defeat.

while being cringworthy is still feel the need to defend them because despite Britain being such a small island there are several battles and tactical mistakes that the allies had made, Dunkirk, Northern Africa. The entire operation of Market Garden,

MG42

>It overheats,

It's still the fastest fucking MG in existence and the fact that it was made by them in that time period when world war 1 MG's were essentially boxes with a watercooling barrel and existed 2 decades before WW2,

The entirety of what D-DAY was and why it was done that way, you see if the allies couldn't land their main invasion force they would never be able to retake France, 200 men in a 10 miles stretch of land (Just in the pillbox bunkers alone) Managed to kill 4,414 Americans with causalities being 10,000+ and the weight on their end was similar to the number of Japanese mimicking their losses in battle which was 4k-9000.

Point being, a small group of germans held back over 40,000 men for 4 hours on a 10 mile stretch of beach, being shelled by Naval ships and overwhelmed by allied aircraft. (It was the weakest part of the beach echelon too)

So go ahead and tout the muh Germany wuz no problem cuz they loss meme

But you downplay the severity of the damage they did to Europe and Northern Africa just by themselves.

You don't get to be a single country in Europe and then fight both Superpowers on a 2 front war and manage to kick a lot of ass before you cave because some autist broke enigma.

You're trying to hard m8.

OP, I'm a veteran tank gunner, M1A1U to be precise. Basically you don't have any idea of what you are talking about.

Panther wasn't even that good design as people think.
It had flaws like gunner not having independent sight to acquire target more easily, shot trap in front of a turret, awful transmission.
Still, I wouldn't call it a bad design. Just incredibly overrated by Wehraboos and alike.
For example at longer range it had some advantages, but most tank combat happened below 800 meters and at 500m both 76mm Sherman and 85mm T-34 could pierce it's frontal armor.

Hitler was a jewish puppet... only reason he had a chance in the war is because (((they))) gave false intel to ussr which allowed them to make staggering victories in summer 1941

>OP, I'm a nigger who lugged around shells in a tank, that makes me an expert of history of warfare
Nice try.
youtube.com/watch?v=9f8zv7dNxQI&list=PLv0uEimc-uN-xmvYYHmcCSSZzPOEu0vEu&index=5

Watch this video, this guy explains whole V weapons thing nicely. He also provides sources.

>Enigma
Literally broken, are you trolling or something?
>2 front war
Only from late 1944, and they were beaten in next year. What's your point?
>MG42
Cool design, but cool designs don't win wars on their own.

I'm not even saying Germans fought badly, on the contrary. But Germans fighting well and Nazi leadership are things that aren't connected. They fought well in spite of their idiotic leadership.
Same Germany endured a REAL two-front war while having to save a crippled ally and even knocked out Russia in WW1.
What Nazis did was nothing compared to that.

You are full of crap buddy. Being 17 and having autism doesn't make you an historian.

Yeah but you sure trumped all I said because you said you were a tanker. Guess US Army only employs retarded people.

>Nazis only took over the entire European continent, they weren't even that good

Be careful with that edge.

>Why the fuck are you idolizing these clowns?

Read some serious history about the Wehrmacht instead of playing World of Tanks and watching the history channel.

they didn't so much fight better than were just better prepared for winter
letting hitler make significant decisions was a mistake, if he had his way, the Stg44 wouldn't have seen combat because he thought it unesthetic
individual commanders were usually good tacticians, though not all, of course

>wasn't crippled

You're being obtuse or trolling

Still managed to take most of Europe and had to hold their own against the combined might of the U.S, U.K, etc.

I'm laffin'

In what way was Germany crippled?
The restraints on its military that the allied powers didn't even enforce? The fact of the matter was the Germany was the biggest European economy BEFORE and AFTER WW1. The Treaty of Versaille didn't change that.

>my definition of crippled is their relative economic strength to its neighbors and other sovereign powers

>They weren't caught doing it, so obviously it wasn't enforced

I'll just leave this here youtube.com/watch?v=YWKfpOtFtBc

Wow this one guy from elite force was doing shit, that changes everything!

You're dodging.
In what way was Germany 'crippled'? The treaty didn't stop them from amassing armaments or from being the dominant economic power on the continent. What's your 'correct' definition of crippled?

>most of army used horses for transportation
Still the most mobilized army in europe at the time

>V projects cost as much as Manhattan Project yet they were literally useless
agree, that money should have been used to build up the luftwaffe with long range bombers or the kriegsmarine

>tanks were either worse than tanks of their opponents, or over-engineered expensive shit that couldn't go 50 km before breaking down
Your are talking about the late war monsters. pz 4/stug 3 where reliable work horses

>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
Agree, goering should never have been at the top of the luftwaffe

>inferior in every area except rocketry and submarines to UK and USA
disagree, they outperformed The UK and US until 1942.

>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
They underestimated the Soviets but who could blame them? They fought russia in ww1 and won easily

>m-muh LL is not an argument
LL gave russia a change to fight on. It did have a moral inpect on the russian high command. ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/

had a 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 2000 km 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
Hitler is an idiot if it comes to warfare.

I just didn't answer your question because your argument's core points are flawed

If you want an answer, paying the equivalent of one hundred
billion USD, the entire War Guilt clause, losing territories/colonies

They picked themselves by the bootstraps after being picked clean nigger, they had fortitude - it wasn't because of their default economic strength you seem to think existed

Forgot to add
>retarded planing unable to secure oil reservers
>goering beeing complete idiot
>when RAF was on bring of breaking up, hittler got asspained after one bombing and changed focus from airfiels to civilian targets , giving raf much needed moment to regain strenght

The list is long. Hitler was ussles idiotic sergant from WWI. Thankfully assasination and coup didnt worked or we would be living in Reich now.

>paying the equivalent of one hundred billion USD
They never payed anywhere close to the amount specified in the Treaty and the allied powers negotiated down the amount multiple times before Germany stopped paying altogether. Furthermore, the relative damages to GDP was less than what Germany itself imposed on France after the Franco-Prussian War, and France had no problem paying that off.

> the entire War Guilt clause
How does this 'cripple' Germany?

>losing territories/colonies
While a matter of national prestige, they were not very profitable ventures. It hardly affected Germany's financial state.

You actually don't know what you're talking about.

If he knew what he was talking about he wouldn't be a Hitlerboo.

>germany was basically a economic shithole in 1933, 6mio unemployed, weakest military power in europe
>sept 1939- jan 1942: run over europe completely while being inferior in manpower and material, almost triumph over the russians but fail due 40-50° minus during moscow battle
>continue fighting for 3,5 years against the worlds 3 biggest superpowers having superior might in ressources and manpower (almost unlimited resources in comparison)
>"clowns"

yeah kys...

F

gets split in half ofter war
losse balls
become cuck nation
turkey 2.0 in 2 gens

Go back to /k/ you ameriboo mongrel

...

It's not like the soviets fudged the numbers and counted loads of legitimate soldiers as "civilians" because they sent them into battle without rifles.

Most armies used horse drawn shit for the most part, in the early parts of the war anyways. The Germans never made a real effort to make enough trucks to fully mechanize their logistics nor could they really probably afford to with all the fuel consumption they would have. Where they really fucked up was people like Hitler and basically all his friends he got into power, who knew some things obviously but many people were much more qualified to make massive strategic decisions usually involving production etc.

>only make the tiger 1 fuck all the stupid heavy and super heavy tank designs
>focus on pz4, stug and old chassis TD conversions
>make as many panthers as possible, try not to use slave labour for critical components or add 10 tons of shit without a new transmission or engine

Really probably would not have mattered, none of the offensives the soviets did aside from the Moscow offensive could have been possible without lend lease. Bagration? Would not have happened without the hundreds of locomotives and hundreds of thousands of trucks given to the Soviets. Not even counting the fuel, ammo, food, tanks etc.

>tfw you overengineer a tank

Reality is Ameriboo, huh, really makes you ponder...

The design isn't flawed when you suddenly lack an important alloy for the composition of the steel and have to make up the difference some other way.

The one of biggest criticism of German tanks is the overly complicated suspension systems they used. The Germans weren't stupid, they knew exactly what they were doing and what the Russians and Americans were doing. The complex suspensions that the Germans used resulted in a 90% reduction in rubber required.

Rubber happened to be something the Germans couldn't get at all, they had to make synthetic rubber from synthetic oil made from coal.

The Germans were fucking brilliant with how the managed to make do with the resourced they had.

>56% white jewish playground that literally has more jews in it than the state of israel

>postwar actions
>enemies
Are you actually, unironically retarded?

>hundreds of thousands of trucks
t. retard who doesn't understand decimals

explain in 5 words why I should even give nazis a second thought. Can't? Not suprised to be fair.

You're correct, however what matters is how a weapon system fares in real combat, and I wouldn't stretch it too far by saying they would be better off if they upgraded Pz IV a bit than by building Panthers.

It won't happen that way this time.

>Only from late 1944
You forget Africa, huge luftwaffe resources to deal with brits, Balkans was practically a second front etc.

>Most armies used horse drawn shit for the most part, in the early parts of the war anyways. The Germans never made a real effort to make enough trucks to fully mechanize their logistics nor could they really probably afford to with all the fuel consumption they would have.

Every single army on the planet used horse-drawn equipment with the exception of the Americans post d-day. The Germans had to make a decision as to how they would use their Trucks. They found that getting supplies to the front faster was far more important than mechanizing the whole army.

As a result they focused a small number trucks in their Panzer formations for mobile infantry and the vast majority of their remaining trucks were used exclusively for transporting supplies to the front.

This was the correct decision because they spent the majority of their time fighting on the defensive, and thus getting the supplies faster was more important than advancing faster.

Still, most of resources and best units were sent East.
I just used that as a counterpoint to "muh technologically superior Wehrmacht".
Wehrmacht relied on ghetto-rigging and improvisation more than ISIS.

>and I wouldn't stretch it too far by saying they would be better off if they upgraded Pz IV a bit than by building Panthers.
100% wrong.

The Panther's had a few teething problems at the beginning, but if you look at the numbers, by the end of the war the Germans had managed to fix all the transmission issues and reduced the cost of production to almost exactly the same as a PZ4.

The PZ4 wasn't designed to be mass-produced, the methods used to construct it required skilled craftsmen and took more time.

By the end of the war the Panther took less time to build, costed less in raw resources and was far more capable than the PZ4 in every single category. The Germans managed to produce almost as many Panthers in the last 2 years of the war as they produced PZ4s since 1938.

The only problem with the panther was that it came too late, as with most of German equipment.

Literally the biggest weakness of your army during WWII
We grew up hearing how P-47s used to strafe them down with .50s
youtu.be/ALH2LazrzgE?t=2m42s

Did the holocaust happen OP?

Wow, really made me think with that post.

But it was less combat effective than Pz IV. Though I guess that was partly because of inexperienced crews.

That played the biggest factor. Many people assumed that because the Panthers were so much better, they were crewed only by elite forces, but the opposite was the case. They were mass-produced and often crewed by completely green and often fanatical troops who were too confident in their machine.

It was the best tank of the war objectively. It just came too little too late.

The whole deal was kind of over after the failed Moscow offensive, even Barbarossa in some schools of thought. But in reality would the Soviets have capitulated simply because Moscow was taken? Yes it would most likely be a massive morale hit but completely shaking them to the negotiation table? Maybe not splitting army group south and going for either the oil fields or Stalingrad with full strength. Not leaving the 6th army and letting it break out etc. But really, even if this all went to plan i still doubt they would have "won". That and the retarded policy they were going to have in the east, could they or would they have really done it.

To be honest, getting to annex two entire countries without any real consequences is where i probably would have stopped for a bit.

A fucking disgrace

go visit a library

10% is an absolutely massive amount in a nation where everything is stretched so thin everyone is starving.
Relative to gaffes by the British, Soviets, Italians and the French fries nazis mistakes were nothing amazing.

The real mistake the Germans made was pushing north instead of south at the beginning of barbarossa. The stalingrad offensive in 1942 was too late, they should have opened with that thrust and taken the oil fields while the soviets were still disorganized and willing to trade space for time instead of fucking around at st-petersburg for no payoff.

Had the Germans secured the baku oilfields in 41, the whole war may have turned out differently.

Of course, they should have focused on fortifying the russian border and taken out Britain first, as everyone knows 2-front wars are the worst.

>Hitler was a jewish puppet

How?

>taking out britain
What?
In order to do that they (Luftwaffe) would have to win the battle of britain, which is highly unrealistic, nigga what?

>when you encircled a couple million conscripts and guard divisions in the pripyat marshes

It took like 2 years to fully clear these guys out of the marshes.

The British were on their last legs during the battle of Britain, they had a handful of functional fighters left. The Germans had to just keep pushing for a few more weeks.

Not to mention if they had never switched away from military targets, it would have made the situation even worse.

>Finnish army
>barely had any aircrafts
>barely had any tanks
>barely any anti-air weapons
>barely any anti-tank weapons
>got some panzerfausts from Germans
>took on the mighty Soviet army
>maintained independence
>had an insane K/D ratio
Why do so many Sup Forumsacks refuse to acknowledge the obvious superiority of Finns?

youre absolutelly right. whenever i see one of these naziboos here on Sup Forums unironically praising hitler and the nazis i cringe so fucking hard.

The problem then would be securing a beachead, since the Fallschrimjager division was exhausted from fighting in the netherlands, and then transport troops trough the english channel

I don't know which desert you've been burying your head in, everyone acknowledges the tenacity of the Finns.

>stabbed the Germans in the back during the lapland war albeit to give them a chance of not getting btfo by the soviets

Still, kind of fucked up.

>things that never happened
Not only is that not true but the British were also out producing the Germans in fighter aircraft.


And, even assuming they DID defeat the RAF, there's still the whole thing of actually invading without a proper navy (see how much shit they lost invading Norway and Denmark alone) against an island nation with the largest navy in the world.

Nonsense, they were able to pull off the Invasion of Crete just a few months later.

you forgot how we are the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth.

did they not go through a massive economic collapse after the war?

finns are my waifus though

its in all the history books, european education everyone.

Not just that, but the Finns had recently annihilated Russia.

Lend Lease and huge manufacturing development wasn't factored by Germany.

Germany was also held up saving Italy from almost losing to Greece prior to starting Barbarossa.

Nonsense. Comparing the primative V2 to the Saturn launch stages is ridiculous - there were many generations of technology between the two. Von Braun's people worked on all of it, but the V2 was not the basis of the Saturn platform, you fucking dumbass.

And the V2 was useless, in the context of how and why they were used. They had horrifically bad aim, most of them didn't hit their targets, and the brits were able to fool the Germans by reporting all of them missed, so the Germans miscalibrated their targeting (Nazis could be serious dumbasses - I mean, we fooled them with an inflatable air force).

Considering the cost of the V2 program, and it's results, it was a massive failure. Sure, it gave us Von Braun, and our space program, but in terms of the war, it would have been more effective to spend that money to send German soldiers to London on boats and carriages to throw grenades.

most of army used horses for transportation
>V projects cost as much as Manhattan Project yet they were literally useless
wrong.

>tanks were either worse than tanks of their opponents, or over-engineered expensive shit that couldn't go 50 km before breaking down
so wrong.

>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
ridiculously wrong.


>inferior in every area except rocketry and submarines to UK and USA
hilariously wrong.

>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
stupidly wrong.


>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
insanely wrong.


>had a leader who was high on meth and actually believed a 1000 ton tank was a realistic project
batshit crazy wrong.


>leader who tried to micromanage everything and tried to control battalions fighting 2000 km away, and involved himself in shit like tank design for some reason
bald britney wrong.


>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
the earth is flat wrong.


holy fucking shit, you are without question the most stupid person that will post a thread on this board for the entire week. and it's only sunday. god damn you are retarded.


>leader who sentenced the 6th Army to destruction because he was bamboozled by Goering

There come a lot of problems with supplies aswell, since the uk had a fuck-all fleet at the time, while germany had basically 0 compared to britain, and without supplies men lose battles, then lose morale, then their lives

You're forgetting one of the key elements:

George S. Patton.

BEDEN :D