Meanwhile in Belgium, 73 yeas ago

>wow, these Americucks sure are easy to kill. No wonder the Russians do all the fighting

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/channel/UCbwOU_-cAjIu-Z3iFCK4z_g
washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1985/05/05/their-wehrmacht-was-better-than-our-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/?utm_term=.43d8dfa5713f
reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ixrvq/did_the_semiautomatic_m1_garand_give_the/cukognb/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

> 73 yeas ago
It's been that long since I died. Damn.

Not quite that long for Adolf

Hard to believe the refugee welcoming faggots from today share their DNA.
>inb4 russian rape babies HERP DERPAA DERPAAA DURRRRRRRRR

How so?

BASED GERMANY
A
S
E
D

G
E
R
M
A
M
Y

America is not listed because it is 100 percent green?

German troops were the worst in ISAF; also not like you actually ever won a war so...

He went to Argentina and lived a great life until he died in 63'

Sauce on '63 being the date? Thought he lived into the 1980's

>Only gain headway against brand new units
>Main Northern thrust halted almost immediately
>Obsess over Bastogne for no reason, can't take a city defended by light infantry
>Peiper wrecked by AA guns at La Glieze, his entire Kampfgruppe surrounded and destroyed
>More interested in killing prisoners thsn taking fuel depots

Yeah some great offensive.

1870 never forget

Hmmmmm...

youtube.com/channel/UCbwOU_-cAjIu-Z3iFCK4z_g

hitler(pbuh) subscribed

Huge US casualties, and Peiper wasn't destroyed. They abandoned their tanks and made their way back over several miles to other Jerry units. There was never a serious German attempt to take Bastogne, not a single panzer Division even in that area until after Patton relieved the 101st

Talking with my highly educated German friends I learned that Germans have a contemptuous view of those who join the Bundeswehr. It's apparently a low status occupation for people who can can't do better, whereas in the US zogbotting has a much higher level of respect, especially for officers. The input quality may explain the poor performance of the German military

And what exactly was the "poor performance of the German military"? Can you find even a single example?

>ISAF
I don't know what that is, neither do i care.
>you actually ever won a war
American education at it's finest. We won many wars, especially against ourselves. Hint: All the many small states that later made up germany were basically constantly at war with each other.

I was merely saying my experience talking with Germans corroborates the claim in the post I replied to. Not a zogbot myself, but many do have anecdotes of working with various European militaries.

The US is a terrible example.

washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1985/05/05/their-wehrmacht-was-better-than-our-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/?utm_term=.43d8dfa5713f
>Gen. George S. Patton wrote: "It is an unfortunate and, to me, tragic fact that in our attempts to prevent war, we have taught our people to belittle the heroic qualities of the soldier." Where in Europe, young men of each nation's elite have, in war, traditionally gravitated towards the "teeth arms" -- rifle and armored regiments -- America's elite in the 20th century have shown other enthusiasms.

>America's brightest and best gravitated instinctively towards the specialist arms, managerial military functions or staff jobs. This is not to deny that some Ivy Leaguers fought with distinction at the sharp end in northwest Europe. But it is reasonable to suggest that in World War II, American infantry units suffered from a severe shortage of educated officer leadership.

America is an example of what NOT to do. For all the crap we give to Euros for being pacifist pussies, the few talented European men that do join the armed forces are far more likely to choose Infantry and Armor role, unlike Americans of whom the talented ones have always gravitated towards being pilots, engineers, staff officers etc. the proverbial "tale", not the teeth. There is a huge difference even today between Americas emphasis on firepower to countries like Germany that focus on actual Infantry, regardless of how much the latter may have degraded due to Us influence

*note: there is an exception when it comes to Navy SEALs and such obviously

That's true. Even in WW2 America's advantage was in mastery of logistics and industry (Speer himself admitted as much). We'd rather bring overwhelming firepower, which is much harder to accomplish than we make it seem, than prioritize infantry. It's no coincidence that the Brits and Canadians have the record for longest snipers, Americans call for an airstrike rather than bother training to take a 2km shot. OTOH the Brits struggled logistically in fighting Argentina and relied on American logistical support to actually pull it off.

That said, I think Germany's best and brightest aren't even interested in those managerial/support roles. You can't fight if you can't get enough men and materiel to the battlefield.

I think Vietnam is to blame for our over-reliance on firepower. Yuropoors didn't have a similar experience

Based russians
>over 20% are hardcore racists

Nah, it started in WW2, I think since Roosevelt thought high casualties would be too difficult to stomach politically, so he prioritized war industry. Orders for thousands of aircraft were placed in the late 30s (unprecedented at that time), artillery doctrine was more effective than any European military thanks to intense computational investment beforehand.

>inb4 reddit
reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ixrvq/did_the_semiautomatic_m1_garand_give_the/cukognb/
>What the Americans did was completely unique. Not only did they produce radios in such an amount that every platoon of infantry could have their own, they also made them so small that they could be carried and operated easily (the walkie-talkie) by a single man. They also decentralised artillery support commands not to only forward observers, but directly to NCOs of the infantry unit and in many cases gave them some similar training.

>But the biggest thing the Americans did was to improve the French system (the Americans since ww1 built their artillery on French designs and French doctrine) to not calculate any available scenario when the unit had deployed - but to calculate any scenario for any gun, at any place!

>This is completely insane - the amount of data needed was unparalleled (ballistics data is hard to calculate) and a small army of mathematicians supported by female staff and mechanical calculation machines started the work over western Europe in the 30s. The ENIAC computer was developed to help calculate this data, and the US defence department helped pay for some land surveuys in western Europe to get accurate maps down to extreme detail.

Vietnam was characterized by a political unwillingness/inability to use effective COIN tactics like we did in the Philippines earlier that century.

Lol. Vietnam? That's a war that proves overwhelming firepower often fails

Why did they look so cool?

interracial marriage was illegal in my state until ~1965

The firepower didn't fail. The NVA and VC got blown to shit at a staggering rate. The politics failed, having garbage tier South Vietnam as an ally. Whose persecution of Buddhists halfway through the war caused a shitload of people to join the north, along with their inability to form a cohesive government or fighting force prompting more American intervention.

If anything Vietnam was the first conflict demonstrating the brutal effectiveness of modern equipment.

so what?
in 1965 we didn't even have one nigger here

would be cool but he would have been like 91+.

Ummm no

It did fail. The whole purpose of all that explosive might was to achieve victory, and it didn't.

Except the French also had a very similar war in.. er... Vietnam.

Good post DESU