8
9

What do you think of r/ShitWehraboosSay? (np.reddit.com)

Ehre88National Socialist が 投稿

全 59 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]SchwarzeSonne_Fatherland Front 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

Nearly all subs that just exist to smugly pick at opposing opinions are worthless and populated by worthless people. SRS and co., circlebroke, badx, the whole lot.

[–]hang_multicultsIntegralist 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

/r/badphilosophy consists of a bunch of philosophy grad students that are really fucking triggered that Samuel Harris will make more from book deals in the next 6 months than they'll make in the next 6 years

[–]i_honestly_didnt_knoIron Guard 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

As a former philosophy grad student, I can definitely sympathize with this. Nobody seriously enters academic philosophy with the expectation of securing lucrative book deals or even making ends meet, but it still blows when someone with such a piss-poor understanding of philosophy as Sam Harris holds himself out as a serious philosopher and gets paid for it.

E: typo

[–]BionicTransWomynBonapartist 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Same for history. Word.

[–]North_PrussiaThird Position 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

John Green.

Ick.

[–]hang_multicultsIntegralist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd probably be a bit more sympathetic if there also wasn't a not-so-subtle disappointment of their lack of ideological influence on the proles that they seem to have been expecting

[–]zxz242National Communism 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except he's absolutely right on Hard Determinism.

[–]BionicTransWomynBonapartist 5ポイント6ポイント  (46子コメント)

It's hilarious, and if you can get past the circlejerk, mostly accurate (of course there's a lack of nuance, it's kind of the point).

[–]UyhAEqbnpPlatonism 4ポイント5ポイント  (45子コメント)

dunno mate. First post on the sub is mocking the german victory in france, which by all accounts was spectacular and a win against a more well equipped army...

[–]BionicTransWomynBonapartist 3ポイント4ポイント  (44子コメント)

It's not an academic sub, there are plenty of memes and trash talking to be found. Doesn't mean many of the people on there don't have a solid background in military history. Besides the conquest of France is often used by pro-German 'historians' as evidence of the un-warlike French disposition, disregarding the later wins of the Free French Forces against Germany.

[–]UyhAEqbnpPlatonism 1ポイント2ポイント  (43子コメント)

it's making academic claims, while talking trash and prone to exaggerative memery. Stinks of the gawdawful /his/ american patriots who come from talking about the superiority of shermans, m1's/bars and that rubs me very much the wrong way.

the successes of the free french forces are not exactly spectacular on paper anyways. Although this is different than saying they're biologically/culturally prone to retreat which is bullshit

[–]BionicTransWomynBonapartist 1ポイント2ポイント  (42子コメント)

It's not arguable that the Shermans were excellent tanks compared to German tanks of the same era. I don't like the BAR very much but the M1 was objectively a better rifle than the Kar 98 which outfitted most of the German forces. With M1s and BARs the Americans could outshoot most German infantry squads, even accounting for the MG34. That's not mentioning the better access they had to tank support, arty support and air support.

The Free French forces acquitted themselves excellently at Bir Hakeim and during some localized counter-attacks during the invasion of France. After 1940 they were qualitatively as good as most commonwealth/American soldiers.

[–]UyhAEqbnpPlatonism 1ポイント2ポイント  (41子コメント)

in terms of armament, shermans were under-gunned. And the up-gunned models were nowhere near as widspread and yanks seem to believe

in pure fire ratios, the german squad with bolt actions and mg34/42 has a higher base of fire than an american squad armed with bars and m1's. this is despite having a smaller squad size- in effective accurate fire terms the m1 actually fares only a few more rounds per minute above the bolt actions, surprisingly. With the 42 it's easily double - I cracked the numbers one day

yes yes the tank/arty/air support, which is exactly why comparing western front fighting against the germans is extremely shitty. because you've got a second-grade force defending against many times their number which is not very representative (if you show performance ratios of the eastern front, of course they just say HUMAN WAVE and that suddenly means you can't count those causalities at all..).

yes, bir hakeim. And then they were overtaken. Also arras, showing what they could have done had their high command been less fleety and deployed armor more effectively. I don't deny this, but I don't think they won the war anymore than the free poles did

[–]BionicTransWomynBonapartist 0ポイント1ポイント  (40子コメント)

Even the 75mm was perfectly adequate for engaging PzIV and Panthers' side armour. Fireflies enjoyed a pretty big production run and were able to effectively fight Tigers. Speaking of, if you want to compare mediums and heavies, you need to calculate maintenance, reliability and unit cost. On all these fronts the Sherman wins, not to mention it had access to better ammunition.

in pure fire ratios, the german squad with bolt actions and mg34/42 has a higher base of fire than an american squad armed with bars and m1's. this is despite having a smaller squad size. With the 42 it's easily double - I cracked the numbers one day

I'd like to see sources for that. Let's not forget that American squads ended up having LMG support anyway, could rely on more halftracks (with mounted machine guns) and also had tank machine guns to add weight of fire. Kar vs M1 is not even a contest.

As far as the Eastern Front goes, 80% of the German casualties were suffered there. When Operation Bagration launched, the Soviets were done with lopsided casualty rates, their operation doctrine was also more advanced than the Germans. Additionally, how was the Soviet force in 1941 not a second rate military force if you want to use that argument? The Germans launched Barbarossa with local numerical superiority too.

I don't think they won the war anymore than the free poles did

I never said that, I said that they were equivalent in soldiery to commonwealth troops, and probably to German troops. Let's not forget who won the Africa campaign either, despite early setbacks.

[–]UyhAEqbnpPlatonism 0ポイント1ポイント  (39子コメント)

pz IV? Yes, sherman is in parity. Panther? You said it yourself, side armor

were able to effectively fight Tigers

at more than 2:1 loss ratios, mate. Also, that silhouette

Let's not forget that American squads ended up having LMG support anyway

at company level, which meant there was less to go around

could rely on more halftracks (with mounted machine guns) and also had tank machine guns to add weight of fire.

apples to oranges now. You're talking about mechanized infantry, which were not exactly common

Kar vs M1 is not even a contest.

for accurate, sustained fire at a distance? the battle rifle concept only translates into significantly faster rates of fire at closer ranges - there's a reason the concept was phased out due to being uncontrollable at range. Take a look at mad minute vids of the lee enfield to get an idea of how fast a bolt action can be "blindfired" as well

the rpm of a bolt action is 12-18. the controllable rpm of a m1 is 16-24. the mg42 has a rpm of 900-1500. The bar had a rpm of 500-650. For maximum recognition of difference rpm will be highballed, and to save time smgs/pistols etc cut out given their restricted range and substituted for rifles. I'm considering the carbine a m1 for simplicity

american squad - rifles, 11x24rpm = 264, BAR = 650, combined rpm = 914

late war german squad - rifles, 7x18rpm=126, mg42=1500, combined rpm =1626

clearly a higher rate of fire. Considering two machineguns per squad became the late war standard, this disparity gets even worse even when you consider the additional bar the US squad seems to get. Many of the actual table of organization charts have machinguns per squad ratios close to 2-3 as well

africa was clearly not won by skill

[–]BionicTransWomynBonapartist 0ポイント1ポイント  (19子コメント)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt

Let's not forget the rate of tank losses on the Western front. The US lost fewer tanks/AFVs on the Western front than the Germans did. Additionally they had higher crew survivability rates and their vehicles didn't break down everytime they got off the train.

There's a reason the Sherman was used/upgraded long after the war's end whereas the French attempt to re-use Panthers ended in ignominous failure.

apples to oranges now. You're talking about mechanized infantry, which were not exactly common

Regular infantry were regularly able to call on tank support to provide HMG and GPMG support, in fact the Sherman's primary role during most of the Western front's battles was as infantry support.

Something something battle rifle

Battle rifles were in service up to the late cold war and were beloved weapons, see the FN FAL or the G3. They were only phased out because assault rifles became more reliable and accurate over time. Also there's a reason it's called the mad minute. No one can sustain that rate of fire for a long time.

Also you're using the upper limit for the MG42, the average was closer to 1200 RPM. Additionally, in 1944, the US squads operated with 2 BARs. That, combined with the much better support from vehicle mounted machine guns pushes the rate of fire of the American squad far above that of a German squad, not that rate of fire is the only factor in a squad's performance. For example if the German machine gun teams got taken out, a very credible threat, the German squad instantly loses most of its firepower, whereas taking out a BAR has only negligible effect.

Despite the futility of comparing battle assets on their own when they operate as part of a whole, the 1944 American infantryman with an M1 could objectively sustain a greater rate of fire than the German with a Kar 98. In the often close terrain of the bocage, Netherlands or small towns where the Germans often made their stand, the accuracy of the Kar at range was often nullified because the engagements happened at very close range.

africa was clearly not won by skil

This is not your best comment. Rommel outran his supply lines, attacked despite being told to defend and lost most of his command, despite having more than adequate forces to fulfill his stated mission. Montgomery and Auchinleck by comparison waged a solid campaign. Maybe not with flashy moves, but with solid generalship and knowledge of what their troops could and could not achieve. As a result the British forces rarely lacked for supplies and ended up steadily pushing back the Axis.

[–]UyhAEqbnpPlatonism 1ポイント2ポイント  (18子コメント)

Regular infantry were regularly able to call on tank support to provide HMG and GPMG support, in fact the Sherman's primary role during most of the Western front's battles was as infantry support.

So naturally, we're going now to be talking about higher rates of supply as indicators of tactical skill here. just admit. In pure terms, the german squad had a higher rate of fire. The german battalion also had more machinguns

A US 43 battalion would have 8 .30 caliber machine guns and about 24-30 BARs. Its German counterpart? 42-44 machine guns. That is proper machine guns like the MG-34 and 42 in both light and tripod varieties, not automatic rifles with limited capacity like the BAR.

Battle rifles were in service up to the late cold war and were beloved weapons, see the FN FAL or the G3. They were only phased out because assault rifles became more reliable and accurate over time. Also there's a reason it's called the mad minute. No one can sustain that rate of fire for a long time.

battle rifles were not weapons to be handled at fully automatic fire accurately, which is the point being made here. The practical rate of fire for the m1 was an upper limit of 24 rpm. The practical rate of fire for a bolt action was an upper limit of 18rpm. Even if you lowball the bolt action to the m1 the fire difference is pissantry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFYZHLuxXZ8

the point is, these weapons can fire surprisingly quickly when pressed

Also you're using the upper limit for the MG42

yes, I mentioned that. I also used the upper limit for the bar. Even with this lowballed, the difference is still markedly in german favor

muh boogeyman vehicle machine guns

this is just an extenuous factor. this discussion comes from my irritation with people who mistakenly believe the m1 garand significantly outgunned the karbiner, which is erroneous.

in 1944, the US squads operated with 2 BARs

I mentioned this. The late war german infantry team also operated with -2 mg42s-. as mentioned before, If you check the written records for organizational tables many infantry squads have significantly higher ratios of machineguns than are official as well.

For example if the German machine gun teams got taken out, a very credible threat, the German squad instantly loses most of its firepower

which is why they had assistant machinegunners to take up the task

africa was won by skill

something like twice the armored assets of the germans, closer supply lines, two simultaneous fronts, and multiple nationalities. There is no way you can say the allies played anything but a logistics victory in africa besides the early victories against the italians. If you are implying that, you're also admitting german armor and tactics as implicitly superior to allied counterparts. Which for a great deal of this it was. Anyways, I have no interest in pursuing this topic

Edit: I swear to god, reddit has the worst text formatting rules I have ever seen in a forum-like setting

[–]BionicTransWomynBonapartist 0ポイント1ポイント  (18子コメント)

Also good thing that you could make the Sherman at much lower costs than most German medium tanks, and let's not even talk about heavies. Just the Sherman Firefly was produced in more numbers than the total production of Tiger I and II combined. Tack on to that the later versions which were fielded by the Americans. Let's also not forget that most German tanks did not even reach the battlefield because of mechanical failures or lack of oil for their gas guzzling tanks.

[–]EHW1Transhumanist 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

This got way off topic

[–]UyhAEqbnpPlatonism 0ポイント1ポイント  (15子コメント)

so now we're arguing it's acceptable to have a technically inferior weapon if you can produce more of it. Which is really, symptomatic of an army improvising when it has no better options typically and I guess we better start handing out medals to the t34 etc as the best tank of ww2 for cost effectiveness

in terms of armor and armament, the German heavy tanks were superior to allied ones. This seems like such a trivial fact to make, and on the defense had an advantage they could play to despite the notorious mechanical failures.

[–]Striding_Huntsman 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

They counter-signal so hard against Nazi Germany that they do the same thing the subreddit is meant to complain about.

[–]Kyras_EdelweissNational Socialist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's sad but true. I made the comment once that I thought Germany would have lost the war in pretty much any scenario, got swarmed so quickly...

[–]samoto22Undecided 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it's kinda funny tbh.

[–]A_Las_BarricadasAnarchist 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's pretty great.

>mfw Nazis are butthurt over muh dresden

[–]SchwarzeSonne_Fatherland Front 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Rivers of blood, lad.