全 143 件のコメント

[–]SchurkjeBoefjeTallboy 77 ポイント78 ポイント  (39子コメント)

And not to toot my own horn or anything, but the german army also posses' higher fighting power than the americans.

FIGHTING POWER! LEL TOP FUCKING KEK

Which game has this guy been playing?

Reading further into the thread, it's as if a SWS user went full parody and got out all their bingo cards.

edit: oh god, it's that guy.

[–]Come-My-Fanatics 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (7子コメント)

DAE RAW GERMAN FEROCITY K/D RATIO FUCKING ANGLOS

[–]Nihlus111 Bismarck = 5 biplanes 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (6子コメント)

B-but American and allied casualties in 1944-1945 were 766,000 vs 5,400,000 German....

[–]hobblingcontractor 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Asiatic Hordes counted for most of those.

[–]Nihlus111 Bismarck = 5 biplanes 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's just the Western Front.

[–]hobblingcontractor 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Did I stutter? ONLY ASIATIC HORDES CAN DEFEAT ARYAN KRUPPSTAHL!!! DU BIST EINE SCHEISSEKOPF UNTERMENSCH!!! NEIN! NEIN!!!!!

[–]pier4rthe Panther a better piece of SCIENCE 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Really? 5 million lost in the western front? With or without those retreating from the Soviets?

[–]Nihlus111 Bismarck = 5 biplanes 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Without. Most of those guys were disarmed after the end of the war and thus don't get counted.

[–]pier4rthe Panther a better piece of SCIENCE [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Woah. Do you have some sources were to read a bit more?

[–]disguise117Damn you, General [easily predicable weather phenomenon]! 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Their power level is OVER 9000!

  • Patton, during the Battle of the Ardennes.

[–]Mafaka322Ordo Rommelus 42 ポイント43 ポイント  (18子コメント)

And it is not even toppest of keks:

Did you just link your OWN Blog as your source? Since you're not an accredited historian on World War II this reeks of underhanded and horrible debating practices.

This is the blog he is using as a source:

http://kesler12-jamesrocket.blogspot.ru/2016/06/us-army-vs-german-army.html

This essay will attempt to summarise the difference in fighting power between the U.S. and german army during the later stages of world war 2. This is a subject which is still plagued by many myths and half truths, which are regurgitated as fact on some online forums. Fighting power is a military attribute determined by human and organisational aspects rather than technological ones.

Basically what he says is that Germans>Americans because of the Aryan Teutonic Fighting Spirit

Those who acknowledge that the german army was more competent than its opponents (or that they achieved things unparalleled in other armys) are frequently given the derogatory label wehraboo.

There are many reasons why people would prefer to ignore the heers combat record in WW2

Critically analyzing combat record = ignoring it

The current sentiment of the west is that tolerance and diversity are essential values for all successful nations, and the fact that nazi germany displayed none of them creates a disconnect.

Wew lad

Hence why people use dismissive labels rather than factual arguments.

This is what wehraboos do.

I am not going to comment on the rest of the article because i have no knowledge on the matter, and in his article he is not comparing American Army to German, he is simply jerking off on how great the Heer was, without providing any information on american counterpart.

Comments are also golden mine:

Some random Victor:

Another load of delusional drivel. Why not you admit that you want to gas a jew?

And answer of this guy is:

How about you cut the bullshit? You're obviously one of those morons from the wehraboo subreddit. You claim my article is awful but don't go into any detail. I'm guessing this is another knee-jerk reaction from someone who slept through their history classes. 'Duh, america beat germany, so they are obviously the better army!' Does that summarize your position, oh nameless one?

Wehraboo meltdowns are best meltdowns

[–]Come-My-Fanatics 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is a subject which is still plagued by many myths and half truths, which are regurgitated as fact on some online forums.

the irony here is so thick I could slice it with a knife

[–]Xealeon 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I like that when someone pointed out that his bibliography is tiny and, as he doesn't actually give page citations, completely pointless he responds by saying:

Some of the conclusions I came to in that article required cross referencing from multiple different books.

"I totally have sources, you wouldn't know them, they go to a different school!"

[–]KodiakAnorakNazis gonna Nazi 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (2子コメント)

america beat germany, so they are obviously the better army!'

...yes?

[–]IstoppedtimeStuka Blyat, rush B-elgium! 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, you see, the German army had a higher number of kills, sure, a lot of the dead weren't even shooting at us, or armed, or even a serious threat to us but don't let that get in the way of German efficiency!

[–]TankArchivesBolshevist Jew Conspiracy Liason 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Did you just link your OWN Blog as your source? Since you're not an accredited historian on World War II this reeks of underhanded and horrible debating practices.

I get that a lot. It's pretty hilarious when I point out that "accredited historians on World War II" cite my blog as a source just fine.

[–]Krasnaya_Zvezda 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (3子コメント)

[–]pier4rthe Panther a better piece of SCIENCE 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Are you the guy behind archive awareness? Cool. By chance do you have the translation of the document mentioned here: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1567859&sid=ff0beb48b771d144de215844b8fbead7#p1567859 ?

It should be a report of cause for tank losses for one Soviet fron in 1944.

[–]-RedStar- 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

you can't quote yourself! you have sources! REEEEEEEEEEEEE

-TheRocketman

[–]Arthantis 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Can you please give me a few names of the historians which cite your blog? (I need it as ammunition the next time someone says "hurr hurr no one takes TankArchives seriously everybody knows its bias").

[–]TankArchivesBolshevist Jew Conspiracy Liason 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So far I'm only in Armoured Champion and The Changing Nature of Warfare (some A-level history textbook) so far, but that's two more than most people :p

[–]PuddingInferno 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (3子コメント)

What does he mean, "ignore the Heer's combat record?"

We're all well aware they got the shit kicked out of them.

[–]Enthused_Llama 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The...One where they lost? That record? 0-2 on world wars?

[–]FixMeASammich 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

IGNORE IT

[–]changl09Warthunder school of technical analysis 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

FOCUS 1914 to 1916 and 1939 to 1942.

[–]WildeWeasel 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Can't remember where I read it, but going into WW1, the French figured they would beat the Germans based on their elan, or fighting spirit, and there's a quote out there that says something along the lines of "Pride and spirit don't hold up to bullets."

[–]SchurkjeBoefjeTallboy 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think, can be wrong here, that the elan stuff has its roots in Napoleonic, or maybe even earlier, times. It had some merit there, but once you introduce modern firearms, machine guns, artillery...it goes right out the window.

Froggies learned that real quick in WW1.

[–]MechaKingGhidorah100Reality has anti-Nazi bias 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It came about from the French Revolution and the subsequent wars with pretty much everyone in Europe and it was pretty much just nationalism which was a new concept at the time. Reading the odds the French faced has made me less liable to make fun of French military prowess.

[–]Andrakian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You could argue french knights invented it in the middle ages, but it was definitely post-revolution France that made it popular.

Thing is, in napoleonic warfare elan WAS a thing. Armies used a mix of staunch discipline and fervor to kept recruits from fleeing when the cannonballs started flying. 99,9 out of 100 times the first army to break the carefully constructed formations would be the loser.

Revolutionary/napoleonic fervor did gave the french an edge in the early 1800's (that and universal conscription, of course). In WWI, with machine guns and massive artillery barrages? Not so much.

[–]Enthused_Llama 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Something something sisu of finns.

[–]ChihueyBritainOp's Scheißposter of the Month 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Wasn't there some jackass historian who attempted to numerically quantify the historical fighting power of WW2 divisions?

[–]GloriousWiresSix-Pounder Best Pounder 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lanchester?

[–]portodhammaWhat Would Rommel Do? 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Every every WWII strategy game maker?

[–]Nihlus111 Bismarck = 5 biplanes 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Dupuy. He basically found Soviets < British < Americans < Germans at roughly equal numbers.

[–]ChihueyBritainOp's Scheißposter of the Month 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thats the guy!

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

Who needs logistics or industrial output when you have IRON TEUTONIC WILL!

[–]uggmunrushin bias 51 ポイント52 ポイント  (32子コメント)

wehraboos: "if some borderline magical bullshit happened, germany could have won!!!"

its the wolfenstein school of historical analysis

edit:

-The germans have better anti-tank weapons, particularly with regards to the handheld panzerfaust. Even though they have a shortage of tanks and anti-tank guns, the germans are still very competent at using the two together as a sword and shield to defeat armored thrusts.

lol k. 16 year old draftees with panzerfausts and horrible tank crews who bail when anything happens are a force to be reckoned with.

-The germans have increasing numbers of tanks like the panther, tiger I, and tiger II becoming available. Despite problems with reliability, these are excellent tanks which are superior to the sherman in a tank fuel. This also holds true for the tank destroyers that are still being churned out of factorys.

Meanwhile the quality of those already flawed tanks are declining due to resource shortages, your good crews are dead, America is making more tanks anyway, and your shit's getting bombed.

-The germans have jet aircraft like the Me 262 and Ar 234. Their interceptors will soon get shipments of R4M rockets, which can take down a B-17 with one or two hits from beyond the range of their defensive guns.

By late 1944 the US has a test batch of P-80s in Europe. More can be made should the need arise. Good German pilots are largely dead. Jumo engines suck and unless I'm mistaken the R4M is largely unproven tech.

And I'm gonna stop there cause you could spend a lot of time going to town on this guy.

[–]dutchwonder 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Out of defensive range of their guns but not their escorts is a crucial bit here.

I believe they also had a sound based proximity fuse, as in the things were rigged to explode when they heard the sound profile of a B-17s engines close enough, because that's not jank as fuck.

[–]PuddingInferno 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

In fairness, that's only because they couldn't get a real proximity fuse to work.

[–]changl09Warthunder school of technical analysis 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

When you are lobbing hundreds of shells up against a thousand planes flying in groups of 50 at 3,000 ft (910 m) vertically, 7,000 ft (2,100 m) deep, and 2,000 ft (610 m), you are bound to hit something. USAAF had to make the difficult decision of using loose formation to minimize flak and getting hit by stray bombs, or densely packed formations against enemy fighters.

[–]theamazingjexOuiboo 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (3子コメント)

He said they were superior in "tank fuel" and you have to admit, they did have a larger gas tank.

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

He misspelt duel I think, which is funny.

[–]Lying_idiotThe one and only H7boo 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

that was a new one. it is usually mispelled to dual.

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

Sure the gas tanks are bigger but does it really count if there's nothing in them?

[–]USAPRODCUTIONOPwolfenstein school of historical analysis[S] 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (7子コメント)

That's a great new flair for me. That is "wolfenstein school of historical analysis"

[–]disguise117Damn you, General [easily predicable weather phenomenon]! 31 ポイント32 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Shootin', stabbing', killin', Nazis

  • Professor B. J. Blazkowicz on his method of research.

[–]erpenthusiast 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I personally love his many excellent papers on stabbing Nazis to death with their own knife.

[–]Zemyla 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't forget punching. Punching Nazis is always good, too.

[–]Patronaughtwikkoe's my waifu 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (2子コメント)

We are all Prof. B.J. Blazkowicz on this blessed day.

[–]New_KatipunanDo it again, Berserker Murphy! 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Speak for yourself Speak for all of us.

This is the guy. The guy who made the "1991 USA vs 1944 Germany" thread I mentioned before. He got temp banned, and the moment he's allowed back in, he posts this. Amazing.

[–]Patronaughtwikkoe's my waifu 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fucking LOL

Should we be making fun of retards like this? Because I'm pretty sure if we looked at this guy's family tree, it would be like a wreath.

[–]Enthused_Llama 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"I'm coming for you, you Nazi fucking space man."

  • Astronautics 101

[–]GearyDigit 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (5子コメント)

In all fairness, Germany starting the war with technology they looted from a cache of supertech created by a secret society of Jewish scientists is more realistic than anything this dude is putting forth.

[–]Jurkus1000BritainOp's Scheißposter of the Month 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I kinda want somebody to write a version where they have the supertech and they still lose.

[–]Patronaughtwikkoe's my waifu 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

`Pretty sure I already saw a boardgame based on that premise. I'll look for it tomorrow.

[–]GearyDigit 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And then you get superpowered super powers for the Cold War :D

[–]Enthused_Llama 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ancient Jew Magicks*

[–]GearyDigit 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Naa, it was all superscience. Hence how Deathshead was able to reverse-engineer it.

[–]SchurkjeBoefjeTallboy 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The R4M's were simple unguided rockets anyway. It's not like we're talking about an AA missile. Sure enough, one or two could take out the largest plane, but the idea behind it was you fired a mass barrage into a formation and kinda hoped for the best.

It wasn't particularly sophisticated.

[–]Watchung 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Nothing particularly wrong with that. Unguided rockets were rather popular in the early Cold War on interceptors, since it was felt that volleys could be launched from beyond the range of defensive guns on bombers, and that they would be more destructive on impact than cannon shells. Several American aircraft carried them, with some, like the F-89 and F-94, basically being designed around their rocket pods.

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

Wasn't implying there's something wrong with it, but it sure as hell isn't particularly high-tech or sophisticated, nor a war-winning weapon. That era of lolbarrage of rockets didn't last long either way.

Extra bonus pts for the Germans developing the R4Ms because their 30mm cannon shells had a slow, arcy trajectory that was difficult to aim at range, only to see the R4Ms end up having a very similar trajectory to the 30mm cannon shells.

[–]TankArchivesBolshevist Jew Conspiracy Liason 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The germans have better anti-tank weapons, particularly with regards to the handheld panzerfaust.

Let's see what comrade Victor has to say about this.

"With a maximum range of 60-100 meters, the Panzerfaust is not, and cannot be, a serious or effective anti-tank weapon." (CAMD RF 299-3067-91)

Thank you comrade Victor.

these are excellent tanks which are superior to the sherman in a tank fuel.

Yes, due to burning a lot better, they would indeed be superior as fuel.

[–]hobblingcontractor 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

horrible tank crews who bail when anything happens

Would you really want to sit around in one of those shitty late year tanks?

"SHIT GUYS WE'VE BEEN HIT, BAIL OUT!!!!" Uh, Hans. That was just Dieter knocking on the hatch to ask us if we wanted any coffee.

[–]ThunderplunkJuden Logistik 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (5子コメント)

It still knocked a chunk off the inside, though.

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

Are we talking about Dieter knocking on the hatch or an actual shell impact?

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

Dieter knocking, obviously. Where else did you think the word Panzerfaust came from?

[–]Lying_idiotThe one and only H7boo 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Dieter is a burly dude, but brews strong coffee.

[–]wikingwarriorThe Fifth Sherman 32 ポイント33 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Germany could pwn WW2 America.

loses to WW2 America.

Okay mate.

[–]cuddles_the_destroyeWehrmacht bitches at? 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

"if it was a proper 1v1 m8 i totally woulda kicked your ass"

[–]wikingwarriorThe Fifth Sherman 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Only if 1 Bismark =12 Essex Class.

[–]Dunk-Master-FlexRIP Best Janitor 2K16 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

1 Graf Zeppelin = 1 Essex

in tonnage lmaooooooooooooooooooooo

[–]TrojanIVUbermenschsplaining away the Holocaust 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That was a fun read. Even after invoking some sort of magical neutrality ray the OP still has to pull out magical Germanic fighting power.

WTF does he think the SS stand for SchutzSith?

The best part though is he must be ass sore after a tussle with one of us since he cited our humble home of Victor

[–]ArthaniasFucking History 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's come knocking on our door once, he couldn't sit for a month after that.

[–]Chiksika 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Counting divisions, just like Adolph did. They were smaller, even at full establishment, and this late in the war they were divisions in name only. Most of the divisions by Sept. 1944 were hollowed out shells. Made lots of pretty flags on the OKW maps though.

[–]SchurkjeBoefjeTallboy 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (0子コメント)

REALISTIC FORCE OVERVIEW AND LOGISTICS ARE FOR JUDEO-BOLSHEVIKS!

[–]Patronaughtwikkoe's my waifu 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (7子コメント)

This actually makes me wonder why the Nazis didn't merge decimated units together. Was it for a practical reason or just to avoid irritating an increasingly delusional General Staff + Hitler?

[–]MBarry829an eagle named “total air superiority” 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Most of the shattered divisions in late 1944 were rebuilt under new tables that greatly reduced their bayonet strength, artillery, and any semblance of motor vehicles. Non existent wonder weapons were expected to prevent degradation of the divisions combat power. They increased the last of the draft quota to bring in increasingly inferior soldiers into the ranks but it's okay they were all elite Grenadier Divisions! Well volksgrenadier.

[–]Patronaughtwikkoe's my waifu 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

So, as usual, Nazi strategy was based on the scenario they wanted rather than the one that was.

[–]MBarry829an eagle named “total air superiority” 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah pretty much. The divisions converted to the final infantry division tables of the war were all called Volksgrenadier Divisions because Grenadier had traditional been an honorific designation. That alone would make up for the lost artillery guns!

[–]Patronaughtwikkoe's my waifu 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah. I know the VG divisions were mainly militia at that point.

[–]changl09Warthunder school of technical analysis 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also during the chaos of late 44/early 45 it was really difficult for OKH to keep track of its units considering that they were often thrown into battle piecemeal in the west or constantly being overran in the eastern front. A lot of German units at Bulge were at half strength, either from two months of fighting prior or have some components delayed in transit because of allied bombings.

[–]Watchung 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

They did in the field. Problem seems to be that these ad hoc units were then immediately committed to battle and often destroyed in the process.

The German infantry units in the West suffered the same horrendous attrition as the Allies, with one telling difference. The 30-day and later in early 1944 60-day rule of keeping those in hospital on company books greatly exaggerated strength, while assigning replacements 30 days after requisitions were submitted kept the units undermanned even after the requisitions were filled. Thus, the German replacement policy detracted from rather than enhanced German combat effectiveness. Once committed to combat, a company never again reached full daily strength unless pulled from the line for an extended period. Consequently, amalgamation of combat units and stripping of non-infantry trained support organizations had to occur for units to continue to exist, as did happen.

http://i.imgur.com/rc4Y4xN.png

In fall 1944, only select German divisions were pulled out to reconstitute and most infantry units remained in the line during combat until they were bled dry; maintaining strength primarily through absorption of smaller units. Commanders repeatedly consolidated decimated units, with each consolidation lessening units’ organizational coherence, until their ever-dwindling bands of soldiers disappeared forever: killed, wounded, captured, or surrendered. With combat power gone, the commanders, staffs and certain specialists returned to build a new unit, while those few men remaining on the line in subordinate organizations were absorbed by newly arrived headquarters.

If the U.S. Army had used the German replacement rules of keeping wounded in hospital on its books for 60 days. U.S. rifle companies would have required around 247 “actual strength” soldiers to maintain a daily average of 157 soldiers. The American system of dropping soldiers from the rolls of rifle companies when they were evacuated beyond the division rear areas and their subsequent re-assignment upon convalescence worked best--keeping units nominally up to strength while ensuring that veterans returned where they were most needed and most wanted.

...During its battle in the woods, the 22d Infantry fought elements of thirteen German regiments. Only the regiments of the 275th Infanterie Division had any success against the Americans in the Hürtgen forest, principally because they had been in the Grosshau area since early October and their commanders knew the ground. The 275th entered heavy combat against the U.S. 28th Infantry Division in October 1944 and the 4th Division in mid-November. This German Division was bled dry after just four days of intense fighting against the 4th, and the 275th relinquished battle control to the newly arriving 344th Volksgrenadier Division, which absorbed the combat elements of the 275th.

Quickly decimated, the 344th controlled the battle for just five days of fighting before transferring command of the battle around Grosshau to the arriving 353d Volksgrenandier Division.

Four days later, the 353d was an amalgam of disparate units holding a tenuous line of small towns that prevented movement into the Rur River plain. When the 22d seized Grosshau on 29 November, the German units were so such a mixed bag that the 133 Germans captured near Grosshau were from 15 different companies, 6 different regiments, and 4 different divisions. Later regiments from yet another division acted as a counterattack force in attempts to throw the Americans back.

http://i.imgur.com/8UgYZtk.png

In contrast to the American Army in the Hürtgen Forest, the German Army allowed units in contact to wither, and instead of reinforcing these veteran organizations, consolidated them when they grew too small; while committing newly rebuilt units of relatively fresh but untried and untrained men — to little avail. German companies suffered the same fate as the 22d’s, but lacked the ability to regenerate and disappeared as organizations in the Hürtgen. 26 When the final phase of the battle for the Hürtgen Forest ended in early December 1944, it was the Americans who had gained the ground and the Germans who had had to surrender it — in a battle where much-mentioned American superiority in air support and logistics went for naught, and artillery was equally available.

Twelve days after its relief from the Hürtgen Forest, an exhausted and debilitated 22d Infantry was reconstituting in the quiet sector just north of Luxembourg City, with companies of 50-60 soldiers holding 5,000 yards of front. There, they were struck by elements of the 212 th Volksgrenadier Division during the opening phases of the German Ardennes Counteroffensive. The 212th was experienced through hard service in Russia and had been reconstituting since late September 1944 for its role in the Ardennes Campaign. In January 1945, the Ia (Chief of Staff) wrote about the first seven days of the battle.

Company leaders were not experienced to fight in the West and lacked terrain appreciation as well as underestimated the fighting abilities of the Americans.

The biggest problem was the 20km front — this tactic only works if the enemy is flank sensitive and surrenders strong points when bypassed, but in reality the American strongpoints offered grim resistance even when the situation appeared hopeless.

The enemy was tenacious and showed strong resistance. The key to the success of all American attacks was, besides the material superiority, the outstanding training of the individual soldier and, in particular, the fire discipline that was evident everywhere.

Infantry wise, through the steady flow of replacements of fresh, rested forces the Americans slowly achieved the upper hand against our own troops, which were severely weakened by deprivations and exhaustion for days, so that even instantaneously launched counter attacks did not succeed from the 7th day of battle onward.

The main weakness of our own leadership lies in the insufficient experience of company leaders for such an extensive battle. They were not capable of leading their companies in this environment. … This was the division’s [212 th ] first experience against the enemy in the West. 27

https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/187622511?access_key=key-soeqyisbs6k5lg85ayn&allow_share=true&view_mode=scroll

[–]Patronaughtwikkoe's my waifu 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That actually sounds really depressing.

Thank you for the great write-up.

[–]GeorgiaAce91 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (9子コメント)

As a member of SpaceBattles, I apologize deeply for this man. We hammer him down and he keeps coming back up.

[–]CroGamer002We need more Blietzkrieg! 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Question, what kind of forum is that?

[–]GeorgiaAce91 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Pretty much anything and everything, despite what the name says. Including the War Room, which is far less Wehraboo-y than said poster would lead you to believe.

[–]CroGamer002We need more Blietzkrieg! 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, I went to read that thread's comments fully.

It's interesting place, from what I can see.

[–]safarispiff 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's general "nerd shit". We have fiction discussions, current events, whoeouldwin style versus discussions, military discussions, creative writing, videogame, and quest/CYOA boards.

[–]CroGamer002We need more Blietzkrieg! 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, I joined now.

[–]GloriousWiresSix-Pounder Best Pounder 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wouldn't this qualify as Affairs Of Other Boards?

[–]Watchung 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That only applies to behavior on Spacebattles itself.

[–]safarispiff 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I second that. If you want some actually good stuff, go to the War Room and check the pinned "Spacebattles military commentaries" thread. Excellent resource, even if it is basically the "IXJac and a few friends happy hour thread".

[–]LazyHussarBOMBER HARRIS FLYING HOLOCAUST! 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (5子コメント)

-The germans have better anti-tank weapons, particularly with regards to the handheld panzerfaust.

The Panzerfaust, the single use AT weapon with a max range of 30m (the 60m version doesn't appear in any noteworthy numbers until around Market Garden, and isn't the most common version until around the Battle of the Bulge) and the Panzershreck, the huge, oversize Bazooka copy that was issued in far lower numbers, and required either a heavy, bulky heat shield, or that the operator wore a gas mask so as to avoid having his face burnt off when fired (slight disadvantage)? Meh, maybe if Krupp steel.

Even though they have a shortage of tanks and anti-tank guns, the germans are still very competent at using the two together as a sword and shield to defeat armored thrusts.

You mean, that awkward part where they had a massive shortage of the two weapons responsible for almost every tank kill of the entire war? Hand held AT weapons of WW2, especially German ones, were more "proximity denial" than actual tank killers, in the sense that it would make literally speaking driving up to infantry units and physically running them over just slightly more likely to get yourself killed than not.

-Their arsenal of flak guns will soon adopt the doppelzunder fuse, which increases their lethality against bomber formations by a factor of two to five (depending on the caliber of the flak gun). This will make daylight bombing raids alot more dangerous.

Doppelzünder fuses, a kind of mechanical fuse employed by the Germans since the Franco-Prussian war? I'm gonna go ahead and assume that the German air defences already had those, and that no version introduced during the war increased AAA effectiveness by between 200% and 500%. The latter is one of the more optimistic estimations for radar proximity fuses.

There is no inherent reason for an army to be filled with divisions of equal quality, particularly that isn't the best way to employ your manpower. Some of them are going to be tasked with low risk, simple missions which don't even merit the attention of an bog standard division: Thats why the germans could get away with using static divisions composed of ethnic germans (or even minoritys). They didn't need APCs, tanks, and SP guns to guard the atlantic wall

I'd beg to differ.

As one commentor summarised

If you're literally speaking quoting a random, current day internet forum user, the correct word would be "summarizes", because s/he wasn't bloody there when it all happened.

The naval implications in this scenario are pretty mixed. Not having the royal navy around is going to make things a real pain in the ass, and this holds true for the canadian navy as well. Green water operations around europe are going to be hampered

I'm sorry, are we talking of WW2 here, or the Vietnam War and the Mekong Delta?

and transatlantic convoys will be heavily exposed.

To what? The few remaining U-boats still around in July '44?

The surface portion of the kriegsmarine will be in grave danger.

Nah, hiding away in fjords for the duration of the war is about as safe as wars get for surface combatants. Not that it helped the Derpwitz...

including the 9th SS panzer division that defeated the british at arnhem and nearly wiped out an airborne division (with the help of some local troops)

You mean that time an armoured division with heavy reinforcements needed over a week to defeat the 1st Airborne Division that had dropped in right on top of them lacking adequate supplies, proper reinforcements, outside communication and support? Also, having half the British and Polish airborne troops make good their escape is hardly "nearly wiped out". It's a damned much better state than German divisions were in by the time they were rotated away from the front line at that stage of the war.

[–]Saelyre 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Is it just the colourization, or are those wading Shermans and Cromwells painted really dark in the fourth picture?

[–]WulfeHoundCAST IRON SHERMANS! 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Probably the colorization.

[–]hborrgg 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The Panzerfaust, the single use AT weapon with a max range of 30m

tfw your anti-tank personnel are vulnerable to matchlock muskets.

[–]GloriousWiresSix-Pounder Best Pounder 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I dunno, it's pretty good range by anti-tank grenade standards.

[–]Patronaughtwikkoe's my waifu 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

that the operator wore a gas mask so as to avoid having his face burnt off when fired (slight disadvantage)?

"Der Führer hast face gass-burn-blwd up, so can you!"

-Joseph Goebbels

[–]LayinScunionStalin surfed a T-34 on human waves to Berlin 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (0子コメント)

First comment:

By late 1944 the German military and nation is so maimed that they would just still lose to the US as strategic bombing would wreck German abilities transfer forces from other fronts.

AKA: real life but not necessarily exactly what happened.

End of discussion.

[–]pnzsaurkrautwerfer 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Short, fast, and furious:

  1. Ground Forces: a. In terms of conventional infantry, at the squad level there's not really a lot of difference (Americans are lighter on automatic weapons due to a lack of true LMG, but they've got more firepower on the move), but in terms of artillery support, communications, and logistical support, larger US formations very robust. Additionally the "worst" US units are going to be "green" but otherwise in good shape. The worst German formations are going to be a fraction of their paper strength, and missing many key weapons systems or with marginal substitutions. The performance of the increasing number of veteran US units also matched or exceeded their increasingly broken opponents.

    b. Mechanized/armored. Many of the same arguments from above, with the added that some German armor is better in favorable circumstances, but with vastly inferior mechanical readiness/strategic-operational mobility. Also many of the supply and equipment shortages are a lot more profound in German mechanized formations (literally all the US Armor division infantry units are in halftracks, the Germans, mostly trucks). Also US industry and logistics are better postured to support large armored operations, and the US had Shermans because they were doing a good enough job, they had more advanced tanks and the like that could be produced in number, unlike most of the German stuff which was basically all the Germans could produce.

  2. In the air, there's nothing. Literally nothing the Germans have that would challenge the USAAF. Jets and rockets could make strategic bombing tougher, but the abject air superiority accomplished by 1944 made for old joke about "if you see a black plane, it's from the RAF, if you see a silver plane, it is American, if you see no plane, it is the Luftwaffe." P-80 wasn't far off if jets became more dangerous, but simply put a US freed from the Pacific could just leave a CAP over literally every German airbase waiting to murder jets during their take off/landing cycles.

  3. At sea, even worse. By 1944 being a U-Boat crewman was profoundly stupidly dangerous, and the USN coming in from the Pacific makes that even worse. The German surface fleet was utterly useless and would be dead if it ever came out into the open (like mega dead, waves of Avengers and Helldivers all trying to get a bomb hit on the sinking wreck so they can paint a kill mark dead).

  4. The Germans have strategic rockets, but lack any sort of precision or high mortality warheads. Basically if the Germans did use a chemical weapon armed V-2, the ability of the US to employ chemical weapons back is simply terrifying (or imagine your normal air raid over Germany, only now with gas too). The US is the only country that had both the nuclear weapon and means to deliver it effectively...and oh by the way B-29 being used as intended.

  5. In terms of industry, there's just nothing to even say. The Germans were running as hard as they could as it all burned down, while the US could build stuff things in numbers and quality un-imagined by goosestepping short busers.

[–]Dunk-Master-FlexRIP Best Janitor 2K16 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sorry America, Canada, Poland and Britain already kicked the shit out of the German navy before you got here.

We might have left a few rusty subs somewhere for ya.

[–]Thirtyk94DA JOOOOOSSS 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You're forgetting the squad level mobility the US had over the Germans. The US had the Jeep, and we had 637,000 of them. We had a vehicle that could quickly transport a squad of GI's, and could carry or haul any number of different weapons systems from MGs to light AT artillery. The tactical mobility of the US infantry was equivalent to what every army has today. The Germans had horses...

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

SILENCE HERETIC.

Squad level mobility I'll debate simply because the only US infantry squad that had "organic" transport would have been Armored Infantry with their half tracks. From my recollections, the standard "leg" or Airborne/Glider troops did not by TOE have jeeps assigned to their squads (again, infantry squad, not Cav sections, Scout teams, heavy mortars etc)

Where you are correct is that many of the heavy weapons units had some sort of prime mover/transport (jeep, WC 51, etc), and the absolute number of wheeled transports available meant moving non-mechanized units long distances was quite practical. The number of jeeps "Acquired" also lent a sort of adhoc motorization to many units, or at the least gave the squad something to throw all it's heavy shit on while they walked.

So you're not really "wrong" just I'm being overly specific.

[–]cotorshas 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

the ability of the US to employ chemical weapons back is simply terrifying (or imagine your normal air raid over Germany, only now with gas too).

Plus, which country had nuclear bombs again?

[–]Xealeon 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Fighting power was defined by martin van creveld as 'that part of a soldiers mental makeup which does NOT change throughout time.'

What the fuck does this even mean? Like, I can't even think of a way to interpret this that makes sense. Or how one could have higher 'mental makeup'.

[–]SlavophilesAnonymousThe Stakhanov of shitposters 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Aryan racial superiority, duh.

[–]GloriousWiresSix-Pounder Best Pounder 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Presumably he means the bit of mindset that's the same between Assyrian spearmen and Abrams tankers - "I'mma go over there and I'mma fuck that guy up."

Not that that would have any bearing on actual ability to fuck people up, mind.

[–]Patronaughtwikkoe's my waifu 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I still think that's the same as morale though, which certainly does change throughout time and circumstance.

[–]PuruseeTheShakingCat 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's referring to what we would call élan.

[–]Xealeon 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Like, the spirit of the offensive type deal? I feel like that changes through time. Certainly did in WWI.

[–]SergeantMatt 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Obviously it's referring to National Ideas, like how Prussian Space Marines get +0.5 yearly army tradition, +20% morale, -1% yearly army tradition decay, +20% infantry combat ability, +25% manpower, and +5% discipline. USA's only military idea is +10% morale, so the Prussians have the advantage.

[–]GelfandFominDemocracy Uber Alles 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Panzerfausts better than American equivalent

I just had a freedom stroke. By god, someone grab me an M1A1 Bazooks before I croak.

[–]Patronaughtwikkoe's my waifu 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

[–]GelfandFominDemocracy Uber Alles 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No that's germ--oh I get it

[–]Patronaughtwikkoe's my waifu 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

y u no died?

D:

[–]Dabat1 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I am going to be one hundred percent honest here. When I first saw the thread posted I thought it was an interesting experiment, one which was not a clear cut victory for either side. I thought that maybe JamesRocket had turned over another leaf, the first post was even semi-well written out by internet "vs." standards... Then, of course, JamesRocket went from 0 to JamesRocket in less time than it takes to say Wherb.

[–]IstoppedtimeStuka Blyat, rush B-elgium! 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

When it comes to the strategic bombing of germany, just how big of a contributor was the royal air force? Having them take the night shift while the americans took the day shift was a big part of its eventual success (which is still the subject of some controversy, BTW). The brits contributed alot of planes to tactical air missions too, so not having them in the fight is going to have a noticeable effect on things.

It's almost as if our bombers had a greater payload but worse defensive armament than the B-17, so we used them at night to reduce casualties.

It's almost as if cycling bombers 24/7 means that Germany is constantly being bombed and therefore speeding up the wars end.

Note that this is not the same person but this gem managed to trigger my inner teaaboo:

Since the RAF was mostly interested in making rubble bounce and killing civvies, plus their role in the oil campaign was pretty much over, their major contributions were mostly done in terms of transport bombing.

Yes, the RAF existed solely to carpet bomb German orphanages and that sweet old ladys home down the road. They were in no way interested in military assets and wanted to murder so many civillians that it would make Hitler blush.

[–]Thirtyk94DA JOOOOOSSS 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's almost as if our bombers had a greater payload but worse defensive armament than the B-17, so we used them at night to reduce casualties.

The US also had more heavy bombers total and the production capacity to replace losses quickly.

[–]CroGamer002We need more Blietzkrieg! 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

In reality, bigger issue was losing pilots. Even with great manpower, it takes a lot of time and resources to train pilots to fly a strategic bomber plane.

[–]Enthused_Llama 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Well, since the Russians and such cannot make war on Germany, the Germans cut through the Russians and steal their equipment to ship West.

Evidently Russia is neutral but Germany is still allowed to shoot them and take all their shit?

Also I love how Wehraboos always say 'lol it took he allies forever 2 get out of Normandy' like I'm sorry the largest amphibious invasion in history took a few moments to get out of terrain that favored defense to an extreme degree.

Also why can't these motherfuckers form plurals for words that end with y.

[–]-RedStar- 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

tbh the landings are my favorite part of the western front. the complexity and effort that went into planning and executing the landings was insane. Why boo's pretend it was just some casual thing is beyond me.

[–]Thirtyk94DA JOOOOOSSS 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

My favorite quote of the invasion comes from a German soldier stationed on the Atlantic Wall:

It's impossible. There can't possibly be that many ships in the world.

It's just this great "oh my god" moment quote. Like he's realizing just how fucked he and his nation really are.

Edit: wurds

[–]Goatf00t 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Source?

[–]MBarry829an eagle named “total air superiority” 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think I remember that one being mentioned in "The Longest Day" by Cornelius Ryan.

[–]W_I_WaterAber Pluskat, 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes.

It's the commanding officer in Paris, who says "Stay on the carpet Pluscat, the Allies don't even have that many ships combined!" on the phone after Pluscat (the observer) states "5,000 Allied ships sighted off the coast".

[–]MBarry829an eagle named “total air superiority” 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

My favorite thing about the "lol breakout too 4ever" with Normandy is that while the stalemate lasted longer than the Allies intially envisioned, they still breached the Seine and liberated Paris 30 days ahead of projections.

They did reached the fucking Rhine in November- 90 to 100 fucking days ahead of pre D-Day projections.

[–]Faust1991 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Am I missing something? It looks like James just dissapears after page two lol.

I mean, he didn't last long if that's the case.

[–]USAPRODCUTIONOPwolfenstein school of historical analysis[S] 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

He got a temporary ban.

[–]Faust1991 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Shame couldn't see more.

[–]safarispiff 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Mods aren't shy about stopping bullshit a lot of times, which is good.

The mod banners on his posts are just so cheeky, too.

[–]GloriousWiresSix-Pounder Best Pounder 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh wow I thought this was a repost but he's actually done it again.

[–]Patronaughtwikkoe's my waifu 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If they could, then they would've.

[–]Man2quilla 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm finding it hard to even get through this with the constant misspelling of "allies!"

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

Oh no not this fucker again...

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

meh. pretty standard wehraboo nonsense of "if X Y and Z things happened totally differently, Germany would totally have won!!!"

with X, Y, and Z usually being things like "if Germany totally didn't suck at strategy/logistiscs/etc" or "if Germany had like infinitely better R&D and industry to produce bajillions of Me262's" or "if Germany totally didn't piss off everyone and invade everyone and fight everyone all at the same time"

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

also, semi-related but not really, my favorite anti-wehraboo party trick is to point out and show how the Sherman's frontal armor was pretty much the same as the Tiger's frontal armor. lol. Followed by mentioning how at Arracourt, Shermans totally BTFO of a bunch of Panthers and absolutely slaughtered them.

[–]GTFErinyes 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The fun part of all these posts is they always go into "what if's?" for the German side, forgetting that the other side would have "what if's?" as well

Like, if the US didn't have the UK or USSR, they would have pushed more heavily for the M26 Pershing to enter service earlier, the B-36 to enter service earlier, etc.