So who was more BA, the Wehrmacht, or Soviet Army? I remember hearing stories of soviets signing up for airbourne missions with no jump experience. Then they would hang onto a plane's wing and then let go. When they landed the axis would get btfo.
So who wins the bad ass award?
Other urls found in this thread:
...
...
...
...
...
...
>Then they would hang onto a plane's wing and then let go. When they landed the axis would get btfo.
Why is there so much revisionism on Veeky Forums against the fact that the Red Army was a shit army that relied solely on numbers?
They were both shit and WW2 was a war of retarded plebs decided in factories and not on the battlefield.
Russian men seem to possess an inner craziness and ironic attitude towards death and suffering. Their culture and environment probably does it to them, as well as the drinking. If you don't give a fuck it makes your braver and, paradoxically, more successful when it comes to the crunch. That said, the Red Army was a shit show and only survived because of Hitler's tactical stupidity.
>disputing silly muh Slavic hordes pop history trash is 'revisionism'
for raping, probably the Soviets
but look what they had to work with
>Hitler's tactical stupidity.
oh so that was the problem
theres something that ordinary work-hardened people, used to hard labor and machine work, bring into the equasion, that most historians seem to miss when considering war
granted that holds true for both sides
Oh look, it's the Germany is bad thread again
>the Red Army was a shit army that relied solely on numbers
they all seem like exemplary breeding stock, young, strong, healthy
im sure the combination of battle hardened slavs and healthy fertile germans was most eugenic, most eugenic
i know you think im joking, but no
>Don't insult mah countryboo
modeern war has a negative eugenic effect
slavs are shitter than germans in every way
they are literaly the same shit tho, blue eyed blond/brown haired caucasians built for field work and war
Smaller numbers then the Germans, but numbers none-the-less!
yes they are from the same stock, but they are like 20 percent asian.
Lol their army was smaller than Germany's for most of the war.
>Why is there so much revisionism on Veeky Forums against the fact that the Red Army was a shit army that relied solely on numbers?
Hello /int/
Sovietboos actually believe this.
Your own image demonstrates that the only time the Germans were able to win was when they had a 1.4 to one numeric advantage, and the soviets at their largest fighting force had a 1.7 to one advantage.
The red army and its leadership literally was trash tier in 41 and most of 42. The casualties they took were way higher throughout the whole war. The great offensives they commenced were only possible because of lend and lease. So yeah after a heavy beating they were able to adapt most german strategies to a certain degree and execute them against the germans (while they were fighting on two others fronts, under heavy allied bombardement and had stupid orders that hindered their potential).
Its no denying, the soviets were saved by the sheer space and population of their country.
>Its no denying, the soviets were saved by the sheer space and population of their country.
That is literally part of the national strategy of Russia and why it was focusing so much on expanding its borders.
I think they tried to expand their borders due to pan-slavism and the wish to play an active role in european politics and get those sweet and valuable european lands. I am not trying to say that the soviets were utterly incompetent and didn´t manage some things pretty well BUT the Peasant army meme holds some truth.
The level of soviet training was considerably lower than that of the german army and just look at things like the red airforce performance in the early years of the war or the second battle of charkov. The allied help allowed them to learn from their mistakes.
Apart from space and population and even more deciding factor was that russia had one thing germany was in desperat need off: A competent ally.
I mean, in terms of combat effectiveness there is no way to argue it. The Germans killed 10-12 Russians for every one of their. They were given superior equipment.
Still, they also out fought the Brits and Americans, albeit at much slimmer margins, and Americans were better equipped (and better fighters at the end of the war).
But it's really not a matter of who is more "badass."
Germany began training most of its men for warfare by at least 1936 and had a technologically superior force to the Russians. That's why they did better man for man.
Americans and Brits had more industry, but were less prepared. In the end, the best force was the Western democracies because they had the most resources and their command would actually report facts and loses. Nazis, Communists, and Imperial Japs routinely lied about losses (especially the Japs) and pretended that victory was around the corner.
This made proper planning impossible. Western forces were realistic (or more so) about defeat and planned accordingly. Also, the populations and size of Russia and America dwarfed Germany by so much, they had way more wiggle room for fuck ups.
>The Germans killed 10-12 Russians for every one of their.
Why not make it a hundred, or a thousand?
>They were given superior equipment.
Except in terms of tanks, rocket artillery, ground support aircraft, fighter aircraft, etc. etc.
>the only time the Germans were able to win was when they had a 1.4 to one numeric advantage
Not a Reichboo, but the Germans were able to win major battles well into 1942 where they didn't have the numerical advantage, I think.
youtube.com
When did I say Germany was bad? Learn2read
>The Germans killed 10-12 Russians for every one of their
No they did not
Not unless you're counting the civilians they massacred you fucking mong
MenofWarAssaultSquad2.jpg
Yes, but not strategic victories, 42 was the last time they went on the strategic offensive, and that was a total disaster. The only campaigns that actually worked for the Germans were when they had superior numbers.
>I think they tried to expand their borders due to pan-slavism and the wish to play an active role in european politics and get those sweet and valuable european lands. I am not trying to say that the soviets were utterly incompetent and didn´t manage some things pretty well BUT the Peasant army meme holds some truth.
Historically, Russians were always paranoid of getting invaded, especially considering that between Eastern Europe and Central Europe, it is mostly plains, making it hard to defend. To compensate, they amass a large amount of territory to fight attritionally.
>The level of soviet training was considerably lower than that of the german army and just look at things like the red airforce performance in the early years of the war or the second battle of charkov. The allied help allowed them to learn from their mistakes.
Before 1941, the Red Army actually had some of the best equipment and training. The purge of high level leadership is what caused such a catastrophe. The VVS at the beginning of the war had most of their planes destroyed on the ground and was playing catch up with the Luftwaffe after the heavy losses until quite late in the war.
>Apart from space and population and even more deciding factor was that russia had one thing germany was in desperat need off: A competent ally.
USSR was the international pariah at the time. They never had any allies. They signed the pact with Germany because they were never able to negotiate an alliance with the eternal anglo who constantly made plans to try and bring them down.
>The Germans killed 10-12 Russians for every one of their.
The highest k:d rate was in 1941 and was ~6:1 until you start counting war crimes like killing POWs and civilians. Permanent losses of USSR vs Axis was approx 15 million to 12 million on the Eastern Front according to Glantz.
>technologically superior force to the Russians.
only in 1942 and a part of 1943
They strongly understimated the soviets and wasted their manpower and capabilities in pointless offensives like fall blau and kursk. Ironically after 41 opposed to the nations actual doctrins the germans were better at (elastic) defense.
Nice revisionism. It was more like 1:2 or 1:3 tops military wise at least.
Nice revisionism. Just one example to proof your shit: Performance of soviet airforce in 41 and the fact that they were dependent on the 56% high octane fuel the USA delievered to field their (supposedly) superior airforce.
How do you classify strategic victories ? Battle of charkov or the backhand blow were strategic victories. They just weren´t able to successfully do large scale offensives for which they were multiple reasons. An actually not so small reason was hitlers interference after the failed Barbarossa.
>Historically, Russians were always paranoid of getting invaded, especially considering that between Eastern Europe and Central Europe, it is mostly plains, making it hard to defend. To compensate, they amass a large amount of territory to fight attritionally.
True but the russians after Napoleon tried to not rely on that factor. Doctrine wise they favored an offensive approach but were often force to retreat and fight atritionally.
>True but the russians after Napoleon tried to not rely on that factor. Doctrine wise they favored an offensive approach but were often force to retreat and fight atritionally.
The Soviet strategy in WW2 was to trade space for time to mobilize and to inflict as many casualties as possible, relying on flexible defensive lines which are possible due to sheer territory.
Well, duh, Barbarossa was also a failure. If were talkin about campaigns that worked, the Battle of France was fairly even, I think.
>Nice revisionism. Just one example to proof your shit: Performance of soviet airforce in 41
Performance of air forces is dependent exclusively on the equipment involved? That's really fucking weird.
I guess that means that Vietnam developed the most advanced aircraft in the world. And that the same exact plane can can be more and less advanced then the other, depending on who's flying it.
>Before 1941, the Red Army actually had some of the best equipment and training. The purge of high level leadership is what caused such a catastrophe. The VVS at the beginning of the war had most of their planes destroyed on the ground and was playing catch up with the Luftwaffe after the heavy losses until quite late in the war.
You conveniently forget about the air war waging over germany and the massive help they got in rebuilding their airforce. Also best equipment isn´t something that we can easily determine. In some fields the germans were superior in some the soviets.
>USSR was the international pariah at the time. They never had any allies. They signed the pact with Germany because they were never able to negotiate an alliance with the eternal anglo who constantly made plans to try and bring them down.
Nice revisionism your bias is showing. They conveniently allied with germany to bring parts of eastern europe under their rule and were dumbfunded when the aggressive and expansionist fascists attacked them. The alliance with the eternal anglo was a big reason the war went so smothly for the soviets. Lend and lease prevented MAJOR starvation in the SU and allowed them the mobile warfare they conducted in 42 till the end of the war. Also the western powers opened other fronts and relieved pressure from the soviets, crippled the german war economy etc.
The soviets were very reluctant to trade space for time. They actually prefered an offensive stance. This clearly shows in 42 were stalin wasn´t ready to stop after the soviet winter offensive and tried a multiple attack approach.
Yeah the modernization of the soviet army was fully completed in 41 ofc. I never denied that the soviet had a lot of advanced designs but to flat out say they were technically superior is bullshit. How many divisions and airwings had sub par equipment? Also superior is a very relative terms because everyone had very different requirements.
Well its a bold statement to just praise the western democracies so much. Quite often they underperformed gravely given the superiority they had.
>Nice revisionism your bias is showing. They conveniently allied with germany to bring parts of eastern europe under their rule and were dumbfunded when the aggressive and expansionist fascists attacked them. The alliance with the eternal anglo was a big reason the war went so smothly for the soviets. Lend and lease prevented MAJOR starvation in the SU and allowed them the mobile warfare they conducted in 42 till the end of the war. Also the western powers opened other fronts and relieved pressure from the soviets, crippled the german war economy etc.
In 1937 and 1938, the USSR with Litovnov as the foreign minister tried to ally with the eternal anglo and France as they saw the threat of Nazi Germany after Austria and Czechoslovakia. After rounds of failed negotiations where the eternal anglo continually stalled for time, Litovnov was sacked and replaced with Molotov who favored a pact with the Germans to buy time for the USSR to build up its economy and army. The USSR was preparing for a war in 1944.
>You conveniently forget about the air war waging over germany and the massive help they got in rebuilding their airforce.
The air war didn't decrease German production by any significant amount except for those coal liquefaction plants that were hit in late 1944. The air war was a fucking meme pushed by the Western Allies that made much less impact than they could have.
>Also the western powers opened other fronts and relieved pressure from the soviets, crippled the german war economy etc.
The North African front was literally insignificant as Rommel never had the logistics that would allow him to push to the Suez which equired something like 1/5 of all the trucks available at the time.
The Italian front did fuck all and didn't even reach Rome until mid-1944 by then the war was more than sealed.
The Normandy front was opened up in mid-1944 and was more for the redivision of post war Europe rather than actually defeating Germany.
>I never denied that the soviet had a lot of advanced designs but to flat out say they were technically superior is bullshit.
Well, I wasn't limiting myself to 1941. There was only 200 some odd Il-2's at the start of barbarossa. But by the end of it, Germany was still fucking around with pre-war bombers. If we're going to talk about how much of the good stuff actually got fielded, the Germans look even worse, because you can count the number of Me-262s and such used on the eastern front with one hand.
The point about different needs is very real, but cuts both ways. Note, I didn't give the Soviets absolute technical superiority. I said they had better ground support aircraft, and better fighter aircraft, two specific categories, though very important ones.
First of all : Stop with the eternal anglo meme.
You are right to some degree though. A lot of allied action were a power grab when germany already was defeated and the air war wasn´t as effective as pictured.
The air war had certain effects and crippled the german industry to some extent.
The failure of the africa corps and the impending invasion of europe lead to bad strategic decisions in the east because the germans knew perfectly well that they had to defeat the soviets quick.
Also lend and lease. I can´t stress this enough. Lend and Lease was absolutely crucial.
Good points you make. I would like to point out that soviet airforce greatly benefitted from the air war in the west. We can´t know what would have happened if the germans could have fielded ther whole air force in the east. As you say it yourself most of the good air stuff was deployed in the west.
>he point about different needs is very real, but cuts both ways. Note, I didn't give the Soviets absolute technical superiority. I said they had better ground support aircraft, and better fighter aircraft, two specific categories, though very important ones.
I think airforce wise USA and GB are the true champions though. Jet propulsion was a great invention but to little to late and the soviets certainly had some fresh planes but modern air war was born in american factory halls. Not even talking about the technical aspect but about the whole strategic outlook in regard to the airforce.
Dude, those three irrelevant fronts together are something like 40 percent of the german army. You can toot the red army horn all you please, but combine the supplies the USSR received from abroad by 1943 with the simple fact of the above and what you have here is a major contribution to the defeat of Germany, without which the USSR would not have been capable of said defeat on it's own.