Military Autism Thread

Total numbers including 2 million surrendering Frenchmen in 1940

If you include civilians.

If you include civilians US is like 418k total, while killing about 4-7 million enemies, more than a million German.

>the only casualties are deaths!

Jesus, how stupid are you?

Majority of US casualties was versus the Japs.

'The entire US cost to destroy Nazi Germany was money and about as many soldiers as Germany lost in the first week of their stupid invasion of Russia.

No they werent. Only about 20% of US casualties were from the japs, the vast majority were from europe and north africa

I used to think this was true, but it isn't. Some of the fighting in Europe was just brutal, especially in the Mediterranean.

It's 1 in 4 if you include the naval deaths

True, but total US casualties are still tiny compared to the nations they fought.

I mean, looking at history, it's hard to think of how it could end better for any nation.

They were already the largest economy, but also ground zero for the Depression. They emerge from the war with 50% of GDP, and basically got to shape the international system to their will. Add in low loss of life, totally intact infrastructure, control over the wealthy half of Europe, and a nuclear monopoly, and IDK how it could go better for them.

>Germany however had the best tank doctrine and deployed their tanks most effectively throughout the war until the gasoline shortages.
German tank doctrine was the same as everyone else's. The only difference was they couldn't afford to give tanks to their infantry divisions.

>ignorance, the post

>True, but total US casualties are still tiny compared to the nations they fought.
>I mean, looking at history, it's hard to think of how it could end better for any nation.

Indeed, the Poles lost 150-200K in the two months of the Warsaw Uprising, compared to the U.S. losing 420K throughout fours years of war.

>1. Soviet Union
>2. United States
Switch these and you'd be correct.

you are now aware that 3.5 million of russkie deaths are POWs
that's one of the most fucked up stats of the war IMO, a third of all red army war dead were basically guys starved in camps

>deployed their tanks most effectively throughout the war until the gasoline shortages.
I think in the last two years or so you don't really see Germany using their tanks effectively - using overengineered, expensive big beasts as basically immobile bunkers is in my opinion not an example of a good doctrine.

>UK over Germany

>mfw some Bolshebitch / Wehraboo says the M3 Lee was a bad tank.

Real life ain't World of Tanks boys. The main purpose of a tank as never being to destroy other tanks.

>tank so shit even the Russians called it "grave for six"
>even when their own T-34 is already a cramped deathtrap

>Yugoslavian "military casualties"

It wasn't bad considering it was a stopgap measure for when the US needed a medium tank as quick as possible. Most importantly the gun(in the hull) and the chassis were solid.

majority of their tanks were pzIVs and panthers

the heavy tanks such as the tiger and tiger II were organized into independannt heavy tank battalions and assigned to a division for certain operations

just to give you an idea
Konrad Operations in 45 (attempt to lift the siege of Budapest) saw the following equipment being used

1st panzer division:
>12 Panzer IV
>35 Panther
>1 Stug
>10 anti tank SPG (marders and nashhorns)

3rd SS panzer div.
>10 Panzer IV
>9 Panther
>21 Stugs/Jagdpanzer

5th SS panzer div.
>7 Panzer IV
>12 Panther
>7 Stug

3rd panzer div.
>21 Panzer IV
>27 Panther
>19 Stugs

509th schwere panzerabteilung
>42 Tiger B (kingstiger)

There's some interesting archival research coming out about the earliest pre-lend least tanks shipments, mostly British, and their role in the defense of Moscow.

Interesting because they were shoehorned into Soviet tank units instead of composing separate foreign equipment units like the later protocol tanks.

>division
>20 tanks
fuggg :DDD

wrong pic

>earliest pre-lend least tanks shipments, mostly British
I think they were strictly British, no? Like not just mostly, simply all of em. Valentines and the like making up a big proportion (like half? I forgot, it was rather high) of medium/heavy tanks of the units stationed in Moscow or something.

People look at WW2 tanks as a whole instead of in context. So they see something crazy like the Tiger 2, then they see the M3 and go "lel dumb murrikans xDxD"... without realizing that at the time of its deployment the M3 while far from perfect was much better armored than pretty much anything out there, the 37mm gun was decent, the 75mm was very good (although the high profile coupled with its use obviously sucked). You see it everywhere really. "The Sherman was shit and sucked" ... because the Germans built a couple hundred kingtigers. Dumb.

You could be right, the article only mentions Matildas and Valentines.

mega.nz/#!xcZSFaZT!e6ku9gJSNGEJ7faK7Oj5Q5jTJs4akTTaej5yjRw7pAg

I know they got some Stuarts and Lees in 1941 but don't think they were in the first protocol.

>panzer "division"
>fewer tanks than a US tank battalion

This is 1945 you twerp

For as big of a hardon as some guys have for the Germans in WWII, their organization was absolute shit.

>Germany however had the best tank doctrine and deployed their tanks most effectively throughout the war
lmao
German armor doctrine used tanks for breakthroughs and encirclements via pincer attacks which were prone to failure if one pincer was to be bogged down for whatever reason. The American TD doctrine was conceived to counter that and its flaws were shown at Kursk.
Slav doctrine was much more efficient with armor, using infantry to probe, artillery and heavy tanks for breakthrough and mobile formations exploit breakthroughs, keeping strength for the armored units when they reach their targets making them more effective against counter attacks.
US doctrine in Desert Storm was based on slav doctrine instead of German doctrine contrary to popular belief.

slavs called every tank a grave for _ brothers
T-34 without exemption was a grave for 4 brothers

Well, i was talking about the kill/death ratio, so what's the problem then?

Still in favour of Germany if you exclude yugoslavia. Don't they learn to count in burgerland?

Because captured and seriously wounded are every bit as out of the war as killed, you retard.

By that "logic", Tunis was a German win, not a horrific loss.

>m3
>good
the soviets loved the matilda, right?

Why wasn't the churchill used by the BIA or aussies?

I was just responding to in reply to , pointing out that going by k/d is a bit silly. Unless the russians are involved, then it's somehow a completely valid argument.

And just to add in, your measurement of "only count kills" hugely inflates Germany because they had, by far, the worst mortality rates of the POWs they kept:close to 60% of Soviet POWs died in German custody.

If the Western Allies engaged in wholesale slaughter of just two battles, Tunis and Dragoon, they'd double the kill count for the Western Front, solely by murdering POWs.

How does that demonstrate military effectiveness?

Opposed to what? Mobile bunkers?

>superior force
The Germans had been fighting for years and we're almost exhausted by the time America came in fresh as a daisy, you cannot compare the two

Come on guys, I know it's natural to want to think well of your country, but I'm American and I can admit that US tactics and performance in WWII really wasn't that great.

Criticizing Soviet tactics is really hypocritical if you're American. German soldiers, especially veterans of the Eastern Front, routinely criticized American tactical incompetence. The only thing they would compliment US forces on was timely and accurate artillery fire missions.

>Criticizing Soviet tactics is really hypocritical if you're American. German soldiers, especially veterans of the Eastern Front, routinely criticized American tactical incompetence.

They also lost pretty much every time they went up against them except for Kasserine, and quite badly.

They mostly criticized Americans for being insufficiently aggressive and relying too much on air and artillery support instead of sticking it in the sharp end. Interestingly, the Soviets had the same opinions of the Germans in 1941 and 1942. It's almost like the military who does have the more effective fire support functions would opt to use it instead of committing to risky and bloody assaults.

guys stop being rational

>US doctrine in Desert Storm was based on slav doctrine instead of German doctrine contrary to popular belief.
Source? Not implying you're wrong, would just like to know more.

>They also lost pretty much every time they went up against them except for Kasserine, and quite badly.

I'm no Wehraboo, but the Germans rarely lost because of any tactical deficiencies as Americans seem to believe.

Ignoring strategic concerns will lead you to make conclusions like Lindybeige did with the Bren LMG vs. the "Spandau" where he said the Bren was better because British troops routinely beat the Germans. Grinding down your opponent with firepower doesn't really reflect the quality of your infantry tactics and doctrine.

>the Germans rarely lost because of any tactical deficiencies
[citation needed]

the brits called the MG42 a spandau, just like they called the mp40 a schmeisser.

1. Soviet Union
2. France
3. United Kingdom
3. United States
5. Germany
French armour is seriously underrated while German armour was completely crap in everything but doctorine.

>german infantry tactics form the basis of modern infantry tactics with the MG providing primary firepower
>the old system with garands and BARs was better.

>the panzer 4 was bad.
>the stug was bad
you take that back.

>Let's make our tanks unreliable squares that can't deflect shit
What did they mean by this?

>all dem citations
>the wehr lost anyway
>wehr used backwards infantry squads while "old system" of teams is literally still in use

wew

The Germans were blessed with doctrines that made them effective on both offense and defense. Even a half-assed Wehrmacht could achieve noteworthy success during the Ardennes Offensive in 1944. Places like Monte Cassino or Normandy would've fallen faster had they not been manned by Germans.

I know this sounds like such a fanboy reply, but there are times when a country just produces soldiers and (more importantly) leaders that have the proper mentality for waging war. The Soviets and Japanese were the only other countries producing men capable of suffering greatly for their countries. Another example would be Napoleon's Grande Armee.

The problem is that people tend to equate success in wartime as a measure of their men's worth so they color their perceptions with tons of bias. Success in warfare is the same as success in sports, nobody wins 100% of the time. But sometimes, one country or team is just better. Americans just need to understand that their greatest strength lies in flexibility and enormous amounts of munitions, not in being bad ass soldiers who are black belts in combat. There's nothing wrong with that and it saved a lot of lives during the war.

ah yes, the GPMG concept pioneered by the americans in ww2 with their BARs.
>My tank has sloped armor
>and also bad sights, the commander has to act as gunner and loader.
sovietboos please go. The earlier german tanks were mechanically reliable, and the stug had somewhat sloped armor along with a low profile that fit well into the more defensive war the germans were fighting.

>noteworthy success during the Ardennes Offensive

>attack the weakest sector of the allied lines
>make no significant gains and get stopped within a mere couple weeks

ha ha ha yeah that's a well produced army lol

>ah yes, the GPMG concept pioneered by the americans in ww2 with their BARs.

The Americans relied on pic related, not the BAR. Granted, the MG34 and MG42 were probably still better.

>not attacking the weakest sector in a line

Do you even strategy? Anyways, they did pretty well considering the circumstances.

>yeah we know there's not enough fuel to get to Antwerp, just steal gasoline from the Americans lel! xDD

It could've been much, much worse if not for the skill of the German leadership in offensive operations.

>the GPMG concept pioneered by the americans in ww2 with their BARs.
The BAR is not a Light Machine Gun. It was what it was: an Automatic Rifle.

It was invented in the day when bolt action rifles were common. Its job was to provide a base of fire for other riflemen to maneuver around. But it wasnt a machine gun, it was merely a rifle that has auto capability and has 20 rounds to convince other idiots with bolt actions to keep their heads down.

By 1940, it was a tad bit outdated by *actual* lmgs.

do you not get sarcasm?
you mean the overweight lmg?

>you mean the overweight lmg?

In the caliber it was in, it would be a GPMG.

and it was pretty heavy as a bipod mounted weapon.
Hell, it needed to be made heavier because it had the worst of both worlds. It was light enough to not being able to be fired in a sustained manner, and too heavy to be used as a lmg.

>the soviets loved the matilda, right?

In their memoirs they're almost always fond of their tanks, British and American. Once they were assigned to foreign tanks they would only ever serve in foreign tank units so its natural that they became attached to them.

what did the soviets think of the churchill?
did they ever use it?

>Great Britain over Germany
Are you fucking kidding me?

Also that chart is bullshit

But aren't you just forming the same mistake in reverse? It's equally bad tactics to not use resources you do have. And America enjoyed an overwhelming advantage in support, especially artillery support.

Criticizing them for relying and heavily employing a very effective arm, one that allowed them to advance rapidly and with minimal loss, is pretty stupid. And sure, you can say that maybe their infantry based tactics weren't super-advanced, but they came up with a way to obviate it. Why should they fight with one hand tied behind their backs?

Breh. You're kidding right? The British, french and the germans all had tanks who were created to destroy other tanks. This was common practice even before the war.

don't bother. He fell for the tank destroyer meme.

Don't think I've read any memoirs from Churchill tankers but they did use them.

>It's equally bad tactics to not use resources you do have. And America enjoyed an overwhelming advantage in support, especially artillery support.

That's more of a strategic concern, like I said. The Germans were just bitching that they weren't necessarily being outclassed, but outproduced.

But you're right, the Americans picked the best doctrine for their strengths as the Germans did. And in the end, the American/Soviet method of attrition and materiel won out over the Germans, just like in WWI. In the end, it doesn't matter how nice your K:D ratio was, but who is left standing. Now if only Americans could apply that mentality to the Vietnam War...

I don't know much about any of these units as almost all American LL tanks went to Mechanized Corps.

>"All 253 [Churchill] arrivals went on the formation of separate guards heavy tank breakthrough regiments. In early 1943, these regiments began to send to the front."

10th Guards Heavy Breakthrough Tank Regiment of the 23rd Tank Corps

36th Guards Heavy Breakthrough Tank Regiment of the 18th Tank Corps

But seems like they were used on the Voronezh Front, at the Kursk salient, Khar'kov, and had a big role breaking through German artillery around Leningrad when lifting the siege.

...

AirLand Battle was borne out of studying Soviet Deep Battle doctrine which was perfected during the later years of the war, emphasizing coordination, maneuver and retaining the initiative.
Here's a good article on AirLand Battle:
au.af.mil/au/afri/aspj/airchronicles/aureview/1984/may-jun/romjue.html

Here's an analysis on Operation Bagration which analyzes the Deep Battle doctrine:
usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/connor.pdf

US & friends were basically fighting the Volkssturm. Allies fighting the german army is France 1940.

>MG meme
>when all bullets combined accounted for less than 10% of casualties
top kek

>Do you even strategy?
lol are you retarded? there's nothing noteworthy about that.

>i-it coulda IF-
too rich

wat?

How do I get into WWII military history/military strategy? Any good books to start with?

military autism thread
>posts a base acontextual power ranking with no explanation or justification
It's not autistic, it's dumb highschooler that thinks they are soooo into history whenever they lartot memes tier.

*parrot memes

Germany did not have better air support than the Soviets except in the first months of Barbarossa.

They had far better air support up until 1943 or so.

What they didn't have more of was planes. But they sortied more often than their Soviet counterparts per plane, and they were far, far better at actually coordinating their bombers with their ground forces to make sure that the bombs were dropped somewhere useful.

I'd recommend Chuikov's memoirs about Stalingrad and the campaigning about the Don basin. He's always talking about his beef with the VVS, and how they can't do shit despite having planes all over the place.

>that based mustache of the dead man

I'd recommend actual history backs rather than reading memoirs and patching together the rest from your imagination and bias.

I'm not seeing a citation there, user. Go look up any of the 1942 campaigns, and you'll see German planes controlling the skies, not Soviet ones.

Why do you think the successful soviet counter-attacks to that date were all done in weather when the planes couldn't fly, and as soon as the percipitation cleared up in the spring, all those Soviet offensives ground to disastrous halts?

>he thinks aircraft were only used in spring and summer
I don't think a citation will help you desu oniichan.

Also
>percipitation cleared up in the spring
So much knowledge, so much expertise of the Eastern Front.

No, that's not even what I said. But good try.

Precipitation does largely clear up in Russia and the Ukraine by late March. Of course, all that moisture doesn't go away instantly, so you get all the mud, especially as the snow melts, but the skies are much clearer than they tend to be from November-February.

>suppressive fire causes casualties

Pic highly related. The allies in '44 were fighting an army that was already beaten.