Daily reminder that the Wehrmacht was the worst army in human history

it took the soviets rearming to bring them down

>allied with Italy, Japan, Vichy France, Hungary, Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, etc and hundreds of thousands of non-German volunteers
>IT WAS GERMANY ALONE AGAINST THE WHOLE WORLD !!!

Fuck off lmao

More like they tried to take on way too many other countries, got overstretched, and beefed it.

No, it took the industrial giant of the United States to supply the enormous army of the Soviet Union and the British fleet, largest in the world at that time, to bring them down.

...

>it's "an American naziboo having an identity crisis over whether to support his fellow Americans or the nazi enemies" episode

No, that's what did bring them down. Given Nazi Germany's patent inability to actually strike decisively at any of those three, it's almost a certainty that lesser force could have brought them down had the historical coalition not formed. It would have taken longer and been bloodier, to be sure, but you didn't need all three piling in.

>tfw you've given up ever talking about muh wehrmacht because all it brings is trolling and butthurt

feelsgoodman, like getting off a drug

Shit never gets old tbqhwyf

I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics those GOP Waffen-SS roleplayers go through to justify worshiping soldiers who killed American POWs in cold blood

The soviet union could never have succeeded without foreign aid.

The british or US could by themselves have fought the germans to a stalemate, but there is no way Soviet could have survived without the lend lease.

Still they took France over in one week.

>The soviet union could never have succeeded without foreign aid.

Oh like they did at Moscow and Stalingrad?

They would not only survive, they would win decisively. The numbers game was just too rigged in their favor, it's actually nothing short of a miracle and a testament to Soviet stupidity that Barbarossa saw some initial success.

>The soviet union could never have succeeded without foreign aid.

Possibly. Possibly not. I would agree that they couldn't give their historical performance, but

>but there is no way Soviet could have survived without the lend lease.

Is simply wrong. Note how the overwhelming majority of LL shipments were dispatched (nevermind received or filtered down to where they were needed) after the German offensives had petered out.

>The british or US could by themselves have fought the germans to a stalemate,

They could have won, and won decisively. If nothing else, atomic fire over the skies of Berlin (and half of the other German cities) would have ended things.

>implying that they didn't have allies

Stormfag """"""""education"""""""

>it's a commieboo trying to meme "the USSR would have won anyway but the fucking American propaganda machine will tell you otherwise" meme

Swing and a miss.

Seriously, if people are going to remove all the support Germany had, they should do same for the Soviet Union.

Shit tier meme bro. It wasn't the Russo-German war it was ww2. Even if Russia did a lot of the heavy lifting there's no doubt the other allied powers contributed

The net result would be a decisive Soviet win.

Quite simply, Germany relied overwhelmingly on foreign imports (mostly from Romania) for oil, and they had enough petrol problems as it was. You cut out about 2/3 of their supply, and they're not getting anywhere.

>It's a lend-lease denial episode

More like (((you)))

>he disagrees with me

>he must be leftist

Fuck off, stormfag

...

Buttblasted Nazi boo detected

Try going back to the post and reading it again.

I'm not denying lend-lease. But Germany was far more reliant on foreign imports from their allies than the Soviets were.

Without Lend-Lease, the Soviets lose out on a huge amount of materiel, especially in logistical secondary equipment (trucks and the like) and will probably have to retool a whole bunch of their factories away from producing tanks to produce it themselves.

Without Romanian oil, Germany can't penetrate more than a few hundred miles into the USSR, and gets smothered because their tanks and planes don't go.

>triggered slavaboo thread no 57744
>>>/reddit/

...

>amirightguys?!?!

>triggered wehraboo bait reply no 1488

>Oh like they did at Moscow and Stalingrad?

British aid in particular was vital to the defense of Moscow. Look up the Moscow protocol.

Direct LL aid was vital at Stalingrad. Read Sixth Army Communiques complaining of "very strong Panzer concentrations of US origin" and their immediate effect against the Germans.

>Note how the overwhelming majority of LL shipments were dispatched (nevermind received or filtered down to where they were needed) after the German offensives had petered out.

Claiming the Soviets could be victorious without western aid contradicts numerous first and second hand testimonies from those actually involved.

>Claiming the Soviets could be victorious without western aid contradicts numerous first and second hand testimonies from those actually involved.

Learn to read.

>The soviet union could never have succeeded without foreign aid.

>Possibly. Possibly not. I would agree that they couldn't give their historical performance, but

>but there is no way Soviet could have survived without the lend lease.

>Is simply wrong. Note how the overwhelming majority of LL shipments were dispatched (nevermind received or filtered down to where they were needed) after the German offensives had petered out.

There actually is a middle ground between "Soviets win the war by partying in Berlin" and "Germans win the war by partying in Moscow".

The claim that "The Soviets would have lost the war without Lend-Lease" is incredibly dubious, given that the Lend Lease effects were most pronounced once the tide had already turned.

You want to claim that the Soviets wouldn't be able to counterattack without it? Go right ahead. But to claim that it was necessary for the Soviets to survive is simply wrong. And yes, I'm aware you have some pretty impressive figures saying otherwise. But shipping dates>post hoc analysis, even by experts. You cannot have the impact of those munitions and supplies before they arrive, and they arrived way too late for things like Typhoon.

I feel beyond enraged everytime someone even implies that Russians are Slavs. Neck yourself nigger.

>"we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war"
-Marshal Zhukov

>"If the US had not helped us we would not have won the war"
-Nikita Khrushchev

>"there is no way the Soviets could have survived without the lend lease" is simply wrong
-Some fag on Veeky Forums

Stop posting.

>British aid in particular was vital to the defense of Moscow. Look up the Moscow protocol.

Funny you should mention British aid.

>shipping dates>post hoc analysis, even by experts.

Source?

Not him, but some people don't get the difference between not being able to win the war and losing it. Lend lease played an important role in the big soviet offensives that won the war. It doesn't mean Germany would've conquered Russia without it.

>But shipping dates>post hoc analysis, even by experts

Analysis of incomplete data that is either still hidden...

>"Much Soviet archival material on Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union remains “secret” in the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and Russian State Archive of the Economy, or at least has not been declassified."

... or was just horribly documented in the first place (especially true for early aid)

>"Soviet and indeed post-Soviet Russian academic authors (i.e., those providing scholarly apparatus) have been unwilling or unable to systematically trace British or US tanks or indeed aircraft provided to the Soviet Union through to front-line units"

-Alexander Hill (2006) British “Lend-Lease” Tanks and the Battle for Moscow, November–December 1941—A Research Note, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 19:2, 289-294

"Unstoppable Wehrmacht" is a meme, but they were one of the top armies in 1939. That's not saying a lot though, because there were only a couple of strong contenders, but France threw out their military superiority when they began using incredibly outdated tactics and strategies.

Nigger, I gave you the shipping dates from the U.S. end. That is not incomplete, nor hidden. Stuff could not have gotten to the Soviets before the U.S. fucking sent it out on boats.

Yes, I admit, I don't have data as to what happened after it was shipped out. But I know, due to understanding how linear time works, that stuff shipped out in 1943 was not there in time to win the battle of Stalingrad.

You utter retard.

Looks like the majority of aid was going to britain, but a nice chunk of it (at least 30%) was going to the Soviet Union. Based on that chart, the Soviets received the equivalent of $163 billion dollars in aid. And you're going to suggest that is some trivial amount? US aid saved the Soviets from getting overrun by the Nazis. Without lend-lease, the USSR would not have survived the second world war.

Kys

>Funny you should mention British aid.

You can't really compare US aid to the Western Allies to aid for the Soviet Union, even if both were done under Lend-Lease. One was done as a pooling of resources, for example the spark plugs used in almost all American bombers were British-make. Aid to the Soviets was one way.

>“The expenditures made by the British Commonwealth of Nations for Reverse Lend-Lease and the expansion of this programme emphasises the contribution U.K. and the British Colonies has made while taking its place on the battlefronts. . . . The British pooled their resources with us."
- Roosevelt

>“As regards Australia, Lend-Lease was about one and a quarter thousand million dollars, and Reverse Lend-Lease to U.S. 888 million dollars. But when account is taken of the difference in price-levels, Australia is in a favorable relation to the U.S. In this connection, President Truman very generously reported to Congress on December 27, 1946, "The contribution made by Australia equaled that of U.S. to Australia."”
- Lend-Lease Anniversary, O. Schreiber, The Australian Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Sep. 1951), pp. 64-67

>le super tiger tank couldn't go more than 10 meters without the transmission exploding
That's because they supposedly had da Jews working on those trannies

>I gave you the shipping dates from the U.S. end. That is not incomplete, nor hidden.

You're confusing the important shipments of LL with finished products. Tanks and planes helped but it was the raw materials that truly mattered, and outgoing invoices from the US don't tell us where and how it was used, ie. how many Soviet tanks were made possible by the aluminum desperately needed for their engines? How many shells made with aid powder? etc... Not to mention you don't need financial aid to be transferred via boat.

>shipped out in 1943 was not there in time to win the battle of Stalingrad.
They had been receiving aid, though mostly British, since 1941.

...

...

DELETE THIS

...

>You're confusing the important shipments of LL with finished products. Tanks and planes helped but it was the raw materials that truly mattered, and outgoing invoices from the US don't tell us where and how it was used, ie. how many Soviet tanks were made possible by the aluminum desperately needed for their engines?

You are either deliberately not reading what I'm providing, or are so absolutely retarded that you don't understand it.

When the source is broken down into

>Ammunition
>Weapons(excluding combat vehicles)
>Combat Vehicles
>Noncombat vehicles
>Quartermaster equipment, supplies, and materiel
>Medical equipment, supplies, and materiel
>Signal equipment supplies, and materiel
>Chemical warfare equip.m supplies and materiel
>Engineer equipment, supplies and materiel
>Railway equipment, supplies, and materiel
>Machinery and equipment for production

IT ISN'T FUCKING LIMITED TO TANKS AND PLANES.

So yes, we can track the equipment of things like said productive equipment. As with most supplies, those non-directly combat use materials had about 85% of their shipping dates post 1943.

>They had been receiving aid, though mostly British, since 1941.

And British aid to the USSR was tiny, and unlike the American stuff which was mostly logistical, British gifts were mostly obsolescent planes and tanks.

Again, I don't know how much simpler I can make this. About 85% the foreign aid the Soviets received was SENT post December 31st, 1942. The amount that the Soviets were getting before that was tiny, and somehow in the meantime, they had mobilized about 850 divisions in that time period, even equipping them!

Lend Lease's impact was way more pronounced in the Soviet counteroffensive phase than the desperate first rushes where they were on the back foot.

>This entire fucking thread

if you get your information from wikipedia and video games you really need to fuck off from Veeky Forums

Wow now that I think about how it makes me think, that post really made me think.

Real smart plan the Nazis had.
>Meine Fuhrer, I have it!
>Was?
>We're going to take the Jews and treat them like shit for ten years...
>Ja?
>Then we're going to forcibly evict them from their homes and send them to internment camps where we treat them even worse...
>Ja?
>And then we're going to have them build our weapons of war for us!
>FUCKING BRILLIANT HEINRICH I SEE NO POSSIBLE WAY THIS CAN BACKFIRE

>IT ISN'T FUCKING LIMITED TO TANKS AND PLANES

Which is exactly why without reliable Soviet sources of where the materiel was sent/used it is literally impossible to make a % of production argument against the impact of LL.

>we can track the equipment of things like said productive equipment

But we can't compare it to Soviet production at the time, which is the basis for arguments made against the importance of aid.

>they had mobilized about 850 divisions in that time period, even equipping them!

This is far from correct. They were still transforming truck plants to tank manufacturing (only possible due to promised production and delivery of LL trucks) well into 1942;

>From 22 June to 31 December 1941, according to Krivosheev only 3,200 medium and heavy tanks were delivered to the Red Army, figures including Lend-Lease equipment starting to filter through.12 Simonov gives production of the T-34 and KV series for the second half of 1941 as 2,819 units, with Suprun noting 361 heavy and medium British Lend-Lease tanks having reached the Red Army by this point, giving a grand total of 3,180.
N. Simonov, Voenno-promishlennii kompleks SSSR v 1920–1950 godi (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 1996) p. 164.

That's over 10% of all tanks at the most crucial point of the war.

>Which is exactly why without reliable Soviet sources of where the materiel was sent/used it is literally impossible to make a % of production argument against the impact of LL.

>it is literally impossible to make a % of production argument against the impact of LL.

Learn to read you fucking idiot. I have never once made that argument in this thread, talking solely about Lend Lease deliveries compared to OTHER Lend-Lease deliveries.

If you again, read the source (I realize this is hard) U.S. shipping for stuff like production equipment in 1941? ZERO. Therefore, I can confidently say that it had no impact until at least 1942, and probably relatively late 42, given that of 1942's shipments, some 80% of that was sent in the second half, and it again would take some time to actually filter that stuff through.

But, addressing your argument, while I don't have Soviet production information at my fingertips, I somehow doubt that about 9 million dollars, filtered across the entire soviet war economy made the difference.

>This is far from correct. They were still transforming truck plants to tank manufacturing (only possible due to promised production and delivery of LL trucks) well into 1942;

You might find this interesting and informative.

youtube.com/watch?v=7Clz27nghIg

>That's over 10% of all tanks at the most crucial point of the war.

At a point in the war when weather and logistical issues made tanks very much less than their optimum, what with poor visibility, difficulty moving fuel, inability to project air cover. Infantry and artillery carried the Vyzama counteroffensives.

>You might find this interesting and informative.

To quote Glantz's own academic journal;

>According to Rotmistrov, at the end of November 1941 there were only 670 Soviet tanks for the Fronts before Moscow, that is the recently formed Kalinin, Western and South-Western Fronts, of which only 205 were heavy or medium types. Most of this tank strength was concentrated with the Western Front, with the Kalinin Front having only two tank battalions (67 tanks) and the South-Western two tank brigades (30 tanks). Alternative figures suggest that of 667 tanks with front-line units of the Kalinin, Western and right wing of the South-Western Fronts as of 1 December 1941, 607 were with the Western Front, of which 205 were KV series and T-34s, with the Kalinin Front and the right wing of the South-Western Front having 17 and 43 tanks, respectively, none of which were apparently KV series or T-34s. Either set of figures is a significant improvement on the 141 heavy and medium tanks available to the Western, Reserve and Briansk Fronts before Moscow as of 1 October 1941. In the light of these statistics, it is reasonable to suggest that Lend-Lease supplied tanks made up in the region of 30–40% of the heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941, and that they made up a significant proportion of such vehicles available as reinforcements at this critical juncture.

...

...

>He thinks the Kriegsmarine could've made it past Gibraltar

The Italian army was much, much worse

>numbers game

Thats not how it works.nyou can have billions of soldiers. But if you cant feed or transport them anywhere, they're more of a hindrance than a boon.

I really wonder if those 9 french soldiers survived the war. How did Italy treat POW's?

urban legend
very little if at all mechanical failures were reported by the tiger Bs due to sabotage, their main issue was the terrain, lack of bridges or bad driving due to inexperience of the crew (hasty training)

the whole factory sabotage is a meme, made up to look good by collaborating nations
im looking at you czechs

>gave up when they realized there was no chance of winning

Sounds better than being German desu

>The habitual Franco-Polack shitposter talks of the time when the Germans, clearly and by all definition, blew the fuck out of their country.
>Calls the Wehrmacht the worst army in human history.

Lad, why does it say here that it wasn't a numbers game? The Axis side had nearly a million more soldiers.
You must be wrong, sry

Forgot image

Woops didn't see the
>(initial)

Tiger B, yes

Panther? Not so much.

Yup. Nazi Germany was a failure. Should have listened to Nietzsche.

I think more Soviet soldiers died during The war than The Number Of soldiers who participated at the outset

yes - in fact, more soviet soldiers *died in german POW camps alone* than defended against the invasion initally

We need only check the k/d counts of any battle on the Eastern Front to see how wrong you are.

>Greater German total Military dead - 4,300,000
>Soviet total Military dead - 10,600,000

>>"Muh asiatic red hordes" The germans always loose and wehrfags always have an excuse for it
That's not wrong though. The soviets had a huge numerical advantage and they had thousands of Siberian troops in the far east that they turned west to throw against the Axis.

>le super tiger tank couldn't go more than 10 meters without the transmission exploding
It wasn't that bad desu. It had issues but it absolutely rekt Shermans.

There are plenty of cases where Americans, Brits, and Russians killed Germans in cold blood.

Fuck off. It's war. Shit happens.

>In terms of materiel losses, the Germans lost about 33,324 tanks, tank destroyers, and assault guns in the east (nearly 2/3 of tank/assault gun losses for the whole war),[118][119] while the Soviets lost 96,500 tanks, tank destroyers, and assault guns.[120] The Soviets also lost 102,600 aircraft (combat and non-combat causes), including 46,100 in combat,[121] while the Germans lost ~14,000 aircraft in combat (11,400 from 1941 to 1944), with an unknown amount lost to mechanical failure, accidents, or being captured by the Soviets.[122]

Woah, really activates your almonds.

Post pics of Red Army troops

...

nazis got btfo

>And British aid to the USSR was tiny, and unlike the American stuff which was mostly logistical, British gifts were mostly obsolescent planes and tanks.

3,000+ Hurricanes
4,000+ other aircraft
27 naval vessels
5,218 tanks
5,000+ anti-tank guns
4,020 ambulances and trucks
323 machinery trucks
2,560 Universal Carriers
1,721 motorcycles
£1.15bn worth of aircraft engines
600 radar and sonar sets
Hundreds of naval guns
15 million pairs of boots

not entirely accurate, notably the aircraft engines.

its also worth noting that the UK paid for its lend lease supplies both by repayment of the loan, and by giving the US significant technology for no price, the cavity magnetron alone would have been worth upwards of a billion dollars.

The only thing the wehrs had was cool outfits and neat guns
That's it

>Soviets considered a tank knocked out even if it simply broke down or threw a track
>Germany would not write off their tanks as knocked out even if they were sitting 100 km behind enemy lines because they were still technically "recoverable"

Gotta love cheating at statistics.

Citation needed

tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/07/cheating-at-statistics-part-3.html

fuckable daughters, too

eh, the Wehrmacht had its strengths and weaknesses

>pros
excellent organization, there was usually always accommodations for ammunition, food, and repairs so long as there was any to go around, the Japanese completely threw out logistics and told all island garrisons they were on their own.

great vehicles on paper: the Panzer VI was a solid vehicle that did what it was designed to do, and the Tiger/Panther did what they were built to do, destroy T-34's. Whether they could actually get to the field or not was a different story.

excellent speed: this was their greatest advantage, being able to advance more than 50 kilometers every day was un-fucking-heard of in war, all mostly due to the next pro:

Great communication, radio was utilized to orchestrate attacks between the Luftwaffe, artillery, tank and troop movements, the coordination given by this communication gave Germany the early edge.

>Cons
the armour was only good on paper: Germany's prized tanks were better for the showroom than the battlefield, the armor was good, but the mechanics were so fragile, that the allies resorted to high-explosive shells to rattle the engines an disable them, rather than use armour-piercing to destroy them outright. That along with just general mechanical failures in transit and the tanks being gas guzzlers themselves didn't help at all.

Abysmally poor resource management in the beginning: Albert Speer had to make a complete overhaul of the German economy to squeeze every ounce of iron and oil they could spare.

diverting resources to accelerating the holocaust, soldiers and material that would have been better served on the Front.

Defiant orders to hold, German armies were 100% wiped out time and time again because they were denied orders to break out of encirclements, and instead were ordered to hold to the last man, essentially sending every army to their doom rather than retreat to fight on more favorable terms.

Panzer IV*

really makes you think

yeah nah tiger was a shit tank, for the resources it took to produce you could have done so much more.

Americans rounded up the SS and starved them to death in camps after the victory. Ironic, yeah, but it happened.