Be Wehrmacht

what "butthurt" are you talking about

Also last time I checked the Anglosphere never got invaded, and won the war.

>equipped with what was basically ww1 surplus
>had to fight against navy to get any funding
>still kicked the ever living fuck out of brits, yanks, and australians during the early parts of ww2

>yamamoto

Was a retarded nigger that made sure that the Midway ended up being an American victory.

They were fighting countries that were either too small to have any military prescense, or pre-occupied in other theaters.

They started losing within a year of fighting the US.

They usually did that at least once in every successful offensive. The trick isn't having a lot of vehicles, armored or otherwise. It's about identifying a weak point where you can have overwhelming local superiority and punching through there.

Take Fall Gelb, the attack on France (even though it was mostly fought in Belgium). Overall, the balance of tanks was about 3:2 in the allied favor. But at Sedan, where the breakthrough occurred, the Germans managed to amass a slightly over 2:1 advantage in their favor.

>Germans never used Blitzkrieg
>instead it was used by the allied countries

This alone Shows you have no clue and your Bait is really shitty.

I guess that's fair.

But I think the other point is that they didn't develop any other strategies. You can exploit a weak spot in an enemy's defense when you're fighting in a small area, (like Belgium), but it doesn't work against enemies that utilise layers of defense (I think that's what its called) like the Russians

I said the Germans "barely ever" used the Blitzkrieg, not that they never used it. Learn to read.

I alson never said that the allies used it, what the fuck are you talking about?

The Russians weren't able to stop the germans from utilizing this tactic successfully. At some point the germans just couldn't concentrate enough forces while the soviet defenses only became more stable. Then the momentum switched and the germans were in the defensive. And even there they employed innovative strategies like the backhand blow.

>good navy
>only 4 somewhat decent battleships in their navy, 2 of which spent most of the war playing hotels for ijn's brass
>only had 4 old as fuck battlecruisers to work as heavy carrier escorts
>all of their heavy cruisers were critically underarmored
>most of their light cruisers were ancient
>damage control? what is that?
>protecting shipping is for filthy foreign devils, glorious nipponese do not need logistics
>no real heavy aa-guns for their ships
>shitty dp-guns
>shitty dp-guns mixed with dedicated anti-ship secondaries
>bad submarine doctrine

It was decent for the times, mostly since they practically revolutionized the concept of carrier warfare

Right in essence, but wrong in specifics. In some ways, the vastness of Russia helped the Blitzkrieg thing work. Because it was so huge, and because of that the density of firepower was so low, there was probably going to be a weak point somewhere, or even multiple weak points you can push through. (Soviet strength at the front line on June 22nd 1941 was actually less than what France had mobilized in 1940, and they were trying to cover an area roughly 3 times as wide).

The problem wasn't so much layers of defense, which the Soviets weren't using at the outset anyway, thinking such a strategy was defeatist and preferring to have a counterattacking based defense; the problem was that, ideally, a blitzkrieg went

>Find weak point in their line
>Overwhelm that weak point
>Go charging along with your mobile elements into their rear
>Chew up all that second echelon non-direct fighting stuff, their artillery, their field hostpitals, their command posts, their supply dumps, etc.
>Without that stuff, the enemy frontline soldiers are severely hampered, and can be mopped up with your own less mobile forces easily.
>Meanwhile, your armor/mobile elements are to their rear, cutting off escape routes
>Crush a huge amount of their forces, force a surrender.

1/2

When they tried to do that against the Soviets, 2 major things cropped up. Firstly, the areas they were trying to cover were so vast, that a lot of the Soviet troops pocketed were either able to escape through gaps in the cordon, or were able to go to ground and form irregular resistance, which while probably not as dangerous as direct regular resistance, were still annoying and slowed you down.

The second thing is that yes, it takes time to overrun a place as huge as the USSR, and that gave time for the Soviets to train and arm more and more troops even when the fighting is going on, something that a country like France didn't really have the luxury of.

But operationally, the Blitzkrieg style attacks tended to work. The first time a German offensive failed to gain ground and pocket huge numbers of Soviet troops was Kursk, and that was something of a freak occurrance where the Soviets knew exactly where the attack was going to come months in advance and fortified the hell out of the area. In fact, it was so "successful", at least on an operational if not strategic level, that the Soviet countermeasures were essentially to write off the guys in the front as dead anyway, and try to hit the armored sprearheads with massive counterattacks of their own, resulting in these bloody, see-saw battles.

The fucking term you mongoloid. It was only used by Nazi Propaganda because german exilants and allied press claimed a Blitzkrieg wasn't possible because the germans would face determined resistance.

The germans basically picked up the term to mock the allies. Hitler himself disliked it and claimed it was an italian expression.

In military circles it was never used so they sure as hell never claimed their Blitzkrieg won the war.

Btw they employed Blitzkriegesque strategies permanently.

After ww1 everyone wanted to take a break and just let europe recover from the idiocy of the eternal kraut so the children of europe could live a life that was more than dying in a trench.
Of course the hun, in his typical idiocy, mistook this kindness for weakness and invaded countries that were too busy actually making civilization.
everyone let out a huge sigh and kicked the barbarian germans back into german and the german woman jumped on the dicks of civilized men.

What's going on here?

beautiful

>itt: poles,bongs and frogs jerking off about WW2 meming about huns/krauts

>meanwhile bongs still try to dispute the fact that the brexit meme backfired in a huge way
>french election is going to be contested between the retarded postergirl of the alt-right and a literal meme candidat
>polands tries to block the election of tusk,get btfo by all other EU members

Really makes you think why the Kraut meme is so overused on Veeky Forums.

1 million rapefugees every year
:)

>1 Million every year

Interesting that you have to resort to lying while i simply told the current events of the Day.

>2016+1
what kind of cancer is this ?

>>infantry almost exlusively equipped with outdated rifles, grenades, and handguns
Their guns weren't outdated though.

German tanks were outarmored and gunned but the superior tactical prowess of armored junior officers, radio use, and general literacy made armored-to-armored engagements before Kursk universally advantage: Wehrmacht. The comparison to Soviet tank unreliability is skewed because Panzer IIIs which served in France largely survived to Moscow, breaking down rather than burning out, which is what happened to 95% of armored units which faced the Wehrmacht. They broke down as often because they survived four times the engagements.
90% of "foot" transport is train transport with 50-100 miles total "walked". Its reflects more limitation of flexibility than logistical feasibility.
The Red Army won through overwhelming output, not stability or a first world standard of engagement throughput.
The rapid expansion of the armed forces was messy and simple things like winter uniforms and new summer ones every year were overlooked because threat of invasion due only somewhat to Hitler's antics made new tanks, planes and simply manning units which only existed on paper (the Wehrmact only reached the rifleman numbers of the Reichswehr in late 1941) was the necessity which proved a downfall.
They were playing with chips they didn't have, that doesn't mean the opposing game wasn't any less retarded.

>infantry doctrine based around a machine gun on a tripod, preventing fast movement or offenses
Stopped reading there

the angel memories clearly state that they were plinking at their enemies with squirrel guns and were hoping they would die of wounds

>was it the worst army besides the Polish or French
the Poles were well trained/led but ill equipped, the French weren't supposed to be pushovers. They were excellently equipped but poorly led. Hitler expected the invasion of France to last atleast a year

tldr, you should of used a military that was poorly equipped and poorly led ie Italy

tusk is a liberal, if he was in office still he would of let in more refugees than Germany did

IS this some next level falseflagging? A kraut pretending to be an anglo redditor? Really makes the mind spin

I'm not sure what you mean by well led in terms of Poland. While they did have adequate low-level officers, their entire strategy was pretty bad, and based around a misapprehension as to how Britain and France were likely to react, encouraging them to attempt to hold an indefensible border.

At least on the strategic/operational level, they were very poorly led.

>The Chinese. It's not even close.

At least they fought. The French barely tried

In large part they didn't. They hoped other Chinese, or someone from the outside like the Americans would do the fighting and wound up with debacles like Ichi-Go.

>and australians
>japs btfo by shitposting militia in kokoda