After studying Germany in WW2 for some time I have come to some conclusions

After studying Germany in WW2 for some time I have come to some conclusions.

1. Germany during WW2 is massively overrated, in actual fact they were quite technologically undeveloped, their tactics were outdated, and by halfway through the war they were extremely lacking in industrial might.

2. Germany during ww2 is underrated, because they are overrated. Because they're overrated as as superpower with advanced technology and equal might, it downplays the fact that they actually did exceedingly well and held on for a long time despite their completely inferior logistics, supplies, industry and strategy.

In a sense, they were a third rate power who punched well above their weight and held on for a long time, but allied victory was inevitable, not the prevailing view that they were a 1st rate power who lost simply due to inferior numbers and bombing. D-Day is when this was most clearly exposed.

if you study military history you wont be rating countries but individual units and engagements because you have sources for that

Of course you can rate countries

This is a carry over from the martial prowess of Prussia-Brandenburg from Fredrick
It's incredible that their prowess could last 200+ years,only entering a slight slump with N*poleon who actually strengthen it

To elaborate, the tradition of having a highly trained officer corps helps greatly in battle,with officers having their own initiative and the lack of overt bureaucracy or burden by long chain of commands

Basicaly the only reason why did Krauts dominated between 1939-1941 was because they either zerg rushed equal opponent, or attacked weak country. Zerg rush (Blitzkrieg) stopped working after their enemy actualy prepared for attack. (Soviet Union, unlike Deep battle, Blitzkrieg doesnt work if you loose the advantage of surprise.

I wonder if it's the same person doing these bait threads, seen a few recently.

Regardless, enjoy your 100 posters and 300 replies.

Ah yes, France was in no way prepared for an attack after waiting and preparing for 8 months

Anything WW2 related is a bait thread at this point

>technologically undeveloped
False
>their tactics were outdated
Extremely false
>their tactics were outdated
True

They were prepared, but not for offensive through low countries.

>>their tactics were outdated
>Extremely false
>>their tactics were outdated
>True

Really makes me think

Apparently it did not made you think, since you failed to understand the error.

The third one was clearly
>extremely lacking in industrial might.

>what's the maginot line?

Besides that, your post reads as >the only reason the Krauts dominated is because they used tactics their opponents weren't prepared for or had a stronger military

*whoosh*

They did expect that, they just didn't think they would also thrust through the Ardennes. Either way, that's not a "zerg rush" by any definition.

No, this is the first thread I've made in a long time, I'm a history student, and it's not bait.

>False
They went into the war with hardly any tanks and the ones they had were hardly fit for warfare. Then they spent the entire war making inefficient "super" tanks that broke down every 5 minutes.

>their tactics were outdated

>make shitty tank
>-IT'S NOT FIT FOR WARFARE
>make good tank
>-IT'S INEFFICIENT AND IT EXPLODES IN 5 MINUTES

Another non-thinker talking about the Reich.

Then finish your first year before posting another

>1943-44 rolls around
>hey we're running out of people and we're severely outnumbered
>let's make better machines for them, because manpower is becoming more valuable than industry
>LMAO STUPID NAZIS JUST BUILD SHERMANS

Well yeah, that's what happened isn't it?

Who won the bloody war anyway?

We both know they made the wrong choice. They clearly should have focused on making either the Panzer 4 or Pather (depending when they start) into a much simplier and easier to produce line. They finally realised this with the E series but it was too late

Their tank policy simply was wrong.