Herr hitler look at our new sturmgewehr its the best gun we made so far. "nonono, we need bolt action rifles...

herr hitler look at our new sturmgewehr its the best gun we made so far. "nonono, we need bolt action rifles, a shit ton of them, with scopes, and a fucking huge tank like as big as building. and fucking rockets."

Why were the Nazis so determined to lose ww2 ?

Not building a lot of assault guns was not the reason Germany lost WW2.

The investment into retarded ""superweapons"" did nothing but divert industry away from areas that were desperately lacking sufficient industry

Hardly a drop in the bucket, you ignorant fool. Nothing would've changed.

Hitler might have been a genius in attaining power and spreading his ideology, but he was a complete idiot in terms of military strategy. He never listened to his generals and advisors, and his Führerprinzip stood in the way of winning the war.
He fucking used V1 and V2 rockets against the civilian population instead of moving military forces, interrupted the development of StG-43/MP-44, of the Messerschmitt 262 interceptor, never allowed retreat and gave Luftwaffe command to Goebbels. He was a complete moron.

>He fucking used V1 and V2 rockets against the civilian population instead of moving military forces,
Are you retarded? V1 rockets had a CEP of a large city. More than half of V1 rockets missed London. V2 was more accurate but nowhere near the kind of accuracy required for tactical deployment.
Furthermore, V2 rockets were incapable of delivering the kind of warheads that could do enough destruction to justify their cost.
Hitler might have been a complete idiot, but you are still dumber.

>He fucking used V1 and V2 rockets against the civilian population instead of moving military forces
They weren't SCUD missiles dickhead, they just launched them in a general direction and hoped they hit something

>gave Luftwaffe command to Goebbels.
what the fuck

>He fucking used V1 and V2 rockets against the civilian population instead of moving military forces

Implying the V1 and V2 which were inaccurate as fuck and loud would have been effective against military targets

That was exactly the problem. The enormous distance reduced their accuracy significantly and gave the enemy enough time to send their fighter planes to intercept them. They might actually have caused significant damage if deployed against tank battalions or enemy bases on the continent, instead of just launching them towards the general vicinity of Great Britain.

Sorry, I mixed that up with Göring.

german masochism has no limits

>11 missiles launched at Remagen
>6 casualties
>One landed near fucking Cologne
>Bridge was fine

By the time they had assault rifles, rockets, and giant tanks, they had already lost the war, so might as well as build them anyway

The V-2 program costed 50% more than the Manhattan project which produced the Atom bomb. The V-2 consumed a third of Germany's fuel alcohol production and major portions of other critical technologies to distil the fuel alcohol for one V-2 launch required 30 tonnes of potatoes at a time when food was becoming scarce. More people died manufacturing the V-2 than were killed by its deployment. Moreover, it diverted resources from other, more effective programs.

"… those of us who were seriously engaged in the war were very grateful to Wernher von Braun. We knew that each V-2 cost as much to produce as a high-performance fighter airplane. We knew that German forces on the fighting fronts were in desperate need of airplanes, and that the V-2 rockets were doing us no military damage. From our point of view, the V-2 program was almost as good as if Hitler had adopted a policy of unilateral disarmament." - Freeman Dyson

they had such accuracy because they had no form of in flight guidance system. They would have been useless against any military target due to massive inaccuracy.

They were somewhat deadly in London because when one did actually hit somewhere the people were more densely packed than a tank battalions

I'm talking about the oft-memed giant tanks.

>Why were the Nazis so determined to lose ww2 ?

They weren't a certain (((people))) were determined for them to lose

So was Ferdinand Porsche Jewish? Von Braun? Hitler himself?

>was Alois Shikelgruber Jewish?
you tell me goy

My favorite dumb idea was to put the V-2 in a U-boat and send it to the East Coast to attack New York City. Astronomical cost to inflict miniscule damage onto a non-military target.

Yeah but it would have fulfilled Hitlers weird sexual fetish of a burning New York

I mean New York is a hive of degeneracy so I can see why he wanted it to burn

Because totalitarian dictatorships brainwashed into conspiracy theories are not meritocratic.

No they didn't have enough crew to man a horde of stugs, then they would have ended up having to fight heavy russian tanks anyway, except this time they would be losing out on both quality and quantity.

>Why were the Nazis so determined to lose ww2 ?

for us to learn a lesson to never trust the jews

...

So, did Hitler get meme'd by a bunch of mad scientists?
Was von Braun sitting in a bar in America after the war like, "Hitler? That stupid prick paid for testing my crazy rockets without flinching. I spent like half of his money, and killed more young, smart Germans than any Allied effort. Where's my goddamned medal?"

>The V-2 program costed 50% more than the Manhattan project which produced the Atom bomb.
Wrong.
The 50% more figure refers to the COMBINED cost of the V1 and V2 programs. It is dishonest to compare the cost of two things with the cost of one then complain that the cost of two is higher than the cost of one. Why not throw in the cost of the entire German military while we're at it so we can say that the V2 was a thousand times less cost effective than the Manhattan project?

V2 was supersonic, thus totally silent for the target.

Half of the German ubermensch myths come from the British and French justifying why they ran/surrendered, and American personnel "daddy I heard you really just fought kids and old men" "w-well yeah but they were like hyper efficient, with advanced future weapons! Yeah so I'm still like a hero and stuff"

That's disgusting.

>So, did Hitler get meme'd by a bunch of mad scientists?
Usually it was the opposite. There were many small projects (as in every countries R&D), but Hitler picked out a those he considered good and sponsored them. Obviously he didn't really know what he was doing and so he fucked up a lot of decent projects by demanding the developers to match his wishes. (Best examples of this would be Hitlers interference with the He 177, Me 262, Panther, Tiger, Ferdinand, and V-Weapons projects and of course his numerous strategic mistakes).
Still far too costly and far too much of a resource hog to justify the program.

>V2
>loud

Hitler wasn't against the rifle. He wanted enough rifles produced to justify ammunition production so that the infantry rifle could make a difference.

The STG is overrated, and Hitler didn't oppose it because he thought it was shit, he opposed it because (in a rare moment of lucidity) he knew it couldn't replace the 12 million Kar98s and it required an entirely new rifle round to be produced

> No they didn't have enough crew to man a horde of stugs

This is nonsense, tank crews aren’t some kinda unique species, you assign the men as needed and provide them with the necessary training.

> then they would have ended up having to fight heavy russian tanks anyway,

When you’re wildly outnumbered and stretched across hundreds of miles of battle front, those Stugs would have been far more valuable then a handful of Tigers (that were broken down half the time) and at the actual ranges tank battles took place, the Stugs were just as effective.

> except this time they would be losing out on both quality and quantity.

From a production perspective, the Germans could have produced 10 Stugs for every 3 Tigers and when reliability is considered, they’d have gotten 7 Stugs in the field for every 1 Tiger.

The Tiger and Panther were a waste of limited resources.

> Best examples of this would be Hitlers interference with the Panther, Tiger, Ferdinand

Hitler actually preferred the Daimler-Benz Panther prototype but the army convinced him to go with the MAN version and while Hitler did support Porsche, when his heavy tank design was shown to be even a bigger piece of shit then the Tiger, Hitler canceled production and ordered them converted into heavy tank destroyers to get something of value out of them.

And while Hitler didn’t interfered in the design or production of the Tiger, he deserves the blame for insisting they be deployed in handfuls before the bugs had been worked out, which resulted in no meaningful battlefield success and only allowed the Soviets to capture Germany’s newest tank.

Maybe manpower wasn't an issue comparatively, but a couple thousand more armored vehicles wouldn't be very helpful for Germany's already strained oil and rubber situation.
And you need both of those to effectively train new crews.

>implying you have a gf

Superiority complex

I don't disagree with Hitlers desire for experimentation. He should have had a set limit on that kind of spending. V2 rockets and super-tanks are fine when it's not seriously cutting into practical things that are desperately needed.

The assault rifle 1944 was put into production as much as possible, but the logistical nightmare at that point in the war prevented it totally replacing standard issue k98s & k98ks. I agree that some prototype tanks were tedious and a poor use of resources, but other weapon prototypes like the V2, me-262 jet fighter, and night vision were a better investment than putting mp-40s and panzerfausts in the hands of home guard battalions if one of these weapons could be successfully mass produced.

If you don't see the strategic advantages of Germany prioritizing ground and submarine based ballistic missiles at a point in the war where manpower was limited and the Luftwaffe was in chaos & the mass production of such weapons could allow major bombing of London, Moscow, new York, and DC by v2 missiles you a dummy.

If the Germans perfected ballistic missiles, they could've withdrawn into the Siegfried line at an earlier point and used submarine/ground launched rockets to put a couple tons of tnt on targets all over England, the east coast of the U.S., and parts of Soviet Russia every few hours. Not to mention putting V2s all over concentrations of allied troops and airfields on the western/eastern fronts. Something like that could have at least gotten them a negotiated peace within their 1918-1938 borders.

Unless we Americans decided to nuke them into oblivion, regardless of whether or not they turned the east coast into a crater with SBBMs. In that case we would have had the same outcome, except US continental casualties would've gone up into the tens of thousands and german civilian casualties would be up to ridiculous soviet-tier levels.

>production of such weapons could allow major bombing of London, Moscow, new York, and DC by v2 missiles you a dummy.
>If the Germans perfected ballistic missiles, they could've withdrawn into the Siegfried line at an earlier point and used submarine/ground launched rockets to put a couple tons of tnt on targets all over England, the east coast of the U.S., and parts of Soviet Russia every few hours. Not to mention putting V2s all over concentrations of allied troops and airfields on the western/eastern fronts. Something like that could have at least gotten them a negotiated peace within their 1918-1938 borders.
Read an article about how far the scientists were with developing these missiles, they didn't have nearly the range to hit the US, not even Russia. Also they used up tons of fuel for a very small warhead, and were very inaccurate.
Effectively using them against enemy troops was not feasible.
Even if we assume the V2 was the wonder weapon you seem to believe it was, the Germans were still lacking fuel to fire them, the ability to transport them due to Allied fighter-bombers, and simply the resources to produce enough of them.

The V2 was a waste of resources in the situation Germany was in.

>Super weapons meme
Someone has been watching too much history channel. Also, contrary to popular belief, the mp44 was actually liked by Hitler , in fact, he was the one who gave it the name Sturmgewehr

>Read an article about how far the scientists were with developing these missiles, they didn't have nearly the range to hit the US,
Not him, but you realize that is why he said
>If they perfected it
Which implies resources were strained and put into other fields of R&D so the V2's were limited

If they perfected them they would have just ended up being bombed on their launch pads.

Fun fact: V2 was Speer's pet project.

>this autist is back.

do you really think you wouldve done it better than them?
do you really think they didnt think at all about something so important to them?
you should be asking yourself these questions before you make another one of these retarded posts

But history channel and the washington post told me hitler loved the stg 44

He probably would have loved it more if it was chambered for the standard mauser round instead of the kurz

And a colossal waste of resource. Truly he was working against the regime from the inside, what a hero!

This same op will lecture you on der allies had to keep a shii tier tank like the cuckman for logistical standardization if you give him a chance

t.non g*rman wehraboo

Even if Hitler did not sabotage his war effort it would not have made a difference. The Nazis did not lose because they didn't fight well enough or had bad equipment - they lost because the strategic setup of the war, the geo-political constellation, set them up as the loser before a single shot was fired. Believing that a war of such scale is decided on the battlefield is the same false assumption the Nazi generals held before they started WWII.

The Germans had a ridiculous cluster fuck of multiple different tanks and armored vehicles.

Clearly, they’d have been better off concentrating on production of the Panzer IV and Czech 38 and further improving already solid and dependable designs, as the U.S. wisely did with the Sherman and Stuart.

except if they did certain things different they could have won.

"No"