Memes that need to die

That's beside his point?
Lots of soldiers were needed to occupy the conquered territories...
>>Kraut military wasnt the most incompetent fighting force in human history
Yes, going a bit far there m8

>Lots of soldiers were needed to occupy the conquered territories...
Thats problem of Krauts being autistic and not knowing how to behave

They were more mobilized than Britain throughout the entire war. Less consumer consumption, more industry dedicated to war orders, more women in the workforce, and more percentage of GDP dedicated to the military.

It's unfair to compare 88 with US 90mm with VT fuze.

>compares 88 mm to VT fuses
kek

Fight smarter, not just harder, etc.

>Polish infantry rode to the frontlines on horses
>France had stationary guns on treads which could be moved onto railcarts if the need arose
>"hey everyone, let's attack fast!"
>Germany now controls Europe by being the ideological head of the E.U.
Central Europeans know how to play the long game, 35d backgammon

>the Americans are more advanced than my technologically advanced ubermensch, it's not fair!

Yeah nice insult, the implication is still false.

On tanks:

The Tiger was a bad tank

The Nazis could have gotten by just building Panzer IVs

American tanks were death traps

The Tiger could only be taken out with a side shot

The Firefly was a good tank

The Centurion was the best tank in the world

They should have adopted the IS7

The Abrams is outdated

The Chinese have shit tanks

The Armata is the best tank

no, you totally forget why the 88 was so famous. The krauts used it regularly as Anti Tank weaponry. Meanwhile the allies already had dedicated AT weapons and nearly never had to use their heavy AA as anti tank weaponry

It was terrible as an anti tank weapon.

IS-7 is one of the best looking tanks ever desu

>it was terrible.
yeah, which is why it was used so extensively and had good armor piercing capability throughout the war.

>mein Panzerwaffe
>the safest frontline combat role in WW2 was an American tank crewman
Makes you think

Read these two articles please:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

And?

If american tanks were death traps, how come they had the highest survival rate out of any nation's tank crewmen post-penetration, and how come armored force suffered only 2% KIA.

>highest survival rate
>post penetration
kek

American tanks were good, but it's not really fair to compare a troop that has to fight with fuel scarcity, major logistical issues, too little equipment and against a numerically and logistically superior foe that has air supremacy on several fronts to American tankers that enjoyed all these things and only had to fight the minor part of the German army.

>highest survival rate
>post penetration
I think the German projectiles may have been the issue

finland did lose the winter war though

Per the Red Army Handbook by Steve Zaloga, page 179, 88mm were responsible for less than 5% of Soviet armored losses. Even in 1942 and 1941, the 37mm killed more tanks. And that gun is literally incapable of penning the T34 except point blank side and rear shots. The reason for this is obvious-smaller AT guns can be easily moved by a couple guys. A giant ass 88mm requires extensive preparation, several guys, and a truck/horses.

It's shit.

Not an argument.

Not that guy but yes that is an argument you autistic faggot

Not him, but what were the relative numbers of 37mm and 88's (ones that were specifically employed in anti-tank roles) on the eastern front? Because that could be the cause of the discrepancy.

Its not "shit", but this was the issue with towed AT guns in general and why, generally, infantry came to rely on eother man-portable weapons (recoilless rifles, then AT rockets) or integrated supporting tanks rather than dedicated AT artillery pieces. Took WW2 to figure that out though.

There's a reason self-propelled AT guns were generally more desireable. Its easy to motor around a PaK 43, not so easy to tow it. The 88 wasnt really supposed to be moved arouns like that anyway, it was an AA gun.

thats the definition of an argument you retard. he makes an assertion using premises to backup a conclusion

I can't get a solid number on the number of 88's present as anti tank, but there is the fact that the 37 was a regimental asset, while the 88 was assigned to special units at the corps level. The gun wouldn't even be turned against tanks unless a commander specifically requested 88's to be used in direct fire.

Russia won WW2 by itself.

This. They had to make the most sacrifices and probably suffered the most, but they wouldn't have made it without the US.

this.

"Germany won both wars"

Don't bully anons from another timeline, dumb frogposter.

>three wars with the Fins
>Fins did win

>SS really is elite. They're more human than the rest of you mongs.

>Look up Speer's program. They weren't in war economy until 44. The US entered in 41 as a war economy.

Which timeline is this?

>Look up Speer's program. It's fucking nothing.

You can see in that Germany was in a full war economy before Speer was ever in power.
Speer's programs didn't mobilize the country, it rationalized its industries.

>Speer's programs didn't mobilize the country, it rationalized its industries.
Speers programs didn't do anything special. Other sectors which had no connection to Speer (aircraft production being the major one) increased their productions just as much. Production spike in 1944 was a natural consequence of Germany finally allocating the majority of its resources to munitions instead of expanding munitions production.

>8x as many night fighters
>3x as many CAS bombers
>triples conversion of raw materials into military industry(not including oil or total raw resource production)
>Tank and Aircraft production accelerate drastically from 42-44
>user says it's nothing

Is this bait? Am I supposed to give you wikipedia production links? Maybe cite Fuller and Alber Speer's own autobiographical account?

I just don't understand the motivation to spread lies.

x as many night fighters
x as many CAS bombers
You do realize Speer didn't have any control over aircraft production, right?

>aircraft production had no connection to Speer
>allocation of resources to military had nothing to do with Speer's armaments program

Except the entire strategic framework was under his purview. He wasn't responsible for micromanagement if that's what you mean to say(please take this out and stop embarrassing yourself).

>Finland won Winter war
>Finland won Continuation war
>Finns stopped at old, 1940 borders in 1941
>Stalin ordered Red army to stop at Warsaw, attempts to reach it from north and south are Soviet propaganda
>Stalin banned allies from using his airfields for supplying AK because he wanted AK to loose, not because 96% of supplies fell into the Kraut hands

*1939 borders

And no,that graph actually proves the opposite where it's supposed to provide proof. It just represents UK's own shitty management. It doesn't actually deny that German production scaled at much quicker proportions from 42-44.

>Montgomery was a good commander

funny pic name

THANK You

Speer did not have the entire strategic framework under his purview you fucking imbecile. He led the Armaments Ministry. The Air Ministry was completely separate and not subordinate. They were equal parties to the Central Planning Committee.

>It doesn't actually deny that German production scaled at much quicker proportions from 42-44
Why does it need to when the German strategy before Speer was to prepare for a confrontation between America and Britain by investing into industrial facilities and large scale air and naval programs? Germany before Speer where large efforts went into chemical facilities, bomber projects, and naval plans was no less mobilized than Germany under Speer where they realized that they were fucked regardless and zerged by focusing on fighters and munitions.

>He led the Armaments Ministry

Why would you think I meant anything other than this? You didn't think I actually was implying that he was responsible for say, the automobile industries direct development, did you?

>The Air Ministry was completely separate and not subordinate

Interlocked. His management directly and indirectly coordinated and influenced the other industries as a whole.

>Why would you think I meant anything other than this?
Because you said
>Except the entire strategic framework was under his purview
you fucking moron. Dumb shit who can't even remember the retarded shit he wrote 2 minutes ago.

As minister of Armaments Speer had control over army equipments and ammunition. You, however, seem to think his office allocated resources to all military.

>Interlocked. His management directly and indirectly coordinated and influenced the other industries as a whole.
His management of the Armaments Ministry influenced other industries no more than other ministries influenced his. fucking abort yourself.

>Because you said

I said something that you went out of your way to misinterpret because arguing is more important to you than the truth. I don't know why I just don't stay on dedicated history forums.

>Dumb shit who can't even remember the retarded shit he wrote 2 minutes ago.

Notice I said it wasn't micromanaged. Since he was in charge of armaments, and the civilian economy in the graphic you even linked to represented that his scope of action affected the entire economy.

Yes, since he was in control of what you say, that entails that contributions had to be pulled from somewhere. Again, the graphic you linked to represented this fact contrary to:
> however, seem to think his office allocated resources to all military.

It was a consequence of his duties in cooperation with others.

>His management of the Armaments Ministry influenced other industries no more than other ministries influenced his

Pic related. Your claim falls flat given that he was the deciding factor that covered such a defining aspect of the economy during wartime. Obviously he accounted for the reciprocity between industries as entailed by his job-and now everyone can see your antiSpeer argument has failed decisively even using your own evidence.

this so fucking much

>Since he was in charge of armaments, and the civilian economy in the graphic you even linked to represented that his scope of action affected the entire economy.
He was not in charge of all armaments, just army equipments and ammunition. I fail to understand why you can't grasp this simple idea.

>It was a consequence of his duties in cooperation with others.
No, his office did not allocate resources to all military production as a consequence of anything.

>He was not in charge of all armaments, just army equipments and ammunition. I fail to understand why you can't grasp this simple idea.
>not realizing that armaments was a colloquialism for the department of his managment
>being this detached from reality
>user must have tons of friends with this kind of intuitive understanding of what others mean

>"No, his office did not allocate resources to all military production as a consequence of anything."
>implying that his office was completely incapable of lobbying requests that affected the entire economy
>even though the graph you linked above proved that it did

>not realizing that armaments was a colloquialism for the department of his managment
Uh no, armaments is not a colloquialism, it is a literal translation of Reichsministerium für Bewaffnung und Munition.
And stop fucking going on about some graph. First of all, I did not post that graph. Second, you are trying to make a completely circular argument, where you assert that Germany's production must have been increased due to Speer, and also that Speer must have been in charge of all of Germany's production since all of Germany's production increased. I get that all this logic stuff might be a bit above your level but at least try.

Jesus Christ shut the fuck up

>produce 6 gorillons of shitty massproduced tanks
>"lol only 2% of tanks were destroyed"

retard

Germany made only slightly more tanks and less planes than Britain, a country with half it's population. 1944 production levels is "normal", and 1939-1943 production levels are signs of gross incompetence.

Well they didnt lose it either.

>The church is to blame for the dark age!

The more one reads about the Eastern Front, the more one realizes how underrated were the soviets by the germans and how incompetent the german high command was at times.

They kinda did. The Soviets would've annexed the whole country if they could.

>linear progression of history
>technology as a positive force
>decay as a myth when it's abundently clear that geniuses per capita have been dropping massively

This a million times.

Dumb Slavs would have lost just like they did in WW1 if it weren't for America saving their ingrate asses.

Well, he said it was obsolete, so its proving the point i think.

blitzkrieg was a new tactic though, in context.

>there's credible evidence of the holocaust and Generalplan Ost

Are you actually fucking retarded?

Are you mad because I'm right?

His phrasing wasn't very nice but he's right.

How exactly did america save the USSRs ass?

Read these:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

By the time the lend lease actually kicked in, the soviets had already stopped the germans and were pushing them back.
If anything the lend lease helped end the war sooner.

>Zhuge Liang was the greatest strategist ever
>Liu Bei was a virtuous, honest, and benevolent ruler
>Guan Yu was the God of War
>Shu was more relevant and significant than Wu

totally wrong. they handed over and did not annex Manchuria and Korea, for example.

Outside of Africa, 8,8cm Flak was used in the anti-tank role reluctantly by German commanders who preferred purpose-made AT guns that were not 2 meters tall and did not require 100 people to move.

>Zhuge Liang was a loli

They stopped the 1941 offensive without much help, but the Germans only lost the initiative in 1943. Very much of vital resources were delivered by Lend-Lease, a Soviet victory without the US and UK isn't certain.

Those dumb slavs actually fought a real war. Western front was patethic.

German army perished in the East, not West.

Who are you quoting?

Doesn't change the fact that they were dependent on the US and UK to win the war.

kys

Wouldn't have happened without American supplies and Britain and America bombing the shit out of German industry.

>germany is so bad at fighting wars! They just defeated and occupied most of europe because

xD

i like air campaign too but the effect was negligible

How dump are yankees and anglos to supply with tons of shit their biggest enemy ever?
Wouldn't have happened without Eastern Front consume all Nazi power before that. Also - without Eastern Front how much time anglos would hold their shitty island? 3 more mounts?

>How dump are yankees and anglos to supply with tons of shit their biggest enemy ever?
They didn't, they considered Nazi Germany their biggest enemy, not the Soviet Union.
>Also - without Eastern Front how much time anglos would hold their shitty island? 3 more mounts?
Watch this video please: youtube.com/watch?v=YnPo7V03nbY
A German invasion of the UK was never realistic.

Well doesnt prove anything. The soviets wanted lands from the west, not the east. Also they were never in war with China or Korea, but Japan.