>We were used to an opponent the stature of the Russians; we were amazed at the contrast. During the war, I have never seen soldiers disperse head over heels even though virtually nothing was happening.
>Five Russians were more dangerous than thirty Americans. We already noticed that in our few days in the Western Front.
Why didn't the Germans fear American Warrior?
>doesn't fear americans
>is captured and executed by the americans
pottery
>get BTFO
>say after the war you weren't really trying
genuinely hilarious desu
he didnt fear the american warrior
Carius wasn't executed. He died like a year or two ago.
Americans fight the right way - using artillery and airpower to do the heavy work, rather than risking their soldiers' lives needlessly. Russians tried to do it too, of course, but Americans were better at it.
What's the point of attacking heroically when you can retreat and call in an airstrike instead?
>What's the point of attacking heroically when you can retreat and call in an airstrike instead?
Wehrmacht officer here, I'm a little confused. Airstrikes are a tactical option?
Interesting note on this:
forums.spacebattles.com
> In this sense, the Americans carried out the recommendation of Joseph Stalin "to fight with little blood loss but with high consumption of shells." In June 1944, the distance to the Elbe was about the same from the "Omaha Beach" and from Vitebsk. Russians and Americans reached Elbe also about in the same time. However, the Americans along the way spent 15 tons of artillery ammo per day per every 10,000 personnel and lost an average of 3.8% of troops per month (KIA, WIA, MIA and POW included). Soviet troops spent three times less shells, but have losses of 8.5% men per month.
Also the Americans' INFANTRY divisions had more tanks than German armor divisions. As well as actual trucks, jeeps, and half-tracks instead of horses. The technological gap really was astounding.
Americans love brutality because they think it makes them look bad ass and manly (even though they themselves didn't fight in the war). The more brutal, the better.
The Russians deeply hated the Germans and the war between those two was as cruel and harsh as possible. The Amerikans came from comfy America, eating comfy food and fighting an enemy that already lost, only being part of the force that kills the resistance. Why would they fight with the same furiousity as the Russians? Crazy enough that they would fight at all.
Being a madmen and fighting in a war are not good things, it is not something you should glamorize. Those fighting made the best out of it and the fast majority of them would have preferred to be home, shitposting and not freezing, starving and being afraid of the possibility of dying a gruesome death any second.
That's simply a product of American superiority in arms, not some genius military tactic.
>when your country is so superior that your arms manufacturers create better plans than your allies' general staff
how can totalitarians compete?
Sure, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. However, I would add that I think that the American political and economic system was superior to the Soviet, even adjusting for the unequal geographies and resource bases of the two polities. I think this superiority did a lot to create the superiority in arms in the first place. So even though using artillery and air power heavily wasn't some genius military tactic, it might be fair to say that Americans had a certain political and economic genius that helped give rise to their superiority in arms.
>having an empty continent full of resources protected by two oceans and a century to develop
Yes, I'm sure it was freedom and democracy alone that made America so powerful.
Face it, your history was easy mode cruising. Americans didn't face much adversity, ignoring perhaps Civil War.
I didn't say Soviet system was better. But what you people ignore is that situation of USSR and America in WW2 was insanely different, so some direct comparisons are hard to pull off.
Only a fool would argue that the freedom and democracy (to the extent those existed) were the only factors. However, I'm sure they helped.
>your
not even American, but stay obsessed lol
I don't ignore it. I said "I think that the American political and economic system was superior to the Soviet, even adjusting for the unequal geographies and resource bases of the two polities"
I probably didn't phrase it well, but what I was getting at is that I think the US had geographic and resource advantages to begin with, but it *also* had a superior political and economic system - that is, US superiority to the USSR cannot be explained solely by geographical, etc. advantages.
In Amerian conditions, perhaps.
>Superior firepower as a military doctrine isn't a thing, let alone an American thing
Serious question: How fucking stupid are you? Because there are about 100 years worth of joint chiefs waiting to put a fucking book through your brick head. We literally had an operational doctrine titled Shock and Awe whose sole purpose was to crater so many fucking installations and vehicles through superior firepower that the military was useless. Spoiler alert: it fucking worked
>Berlin only 33% destroyed
Disappointed.
He didn't say it isn't a military doctrine, he said it doesn't take a genius to come up with it - which is true.
I never said it wasn't US doctrine, I merely said it's not some revolutionary breakthrough in military thinking. Superior firepower requires weapon systems to deliver it, for start. USA had plenty.
If you had the American’s God tier industrial output perk, anyone would fight that way.
Also
>it worked
Where exactly? Do you think Iraq or WF in WW2 were some adverse struggles?
Doctrines are proven to work when you face an equal opponent and prevail. USA never faced that.
Germans were quite indisposed for many reasons, Japanese were a joke for many reasons. Rest of US conflicts were smacking highly inferior opponents.
1. Where is this quote from?
2. His only experience on the Western Front was in command of a new Jagdtiger battalion
3. His own men were so hilariously inept and their Jagdtigers so hilarious shit they took out exactly one target (an M10) and lost all their vehicles to breakdowns, air attack, driving accidents and getting flanked
4. "Hur, these Americans are such cowards, they're so incompetent, so easy to fight", he says as he continuously flees them
What a fucking joke.
Germans got stomped at Arracourt even with favorable numbers and rough weather holding Allied airpower back.
It is totally proven to work. You don't have to face an equal opponent (because that never practically happens) to see so.
The most recent vindication of it is the Battle of Raqqa, and before that the Battle of Mosul. If you're looking for WW2 examples, see basically any island battle in the Pacific, Normandy, the Bugle - in fact just to get specific, look at the Battle of Elsenborn Ridge during the Bulge.
The ridge was held by a brand new infantry division fresh off the boat, the 99th. They dug into small hamlets on the high ground, covered the approaches with tank destroyers and every machine gun they had, and, due to their location, happened to have the artillery support of their entire corps perched atop the ridge for fire support, with the first batch of new-fangled proximity fuse artillery shells.
They get attacked by several infantry divisions, the entire 12th SS Panzer division and half of the 1st SS Panzer Division. They were outnumbered about 4:1, and they lacked armoured support until later in the battle, but they had massive amounts of very effective artillery and no shortage of automatic weapons, and they held the ridge, thereby blocking what was supposed to be the main thrust of Operation Wacht Am Rhein.
Also, I love how you think only Americans came to conclusion firepower matters. Armies learned that in WW1.
Soviets literally had artillery divisions.
Soviet motor-rifle regiment during most of Cold War had more integral firepower than US mechanized brigade. On top of massive divisional, army, and front level fire support.
>It is totally proven to work
What is proven to work? You are using example of one encounter to demonstrate your point.
Someone above mentioned ammo expenditure. USA had excellent logistics, and means to achieve those excellent logistics. Thus, more ammo could be expended.
USA had overwhelming superiority in air-power and artillery (speaking of Western Front and Pacific).
Again, you are confusing operational/tactical superiority with material superiority.
Operational/tactical superiority can be observed in campaigns like France in 1940 or Barbarossa. In both cases Germans were inferior in terms of equipment, numbers (superior at the start of Barbarossa, but Soviet mobilized), firepower, yet they prevailed because they were superior in operational and tactical sense. Okay, in France Luftwaffe was technically superior, but their role is somewhat exaggerated.
Of course, technology here played a part too (radio in particular), but THAT is a demonstration of doctrine that works.
Smacking inferior opponents under good conditions only demonstrates your army isn't inept.
lol the only "sucess" the west had was dropping bombs on civilians
>Arracourt
German troops were mostly inexperienced, and weather improved later on.
The entire philosophy is that you stay ahead of your opponents so you can always call on more effective fire than they can. You don't want to let things get equal, that makes it harder to win.
In that sense, the Americans practice strategic superiority; you stay ahead on the grand scale, such that your opponent doesn't have a chance to win before the fighting even starts.
And the French in 1940 were ineptly led, poorly organized, had bad morale, and were generally stuck in a WW1 mindset that didn't work in 1940. Does that mean the Germans' achievement is somehow invalid?
Of course, I didn't disagree with you on that. But I was merely responding to a sort of implication that Americans fight according to some super-secret genius doctrine that no one else thought of. Not really. Everyone aims to increase the firepower of their formations. However, there are logistical, technological and industrial issues.
Germans didn't have significantly more experience though. They simply used their troops better.
Arracourt was literally green troops facing experienced troops, and those green troops couldn't be properly trained due to lack of time and fuel.
So you can't really say Arracourt demonstrated much, except that large part of German force that Western Allies faced was quite inferior in terms of equipment and training, and also hampered by Hitler's meddling.
Meanwhile, Soviets on EF faced the best Germans had to offer.
I'm just saying this to put things into perspective.
If no one else can fucking do it, then there must be some genius instead of your idiotic idea that it's just brainless factory churning. Your major hang-up is theory vs. application and obviously the application is where it matters. Anyone can dream of rockets, it's not some super secret genius thing as you so put it. Not everyone can build one.
>no one else can fucking do it
I told you above that Soviet MR regiment had more integral firepower than US mechanized brigade during most of Cold War.
Yes, others could do it too, believe it or not. We are talking about military matters, don't get lost.
The forces facing the Western Allies were generally poor, but that was only true after Normandy, and by then most of the troops in the East were pretty shit too.
Normandy was probably the most concentrated allocation of elite German divisions since Kursk - they needed to be, since the infantry divisions in Normandy were decidedly pretty shit with the notable exception of the 352nd division.
1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th and 12th SS Panzer Divisions were all there, plus the 2nd, 9th, 21st, 116th Panzer Divisions, the Panzer Lehr Division (the only Panzer Division that was always fully equipped, being a "model" division and all), and the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Fallschirmjager Divisions, plus the 101st SS, 102nd SS, and 503rd Tiger battalions.
Need I remind you the Normandy front was much smaller than the Eastern Front and yet ALL of that was packed into it. It was frankly a pretty titanic clash and, you'll note, it was basically obliterated, and the German Forces in the West were never that good, in those numbers, again.
>The Soviet "shitty optics and armaments" Union
>The Union of Soviet "couldn't bomb a fucking Afghani goat herder if their planes depended upon them" Socialist Republics
>CCC "Maneuver is king because otherwise we literally cannot hit what we are aiming at" P
>Superior firepower
You really are a fucking moron.
I didn't mean to imply Normandy didn't matter or that it was a walk in the park, I'm just putting things into perspective, because some people here like this guy below you love to disparage everyone else that's not American.
Soviets had thousands of T-64s when main US tank was M60A1 with some minor upgrades. Only moron here is you. Soviet MR regiment had more firepower than American brigade, that's a fact. Starting from the most basic level, they had IFV's while American troops rode around in M113s.
>shitty optics
...
Why do you feel the need to talk about shit when you don't have a clue?
What does Afghanistan have to do with this?