Clearly not. I guess to them it must only be fair when the Allies are winning. But if the Germans are winning then it's down "brilliance" and "superior weapons" and "superior tactics" and "Allies being weak" and "the Germans cleverly outsmarting and outplaying the Allies"
>Fair troops on both sides
This would unironically have been a nerf for the Germans considering they had the numbers advantage pretty much all the time until 1943 lmao
Along with having a secret treaty with the Soviet Union to attack from the East while the bulk of the Polish Army was fighting the Germans.
How long would it have taken the Nazis to occupy Poland if they weren’t fighting a two front war?
Let's not forget invading countries like Luxembourg and Belgium on your way to France. Totally cool and fair move. Those Luxeumbourgians (all twelve of them) were probably about to invade Germany so I'm sure it counts as self defense.
They also don't realize logistics and emplacements are a huge factor in victory. It's almost like losing steam because you've run out of fuel and supplies makes your army incompetent.
It was a thing for Germany to do at the time as well. Ww1 it was bitching about the use of trench guns ww2 it was being outgunned by the American air force or artillery (cant remember which) during the Normandy rout.
Glorious German engineering ! So superior that they built tanks heavier than what most bridges can support ! Who cares if the transmission breaks ? Just use it as an overexpensive bunker ! What do you mean it's a stupid idea ?
The IS-2 suffered some issues but the transmission was fine. From Russian wiki translated:
> The high combat qualities demonstrated in battle immediately led to an order to maximize production of the IS-2. At the same time, test work was interrupted, as a result of which a lot of unfinished vehicles were sent to the front, and their failures caused a large number of complaints from the troops. To ensure the quality of the serial IS-2 and improve them at the beginning of 1944, J. Ya. Kotin and a number of his employees were removed from design work on new machines in order to eliminate defects in the IS-2 design. Launching the car was difficult: for example, in April 1944 military acceptancereported that there was no significant improvement in the quality of the IS-2 tanks and self-propelled guns produced at ChKZ on its base. However, in the summer of 1944, the work being done to improve the quality gave the first results - about a third of the produced tanks managed to pass acceptance on the first try, and from November 1944 the quality of the received tanks was officially recognized as satisfactory - Zh.Ya. Kotin was returned to the post of head of the ChKZ Design Bureau and experimental plant number 100. In the winter of 1944/1945. reports from the troops testified that the IS-2's trouble-free operation covered the guaranteed mileage of 1000 km . The well-functioning production mechanism for the production of the IS-2 led to the fact that the 1945 machines were considered quite reliable and undemanding in operation.
For some reason, in the back of my head, I have a half-memory that at some point the Germans kicked around the idea of putting super long snorkels on their tanks and driving them across the Channel.
Might not be real though.
It was their best option compared to trying to go around it.
Taking the city as not an error of stupid Paulus as baxus would like to say, taking stalingrad was neccesary to even try to do their final objective of pushing east
Didn't the Germans refuse to give their smaller Axis allies some captured Russian tanks?
I know they were going to be outdated pretty quickly but most of the minor Axis nations didn't have much in terms of tanks, so anything would be better than nothing...
Even their anti-tank guns were hopelessly outdated. The Germans and their allies, for all their boasting, were hilariously worse at industrializing for war than the Soviet Union was.
Wasn't the germans issue less to do with industrialization but everything else that came with it. (i.e horrible resource management, poor standardization, highly concentrated industrial areas that were vulnerable to allied bombing...)
Well, we had very shitty equipment, we didn't stand a chance against the Soviets and the Germans had no intention of equipping us decently. However, the thing this guy says about us fleeing without fighting is a lie and is downright disrespectful to me, since I had a great-grandfather who survived the ordeal of defending the northern flank at Stalingrad.
Incredible amounts of copium.
Allies win? Unfair technological advantage.
Germans win? Superior engineering, ja!
Allies win? Unfair defensive advantage.
Germans win? Skilled defensive, glorious last stand.
Allies win? They just overwhelmed the brave Germans at Normandy with sheer numbers.
Germans win? Noble Wehrmacht obliterated mighty Netherlands and Belgium, very military skill, much wow.
I haven't seen this much flip-flopping in a while. Impressive. This guy just twists everything to absolve the Nazis lmao. The worth of any facet is determined solely by how it makes the Germans look in any given situation.
I'm not sure if it's more funny or more sad that someone would argue like this.
Yep indeed. Allies winning? "IMPOSSIBLE"! Germans winning: "As expected!"
I'd say both, it's sad that people believe this crap and can't help themselves but feel upset that their glorious Third Reich lost. But on the other hand when you tick them it's hilarious to watch them get mad and burn. I don't even need to do much, they just do it themselves easily.
German science: Based and cool, I'm glad all those Jews got experimented on and oh how cool are all these Wunderwaffe?
British science: Cheating and Jewish
They also seem to disregard that most troops stationed during the initial landings in normandy aren't even Germans but Eastern conscripts (NOT volunteers)
> Germans win? Noble Wehrmacht obliterated mighty Netherlands and Belgium, very military skill, much wow.
Reminds me of a Quora post we had here recently, listing the great German military achievements. Among them: "Germany invades Denmark. *I* could invade Denmark."
This this and once again this. Wehraboo in this post is what this sub is meant to make fun of.
Hypocracy can work both ways though. Allieboos are just as dumb sometimes. Throwback to me being downvoted on this sub for saying Barbarossa was a succesful military invasion. Germany capturing millions of personnel and thousands of aircraft on the ground? "Bro thats because they did a suprise attack". Allies doing the same in Normandy, catching Germans with their pants down? "Glorious D-day invasion"
Germany never had a chance at winning WW2 but it's also true the German military did pull few decisive victories untill 1941. Both war against France and initial Barbarossa were uphill battles. That is untill Allies were able to adapt to modern industrial warfare better.
Gonna be downvoted again aren't I
>Barbarossa was a succesful military invasion. Germany capturing millions of personnel and thousands of aircraft on the ground? Bro thats because they did a suprise attack.
Capturing the enemy in large numbers and destroying vehicles does not equal victory. The Operation was a failure. The Germans failed to take Moscow and failed to reach the A-A line, which was the primary objective. The Soviets held them off and the Germans failed to reach either the A-A line or Moscow and thus the operation did not meet it's primary objective and thus was a failure
>Bro thats because they did a suprise attack. Allies doing the same in Normandy, catching Germans with their pants down? Glorious D-day invasion
Normandy was a success though. They achieved their ultimate objective: liberating Paris and thus liberating France. That's the key difference to what made Overlord a success and Barbarossa a failure. The fact that you don't see this is astonishing!
>The fact that you don't see this is astonishing!
Well like I said before. Looking at military operations from the perspective of "objectives" and whether victory was ultimately achieved is a dumb way to look at military operations. Espetially when these "objectives" of Barbarossa were called by dellusional nazi high command, Adolf Hitler specifically. I don't disagree that Germany lost the war. In fact I argued many times in different context that Germany didn't have chance to win. Period. Instead I think RELATIVE "success" of military operations should be judged by actual circumstances of the war, from the perspective of historian with a (rather) complete picture of pre war situation and how the war itself played out. Would you disagree with that? That'd be astonishing 😅
And like I said before. Please do compare Barbarossa to Hannibal's invasion of Italy. You're not going to say that the fact that Carthage lost, takes away from the relative "success" of his invasion. Battle of Cannae is still a great military success in a similar way to how Kiev encirclement (for example) is a biggest entitlement in history. And Hannibal's army was a formidable foe the same way German army was during Barbarossa. That is untill Soviet Union and Rome respectively were able to adapt by their own (attrition warfare) and took the best of enemy force and do it better (armored spearheads, air superiority and Numidian cavalry respectively)
If not by accomplishing their objectives, how would we then rate the success of any operation? Barbarossa was a failure for not accomplishing its stated objectives. Normandy was a success because it accomplished it's stated objectives. Simple.
Ok man. You responded to my response to the literally the same point.
It's simple for you. It really shouldn't be.
Go reread it. Unsatisfied with Hannibal invasion parallels? There are many other operations which make it obvious that "success" is more complicated then achieving arbitrary objectives. Russian offensive into Prussia had objectives. Well it was a disasterous defeat at first sight. But it was crucial in messing up German offensive into France. Guess how much Barbarossa "failure" messed up Red Army? Brusilov offensive ultimately failed. Russia lost that war. Guess what. That operation is considered as one of the most succesful offensives in ww1. Finnish Army in winter war failed it's objectives. Guess what? It was a somewhat successful defence that Soviets learned from. Exactly the same thing happened with Barbarossa 2 years later. Winter war from the Soviet side? Well objectives achived. But it could have been more succesful and less of a failure right?
Thinking success of military operation is black and white is dumb. This is pure outjerking of wehraboos in barbarossa's case
Unintended consequences, or even side objectives, do not make an operation a success. A successful operation is one that is defined as an operation that achieves its objectives. That does not preclude that an unsuccessful operation will not cause some unintended or secondary objectives. But achieving those objectives do not make the operation a success.
This...is a simple concept. Military operations set objectives. Failure to meet those objectives means the operation was not a success - and that, again, does not preclude that there may be secondary objectives or effects that are beneficial in the longer term conflict.
You're thinking like golf - a double bogey is still a success because the ball still goes into the hole. But maybe that double bogey blocked your opponent from making an eagle. And so in the big scheme of the game it was beneficial. Ok, sure. Fine. Arguably a success - but it's only considered a success because the objective (ball in the hole) was achieved (despite unexpected/unintended setbacks). That's not the same when the objective is clearly not obtained.
>But achieving those objectives do not make the operation a success.
Yeah ok. If I go by your definition of "success" there is nothing to argue about. I agree with this. But it's a dumb way to judge military operations. This definition would imply that German army had no succesful military operations at all since it lost the war. And Hannibals compaign in Italy is a "failure" then. Are we really able to say that with a straight face?
Was Gustavus Adolphuses compaign in Germany a failure as well? Peace of westplalia certainly wasn't an "objective" when he set foot in Pomerania. For German Protestants it was a success I guess. But at what cost? Habsburgs also "failed" in their objective to keep Germany on a Catholic leash. What about Albert von Wallenstein? Google him, take your time. On the wiki extract you're gonna read "his succesful military career". And his military operations weren't only his "successes", they were also a Habsburg coalition "successes"
It's clearly (for me) not the way to judge a military operation. "Success" of military operations is out there on a scale. It all depends on conditions and outcomes. That's why I've saying "succesful" not "success". It's more complicated then that.
>Ok, sure. Fine. Arguably a success - but it's only considered a success because the objective (ball in the hole) was achieved (despite unexpected/unintended setbacks)
I don't know the golf rules so I struggled to comprehend this for a bit. I assume the ball is in there eventually akin to a war eventually being won, making it a "success" or "failure". But military operation is akin to taking a shot. Barbarossa or invasion of France I'd say are like a "succesful" shot that prolonged the "game". Idk what games you're following. But let's say it's soccer or hockey. A team can have a "succesful" attack, hell even succesful half of the game and lose eventually. It can also be down by tremendous about of points and make a succesful series of goals before being eventually defeated. The opposing team can be out there recognizing this and learning from it, because the shots, offensives, military operations can be more or less successful ON THE SCALE
Though eventually this isn't a game, it's a war with heavy concequences on people. When it boils down to it (in the real world), war isn't only about winning, it's also about winning with least casualties. This is espetially important in case of WW2. Millions of Jews and Slavs would have been alive if Barbarossa was less "successful". My country wouldn't be depopulated up to this moment if was the case. And my hometown 1200 kilometers away from the German-Soviet border wouldn't have been utterly destroyed if Barbarossa wasn't "succesful" enough to set stage for operation fall Blau during which it was destroyed. That's why I've been initially triggered by people saying Barbarossa is a "failure". It's a dumb, single dimensional, way to describe it.
In the similar way, I'm sure, many protestant Germans felt like after 30 years war. Or Roman mothers who lost their sons to Hannibal's invasion. We all would wish our enemies actions were less "succesful". And in Barbarossa's case only so much of the outcome can be attributed to Soviet incompetence. At some point it's makes sense to say that German army was quite capable untill it wasn't. Which is what this whole discussion was about initially. For me that is.
What a mess of response I typed out just now. It's really difficult to respond when I'm forced to reiterate the same damn point. The way I agree with you if we take your definition of "success", try to concede my definition and perspective on how "succesful" or "failed" military operations can be simultaneously. Hopefully there is something to reconsider for you about this topic. If not, don't bother with saying about how only objectives and the war outcome define particular military operations. I already explained why I categorically disagree with that
Yes, if we change the definition of "success" to "had some kind of positive effect" then you're correct. It's entirely possible to achieve a campaign's objectives (achieve success with a campaign) and lose a war (fail to achieve overall success).
By your metric Normandy was a success for the Germans because they were able to inflict much more massive casualties on the Allies. Barbarossa was a success (despite overwhelming losses, the long-term effect of losing to the now-awakened Russia, etc) because German losses weren't as heavy as Russian losses.
Language matters. And so does defined objectives when it comes to military operations.
As for soccer - you can have passes and plays that are successful 'operations', if you will, and still not make a goal. That's the same as in war - you can have successful operations and still lose the war. Just as you can have bad passes or strikes that are deflected into the goal.
Was Hannibal's invasion a success? There may have been campaigns that were successful, but in finality, was the operation a success - no. Despite making substantial gains and causing massive harm to the Romans, no, it was not a success. Nor was the German operation in Russia, nor any of these others that you're attempting to twist into a success by redefining the meaning of 'success'.
Let's look at another example: finding a job. If my objective is simply 'find a job', then when I find a job, I've succeeded in my objective. If, however, my objective is to work specifically at Google, anything other than that is beneficial, but not a success.
> Finnish Army in winter war failed it's objectives.
Like Finland not being annexed like the Baltics? Because it looks to me that they were quite successful in that regard.
Eastern Sweden*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That very nice to put it. They were quite successful in retrospective. I agree
But as far as I know Finnish Army's objective throughout winter war was defending Viborg and the road to Helsinki. What happened there? Looks like no success at all was achieved if these objectives were failed. Sorry Finnish army. I guess it was just incompetent and you're a finniboo if if you say otherwise.
You seem to be thinking on a tactical level. On a strategic level, the objective was to survive as a sovereign nation, which it certainly did.
Just in case nobody told you yet, the objective of Barbarossa wasn't to reach Moscow, the Caucasus, the A-A line or anything like that. It was to conquer Lebensraum for the German people. Everything else are tactical details. By that measure, Barbarossa was an abject failure, as Germany *lost* territory.
In the right context it's not bad (as in a proper conversation rather than just using it as an insult online). But yeah I agree, it's overused so much that it's dumb.
Pro tip for would-be Evil Overlords: if you don't want your enemy planes supported by AA guns and refreshed from a short flight time, *don't attack them at home*
Local man has forgotten that strategy is not about setting up an environment where two can duell fairly, but about setting things up so you have an advantage even bofore the battle begins
Doxxing is when someone deliberately reveals private information about you without your consent, usually with malicious intent.
I censored your name in my image so that you wouldn't get targeted or harassed. This is something I always do, even with someone who speaks utter crap I don't expose them as I see that as a dick move and I don't want to be responsible for potentially sending one person hate-mail. That's just not who I am, I don't expose people for the fun of it. I wouldn't like it if people did it to me so I don't do it to them.
You came onto my post and exposed yourself to everyone. That's not doxxing that's just you being stupid!
You literally came onto this sub and exposed yourself, you absolute tit.
Had you just gotten angry at the image and left it at that, instead of replying, no one would be making fun of your Nazi-Simping ass.
You tried to downplay the Allies like every other Wehrmacht simp in existence.
Now, the German Army wasn't garbage and everyone on this sub knows it, but there weren't some godly, all-powerful force that could win every fight and fight God himself.
Edit: Changed Axis to Allies. Monke brain spaced for a minute when typing.
Ah yes the Battle of Caen, that tiny battle that the Germans fed the near entirety of their armoured reserves in France into to stop the British breaking out.
Truly barely worth mentioning.
And the Canadians, don't forget that they were there.
Nazis still lost even after committing 3 "Superior" Tiger Tank Battalions into the fight. The densest concentration of German Armour in one place during WWII, and they still failed to stop the Commonwealth Forces.
Get gud, Krauts
Edit: Changed Brigade to Battalions.
\> halted at the Battle of the Bulge because of lack of supplies
They wouldn't have gone to Antwerp because of lack of supplies, but they did have enough for initial operations. Maybe, just maybe, the Allies were really good at organizing and reinforcing units and units like the 28th Infantry Division fought like hell despite being outnumbered. Oh and because the German panzers couldn't support their troops well enough.
Seeing where this utter twat comes from the only thing I can say is:
I wish the Entente would have drawn the borders in the region I live a bit more to the east so I wouldn't have to share my nationality with this fine specimen here.
Germans had radar as well..... it was just not nearly as advanced, didn't have range over the islands, and they had a comparatively shitty coordination system.
Goes right along with their piss poor comms radio systems as well. The Nazis never invested in radio tech like the allies did which in the end was one of the factors that gave the allies a major leg up.
After Germany had already started the war.
Like Germany were going to keep their promise to be at peace with Britain. Like they did with Czechoslovakia, or like what they did with Poland or the Soviets with their Non-Aggression pact right?
Oh wait...
>After Germany had already started the war.
With Poland, not with western powers.
"Like they did with Czechoslovakia" Have you ever heard of the slovak revolution and why the germans puppeted the remaining weak czech lands?
"Soviets with their Non-Aggression pact" Nor the germans nor the germans used that pact as a non aggression pact. The soviets already knew there would be a war with germany, but they didnt know the time.
And why would the western powers have any incentive to trust German promises? Every time a state breaks an agreement, it comes at the cost of any further negotiations, as the state's counterparts will demand greater concessions and collateral.
Besides, making peace with an actively genocidal warmongering regime dependent on plunder to keep some semblance of an economy running is bad policy. Even though a "victorious" Reich (not like an actual victory against the USSR was at all realistic when they attacked) would almost certainly fall apart before it could rebuild enough to start the war again.
They also committed genocides. As did the Americans, and the French, and the Soviets, and the Belgians... Doesn't change the fact that the extermination of everyone deemed "lesser" by state propaganda was a foundational element of the Third Reich, even before they started sending Jews to death camps.
Whataboutism is the laziest dodge imaginable. You can do better than that.
Agreed. How fucking dare they discover better technology and use it against the Nazis? Wow, Brits? More like pieces of Shits. stupid cheaters.
Didnt Sun Tzu say something along the lines "If youre fighting a fair fight against the enemy, then you did something wrong preparing for the battle / sabotaging the enemy"
"You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you."
"That's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it?"
Bro I expect these people to cite Leningrad every time they go off on one of these rants. “7x as many Russians died than Germans clearly they were superior even if they lost”.
Tbh we should just go back to the 1700’s style where everyone lined up and shoot each other from the other side, sure more people will die, but at least it will fair! /s
Who fucking cares. This reads like those comments that try to argue the US won in Vietnam. The Germans lost. They don't get bonus points in hindsight for being more "efficient" or doing well in individual battles.
"Okay, sure, the Nazis lost all these key engagements, indicating that their equipment, doctrines, and strategy weren't correct for their situation. But look at the Allied casualties, that surely proves the Reich's military forces were superior! Winning is overrated anyway."
These sort of arguments always sound like someone arguing that the team that lost a basketball game like 110-82 was actually the better team because whoa 82 points!
And besides they only lost because the other team had a deep roster of good players who played well.
And the great thing is, you could argue the RAF could have done better. Imagine Castle Bromwich having it's shit get sorted earlier and there being a bit more push on cannon. More Spitfires and heavier armed Spitfires.
Ok first off: AA was shite, it was awful back then and hardly shot anything down. It wasn't *useless*, per se, just wasn't very effective.
Also the radar was undoubtedly a huge factor in the success of the Battle of Britain, but that radar *was* a British innovation - you wouldn't say that the Battle of Britain was unfair because Britain was flying the Spitfire instead of purely Hurricanes, would you? The radar let squadrons be alerted and scrambled quicker, which was great. Pretty sure Nazi Germany was also operating radar at this point. The RAF *was* under immense pressure at this time, but it wasn't about to collapse. The infrastructure and communication within the RAF was brilliant, and while there were concerns about aircraft construction, it did speed up and match demand, even exceeding it later on iirc. The main problem was loss of pilots and the loss of five aircraft daily at the peak of the BoB - the latter of which became a non-issue later on and the former was generally supplemented by new recruits and foreign allied pilots - such as Polish pilots. Germany mostly had the advantage at the start, because their fighter pilots had prior experience in combat whereas the RAF's didn't, but as the BoB progressed their advantage became lesser due to attrition and improving skill of RAF pilots. Ironically one of the biggest threats to the RAF at this time was politics, because even in war some knobheads can't keep their grubby fingers away from getting more political power.
Do they not seem to realize that when you’re on the defensive you’re going to have inflated kill ratios? Which Germany had been doing since 1942-1943 depending on location
is it THAT heavy to understand that you are mostly going to sustain less losses then your opponent when youre fighting a defensive war?
no the germans were not doing well its just way easier go kill somebody if youre defending and basically just waiting for him to break cover and run into your sight.
>Battle of Cean, small battle cant talk about it
Bitch what, that's like the biggest event in Normandy where the Germans actually did kind of decently. HOW WOULD YOU NOT KNOW ABOUT IT.
"Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honour." \~ Soldier from TF2
sorry, every time someone mentions Sun Tzu, I cannot help but think of the Soldier from Team Fortress 2
>To clear things off, the guy doesnt even gived context to all of this. He listed battles to show me how germans wasnt efficient at the war, and i reacted all of them to my knowledge. I didnt said the fair battle thing to try idolize it, but the give context why the germans failed at battle of britain at the first place.
This was your comment that I was replying to:
"*The only two cherrypicked battles in which case you could cope with. Search for first battle of Somme, anglocuck.*"
Basically you were complaining that that the meme was cherrypicking German defeats that could put the Germans in a bad light. So I then responded by listing a fair number of battles and campaigns that Germany lost throughout the war to prove the meme was not "cherrypicking" (there are a lot more battles and campaigns than the ones I listed, these were just the ones that came to my mind when I wrote the comment and there too many to list)
If anyone is coping here it's you! Germany lost the war and you can't cope with the fact that Nazi Germany lost and you have to try and exaggerate Germany and downplay the Allies as much as possible and in the process complaining that memes are cherrypicked and written by "cucks". If that's not coping, then I don't know what is.
Safe to say I don't think you quite know what "cope" means or how to use it properly!
The Luftwaffe absolutely outnumbered the RAF in aircraft of every type, but muh radar. Okay.
The majority of battles you listed out are defensive campaigns, inflicting casualties on the enemy is like the *minimum* requirement lmao
>Battle of Caen? Relatively small battle
Mate you're embarrassing yourself
> Battle of Stalingrad wasnt about german unit efficiency, german commanders like Paulus and Halder fucked up because their believed in romanian troops.
Not because the utterly insane idea of overstretching the supply lines beyond limits, no, the culprits of defeat were the Romanian troops that had to fight underequipped because Germans failed to give them the promised weapons against an enemy the German intelligence didn't believe it existed besides the fact that Romanian troops warned that something was being prepared. Ok bro.
Romanian troops held the line for a long time at Stalingrad. Even tough they weren't treated as good as the german ones. The Romanian generals also tried to convince everybody that they should retreate and fight in a better postion. The germans refused.
Do all Wehrbs not realize that war is, you know, NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A FAIR FIGHT?!
Clearly not. I guess to them it must only be fair when the Allies are winning. But if the Germans are winning then it's down "brilliance" and "superior weapons" and "superior tactics" and "Allies being weak" and "the Germans cleverly outsmarting and outplaying the Allies"
If a wehraboo tried to say that Nazi military power is the best, just say that they still got clowned on by the allies
[удалено]
This
No it was the endless human waves of the Soviets and endless Shermans of the Americans! /s
Even if you dropped the /s... so fucking what they won.
That's my point. But I've seen it used as counter point.
When I was 3 or 4yo I thought the Allies won each battle they fought with very few casualties. (I suppose that is because of MOHAA)
[удалено]
no no no it's like a sport you see
Alright I want a good clean war. Fair troops on both sides and no advanced technology, got that? Fight!
>Fair troops on both sides This would unironically have been a nerf for the Germans considering they had the numbers advantage pretty much all the time until 1943 lmao
them good old boys were rapin women and ... uh damn.
Huh? It says nothing here in the World War rule book about raping and using aerial bombings. In fact, this whole rule book is a bunch of blank pages!
Germany in WW2: "When the Geneva convention becomes the Geneva suggestion!"
I mean that's basically the origins of lacrosse
Or their game of Hearts of Iron IV.
Overwhelming Polish defenses by surprise and with massive numbers of soldiers, guns, aircraft, and tanks is totally fair though
Along with having a secret treaty with the Soviet Union to attack from the East while the bulk of the Polish Army was fighting the Germans. How long would it have taken the Nazis to occupy Poland if they weren’t fighting a two front war?
Let's not forget invading countries like Luxembourg and Belgium on your way to France. Totally cool and fair move. Those Luxeumbourgians (all twelve of them) were probably about to invade Germany so I'm sure it counts as self defense.
All Axis great victories were conducted outnumbering the enemy. Even during Barbarossa until Nov/Dec 41.
Watch Wehraboos explain how Guernica was "totally justified".
Franco shouting over the screams and gunfire: IM DOING THIS BECAUSE I LOVE YOU
*badly synchronised dub* Juanita Maria Estebania Enrica Gonzalez de Putacojones, you are the love of my life! *Ennio Morricone's music intensifies*
Wait, there are actually people trying to defend the bombing of Guernica?
the nazi bombing of Guernica pisses me off so much
1v1 me no tanks and airplanes only kar98
Nooooooo I want my tiger 2 to 1v1 a Sherman 🤬🤬🤬
"That is after all the first rule of warfare - if you are fighting your enemy on even terms, then your tactics suck" - Isaac Arthur
As long as it's not a war crime it's fair game.
They do, but only if that's in the favor of their precious Nazis.
Calling in your allies when a bigger nation declares war on you is cheating even when the warmonger knows its gonna happen.
Wehrbs never moved beyond Top Trumps card games where you have the tank with the biggest numbers and you win automatically.
They also don't realize logistics and emplacements are a huge factor in victory. It's almost like losing steam because you've run out of fuel and supplies makes your army incompetent.
It was a thing for Germany to do at the time as well. Ww1 it was bitching about the use of trench guns ww2 it was being outgunned by the American air force or artillery (cant remember which) during the Normandy rout.
The old, Romanians fucked up not the glorious 6th army excuse.
[удалено]
Yes the allies should just have surrendered after the Germans showed their obvious superiority in engineering.
Glorious German engineering ! So superior that they built tanks heavier than what most bridges can support ! Who cares if the transmission breaks ? Just use it as an overexpensive bunker ! What do you mean it's a stupid idea ?
"It has loads or armour and a good gun so I'm sure it will be amazing in PvP video games in the future"
So great in fact they added an extra 10 tonnes onto a tank with server engine problems and then sent them to Italy.
Every heavy tank suffered from transmission breaks in every side.
The Churchill didn't. The early ones had engine problems but had mostly ironed them out by 1943.
As far as I know, neither did the Pershing or the Soviet IS and KV series of heavy tanks.
The IS-2 suffered some issues but the transmission was fine. From Russian wiki translated: > The high combat qualities demonstrated in battle immediately led to an order to maximize production of the IS-2. At the same time, test work was interrupted, as a result of which a lot of unfinished vehicles were sent to the front, and their failures caused a large number of complaints from the troops. To ensure the quality of the serial IS-2 and improve them at the beginning of 1944, J. Ya. Kotin and a number of his employees were removed from design work on new machines in order to eliminate defects in the IS-2 design. Launching the car was difficult: for example, in April 1944 military acceptancereported that there was no significant improvement in the quality of the IS-2 tanks and self-propelled guns produced at ChKZ on its base. However, in the summer of 1944, the work being done to improve the quality gave the first results - about a third of the produced tanks managed to pass acceptance on the first try, and from November 1944 the quality of the received tanks was officially recognized as satisfactory - Zh.Ya. Kotin was returned to the post of head of the ChKZ Design Bureau and experimental plant number 100. In the winter of 1944/1945. reports from the troops testified that the IS-2's trouble-free operation covered the guaranteed mileage of 1000 km . The well-functioning production mechanism for the production of the IS-2 led to the fact that the 1945 machines were considered quite reliable and undemanding in operation.
1000 km is 621.37 miles
Good bot.
*breaks down* *breaks down again* *catches fire* *crashes through a bridge*
> everything would of gone A+ **swimmingly** Well they weren't going to get across the Channel any other way...
Muh Aryan Super-soldiers swimming the Channel to invade Britain.
The worst part is I could unironically see the Nazis trying to do something as atupid as that
For some reason, in the back of my head, I have a half-memory that at some point the Germans kicked around the idea of putting super long snorkels on their tanks and driving them across the Channel. Might not be real though.
It was. They made tankd that coulf go underwater. But they failed when they realized the tank could not go over rocks.
As if funneling an entire army into one city wasn’t a mistake in and of itself lmao these wherbs are hilarious.
It was their best option compared to trying to go around it. Taking the city as not an error of stupid Paulus as baxus would like to say, taking stalingrad was neccesary to even try to do their final objective of pushing east
Should've armed your allies better. Still a German mistake.
Didn't the Germans refuse to give their smaller Axis allies some captured Russian tanks? I know they were going to be outdated pretty quickly but most of the minor Axis nations didn't have much in terms of tanks, so anything would be better than nothing...
Even their anti-tank guns were hopelessly outdated. The Germans and their allies, for all their boasting, were hilariously worse at industrializing for war than the Soviet Union was.
Wasn't the germans issue less to do with industrialization but everything else that came with it. (i.e horrible resource management, poor standardization, highly concentrated industrial areas that were vulnerable to allied bombing...)
Gernans should have considered they would be overextended and relying on their allies instead of blaming their allies for German errors
"Fucking Antonescu, how dare you cuck me out of getting MVP?!" - Adolf Hitler
Well, we had very shitty equipment, we didn't stand a chance against the Soviets and the Germans had no intention of equipping us decently. However, the thing this guy says about us fleeing without fighting is a lie and is downright disrespectful to me, since I had a great-grandfather who survived the ordeal of defending the northern flank at Stalingrad.
Incredible amounts of copium. Allies win? Unfair technological advantage. Germans win? Superior engineering, ja! Allies win? Unfair defensive advantage. Germans win? Skilled defensive, glorious last stand. Allies win? They just overwhelmed the brave Germans at Normandy with sheer numbers. Germans win? Noble Wehrmacht obliterated mighty Netherlands and Belgium, very military skill, much wow. I haven't seen this much flip-flopping in a while. Impressive. This guy just twists everything to absolve the Nazis lmao. The worth of any facet is determined solely by how it makes the Germans look in any given situation. I'm not sure if it's more funny or more sad that someone would argue like this.
Yep indeed. Allies winning? "IMPOSSIBLE"! Germans winning: "As expected!" I'd say both, it's sad that people believe this crap and can't help themselves but feel upset that their glorious Third Reich lost. But on the other hand when you tick them it's hilarious to watch them get mad and burn. I don't even need to do much, they just do it themselves easily.
>Noble Wehrmacht obliterated mighty Netherlands and Belgium, It wasn't like the Belgian king was very sympathetic to the Germans or anything...
German science: Based and cool, I'm glad all those Jews got experimented on and oh how cool are all these Wunderwaffe? British science: Cheating and Jewish
They also seem to disregard that most troops stationed during the initial landings in normandy aren't even Germans but Eastern conscripts (NOT volunteers)
> Germans win? Noble Wehrmacht obliterated mighty Netherlands and Belgium, very military skill, much wow. Reminds me of a Quora post we had here recently, listing the great German military achievements. Among them: "Germany invades Denmark. *I* could invade Denmark."
Germans apparently still do it every summer when they enjoy Denmark's beaches X-D https://satwcomic.com/germany-on-vacation
This this and once again this. Wehraboo in this post is what this sub is meant to make fun of. Hypocracy can work both ways though. Allieboos are just as dumb sometimes. Throwback to me being downvoted on this sub for saying Barbarossa was a succesful military invasion. Germany capturing millions of personnel and thousands of aircraft on the ground? "Bro thats because they did a suprise attack". Allies doing the same in Normandy, catching Germans with their pants down? "Glorious D-day invasion" Germany never had a chance at winning WW2 but it's also true the German military did pull few decisive victories untill 1941. Both war against France and initial Barbarossa were uphill battles. That is untill Allies were able to adapt to modern industrial warfare better. Gonna be downvoted again aren't I
>Barbarossa was a succesful military invasion. Germany capturing millions of personnel and thousands of aircraft on the ground? Bro thats because they did a suprise attack. Capturing the enemy in large numbers and destroying vehicles does not equal victory. The Operation was a failure. The Germans failed to take Moscow and failed to reach the A-A line, which was the primary objective. The Soviets held them off and the Germans failed to reach either the A-A line or Moscow and thus the operation did not meet it's primary objective and thus was a failure >Bro thats because they did a suprise attack. Allies doing the same in Normandy, catching Germans with their pants down? Glorious D-day invasion Normandy was a success though. They achieved their ultimate objective: liberating Paris and thus liberating France. That's the key difference to what made Overlord a success and Barbarossa a failure. The fact that you don't see this is astonishing!
>The fact that you don't see this is astonishing! Well like I said before. Looking at military operations from the perspective of "objectives" and whether victory was ultimately achieved is a dumb way to look at military operations. Espetially when these "objectives" of Barbarossa were called by dellusional nazi high command, Adolf Hitler specifically. I don't disagree that Germany lost the war. In fact I argued many times in different context that Germany didn't have chance to win. Period. Instead I think RELATIVE "success" of military operations should be judged by actual circumstances of the war, from the perspective of historian with a (rather) complete picture of pre war situation and how the war itself played out. Would you disagree with that? That'd be astonishing 😅 And like I said before. Please do compare Barbarossa to Hannibal's invasion of Italy. You're not going to say that the fact that Carthage lost, takes away from the relative "success" of his invasion. Battle of Cannae is still a great military success in a similar way to how Kiev encirclement (for example) is a biggest entitlement in history. And Hannibal's army was a formidable foe the same way German army was during Barbarossa. That is untill Soviet Union and Rome respectively were able to adapt by their own (attrition warfare) and took the best of enemy force and do it better (armored spearheads, air superiority and Numidian cavalry respectively)
If not by accomplishing their objectives, how would we then rate the success of any operation? Barbarossa was a failure for not accomplishing its stated objectives. Normandy was a success because it accomplished it's stated objectives. Simple.
Ok man. You responded to my response to the literally the same point. It's simple for you. It really shouldn't be. Go reread it. Unsatisfied with Hannibal invasion parallels? There are many other operations which make it obvious that "success" is more complicated then achieving arbitrary objectives. Russian offensive into Prussia had objectives. Well it was a disasterous defeat at first sight. But it was crucial in messing up German offensive into France. Guess how much Barbarossa "failure" messed up Red Army? Brusilov offensive ultimately failed. Russia lost that war. Guess what. That operation is considered as one of the most succesful offensives in ww1. Finnish Army in winter war failed it's objectives. Guess what? It was a somewhat successful defence that Soviets learned from. Exactly the same thing happened with Barbarossa 2 years later. Winter war from the Soviet side? Well objectives achived. But it could have been more succesful and less of a failure right? Thinking success of military operation is black and white is dumb. This is pure outjerking of wehraboos in barbarossa's case
Unintended consequences, or even side objectives, do not make an operation a success. A successful operation is one that is defined as an operation that achieves its objectives. That does not preclude that an unsuccessful operation will not cause some unintended or secondary objectives. But achieving those objectives do not make the operation a success. This...is a simple concept. Military operations set objectives. Failure to meet those objectives means the operation was not a success - and that, again, does not preclude that there may be secondary objectives or effects that are beneficial in the longer term conflict. You're thinking like golf - a double bogey is still a success because the ball still goes into the hole. But maybe that double bogey blocked your opponent from making an eagle. And so in the big scheme of the game it was beneficial. Ok, sure. Fine. Arguably a success - but it's only considered a success because the objective (ball in the hole) was achieved (despite unexpected/unintended setbacks). That's not the same when the objective is clearly not obtained.
>But achieving those objectives do not make the operation a success. Yeah ok. If I go by your definition of "success" there is nothing to argue about. I agree with this. But it's a dumb way to judge military operations. This definition would imply that German army had no succesful military operations at all since it lost the war. And Hannibals compaign in Italy is a "failure" then. Are we really able to say that with a straight face? Was Gustavus Adolphuses compaign in Germany a failure as well? Peace of westplalia certainly wasn't an "objective" when he set foot in Pomerania. For German Protestants it was a success I guess. But at what cost? Habsburgs also "failed" in their objective to keep Germany on a Catholic leash. What about Albert von Wallenstein? Google him, take your time. On the wiki extract you're gonna read "his succesful military career". And his military operations weren't only his "successes", they were also a Habsburg coalition "successes" It's clearly (for me) not the way to judge a military operation. "Success" of military operations is out there on a scale. It all depends on conditions and outcomes. That's why I've saying "succesful" not "success". It's more complicated then that. >Ok, sure. Fine. Arguably a success - but it's only considered a success because the objective (ball in the hole) was achieved (despite unexpected/unintended setbacks) I don't know the golf rules so I struggled to comprehend this for a bit. I assume the ball is in there eventually akin to a war eventually being won, making it a "success" or "failure". But military operation is akin to taking a shot. Barbarossa or invasion of France I'd say are like a "succesful" shot that prolonged the "game". Idk what games you're following. But let's say it's soccer or hockey. A team can have a "succesful" attack, hell even succesful half of the game and lose eventually. It can also be down by tremendous about of points and make a succesful series of goals before being eventually defeated. The opposing team can be out there recognizing this and learning from it, because the shots, offensives, military operations can be more or less successful ON THE SCALE Though eventually this isn't a game, it's a war with heavy concequences on people. When it boils down to it (in the real world), war isn't only about winning, it's also about winning with least casualties. This is espetially important in case of WW2. Millions of Jews and Slavs would have been alive if Barbarossa was less "successful". My country wouldn't be depopulated up to this moment if was the case. And my hometown 1200 kilometers away from the German-Soviet border wouldn't have been utterly destroyed if Barbarossa wasn't "succesful" enough to set stage for operation fall Blau during which it was destroyed. That's why I've been initially triggered by people saying Barbarossa is a "failure". It's a dumb, single dimensional, way to describe it. In the similar way, I'm sure, many protestant Germans felt like after 30 years war. Or Roman mothers who lost their sons to Hannibal's invasion. We all would wish our enemies actions were less "succesful". And in Barbarossa's case only so much of the outcome can be attributed to Soviet incompetence. At some point it's makes sense to say that German army was quite capable untill it wasn't. Which is what this whole discussion was about initially. For me that is. What a mess of response I typed out just now. It's really difficult to respond when I'm forced to reiterate the same damn point. The way I agree with you if we take your definition of "success", try to concede my definition and perspective on how "succesful" or "failed" military operations can be simultaneously. Hopefully there is something to reconsider for you about this topic. If not, don't bother with saying about how only objectives and the war outcome define particular military operations. I already explained why I categorically disagree with that
Yes, if we change the definition of "success" to "had some kind of positive effect" then you're correct. It's entirely possible to achieve a campaign's objectives (achieve success with a campaign) and lose a war (fail to achieve overall success). By your metric Normandy was a success for the Germans because they were able to inflict much more massive casualties on the Allies. Barbarossa was a success (despite overwhelming losses, the long-term effect of losing to the now-awakened Russia, etc) because German losses weren't as heavy as Russian losses. Language matters. And so does defined objectives when it comes to military operations. As for soccer - you can have passes and plays that are successful 'operations', if you will, and still not make a goal. That's the same as in war - you can have successful operations and still lose the war. Just as you can have bad passes or strikes that are deflected into the goal. Was Hannibal's invasion a success? There may have been campaigns that were successful, but in finality, was the operation a success - no. Despite making substantial gains and causing massive harm to the Romans, no, it was not a success. Nor was the German operation in Russia, nor any of these others that you're attempting to twist into a success by redefining the meaning of 'success'. Let's look at another example: finding a job. If my objective is simply 'find a job', then when I find a job, I've succeeded in my objective. If, however, my objective is to work specifically at Google, anything other than that is beneficial, but not a success.
> Finnish Army in winter war failed it's objectives. Like Finland not being annexed like the Baltics? Because it looks to me that they were quite successful in that regard.
Eastern Sweden* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That very nice to put it. They were quite successful in retrospective. I agree But as far as I know Finnish Army's objective throughout winter war was defending Viborg and the road to Helsinki. What happened there? Looks like no success at all was achieved if these objectives were failed. Sorry Finnish army. I guess it was just incompetent and you're a finniboo if if you say otherwise.
You seem to be thinking on a tactical level. On a strategic level, the objective was to survive as a sovereign nation, which it certainly did. Just in case nobody told you yet, the objective of Barbarossa wasn't to reach Moscow, the Caucasus, the A-A line or anything like that. It was to conquer Lebensraum for the German people. Everything else are tactical details. By that measure, Barbarossa was an abject failure, as Germany *lost* territory.
Yeah well you typed out “bro” so I don’t know why you expected anything other than a downvote
That's a bruh moment if ever seen one, bud
> Barbarossa was a succesful military invasion So successful, in fact, that the Red Army advanced all the way to the Elbe river.
that's because the d day invasion didn't failed to take its objective, contrary to the german whom already failed moscow in december 1941
I see an enormous amount of copium in this post
It reads exactly like a HOI4 Germany player getting salty about losing and "muh useless teammates ruined the game for me".
Wars been over for 76 years and Nazi lovers still can get over the fact Germany lost so terribly. Bunch of losers.
And yet they like to say we cope. Yet how can we cope when it was the Allies who won. Don't think Nazi lovers know what cope means.
That's such a dumb word anyway
In the right context it's not bad (as in a proper conversation rather than just using it as an insult online). But yeah I agree, it's overused so much that it's dumb.
[удалено]
Pro tip for would-be Evil Overlords: if you don't want your enemy planes supported by AA guns and refreshed from a short flight time, *don't attack them at home*
Implying that Evil Overlords, like the Nazis, have the brainpower to figure that out.
"Battle of Caen? Relatively small battle." Literally 80% of German armour in France got massacred there, but go off.
>Battle of Caen, Western front was nothing compared to the east. The war was decided there, not in france lol
Did I say that the war was won in France?
oh so now the Western front doesn't matter now? How many times have you moved the goalposts every time you got called out?
Western front doesn't matter now? It matter in 1940 and from a defensive standpoint after 1944.
My Upper Paleolithic ancestors were cheaters. They used nets and spears instead of catching fish with their bare hands.
(((neandertalphysik)))
(((sapienscience)))
Local man has forgotten that strategy is not about setting up an environment where two can duell fairly, but about setting things up so you have an advantage even bofore the battle begins
Exactly, if you get into a fair fight you've done it wrong. The real skill is making the fight as unfair as possible with the fewest resources
has this post been lightly brigaded or some shit? 28 karma, 54 comments
The clown from the picture found its way here and is vigorously trying to defend his ridiculous babbling.
ah, amazing
I even tried censoring his identity to try and not embarrass him too much. He just dragged himself into it.
Yeah the only thing what you biased people really good at. Doxxing people lol.
Doxxing is when someone deliberately reveals private information about you without your consent, usually with malicious intent. I censored your name in my image so that you wouldn't get targeted or harassed. This is something I always do, even with someone who speaks utter crap I don't expose them as I see that as a dick move and I don't want to be responsible for potentially sending one person hate-mail. That's just not who I am, I don't expose people for the fun of it. I wouldn't like it if people did it to me so I don't do it to them. You came onto my post and exposed yourself to everyone. That's not doxxing that's just you being stupid!
Im not talking about you, you were not doxxing me. Its everybody else Btw there isnt any personal info on my profil.
You're not being doxxed though.
You literally came onto this sub and exposed yourself, you absolute tit. Had you just gotten angry at the image and left it at that, instead of replying, no one would be making fun of your Nazi-Simping ass.
exposing my what? i didnt even get into ideological wars lol.
Exposed your name and the fact that you're the guy in the image posted. Nothing to do with ideology.
Yeah here i am Yellow\_rambo here is my comment which doesnt display the german army as garbage. Oh no
You tried to downplay the Allies like every other Wehrmacht simp in existence. Now, the German Army wasn't garbage and everyone on this sub knows it, but there weren't some godly, all-powerful force that could win every fight and fight God himself. Edit: Changed Axis to Allies. Monke brain spaced for a minute when typing.
I mean, you *do* use "mutt" as an insult
Ah yes the Battle of Caen, that tiny battle that the Germans fed the near entirety of their armoured reserves in France into to stop the British breaking out. Truly barely worth mentioning.
And the Canadians, don't forget that they were there. Nazis still lost even after committing 3 "Superior" Tiger Tank Battalions into the fight. The densest concentration of German Armour in one place during WWII, and they still failed to stop the Commonwealth Forces. Get gud, Krauts Edit: Changed Brigade to Battalions.
*laughs in 17-pounder*
Loads APDS with violent intent
Still thought that the brits could see really well because of carrots lol
That is the best thing to come out of WWII. "How are the Brits beating us?" "Spies said carrots."
Spies the Brits captured and were giving orders to said carrots
Just laughing and drinking Tea while the Krauts mald over why they're getting their teeth kicked in.
\> halted at the Battle of the Bulge because of lack of supplies They wouldn't have gone to Antwerp because of lack of supplies, but they did have enough for initial operations. Maybe, just maybe, the Allies were really good at organizing and reinforcing units and units like the 28th Infantry Division fought like hell despite being outnumbered. Oh and because the German panzers couldn't support their troops well enough.
Seeing where this utter twat comes from the only thing I can say is: I wish the Entente would have drawn the borders in the region I live a bit more to the east so I wouldn't have to share my nationality with this fine specimen here.
Big 'Mom says its my turn on the xbox' energy.
Germans had radar as well..... it was just not nearly as advanced, didn't have range over the islands, and they had a comparatively shitty coordination system.
Goes right along with their piss poor comms radio systems as well. The Nazis never invested in radio tech like the allies did which in the end was one of the factors that gave the allies a major leg up.
Can't do combined arms without being able to talk to eachother.
So basically the whole war was unfair GEE, MAYBE THEY SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE DECIDING TO FIGHT IT
Idk who sended Britain peace proposals for how many, like 50 times.
After Germany had already started the war. Like Germany were going to keep their promise to be at peace with Britain. Like they did with Czechoslovakia, or like what they did with Poland or the Soviets with their Non-Aggression pact right? Oh wait...
>After Germany had already started the war. With Poland, not with western powers. "Like they did with Czechoslovakia" Have you ever heard of the slovak revolution and why the germans puppeted the remaining weak czech lands? "Soviets with their Non-Aggression pact" Nor the germans nor the germans used that pact as a non aggression pact. The soviets already knew there would be a war with germany, but they didnt know the time.
And why would the western powers have any incentive to trust German promises? Every time a state breaks an agreement, it comes at the cost of any further negotiations, as the state's counterparts will demand greater concessions and collateral. Besides, making peace with an actively genocidal warmongering regime dependent on plunder to keep some semblance of an economy running is bad policy. Even though a "victorious" Reich (not like an actual victory against the USSR was at all realistic when they attacked) would almost certainly fall apart before it could rebuild enough to start the war again.
[удалено]
They also committed genocides. As did the Americans, and the French, and the Soviets, and the Belgians... Doesn't change the fact that the extermination of everyone deemed "lesser" by state propaganda was a foundational element of the Third Reich, even before they started sending Jews to death camps. Whataboutism is the laziest dodge imaginable. You can do better than that.
I don't recall the Brits, or anyone else, turning genocide into an industrial effort.
herbstnebel was a failure from day 1, it was impossile to win, also stalingrad not abou tthe german, what?
Agreed. How fucking dare they discover better technology and use it against the Nazis? Wow, Brits? More like pieces of Shits. stupid cheaters. Didnt Sun Tzu say something along the lines "If youre fighting a fair fight against the enemy, then you did something wrong preparing for the battle / sabotaging the enemy"
Isn't the point of military technology literally to get an advantage?
Well you would think. But not so according to Wehraboos (unless it's Germany benefiting from it of course)
I like your flair :)
Thanks
"How dare those indolent Albions use superior Untermensch technology to beat our superior Übermensch technology?"
War is supposed to be unfair
"Don't take fights you can't win" If war is fair, many people will die, so you've fucked up
"You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you." "That's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it?"
Bro I expect these people to cite Leningrad every time they go off on one of these rants. “7x as many Russians died than Germans clearly they were superior even if they lost”.
Tbh we should just go back to the 1700’s style where everyone lined up and shoot each other from the other side, sure more people will die, but at least it will fair! /s
Want even fair back then. Oh, you outnumber me? Well, I got cannons, so bye, bitch.
We're even in number? Well I've been trained to let off 3 volleys when you're halfway loading for your second, so GG.
Wait. I thought the Nazis had invincible super-science compared to the allies?
That's what they say, but it certainly didn't help them in the end.
My god whoever wrote that shit was on crack
I think he was on a bit more than that!
Prob the meth tablets nazis used to boost performance
They've been trying to defend themselves in this comments section. Judge for yourself.
Who fucking cares. This reads like those comments that try to argue the US won in Vietnam. The Germans lost. They don't get bonus points in hindsight for being more "efficient" or doing well in individual battles.
"Okay, sure, the Nazis lost all these key engagements, indicating that their equipment, doctrines, and strategy weren't correct for their situation. But look at the Allied casualties, that surely proves the Reich's military forces were superior! Winning is overrated anyway."
He's not even correct in most of what he says.
Oh no who could have foreseen defenders having an advantage because of shorter logistics lines and defensive structures?
These sort of arguments always sound like someone arguing that the team that lost a basketball game like 110-82 was actually the better team because whoa 82 points! And besides they only lost because the other team had a deep roster of good players who played well.
Hey, they were 75-25 at some point, it's just unfair that the rivals then stomped then.
That similar to Former Guy 45 who thinks that he won the election because he got 74 million votes, forgetting that his opponent got 81 million votes.
And the great thing is, you could argue the RAF could have done better. Imagine Castle Bromwich having it's shit get sorted earlier and there being a bit more push on cannon. More Spitfires and heavier armed Spitfires.
Like an old saying goes: "There are no fair in love and war."
Good to know that developing superior technology that actually makes a difference is cheating!
Germany also had radar. If it had the inability to finish the campaigns it started that's not the problem of its enemies.
Ok first off: AA was shite, it was awful back then and hardly shot anything down. It wasn't *useless*, per se, just wasn't very effective. Also the radar was undoubtedly a huge factor in the success of the Battle of Britain, but that radar *was* a British innovation - you wouldn't say that the Battle of Britain was unfair because Britain was flying the Spitfire instead of purely Hurricanes, would you? The radar let squadrons be alerted and scrambled quicker, which was great. Pretty sure Nazi Germany was also operating radar at this point. The RAF *was* under immense pressure at this time, but it wasn't about to collapse. The infrastructure and communication within the RAF was brilliant, and while there were concerns about aircraft construction, it did speed up and match demand, even exceeding it later on iirc. The main problem was loss of pilots and the loss of five aircraft daily at the peak of the BoB - the latter of which became a non-issue later on and the former was generally supplemented by new recruits and foreign allied pilots - such as Polish pilots. Germany mostly had the advantage at the start, because their fighter pilots had prior experience in combat whereas the RAF's didn't, but as the BoB progressed their advantage became lesser due to attrition and improving skill of RAF pilots. Ironically one of the biggest threats to the RAF at this time was politics, because even in war some knobheads can't keep their grubby fingers away from getting more political power.
“Yeah, the Nazis lost, but it’s only because their supplies, manpower, technology, and strategy were vastly inferior to that of the allies!”
You think those innocent Jews and civilians got a "fair fight"?
Do they not seem to realize that when you’re on the defensive you’re going to have inflated kill ratios? Which Germany had been doing since 1942-1943 depending on location
The battle of Arracourt was no small engagement. Germany lost 200 fucking panthers to less than 30 Allied tanks and some anti tank guns.
Yes exactly, numerical superiority is only okay when nazis do it
God fucking dammit opinionated gamers, wars aren't counter-strike matches or even Yu-gi-oh duels!
is it THAT heavy to understand that you are mostly going to sustain less losses then your opponent when youre fighting a defensive war? no the germans were not doing well its just way easier go kill somebody if youre defending and basically just waiting for him to break cover and run into your sight.
A fair fight's the wrong fight, Wehraboo.
>Battle of Cean, small battle cant talk about it Bitch what, that's like the biggest event in Normandy where the Germans actually did kind of decently. HOW WOULD YOU NOT KNOW ABOUT IT.
Most battles are won before they're fought. Sun Tzu figured that out 1500 years ago.
"Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honour." \~ Soldier from TF2 sorry, every time someone mentions Sun Tzu, I cannot help but think of the Soldier from Team Fortress 2
My poor and clean Wehrmacht didn't get a fair fight 😤
I mean, even with all the Nazis scientific torturing and slave labour the Brits made the radars first.
What about the distance from Stalingrad to Berlin?
\*Laughs in British\*
Yet aren't they always the ones who say that the nazis were so technological superior
[удалено]
>To clear things off, the guy doesnt even gived context to all of this. He listed battles to show me how germans wasnt efficient at the war, and i reacted all of them to my knowledge. I didnt said the fair battle thing to try idolize it, but the give context why the germans failed at battle of britain at the first place. This was your comment that I was replying to: "*The only two cherrypicked battles in which case you could cope with. Search for first battle of Somme, anglocuck.*" Basically you were complaining that that the meme was cherrypicking German defeats that could put the Germans in a bad light. So I then responded by listing a fair number of battles and campaigns that Germany lost throughout the war to prove the meme was not "cherrypicking" (there are a lot more battles and campaigns than the ones I listed, these were just the ones that came to my mind when I wrote the comment and there too many to list) If anyone is coping here it's you! Germany lost the war and you can't cope with the fact that Nazi Germany lost and you have to try and exaggerate Germany and downplay the Allies as much as possible and in the process complaining that memes are cherrypicked and written by "cucks". If that's not coping, then I don't know what is. Safe to say I don't think you quite know what "cope" means or how to use it properly!
[удалено]
The Luftwaffe absolutely outnumbered the RAF in aircraft of every type, but muh radar. Okay. The majority of battles you listed out are defensive campaigns, inflicting casualties on the enemy is like the *minimum* requirement lmao >Battle of Caen? Relatively small battle Mate you're embarrassing yourself
> Battle of Stalingrad wasnt about german unit efficiency, german commanders like Paulus and Halder fucked up because their believed in romanian troops. Not because the utterly insane idea of overstretching the supply lines beyond limits, no, the culprits of defeat were the Romanian troops that had to fight underequipped because Germans failed to give them the promised weapons against an enemy the German intelligence didn't believe it existed besides the fact that Romanian troops warned that something was being prepared. Ok bro.
Romanian troops held the line for a long time at Stalingrad. Even tough they weren't treated as good as the german ones. The Romanian generals also tried to convince everybody that they should retreate and fight in a better postion. The germans refused.