>>453546
Unfortunately it was commanded by an unstable meth-head who destroyed it with no-retreat orders.

>>453554
What abput ww1

Also
>unfortunately


Lol

>>453546
They lost because their leader was delusional crackhead, which had no idea about tactics. German army was pretty strong but war on 3 fronts made them bleed. Then materials and fuel shortage.

>>453554

lol if they fought and won with a no-retreat order, then everyone would be sucking off the image naziboo's would create of a strong, forceful Hitler

>>453573
> ww1
Beat the pants off russia.

Strange how an unfortunately useless army can only be defeated by-coalitions of other nations.

>>453546
>Why the german army thought to be the best army when they pretty much lost everything and was generally bad?

Losing wars is what happens when enemies have enough of quantity to make quality irrelevant. Not to mention delusional political leadership micromanaging things makes strategy more complicated.

>>453546
>Why the german army thought to be the best army when they pretty much lost everything and was generally bad?

If the process of losing involves holding back for years the militaries of about a dozen countries, a fair share of which were middle or major powers at the time, I'd be impressed too.

>>453546
>Why the german army thought to be the best army when they pretty much lost everything and was generally bad?

Because they conquered Europe and only lost to the combined force of two superpowers (USA and USSR)?
Your "but they lost in the end" argument is dumb and reminds of of retarded Brits who brag about (somewhat helping in) defeating Napoleon...

>>453634
> holding back for years the militaries of about a dozen countries
From June 1941 till June 1944 Germany faced only USSR though, North Africa and Italy being insignificant theaters. And they had Hungary, Romania and Finland to help them. Yet, by June 1944 they were doomed.

>posting the same image literally 3 times in a day
>barely able to speak english in all 3 posts
I wonder who could be behind this...

at any rate, the germans are considered better because people see casualty numbers, technology, and hear about german autistic discipline, and all together that seems to make for pretty good armies made to fight pretty unwinnable wars.

>>453694
>Yet, by June 1944 they were doomed.
After having inflicted millions of casualties in a drawn-out retreat, yes.

>And they had Hungary, Romania and Finland to help them.
Hungary, Romania, and Finland's industrial capacity is close to nil. Finland and Romania swapped sides when the time was right, and Hungary wasn't exactly the strongest of allies.

The Wehrmacht was the German Army, the Axis in Europe also had Germany and friends, but those friends weren't nearly as well industrialized or as compelled to send as many millions of men to war as Germany was.

>>453694
>From June 1941 till June 1944 Germany faced only USSR though, North Africa and Italy being insignificant theaters

Soviet supply situation would have been far worse without allies delivering food, fuel and ammunition. Famine killed between 2.5 and 3.3 million Soviet civilians in non-occupied areas. There would have been far higher death toll without allied food deliveries. That would have had further effects on Soviet industrial output.

Not to mention effect bombing campaign had on German war production.

>>453745
Okie dokie

>>453546
Considering it took the US, Britain and USSR working together to defeat it is pretty impressive.

>>453694
From 1943 onward, Germany committed 26 divisions to Italy, as well as another 18 in the southern Balkans to ward off a threatened invasion to places like Greece, Albania, and Yugoslavia. That is hardly an irrelevant expenditure of manpower.

Furthermore, the bulk of Luftwaffe losses were suffered in the west, not the East.