US
>spread tanks out to all infantry divisions
Nazi Germany
>massed tanks into panzer divisions
US
>favored maneuver over RoF in squad weapon
Nazi Germany
>favored RoF over maneuver in using GPMG as a squad's base of fire
Why was WW2 German doctrine such dogshit?
>German Reich takes over all of Europe
>lol the Wehrmacht was dogshit.
Germany lost world war 2 100% because of Hitler's poor leadership decision in breaking the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact pact while the UK still stood.
well, that and Japan bringing America into the war, which America was ready to not partake in.
>>30645746
>Muh bar
Haha, really?
>>30645817
As long as America and Russia exist, Germany will never be able to take over Europe. Germany took over Europe because they were fighting forces who were unprepared for an industrialized military force. Their war efforts ground to a halt after Stalingrad, at which point the war was virtually over for them. Even if D-Day had never happened, Berlin would've been crawling with Soviet forces by 1945. Once you get the Allied Rape Train moving, it doesn't stop for anyone.
>>30645839
More like
>muh air support
>muh artillery
>muh attached battalion of shermans
>muh ded krauts
>>30645874
Nice goalposts.
>>30645911
You really can't figure it out? The point is German doctrine failed to comprehend that the actual fire power of an army came from artillery, air, and attached tanks, not from infantry squads.
>>30645989
Sure thing, OP, whatever you say.
Even if germany employed the same tactics as USF they would still lose. You cannot fight against an army that is supplied by an industry that is unmolested while yours is shot to shit
>>30645862
you are literally agreeing with me
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact literally guaranteed Soviet non aggression in Europe. Germany would have won World War 2 if they focus on their invation of the UK instead of launching an invation of the Soviet Union. America is only in the war because of Pearl Harbor. Without America or Russia, Germany would have won World War 2.
>>30645989
German Doctrine was fast war, motorized infantry with an armoured spearhead and close air support. Blitzkrieg tactics were a revolution in combined arms warfare that literally every country had to adopt in one form or another.
>>30645989
The Infantry is the king of battle. All else is in support, one way or another.
>>30645746
>US
>>spread tanks out to all infantry divisions
>Nazi Germany
>>massed tanks into panzer divisions
That's actually a common example how the germans did something very right as opposed to the french and brits.
>>30645989
Germans understood very well artillery, air power and tanks are massively more powerful than infantry. Only unlike the americans they had neither in ungodly amounts, so they concentrated it where it actually mattered.
>>30645959
Now if only trucks didn't need fuel, or manufacturing for that matter...
>>30645746
It wasn't, it just worked different. They lost because Stalin gave zero shits about how many soldiers died and the US industrial advantage.
>>30646059
The plan of the sovjet invasion was getting the oilfields in the south to fuel the german warmachine. However instead of getting past stalingrad hitler threw all his forces in the meatgrinder for the sake of fucking stalin personally. So not only breaking the pact was stupid, how they handled the eastern front was even more stupid.
>>30646059
>The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact literally guaranteed Soviet non aggression in Europe
It literally guaranteed German non-aggression in Europe too.
>>30645817
>>30645862
>>30646059
>>30646104
>>30646108
>>30646111
>OP asks for doctrine
>Everyone discusses strategy and politics
>>30646129
>OP blames german failure on doctrine
>say it was politics and strategy that lost them the war, not doctrine
>>30645817
>the Germans lost ww2 because of Hitlers leadership meme
there's other contributing factors other than that edgelords retarded ideas
>>30646129
Doctrine is something that is heavily connected to strategy and politics.
>>30646089
>The Infantry is the king of battle. All else is in support, one way or another.
the infantry is the rice of the battle
everything else is the stuff you put on the rice to turn it into something good
99% of combat effect comes from big explody stuff.
>>30646089
You spelled artillery wrong.
>>30645817
Don't forget that if you read books by military leaders in Nazi Germany, they all point out that the speed at which Germany expanded ate up resources so fast that production couldn't keep up and they ran out of guns, ammunition, fuel, etc. Germany could have taken Britain and more, but they'd never be able to hold it, their production couldn't sustain their military. Plus there is a solid chance that Stalin might have shot first at any random point and dragged Germany into Russia, neither side of that pact had any trust for the other.
>>30646111
aggression against the Comintern, not aggression in Europe.
>>30646146
>implying that invading an unmolested Soviet Union is a good idea.
>implying that Hitler didn't overrule his commanders advice.
>>30646178
The entire idea of the Blitzkrieg was to end the war fast so you don't have to hold it as long. If the UK fell, the Commonwealth nations would totally sue for peace. This is assuming that Japan didn't bomb pearl harbor.
>>30646089
Infantry is actually the Queen of battle, Anon
>>30646164
I dunno senpai, rice is pretty great plain.
>>30646171
>>30646328
This.
Arty has been king since Nepolion's time.
But all things change, One could argue air superiority is king now. Perhaps electronic or information warfare is next.
>>30646104
>industrial advantage
That has absolutely nothing to do with Germany consistently losing to the US and UK that emphasized maneuver in the vast majority of small scale engagements.
Why is the notion of doctrine so hard for plebs to understand?
>>30645839
>literally zero mention of the BAR at all
Are you actually retarded?
>>30645746
>untouched factries pumping out more tanks, ships and planes then the Germans were capable of stopping.
The steel towns won the Western Front, not doctrine. Good work betraying them and leaving them to die though. Classy move America.
>>30646867
>OP literally about doctrine
>m-m-muh production!
Summer /k/ is the worst.
>>30645746
>Hitler overestimated the importance of technology. As a result, he would count on a mere handful of assault-gun detachment or the new Tiger tanks to restore situations where only large bodies of troops could have any prospect of success. The chief characteristic of Hitler's leadership was his over-estimation of the power of the will. To win the war this will had only to be translated into faith down to the youngest private soldier. -Erich von Manstein
German high command was not blind to this. It wasn't some secret weapon of the US. They were hindered by oaths to an asshole corporal who was growing more unstable each passing day.
On another note. Auftragstaktik is not something to sneer at.
>US realizes integrated support is the way to go
>US realizes the threat of bullets is more important than number of bullets
America - One
Europe - Some number between negative five and One
>>30646921
Everything the Germans did was meant to counteract these vast production power of the allies.
MG-42 was meant to be a manpower effective way to keep enemy troops pinned down
Panzer Divisions were meant to breakthrough with superior numbers and armaments. etc etc
Throughout the entire war befoore America signed up The Germans were playing the lone wolf, taking on the British, their commonwealth, the French, half a dozen Western European countries, Poland, the Soviets. They had to keep their doctrine focused on overwhelming the enemy in the first blow. They didn't have the resources for the long war of attrition.
>>30646998
>Everything the Germans did was meant to counteract these vast production power of the allies.
Their infantry doctrine was from the very start when they had parity with the Allies. Trying to rationalize it by saying 'well eventually the US entered and outproduced them' is nonsensical.
Long ranged support is how you win battles.
Either through focused fire (Americans) or overwhelming barrages (Soviets).
Artillery is a far more efficient force multiplier than tanks.
>>30645817
>Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact
Agreed.
He should of consulate his position in the west then dealt with the east.
Also, the Germans observed the French who did the same things the Americans did - spread their armor out among the infantry. They decided on the opposite and was awarded a swift victory as a result.
Hindsight is always clearer
>>30646998
>MG-42 was meant to be a manpower effective way to keep enemy troops pinned down
Which is fine as long as enemy troops only have their rifles and LMGs. It rarely worked out like that though.
>Panzer Divisions were meant to breakthrough with superior numbers and armaments. etc etc
And time and again during Barbarossa the lagging German infantry divisions would either fail to close the pocket and eliminate Soviet forces that were caught, allowing many to escape, or take unacceptable casualties trying to fight.
German doctrine was flawed, and describing how it would work if everything went isn't really a good argument for it not being shit.
>>30646059
>The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact literally guaranteed Soviet non aggression in Europe
Wut. Germans broke the pact, so the idea that it could guarantee anything is bullshit. Soviets could have easily broken it as well.
>Germany would have won World War 2 if they focus on their invation of the UK
Germany had even less of a chance to successfully invade the UK. Wehrmacht had no capability for amphibious invasion, the only chance was to get the UK to surrender using strategic bombing.
>>30647618
>Soviets could have easily broken it as well.
they could have, but they were more or less focused on expanding the Comintern into the steppes, asia minor, and asia proper.
Western imperialism was not their focus at the time. Later, definitely, but not in the 1941.
>Germany had even less of a chance to successfully invade the UK.
Operation Sealion
>>30647782
The abortion that was operation sealion was also Hitler's fault for micromanaging the project.
>>30645862
>as long as Britain exists Europe will never be unified
FTFY
>>30645817
>Germany lost world war 2 100% because of Hitler's poor leadership decision in breaking the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact pact while the UK still stood.
Sure. It has nothing to do with the fact that the Allies outproduced the Axis by several multiples in nearly every strategic resource and product category, by an order of magnitude in a few areas, and pressured the shit out of Axis production centers while the Axis never figured out a way to seriously hurt Allied production or shipping. Clearly all that is extraneous.
Infantry is the Queen of Battle because it does everything.
Artillery is the King of Battle because if you can take out the enemy's, they've lost.
It's chess, guys. Tanks are rooks, as cavalry was before it.
>>30645746
The Germans lost because they didn't have many resources nor did they have a massive industrial base on another untouchable continent shipping them free shit.
The Germans killed shitloads of people, but it doesn't really matter when you can't replenish your own losses.
>>30648455
>Infantry is the Queen of Battle because it does everything.
All infantry does is escort the forward observer.
>>30647139
>They decided on the opposite and was awarded a swift victory as a result.
>Germany
>swift victory
I hope you are not talking about WW2 as a whole.
>>30646089
Artillery is the king, Infantry is the queen, and you know what kings do to queens.
>>30645746
>Having infantry units that even need support to go to the bathroom is the best think in the world.
>LMG are shit and nobody use it today.
>Stugs that were used and attached to the infantry as assault guns didn't exist
>The lack of proper support to some Germans infantry units through the war wasn't because they were over-extended all over the fronts and kampfgruppes were everywhere.
>Having tanks need the tank destroyers support to fight other tanks.
Yeah pretty much another high quality /k/ thread.
>>30646059
>>30646274
"Blitzkrieg" was compromise doctrine born out of necessity.
The fact is that Germany did not have the industrial production to motorize much of their army. If they could, they would motorize everything, but they couldn't. The compromise was to concentrate what motorized/mechanized assets they have into a relatively small number of units, and use these units to create and exploit breakthroughs.
Once breakthrough/encirclement was achieved, the leg-infantry, which always made up the bulk of the Wehrmacht, would reinforce the encirclement and digest the encircled enemy units. The actual exploiting elements of the Heer were extremely brittle due to their relatively small numbers, and the poor mobility of reinforcing units. When the Panzer divisions were counter-attacked, they suffered awful losses. The French in 1940 couldn't, because they had no fully motorized units that could catch and pin the Panzer Divisions. The Americans and Soviets did.
It was the best way to make use of the assets that they had. The Soviets had enough trucks to motorize many divisions. This made "Deep Battle" possible because the Soviets had multiple fast moving motorized exploiting units, and could place them along the front. The moment a breakthrough was made by leg infantry, the maneuver group in reserve would exploit the breakthrough. Because this unit didn't have to create a breakthrough, it was fresh and could focus on the task of penetrating as far as it could.
The Americans were even more motorized, which is why they could afford to give every infantry division a tank battalion and large motor pool. When the Americans find a breakthrough, besides tank divisions, the nearby infantry divisions could pool their trucks and tanks and flash-form an ad-hoc motorized division. Tank divisions short on infantry frequently borrowed the motor pool and an infantry battalion from infantry divisions.
>>30649429
>he thinks assault guns are the same as tanks
>he thinks even 10% of german infantry division had a stug battalion attached to it
>he thinks nobody uses SAW, instead everyone uses crew-served GPMG
>he thinks german infantry didn't need support because muh mg42 CoD xD
pretty much another high quality /k/ post.
>>30649656
>he thinks assault guns are the same as tanks
True my fault
>he thinks nobody uses SAW, instead everyone uses crew-served GPMG
Again my fault, my problem was assuming that OP thought LMG support is useless when you have have more RoF than the single average enemy rifleman.
>he thinks even 10% of german infantry division had a stug battalion attached to it
Never said that every infantry division had enough support, what i said was that OP was wrong because at least doctrinally the German infantry divisions were supposed to have an attached armored support.
>he thinks german infantry didn't need support because muh mg42 CoD xD.
Never say that, i said that teaching your infantry that they are useless without help thought it is somewhat true, it really affect their initiative and how good these soldiers can be.
That is ONE of the reasons why the American paratroopers ware better than the army infantry man.
>>30650169
> at least doctrinally the German infantry divisions were supposed to have an attached armored support.
No the don't, the Germans focused their tanks in Panzer formations. Stugs were organized in independent battalions that were assigned at the corps level to divisions by need.
>>30645839
>muh 1919
>muh M2
What machineguns do you have, shitcunt?
>>30648798
Swift, unexpected victory over France. Not th whole war.
>>30645817
>muh Hitler did everything wrong
>>30652246
Remember: Germans dindu nuffin. Dey was all gud boys. Dey just wanted sum a dat gud skittles in Paris and Moscow. Dat Hitler punk dun did it all!
>>30645746
Hitler lost for breaking the pact, not getting the first assault rifle, not realizing he was growing too quick, and a lot of other, similar things.In short, he thought he was the biggest baddest guy on the playground and could beat every other kid with his fists, when another, bigger kid came, and he brought a knife.And 20 other kids with knives.
>>30649526
>The Soviets had enough trucks to motorize many divisions.
We sent them those trucks, mind.
>>30645746
Germany entered the war with -20% of the oil needed to sustain 3 years of offensive conflict. -35% of the ammunition to sustained 2 years of offensive conflict, and the steel to maintain 1/2 of the armor, ships, and aircraft to maintain any fronts past 1940.
Doctrine is based off how much you can afford. And to be open minded and not a wehraboo, the creation of an independent airforce was widely considered effective (though there were faults, as with any operationally specific branch). The strategic use of the kriegsmarine in u-boat operations, though the ships were never improved and thus were easily sunk after (I think) '41. Small unit leadership and widely similar training among the infantry allowed for readily consolidated units to form effective battle groups and sustain defensive fights effectively.
Or you could just troll. That's always an option, you got a reaction out of me so you win.
>>30645746
The US squad weapon was probably one of the worst in the war.
>>30645817
They weren't going to invade the UK, they couldnt, the only plan they could be called half assed, but only if you were being generous.
>>30646784
>US squad weapon
Sorry, what other squad support weapon would he be talking about other than the BAR? Asshat.
>>30645746
the modern infantry section based around 2 high ROF GPMG/ squad automatic weapons....
wouldn't it then mean in 1940's the germans were ahead of their time for infantry doctrine, considering we're still using the same sort of doctrine and tactics they used in modern militaries today
>>30653018
Operation Sea Lion was shit cause Hitler micromanaged it. Generals hated the plan. It was a direct Directive from Hitler. Third Reich's biggest flaw was that nobody had a power or the balls to tell Hitler "no, you can't do that you retard".
The allies didn't have this micromanagement, the Generals didn't have the two many cooks problem.
>>30646059
>fast war
>something like 80% of their army was horse drawn
wew
>>30648455
Infantry is literally king in that it controls and takes territory. Try doing that with only artillery crewman.
Artillery is queen as a supporting role, but an extremely powerful one at that.
>>30653030
M1919
>>30653208
infantry is the queen, and cavalry stops that bitch from getting raped ;)
>>30653121
Hitler micromanaged the Eastern Front. Sealion was a case of not enough planning to begin with.
>>30653300
>Hitler micromanaged the Eastern Front.
was hitler an autist? that must've been the most tedious thing to do
>>30653300
To clarify. It was clearly not planned for when you consider they were scrounging up river barges to take part in a potential cross channel attack and whatever resources the Kreigsmarine wanted was being funneled into Goering's failing air war over the UK.
>>30653337
German High Command adopted auftragstaktik, which is basically where High Command issues a general order and a time frame to their field commanders, granting the men on the ground unlimited freedom to do as they please so long as they met their objective in time.
Hitler managed to go from 1939 to 1941-2 not fucking with this way of doing things when he finally caved and took a direct role in the operations. Even Walter Model, a diehard opportunist and personal friend to Hitler lambasted him about it.
>In a much-noted incident, Model had to deal with an attempt by Adolf Hitler to interfere with his arrangements. A telephone call from Army Group Center's chief of staff on 19 January 1942 informed him that Hitler, having become nervous about the direct Soviet threat against Vyazma, had decided that XLVII Panzer Corps, 2nd SS Division Das Reich and 5th Panzer Division were not to be employed in the imminent counterattack but reserved for other use in the rearguard. Immediately, Model drove back from Rzhev to Vyazma in a raging blizzard and boarded a plane for East Prussia. Bypassing the figure of field marshal Günther von Kluge, his immediate superior, he sought a personal confrontation with Hitler. At first he attempted to lay out his reasons in the best, dispassionate General Staff manner, only to find the Führer unmoved by logic. Suddenly, glaring at Hitler through his monocle, Model brusquely demanded to know: "Mein Führer, who commands Ninth Army, you or I?". Hitler, shocked at the defiance of his newest army commander, tried to find another solution favorable for both, but Model still was not satisfied. "Good, Model", the exasperated Hitler finally responded. "You do it as you please, but it will be your head at risk"
>>30653208
>Infantry is literally king in that it controls and takes territory.
Air power, armor, and artillery are the things that literally kill the enemy and win battles, both in a tactical and strategic sense. How is garrisoning territory won by other forces in any way glamorous or kingly?
>>30647782
Operation Sealion was a joke, even with air superiority the Royal Navy would have eaten their supply transports alive and left them trapped in Southern England without support.
>>30646274
>implying that invading an unmolested Soviet Union is a good idea.
It was pretty much the only option. Germany and Russia were bound to be opposed at some point. Russia already ruthlessly curbstomped Germany as it was, they got fucked over in the process, but they utterly raped Germany by the end. Letting them up their production and replace their purged officer corps would just make it worse. Especially because Germany learned absolutely nothing about tank warfare until they invaded Russia and learned how utterly fucked they were. When they encountered the few t34s already in Russian service at the start of Operation Barbarossa, Germany discovered that they could not penetrate the t34's armor at ANY range at all, with ANY of their tank guns. They had to bring out the flak 88s to do anything to them but scratch the paint.
So in this world people imagine where Hitler didn't "foolishly" invade Russia, German tank divisions would have been so utterly and immediately devastated it would be incomprehensible. Tens of thousands of t34s would be ready to go, tens of thousands of tanks that again, were all but invulnerable to the guns the Germans were fielding. Instead of infantry with outdated rifles and no ammo, they'd be facing soldiers with SVT-40s.
People seem to think any plan that doesn't work is bad. The simple fact is Hitler made the right choice by invading the Soviet Union. If he didn't they would have just effortlessly crushed him a few years later.
>tfw the Boss steals your plans for the invasion of France and presents them as his own, calls you utterly unimportant to their development, promotes a self-promoting General commanding a division or two in North Africa to Generalfeldmarschall before you, ignores the massive undertaking of opening an attack on the Caucasus in favor of an attack on a city named after an avowed enemy, ignores the massive clean up effort you do when his attack on said city fails, ignores your suggestion for a series of baiting traps to blunt the Soviet Army in favor of a full attack at Kursk, then proceeds to blame you when said attack fails, then sacks you altogether.
....
Hitler: "I cannot use you in the South. Field Marshal Model will take over."
Manstein: "My Führer ... please believe me when I say I will use all strategic means at my disposal to defend the soil in which my son lies buried..."
;_;
>>30653455
Well if Italy had not delayed the invasion and if Hitler was less incompetent it probably would have gone better.
>>30653289
I hear cav guys say this all the time and it confuses me. What the hell is up with cav?
>>30653457
Hey now, Rommel was getting great press from his book prior to the war and then got more from the propaganda machine: don't hate the player, hate the game.
Being good at your job AND knowing the right people to get promoted are not mutually exclusive.
>>30653457
Rommel was not some media hype flunked. The man was an excellent general. He also just happened to know how to play the game. That's hardly new. Why do you think Patton dressed, talked, walked, like he did?
>>30646695
You mean the infantry doctrine that has been more or less mirrored/copied/adapted or adopted from SS or Heer kampfgruppe?
Weird how better weapon systems and reliable equippment, paired with superior numbers will eventually overwhelm any defense.
It's like you're being willfully ignorant to keep trolling.
[its working]
>>30647068
Well, tanks are basically just short-ranged artillery that is proof against rifles and MGs...
>>30645746
Because hitler was stubborn and didnt listen to his war generals or anyone else. They literally revolutionized firearms with the stg 44 and hitler didn't let them use it until the war was already lost
>>30653844
>Why do you think Patton dressed, talked, walked, like he did?
Because he was insane.
>>30653846
>You mean the infantry doctrine that has been more or less mirrored/copied/adapted or adopted from SS or Heer kampfgruppe?
Yeah your right champ, US doctrine today is about six guys helping move a three-man MG crew from one hiding spot to another.
>>30646059
Implying that Stalin wasn't sitting back until Hitler tied up invading England to invade western Europe.
Read Victor Surorov.
>>30654172
>Read Victor Surorov.
wew
>>30652720
>post about doctrine
>responds with muh lend-lease
How the fuck is that relevant to the post?
>>30654172
Lol, how does anyone take him seriously?
>>30645839
BAR is actually a great machine gun though faggot
>>30654391
>BAR is actually a great machine gun
>uses box mags
>great mg
What the fuck is sustained fire?
The use of BARs instead of team operated mgs on a squad level is one of those things that sounded like a good idea in theory but was kind of shit in practice.
Someone on /k/ a while back described it well wish I had saved it but in short US squad mobility was nice and all until they ran into serious resistance that required sustained fire to suppress, in which case they basically had to hunker down or move to flank while waiting for a 1919 team to pull their nuts out of the fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyJs6expvT8
>>30653121
>the Generals didn't have the two many cooks problem.
Uh... Just on the western front alone you can find plenty General douchery. Usually Patton and Montgomery bickering like children, drawing Bradley and others into the middle of it.
No. Just no. Germans were the masters of war at the low level. (slight exaggeration)
Too good for their own sake. Since they fell into the trap of thinking that being good at fighting would solve all their strategic problems.
>>30653455
>Germany discovered that they could not penetrate the t34's armor at ANY range at all, with ANY of their tank guns. They had to bring out the flak 88s to do anything to them but scratch the paint.
wut?
>So in this world people imagine where Hitler didn't "foolishly" invade Russia, German tank divisions would have been so utterly and immediately devastated it would be incomprehensible. Tens of thousands of t34s would be ready to go, tens of thousands of tanks that again, were all but invulnerable to the guns the Germans were fielding.
While this line of thinking flows logically and is overall probably accurate, it is worthwhile to consider how the Red Army would have been affected at the unit level by the lack of the field officer purge from Summer '41 to the end of '42. The one good thing to come out of that slaughter was the nearly complete culling of completely incompetent but "politically reliable" low-mid ranking Soviet officers, allowing competent commanders to begin rising again. I have to wonder how much of that materiel and personnel advantage might have been wasted in sheer tactical incompetence otherwise.
>>30654127
May have also had something to do with the fact that Germany didn't have the ammo stockpiles or production capability to truly embrace modern high RoF suppressive fire tactics. I do not think they could have kept those STG-44s fed if they were general issue, especially considering the toll allied bombing was taking on German production by that point.
>ITT we all claim one aspect of warfare is the most important even though we all know they all are
>>30653846
>>30654169
If you want to know the people with the most "modern" infantry tactics in WW2, it's the US Marines.
Infantry squad consisted of
1 Sargent
3 teams of 4
Each team consisted of 3 riflemen and a BAR man.
Against an enemy position, two teams establish bases of fire from different angles on the target, one team advances to a new position.
Once the moving team has established a fighting position, it starts firing at the enemy position and one of the formerly static teams moves to a better position.
Depending on situation, the Marines had the BAR man on point, and had the 3 riflemen cover him. Since the Japanese had very few automatic weapons, in jungle close quarters, one BAR had many times the firepower of an Arisaka armed Japanese infantryman.
>>30654169
Maneuver on and around based off the MG is corner-stone infantry movement to contact. The Common Wealth pushed for it in cohesion with tanks, air, and artillery support but never got thier timing right. Germany did.
The MG was the root of their infantry doctrine and was always the pivot point for offensive action.
Modern infantry tactics rely on fire-team sized elements working off of a base of fire and maneuver.
I'm not sure why I'm even arguing, you know all this and you're choosing to be a cunt.
This shitposting has no brakes.
>>30654921
He's being sarcastic.
German doctrine is overly reliant on the machine gun. The squad consisted of a 3 man machine gun team, and "the rest". When the machine gunner had to move, the German squad was basically a non threat with only 6 bolt action rifles and maybe an MP-40.
Modern infantry tactics most resembles the US marines and the British.
>>30646274
Blitzkrieg is a meme invented by journalists to describe German breakthrough operations.
>>30654967
As opposed to the American squad which was a non threat whether it was moving or still.
>>30654967
>U.S. Marines
What is the modern squad ? Assault rifles and machine guns. (pic related)
The marines are the only ones who conducted large scale landings well and their integratet mortar support is good, because marines make due.
>>30655185
>The marines are the only ones who conducted large scale landings well
It's like you never heard of D-Day.
Not only that, but only did the Army conduct more, larger and better landings, including in the Pacific theater, they were also better at it, often taking less casualties and completing their objectives quicker.
>>30655221
NEET b8
>>30653455
>>30654792
People hail the fucking t34 like it is a good. It is shit. In early models you could not reload if the turret was turned. Shitty optics. It doesn't even have a real turret. the crew is standing on the ammo. Later models improved, but never quite solved the problems.
It is also vulnerable at the sides, the driver hatch and the lower glacis.
It is also made from lesser quality steel, which has to do with the production method for that steel. It is a shit machine. The only things that are good about it is the upper glacis, the penetration of the guns and that you can assemble one from buckets, string and wodka.
>>30655221
Yeah D-Day was a massive clusterfuck, if you remember. Maybe you want to blame the airforce for missing the fortifications, or the navy for not accurately providing fire support. If the response forces on the german side had been better deployed, or indeed arrived in time at ally it would have failed, so it succeeded because of luck. The main reason the army landings were successful was the sheer weight of men and material. I realise that the army knows how to conduct landings, but i do think that it is debatable if they are better at it than the marines.
>>30655311
>Maybe you want to blame the airforce for missing the fortifications, or the navy for not accurately providing fire support.
Neither of these is completely the case. Due to the CEP of both naval gunfire and strike/bomber aircraft available, they simply needed about another 24 hours to reduce the defenses, and even then they would not have been completely reduced due to bunker design.
This extra time was neither strategically available or prudent, considering the simple fact that a large part of the success of D-Day and the subsequent beachhead expansion required the success of Operations Fortitude and Bodyguard. Taking too long to reduce enemy fortifications would have obviated the deceptions and possibly cost far, far more lives by giving the Germans more time to respond to the true attack time and location.
>>30655152
Because 12 guys with garands can't match 1 MG 42?
>>30655311
Well, the British did perfectly fine. Did you forget the US weren't the only ones in the war or something?
>>30653844
What game is that? Patton had a target on his back; he was not the kind of guy George Marshall wanted, but rather an exception to the rule.
>>30655472
If you noticed I did not comment on the british. My knowledge of british tactics and operations is limited. Didn't they use the giant landing ships ?
>>30655403
I know the bunkers were fucking indestructible. They still can't destroy the U-boat bunkers without leveling half the area. I am talking about the dugouts and the other temporary fortifications. In the past I wondered if normandy was simply the wrong place to attack, but you can go back and forth for hours about that one.
Could you explain CEP to me ? english is not my first language.
>kraut
>>30655756
CEP means Circular error probable, the value being the radius of a circle in which 50% of the rounds fall. It's essentially a measurement of how accurate a ballistic weapon is.
>>30654792
All the purge did was replace a bunch of green, incompetent commanders with another bunch.
>>30654577
Box mags wasn't the problem. The Bren, DP28, and Type 96/99 were all good LMG's and they worked off box magazines. The problem is the BAR as the US used it wasn't designed to be a LMG, it was designed as an automatic rifle with a walking fire concept. The design wasn't bad at all, but its implementation was. Other countries like Sweden and Poland had better BAR's that actually fit the LMG role.
>>30655152
Fun fact: artillery accounted for a larger percentage of kills in the Wehrmacht than in the US army.
>>30655756
>CEP
CEP is Circular Error Probability, and is a ballistics term which refers to a moving object's precision in hitting a target. Basically, it's a circle (so a 90m CEP would be a 90m circle with the target at the center) within which 50% of all incoming rounds for a given weapons system will fall. See pic for a depiction of CEP and other precision rating systems.
>>30655792
>>30655900
CEP
>Kreisfehlerwahrscheinlichkeit
I remember something about the bomber pilots missing most of their targets, by waiting an additional 5 seconds before dropping their bombs. Or did I mix something up ? And couldn't you target softer targets with dive bombers ?
>>30655900
>>30655756
Here's a pic depicting the CEP of several modern precision guided munitions
>>30655909
>I remember something about the bomber pilots missing most of their targets, by waiting an additional 5 seconds before dropping their bombs.
In WWII, large bomber formations often all dropped at once. Which meant that the lead bomber, whose bombadier was generally calling the bomb drop for everyone, needed to aim a little past the target to get the entire formation directly centered over the target. This helped negate unanticipated winds, etc, which might make the entire formation miss if they all aimed themselves. The area of destruction and collateral damage was higher, but the chance of at least one or two bombers striking the target was also higher.
>>30655756
>>30655915
Here's a chart of WWII artillery CEP. Note how much wider all the CEP numbers got compared to PGMs.
>>30655756
>>30655900
and here's a chart showing WWII night bombing accuracy, in which it can be noted that they missed ENTIRE CITIES 78% of the time early in the war.
>>30655756
>>30655900
Finally, here's a chart depicting average bombing accuracy as it increased from WWII to Vietnam. Today, a CEP over 200ft is considered very damn high.
>>30645862
Without US support Russia wouldn't have been able to conquer Germany. They would have been able to push them back and turn WW2 into a stalemate, but they wouldn't have been able to push further than that.
>>30655943
Dude I only needed it translated. I know the concept.
>>30655932
This seems to be mostly among the allies.
I don't have it here, but I read the training and tactics dispatches for the german bomber squadrons in the university. They called for individual sighting, when targeting defensive positions and simultaneous drops, when targeting cities or industrial komplexes.
Straight from the Reichsluftfahrtministerium so excuse me not posting the hard copies. (we can't take them out of the library as they are original.)
late war german infantry doctrine was and is in use in european armies today. aka the 8 man infantry squad revolving around a 2 man mg
>>30656004
>Dude I only needed it translated. I know the concept.
Well. Fucking excuse me for trying to fully explain a concept which you were apparently unable to google. Usually people who can't google a concept due to lack of contextual familiarity need a little background and explanation as well. Turns out you're just a lazy autistic shit. My bad.
>>30656047
Well since when i google cep it gives me CEP Sportbekleidung and clean energy partnership i can be excused on the google front. Not autistic or lazy.
>>30656004
>This seems to be mostly among the allies.
That'd be because the Allies were the only ones using large high altitude four engine bomber formations, champ.
>They called for individual sighting, when targeting defensive positions and simultaneous drops, when targeting cities or industrial komplexes.
They were also bombing from much lower altitude and did not employ defensive formations with nearly the same precision or regularity compared to the Allies. This necessitated individual targeting. Furthermore, their large raid infrequency as the war dragged on prevented them from developing the same tactical refinements as the Allies, who had the time and data to refine their practices.
>>30656029
Which European army's infantry squad revolves around a crew-served GMPG?
>>30656047
>Central European Petroleum GmbH (CEP)
>Das Centrum für Europäische Politik (cep)
>>30655792
the first answer i got after asking what it is unshortened
>>30656092
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that you're so lazy and stupid that you could not rule out a petroleum company and think tank just from the context of the usage of the term?
A simple google search for "weapon CEP", "target CEP" "artillery CEP" or "bomber CEP" would have all revealed your answer. I stand by my assertion that you're a lazy asshole who responds to sincere efforts at assistance with rudeness and arrogance.
>>30656115
>I stand by my assertion that you're a lazy asshole who responds to sincere efforts at assistance with rudeness and arrogance.
Can't blame him too much. He is German, after all.
>>30654792
Other way around really.
The purge eliminated some very competent personnel in high command like Tukhachevsky and Rokossovsky.
It increased the focus on "political reliability" since the "politically unreliable" were purged. The junior officers coming into command were even less inclined to break political doctrine after they saw what happened to their superiors. These junior officers did not have the self confidence to make decisions.
The removal of "politically reliable first" officers only started in the winter war, and was completed when the pre-war red army was basically destroyed during Barbarossa.
>>30656131
>The purge eliminated some very competent personnel in high command like Tukhachevsky and Rokossovsky.
I wasn't talking about Stalin's purge, I was talking about the losses the Germans inflicted early in the war counteracting some of the damage caused by Stalin's purge by ridding the army of incompetent but "politically reliable" junior officers and allowing competent or combat experienced officers rise in their place.
>>30645874
>muh attached battalion of shermans
Don't forget an SP tank destroyer battalion and an armored cavalry squadron.
>>30647804
>The abortion that was operation sealion was also Hitler's fault for micromanaging the project.
>not the Royal Navies fault for existing
>>30648455
Infantry is pawn. There's a lot of it, you can throw them away without much worry, they move slowly, and they are mostly good for taking up space.
>>30656077
germany, norway, sweden, denmark, finland I think to name the ones I saw, this was late 2000s. I know norway have swapped out the 3man mg fireteam + 5 man rifleteam for 4+4 with minimi.
>>30656181
>Doesnt post sexier M18 Hellcat.
What the hell
>>30645746
Not even gonna read the thread but if there was one thing Germany did right, it was massing their tanks into divisions.
Because you know, it's what literally every fucking country does now
