How differently did the WW2 German military operate compared to other contemporary militaries tactically, operationally and doctrinally?
>>1110082
At least for the start of the war they were very different with their blitzkrieg tactics, the French and British were expecting another WW1 slow grind so the Germans managed to get a pretty good first blow in when they advanced through Belgium.
>>1110148
>muh blitzkrieg
That wasn't actually a doctrine.
>>1110082
Auftragstaktik
>>1110186
no but they used a combined arms approach that was dubbed a blitzkrieg. they were the first to do it on a massive scale.
>>1110148
Nobody was expecting another WW1-style grindfest.
>>1110082
Nazi Infantry doctrine was centred around the machine gun as their killing tool whilst most (all that I could think of) west europeans and america adopted the MG as a suppression weapon.
Furthermore, MGs were more proliferated in the german force organization than in other countries, often deployed at squad and platoon level, whereas (disregarding the BAR) Americans deployed theirs at platoon or company level. The BAR is disregarded because
>20rnd Magazine
>implying effective suppression
>>1112026
>Nazi Infantry doctrine was centred around the machine gun as their killing tool whilst most (all that I could think of) west europeans and america adopted the MG as a suppression weapon.
What a completely meaningless and baseless assertion.
>>1110082
Some stuff to start you off with
Blitzkrieg
Schwerpunkt
Armored penetration in depth
Mechanised support
Independent tank armies
Kampfgruppen
Wargames
Mixed arms
Squad tactics
Terror bombing
Special forces
Infiltration tactics
Bypass, surround, destroy
Army Groups
Veteran core
Elite troops
Paratroops
Wolfpacks
Mobile supply dumps
Auftragstaktik - Mission-Type tactics.
A Commander would issue a general order and a timeline (example: "Take that village by 4pm") and would leave it up to soldiers to decide just how it was done. Any further orders were a hindrance in their eyes to the troops.
Also, German soldiers were taught to think two ranks up the change of command in case the unit leadership was killed. Kept the units on track and the soldiers always thinking about the mission.
>>1112092
BLIZKRIEG WAS A THING MEME
why dont you read some fucking history
>>1112092
Except they took these ideas from others and claimed them as their own.
Like shit, the German army was trained by Russia before ww2 broke out
>>1112050
It's not, he's totally correct. The German high command specifically had a hard on for machine guns being the heavy hitters of their infantry, that's why the Stg and MP40 never became as common as the Thompson and Bar. Hitler himself made the decision to stick with the machine gun/bolt action doctrine, despite praising the Stg. This was practical for the Germans since their methods worked well enough and near the end of the war Germany wasn't in any state to push technology very effectively. The US, on the other hand, was and did. It's part of the reason for the diminishing performance of German infantry, among other causes. The Americans could bring more trained men with superior firepower. Try suppressing someone with bolt actions, it's not very fun.
>>1112452
>>1112452
Eh, sorta. The USSR didn't train the German Army but both did influence each other in certain aspects of how they operate militarily.In fact many German Tank engineers were influenced from Soviet Tank designs and the idea of camouflage in the German Military was also largely based off of Russian methods. However I don't know anything about the Germans actually being fully trained by the Soviets.
>>1112516
I imagine that might save a good bit of ammo, relegating most troops to an efficient bolt action while the ammo hogs are more specialized. Every scrap of metal counts for a country in Germany's position.
Was this at all a factor in the decision making?
>>1112516
>stg44
>war started in 1939 and ended in 1945
uhh...
>>1113431
Don't be a pedant.
His point is still coreect, the Wehrmacht did indeed favor a mix of bolt action rifles and GPMG's on a squad basis, whereas the MP38/40 and (later one) the STG-44 were rarely used.
>>1113441
True, but I would say it's an oversimplification of why Germany lost on the western front. The war was practically over by the time they got a foothold in France. Small arms had a small role to play in it.
>>1113455
Obviously the war did not hinge on the choice of small arms, but that wasn't what the other anon was talking about.
>>1113455
Germany lost on the western front because their airforce was destroyed defending the skies over germany. That allowed for American and British air superiority over western europe and that superiority allowed for the destruction of the german supply and logistical chain from the air. That in turn led to them not having enough fuel and munitions for their vehicles and heavy equipment which in turn allowed for them to get their asses thoroughly kicked by a well supplied invading force.
>>1112026
The British, French, Norwegians and Soviets had light machine guns at the squad level.Disregarding Poland and Belgium of course because >BAR.
>>1113503
Fuck me if the polish BAR wasn't a sexy beast though.
