Was the kaisereich the greatest army of the 20th century?
The men of the infantry sang "Fatherland, My Fatherland." Between each line of song they took three steps. At times two thousand men were singing together in absolute rhythm and beat. When the, melody gave way the silence was broken only by the stamp of ironshod boots, and then again the song rose. When the singing ceased the bands played marches. They were followed by the rumbles of siege guns, the creaking of wheels and of chains clanking against the cobble-stones and the sharp bell-like voices of the bugles.
For seven hours the army passed in such solid column that not once might a taxicab or trolley car pass through the city. Like a river of steel it flowed, gray and ghostlike. Then, as dusk came and a thousands of horses' hoofs and thousands of iron boots continued to tramp forward, they struck tiny sparks from the stones, but the horses and men who beat out the sparks were invisible.
>>449911
And then they lost
>>449916
/thread
>greatest army
>lost the most important war it fought
I don't know anon.
>>449911
>Was the kaisereich the greatest army of the 20th century?
no that was the Red Army in the WW2
Aesthetics don't win trench wars.
>>451337
>greatest army
>losing
>not relevant
m8
>>451337
"The greatest army" would achieve some subset of the goals set for it.
>>451337
Good armies are supposed to fight and win wars. You picked the wrong century to look for a good German army in.
>>449972
>reds
Eew
>>451367
well, the germans have lost the decisive battles
>>449911
if you came here thinking you could talk about german history in a neutral environment you're wrong
i suggest you go read books for that, people here don't want to discuss anything related to germany without oversimplifying for the sake of being witty
>>449911
They were. These faggots constantly seem to ignore Wilhelm's... diplomatic ineptness.
>>452015
It's not just about winning or losing but also how well you do against the odds. And the German military performed brilliantly in WW1 - a bit too brilliantly, because it gave them the impression that you could actually win a war through tactical prowess alone, leading to the foolish idea that WW2 was winnable.
>>452099
or you could look at a list of battles, the end results and come to the conclusion that germany is bad at fighting
>>452099
so failing with your number one master plan to avoid a two front war, then losing the decisive battles and finally losing the war... is performing brilliantly?!
>>452106
Or you could take a look at the odds, the numbers, the geo-strategic dispositions and the tactics applied and realise that the German military performed brilliantly. This is not a matter of debate.
>>452112
>i am right, this isnt up for debate
You are wrong.
Why are they better than Alexanders or Napoleons armies who faced worse odds and won.
Fagermans sux they losr eri war like nigga lol
>>452108
Germany revolutionised artillery tactics allowing them to actually break through the Russian lines, they built a marvellous network of trenches and bunkers in champagne only to abandon them approaching the end of the war to essentially re-invent infantry warfare through defence-in-depth, allowing them to hold a line despite the fact that the French and British shelled them with four times the artillery they had. All that with severely limited resources, being constricted by a naval blockade and having to fight a two-fronts war.
Keep in mind: ingenuity is something the weaker party must have. If the situations were reversed there is no guarantee that Britain or France wouldn't have portrayed a similar amount of prowess.
The point remains however, that Germany fought brilliantly and there is no way around it.
>>452115
Of course you're free to debate it but it's not going to change that fact.
>>452131
>revolutionised artillery tactics
The revolution you speak of was quite literally "bring a lot of artillery and have it all fire on this spot". Its not like they engineered flight or any such thing.
>>452138
Wrong.
Aerial reconnaissance played a role to analyse the defensive structure, timed strikes to take out command structures and provide cover for infantry attacks, as well as "shooting colours" which meant attacking in waves of various chemical substances, e.g. irritants to make wearing gas masks hell, followed by poisonous substances, traditional barrages, etc.
>>452131
but you make it sound as if the allies had not developed anything, had zero ingenuity of their own
yet it was them who pioneered the tank, who came up with brilliant set piece operational planning, who championed the "bite and hold" approach, who developed the idea combined arms, who have come up with infiltration tactics as early as early 1915 (which independently)
and in various, key battles of the war, it was the germans who had numerical superiority
>The point remains however, that Germany fought brilliantly and there is no way around it.
by that logic the western allies had fought even more brilliantly, because they, unlike the germans, had actually won the war
>>452151
>(which independently)
even if basically all the combatant nations developed independently
>>452149
You do realize that artillery planning and deployment saw some of the greatest advances made by the British during the war, right?
>>452151
>but you make it sound as if the allies had not developed anything, had zero ingenuity of their own
The Entente did, but the point is: they didn't have to because they had the numbers on their side. The reason that they ended up having to do so is proof of what I just said: Germany fought quite well.
>by that logic the western allies had fought even more brilliantly, because they, unlike the germans, had actually won the war
Had they fought brilliantly they should have won a lot faster given the difference. The most important aspect was the naval blockade. Germany was strategically beaten, choked to death to the point where they completely ran out of resources, Germany was not overcome by some ingenious tactics that rendered their defences obsolete. Had Germany had the resources, they could have held the front with their tactics - despite lacking the numbers, simply because their tactics were good.
>>452015
At Jutland. Don't blame the army for the kriegsmarine not having enough ships
>>452159
I've given you examples of what was developed by the Germans and which worked great against the static defences - especially against the Russians. Against Germany artillery was less effective due to their abandonment of static defences approaching the end of the war. That is the reason why they could hold the line despite the fact that the Brits were raising the artillery numbers like crazy. The German line wasn't a static, thin defence strip of trenches that could be blown to hell, it was a thick, fluid area, where German infantry would fight mobile battles. Withdraw when under artillery fire and counter-attack when the artillery would be relocated. Reserves and fighting men were divided and couldn't be shelled together any more. This was brilliance since it completely changed the game of the war and essentially introduced the type of warfare you'd see in WW2.
>>452186
Also, I might add: I'm not OP, I'm not saying that the German army of WW1 was the greatest ever. I'm merely trying to challenge the silly point of view of "well, how come they lost if they were supposedly great"? A powerful army doesn't need to be smart. Only the weak have to be smart. And I'd argue that the German army fought well. Perhaps not well enough but still quite ingenious in certain regards.
Obviously the other parties did some interesting things too. The Brits were actually first to employ timed artillery for infantry support and the French clearly beat the Germans in terms of strategy at Verdun by employing a much smarter system of rotating the troops.
Still, in terms of tactics I'd say that Germany had the others beat - even if it wasn't enough to win.
>>452185
??? where do i even mention jutland
what about marne or verdun, incidentally both battles where the germans had numerical superiority, or even somme and third ypres, indeed hardly decisive and with plenty of hiccups but still ultimately a positive net gain for the allies
i just do not see this unparallelled brilliance you seem to preach
>>452242
>Still, in terms of tactics I'd say that Germany had the others beat - even if it wasn't enough to win.
again - how? what is it they had done the allies did not do as well, or what is the sheer amount of tactical innovations they had that would surpass everyone else?
sure they enacted defense in depth - but the allies had combined arms, set piece attacks, operational planning of their own
you make it sound like the germans had all kinds of interesting and new and great stuff and ideas but at the same time you ignore the other side having them also - i mean you literally say the germans had the others beat tactically literally right after you had mentioned some of the allied positives
>>452120
>posting the same image in several threads
>being this butthurt about germany's existence
love it
>>452106
>the end results
End results: enemy countries always end up more bloodied, but victorious.
So bad at fighting, right?
>the only thing that matters about anything related to war is winning
Amazing philosophy.
>>452267
Im saying Jutland was the decisive battle in the war.
Germany may have sunk more ships, but not enough to break the blockade and their own loses were bad enough to keep them from trying again.
