>>65235645
Samurai blade spirit best weapon against ganjin colonists.
American is not colonists..

>>65235658
Philippines was a colony

>>65235645
The premise of your question is incorrect

Knee mortars

Malaya command was 2/3 Indian. Yamashita's force were hardened veterans from China and though the jungles of Malaya were quite different from anything in China, they adapted quickly.
III corps had 2 Indian divisions who although grew up in the jungles of India and were quite well adjusted to tropical conditions, were simply no match and were more often than not, routed within minutes of combat. The Australians risk getting outflanked so they often retreated as well. Later in the war, Australian forces were able to handle Japanese advances and later with American help, completely demolished Japanese forces.
Percival's problem was the quality of his troops. Had he had Australian men and Australian men only, he might have been able to eject the IJA from Malaya but luck would have it that the bulk of his force were Indian.

I'm interested to know just how outmatched The Indian divisions were and what caused such immediate collapses

>>65235729
>Takumi force, 5000 crack troops, amphibious landing at Khota Bahru
>Completely overwhelms 9th Indian division
Should have never recruited Indian troops

>>65235645
We're built different.

>>65235735
Absolutely ridiculous how a small detachment completely obliterated an entire division and marched south to Singapore virtually unopposed. How the fuck did an entire division get routed within 3 fucking days? With the 11th division you could argue that despite their advantageous position, were outnumbered.

File: totally defensible by 3 d(...).png (432 KB, 802x597)

432 KB PNG

>>65235735
>>65235746
it wasn't an entire division, there was only one battalion opposing the amphibious landing

>>65235729
try to figure out how you will defend 1,000 miles of coast with 3 under-equipped divisions, 2 of them mostly made up of Indian farmers, no navy, and enemy air superiority

for context, that's more than 3 times the coastline of English side of the English Channel
and more coastline than the distance from Brest to Heligoland

>>65235759
You speak as if it is easy to make a beach head and then provide provisions through the sea, under artillery barrage. Theres a reason why amphibious landings are ultra deadly and requires massive force advantage. What the Japs did was assail the eastern coast with a numerically inferior force and were able to rout any opposition they face there. On the western coast, they crushed the 11th with 3 divisions invading via land.

>>65235780

>try to figure out how you will defend 1,000 miles of coast with 3 under-equipped divisions

To me,the biggest threat is that mountain range cutting my force in two so they are unable to support each other, probably why Japan chose to land where they did. Both Kuantan and Kuala Lumpur can support each other without too much of the mountains getting in the way so I'd pull everything back to there and just slug it out with concentrated forces. Let them land, I'd rather have a fight in a smaller area with more troops and better positions on my side.

Singapore's status as a million-person city highly vulnerable to siege must have been a major headache for anyone planning its defenses.

File: San Carlos landings.png (896 KB, 1151x797)

896 KB PNG

>>65235780
>numerically inferior force
>landing at Khota Baru
idiot
>under artillery barrage
FROM WHAT FUCKING GUNS
HOW MANY GUNS DO YOU NEED TO DEFEND 1,000 MILES OF COAST FROM A NAVY THAT CAN STRIKE ANYWHERE ALONG THAT COAST
DO YOU EVEN THINK BEFORE OPENING YOUR CAKEHOLE

>>65235789
> they are unable to support each other, probably why Japan chose to land where they did
the Japs landed in the main ports facing the South China Sea because 1) that's where their Navy was, 2) you'd need dozens of MPAs and/or coastwatchers to monitor the coast, let alone do anything about the invasion force, and 3) these are the key towns which have road hubs - which, by the way, think of as dual carriageway compacted earth roads going through the jungle, with very minimal macadam.

the main threat however from this wide open coastline is that company or even battalion-sized forces can land anywhere, cut off communications lines, and then... what are the defenders going to do? bring in a panzer army to crush the beach-head?

because of D-day, people tend to think of amphibious landings as always always ALWAYS massive human waves swamping the beach under a hail of artillery and machine-gun fire with thousands of casualties, because they get all their military learning from Saving Private Ryan and Medal Of Honor.
not true.

when you have land, naval and air superiority - and the Japs did - you can land on any beach you like, provided the incline and tide is right and there's enough space to set up a defensive perimeter suitable for whatever size your landing force is. and you can do that all the way down a coastline and the enemy has no idea where you will strike, because again: naval and air superiority

you can use naval forces in this way to isolate any defence that is too difficult for your land force to crack, and that is exactly what the Japs did

>>65235799
still IS

>>65235803
are you saying I gave the japs too much credit for using the mountains to divide the brits? I thought it was just the most strategically sound path to singapore

File: file.png (419 KB, 641x477)

419 KB PNG

>>65235808
rather, your credit is misplaced, because the Japs didn't count on the mountains to delay British reinforcements (there was none anyway), rather the Japs used coastal landings to flank, isolate, and defeat enemy blocking forces

besides, they had more artillery and more ammo, and aerial superiority, and used their superiority well to counterbattery the British artillery and air forces. once those were gone the superiority turned into supremacy.

but nobody bothers with all this analysis because it doesn't feed into the "lol yellow man beat white man" narrative

>>65235803
Are you Indian?

>>65235823
>yellow man beat white man" narrative
They were brahmin troops huh? Who knew. Shame they got massacred and routed.

>had months to prepare defenses
>still got completely destroyed because the brits thought it was a good idea to put indian troops right at the frontline with australian as reserve rather than the other way around
deserved defeat. indians are only good as fodder.

>Order given to retreat in an orderly manner
>Indian troops instantly rout and make a mad dash south
>half the men desert
Kek. Reading about this campaign is something else.

>>65235878
if I was, I wouldn't add that India memoryholed WW2 for decades because the Indian Nationalists sided with the Japs and didn't do any fighting of note, whereas all the pro-British Indians amassed dozens of VCs and basically performed all the feats the Indian Army can be proud of

>>65235879
>brahmin
what?

>>65235883
>>65235886
eat shit, warriortard

>>65235890
>whereas all the pro-British Indians amassed dozens of VCs and basically performed all the feats the Indian Army can be proud of
Very impressive saar.

>>65235891
>"you're jeet because you point out that jeets have only ever managed to do anything when led by bongs and the jeet-led jeets were useless"
retard

>>65235892
>do anything
They lost the entirety to Malaya.

>>65235896
they still inflicted more casualties on the Japs in the process than the jeet-led jeets did to the bongs

With wars raging in Europe and Africa, strengthening Asian defenses would have been difficult. On the other hand, Japan had been given copies of classified documents concerning the deployment of defenses in Malaya, which Germany had obtained the previous year, and had time to study them thoroughly.

>>65235905
They had 3 divisions worth of manpower to build trenches, pillboxes.

File: woah.png (441 KB, 777x512)

441 KB PNG

>>65235929
>3 divisions worth of manpower to build trenches, pillboxes across 1,000 miles of coast
WOAH

>>65235645
US squads carry a lot more firepower. Bongs and frogs still using bolt action rifles, small ammo loads and less than 1 MG per squad. US has semiauto garands, auto carbines and assault rifles and 2MG per squad plus additional MGs plus supporting vehicles with MG, additional vehicles, mortars, artillery and aircraft.

Europoors are stingy with ammo amd equipment. US realizes that shooting ten thousand 30cpr rounds isn't economically balanced against killing an enemy who makes less than $50/year, it is balanced against preventing the death of an American whose life is worth millions of dollars.

>>65235944
>NOOOOOOOO YOU HAVE TO DEFEND THE COAST RATHER THAN ALL THE GORILLIONS OF DEFENSIVE CHOKEPOINTS ACROSS MALAYA AND THE NORTHERN PARTS OF SINGAPORE!!!!!!!!!!!
You indians are an insufferable bunch

>>65235946
Is a white European infantryman worth less than your run of the mill American?

File: file.png (537 KB, 960x720)

537 KB PNG

>>65235949
>YOU HAVE TO DEFEND THE COAST
yes, because that's where all the important shit is, retard
inb4 just don't defend ze Atlantikwall lmao
inb4 just let them land in Dover lmao
>AND THE NORTHERN PARTS OF SINGAPORE
and this is an (even more) obvious troll, but I'm just gonna post this view of Johor from Singapore, for the edification of anyone else reading the thread

this is less than a mile:

>>65235951
Europeans seem to think their lives are worth less. WW2 german artillery had so little ammo (<50rnd/gun) that they only did precision shots against valuable targets and would deny fire missions for not being juicy enough, german artillery took 15 minutes to plot an unplanned fire mission. German artillery was coordinated at the battery level and otherwise independent and piecemeal. German squad is 13 huns with 10 Kar98 and 1 MG42.

US squad is 12 dudes with 8 Garands, 2 BAR, 2 tommy guns and a FM radio. US artillery did interdiction and harassment fire where if they didn't have a better target where they would fire blindly at suspected enemy positions including road intersections. US artillery fire missions were networked to centralized fire coordination centers meaning that hundreds of tubes could support anyone in range and had 3 minute response times to receive, plot, adjust guns and send rounds downrange.

Your nazi supermen had "skill" as their only advantage and the reality is they had no such individual skill advantage, especially not after 1942. They had a defender advantage only.

>>65235892
>>65235883
Poorly equipped, poorly trained, poorly supported and poorly led. They were a budget garrison led by the lowest quality british officer who had been selected and expected to only manage local uprisings. Meanwhile the Japanese are a modern military and near parity with European militiaries.

File: a6fe088a-14dc-4876-a94c-b(...).jpg (307 KB, 784x1168)

307 KB JPG

>>65235645
The Japanese used infiltration tactics as their main strategy, bypassing strongholds and roads and then getting in as close as they could before suddenly attacking from behind and against the HQ and supply tail of enemy formations.
Great for a jungle when the enemy isn't expecting it and has huge holes in their lines because jungle. Really bad on islands with no opportunity for flanking and against fortified positions.
Once the brits got the idea of how the Japanese fought they simply dug in to fortified "boxes" when they sniffed Japanese in the area, and the Japanese attacked these boxes and died. See Battles of Imphal, Kohima and Admin Box.
Once the Japanese strategy was countered, the Japanese command wasn't able to figure out how to change their strategy and tactics to deal with it.

>>65235982
I presume that the british leadership was also just more preoccupied with the germans on their doorstep than the colonies on the opposite side of the world

>>65235997
>has huge holes in their lines because jungle
and coast

>>65236000
that too

anytime anyone says the word "Fortress Singapore", they out themselves as a History Channel retard
so-called "Fortress Singapore" actually referred to hypothetical plans drawn up in the 1930s and never actually built

it would be like wondering how the Allies managed to defeat Festung Europa given its panzerarmees of Maus tanks, fleets of Walter submarines and luftflottes of Me262s
and wondering how NYC stood up to the Amerikabomber

Plantations were often developed along roadsides, which apparently made them advantageous for the Japanese army's flanking maneuvers and infiltration tactics.

File: Japanese amphibious landi(...).png (839 KB, 665x689)

839 KB PNG

>>65236006
yes
in Malaya, the Japanese advanced through plantations more than they did through actual primary jungle (which they did in the Burma, New Guinea, and Solomon Islands campaigns)
their tankettes could navigate those plantations much easier too

but more importantly, the lack of inland roads due to the mountainous terrain meant that once amphibious landings had taken key towns on the coast, the inland forces would be cut off
for example, you can see from this map that landing at Telok Anson and Kuantan basically cuts off half the peninsula right away
and you can see how successive landings can easily chop up the defenders and defeat them in detail

Bismarck had sunk, and Gneisenau and Scharnhorst were suffering daily air raids in Brest, forcing them to retreat to mainland Germany. Couldn't the Royal Navy have allocated more resources to the Eastern Fleet?

>>65235645
>hurr durr every japanese attack was a banzai charge
Retard.

>>65235982
>the lowest quality british officer
This deserves extra emphasis; read between the lines of say, the Heenan affair: there was a bona-fide Armchair Copelord among the designated-shitting jeet wranglers. What does that say about the size of the far-east talent pool, the quality of other mid-level officers in it, or their senior officers' judgement in selecting from it or mentorship thereof?

>>65235890
It's significant that they memory holed the poor performance of nationalists fighting for Japan but ONLY because the Japanese lost. Not for being pro-Japanese.

>>65235962
A minimal fighting retreat would be so deadly to an amphibious landing that securing a beachhead from an enemy who's bent on attrition is sometimes more significant than an enemy who'll stand and break there.

File: Graf Zeppelin.png (388 KB, 771x472)

388 KB PNG

>>65236040
you're forgetting the Mediterranean

even after the Kido Butai was sunk, they still needed carrier and battleship support to cover the Arctic convoys, and any sortie attempt by Tirpitz and, of all things, GRAF ZEPPELIN

>>65236077
>size of the far-east talent pool
officially about ten whites per jeet battalion, BTW

>>65236080
yep

>>65236085
in theory yes, except the defenders were also understrength in artillery and machine-guns and ammunition

it would take a monumental idiot to fuck up an amphib landing of one brigade with full kit and full naval and air support against an isolated infantry battalion with only half its heavy weapons, no reinforcements nearby

>>65236099
>Takumi force
>5000 men
>routed a division on its own
Impressive shit.

The Brits and Australians were using a lot of native troops and expected Imperial Japan to not be sadistic savages to POWs. The Americans saw what happened to their initial guys and decided that its better to die fighting than surrender if overrun. This lead to the Japanese taking horrible casualties.

>>65236298
More like the Japanese expected to fight troops of equal quality to Indians and Chinese who do nothing but flee in terror or get rapidly flanked and destroyed. Instead they found Americans in entrenched positions with endless machine gun nests. Every other soldier had a BAR and every one else had a semiauto Garand against bolt actions. Industry won the war.

>>65236291
>Takumi force
>its own landing craft, warships, fighters, bombers

>>65235722
You are unfair. The Bongs treated the Indian troops as cannon fodder and often blew up bridges with them on the other side, Simmerson (Sharpe) style. This did nothing for morale. They also treated the Aussies only slightly better. The Bongs had no air cover and their naval relief Force Z was quickly sunk due to not having any air cover. Also, this is often overlooked but the Japs attacked Malaya a few hours BEFORE Pearl Harbor, catching the Bongs by surprise. Another overlooked fact was that THAILAND allowed the Japs to march through its territory to Malaya, easing Jap logistics. A third meme fact is that the Japs used /n/ bicycles instead of trucks. Bikes move 2-3 x faster than on foot on rough terrain and the Japs outflanked hastily set up British road blocks this way. Yet another meme fact is the Japs shitty light tanks actually worked well in Malaya since they didn't sink into the soft clay soil and the Bongs didn't have any tanks at all.

>>65236305
They also for some reason couldn't understand that being barbaric to POWs just makes every offensive battle with the enemy dug in into the exact same kind of death struggles they were planning to do in defense of the Home Islands.

>>65236383
>The Bongs treated the Indian troops as cannon fodder and often blew up bridges with them on the other side, Simmerson (Sharpe) style
didn't happen

>Japs used /n/ bicycles instead of trucks
a significant advantage but not a war-winner by itself

>the Japs outflanked hastily set up British road blocks this way
no, they used amphibious landings, or their superiority of artillery, and to lesser extent air support

also true that
>have tanks
when
>enemy doesn't have tanks
is massive

>>65235970
>US squad is 12 dudes with 8 Garands, 2 BAR, 2 tommy guns and a FM radio
A curious lack of LMG/MMG/HMG

>>65237626
IIRC the BARs were considered to be the squad machine guns. Attaching machine guns (especially anything heavier than .30 cal) at the squad level was rare during WWII in general tho, only the Germans really did it religiously.

>>65237671
they had less carbines than sub machine guns? I thought they made millions more

>>65237639
I am forever confused by the US army's inability to produce a world-class LMG/MMG all the way up until the M240 (which is just a locally-produced Belgian gun). The guns were functional, just all mediocre for the role.

>BAR
quantifiably not a real LMG
>M1919A6
mediocre stopgap compared to contemporaries
>M60
a loathed, flawed "pig"
>M420
finally, adopted and improved to provide a great weapon

Would the US have rolled the japs and krauts harder if they had access to a proper squad level beltfed LMG that wasn't the BAR?

>>65237827
would have made 0.1% difference

>>65237607
Really? That's an insane ratio. We basically had m14s except not dogshit in WW2.

>>65237853
>That's an insane ratio
probably because he's referring to only a small subset of troops

>>65237869
>Every American deployed in the Pacific theater
>Small sunset of troops.

I mean technically youre right but from the Japanese perspective they wouldn't see it that way.

It's pretty funny people think they can compete with the us when we rolled Japan up essentially 1vs1, no offense to the ANZAC troops, while supporting our allies in Europe.

>>65237884
>>Every American deployed in the Pacific theater
every American deployed in the Pacific was a Marine, ey?

>>65236383
>Force Z was quickly sunk due to not having any air cover
The full story is worse, Admiral Phillips rejected CAP offered from ops officers of both the RAAF 453rd and the RNZAF 488th while planning his sortie. Complete failure for sake of inter-service rivalry and lack of regard for subject-matter experts' tactical judgement.

Without radio communication equipment and agreements on communication frequencies, providing escort would have been quite difficult. Were the F2A aircraft in the area well-equipped?

if I may interject, what you're referring to as a "Banzai charge" is indistinguishable from a bayonet charge

>>65237722
They did. Carbines were issued to a lot of rear-area troops so that they would have something better than a pistol if they suddenly found themselves in combat.

>>65237884
>we rolled Japan up essentially 1vs1
*sad Stilwell noises*

>>65237783
>M420
#blazeit

>>65237908
in american education land, yes

>>65237783
what's wrong with the 1919? it seems fine/pretty good to me.

>>65238268
And blitzkrieg is just shock and awe, bewegungskrieg und auftragstaktik; manouver warfare and mission tactics.
These are labels we put on historical things. Reich is just realm, kinda, yet we call it the third reich despite it'd just be the third realm/empire.

>>65238560
>what's wrong with the 1919
weight
with tripod, it was nearly twice the weight of the MG42 with bipod; without tripod it was nigh uncontrollable and STILL heavier than the MG42 with bipod

>>65238560
The M1916A4 was mounted on a tripod and was effectively a crew-served weapon. This created an LMG gap. They recognised these shortcomings and created the M1919A6. The gun itself is no lighter at a damn heavy ~32lb, but at least comes with a bipod. It was functional and had no issues in a purely static role, but there were better alternatives for the LMG role e.g. the Bren.

Hell, the damn MG42 with bipod was only ~25lbs and that provides some serious suppression

>>65237783
The M60 wasn't loathed at all, it was pretty beloved and basically just got clapped out more than outdated. SEALs still use the pig to this day. There have been other LMGs used also like the Stoner which was pretty great. It's not really a technology issue it's an organization issue. We still keep MMGs in the weapons platoon and it took ages to even allow LMGs to be attached organically at the squad level

>>65238689
>SEALs still use the pig to this day
every time I hear about SEALs it's about them being clowns

>>65235951
In WW2 frankly, yes. The only other major nation that wasn’t in the business of trading men for soil was the UK and that was mostly because they simply didn’t have any manpower to spare and morale was always one disaster away from collapse and suing for peace. A lot of flak is thrown at Monty and other British generals but they were very much playing with half of a deck. The doctrine was conservative and defensive because being aggressive and getting a bunch of British soldiers killed would have rapidly eroded the home island’s taste for unconditional surrender. And it wasn’t just civilians but British divisions especially after 1944 were a mixture of highly motivated and fearless professionals and guys who just wanted to go home. The British never suffered a major casualty event like basically everyone else did, and that’s equal parts luck as it is design. Modest by the numbers casualty events like Hood and Dieppe were catastrophic for British morale.

But I’m getting off topic. In every other army men were expendable resources, worth less than a lot of the munitions they used. This mostly comes down to material shortages in the case of Germany, they just didn’t have the firepower because Hitler was too busy building jets and V2’s instead of artillery factories. But you also get the same with a lot of minor powers and Russia ofc where manpower is just a more direct artillery shell to be used up. Finland is the only minor power I can think of that went out of its way to preserve its men. Even if they’d wanted to the Finnish army was just too small to be expended for territory the way the Germans or Russians or Italians attempted with mixed results.

>>65238747
>The British never suffered a major casualty event like basically everyone else did
neither did the US, and because the USA had 3x the population of the UK, what casualties they did incur were proportionately felt to be less serious

>>65235780
amphibious landings are only dangerous if they are contested, most of the amphibious landings in the second world war, particularly early in the war, were uncontested
To give an example of this that you will recognise, both the Marines invading the Island AND the Japanese reinforcements sent in to push them off landed on Guadalcanal uncontested despite the fact that in both cases the defenders knew they were coming and had assets available to contest the landings with
As far as the banzai charges are concerned, that basically came down to available firepower
Units with insufficient firepower either broke or were overrun while units with sufficient firepower held out, regardless of who was manning them

>>65237626
Reduces squad mobility, decreases firepower on the attack due to the need for ammo carriers, and is mostly redundant given the breadth of automatic weapons either carried by the squad or mounted on supporting vehicles. In the US army’s estimation. And for the most part all of those were used regularly by the US Army still, they were just kept to the HQ and doled out to defend key areas or to be attached to platoons as the commander on the ground saw fit. As basically every company was rocking with an attached Sherman platoon and those had plenty of machine guns, it was never particularly doctrinally desired to attach LMGs let alone LMGs to squads. This was fine in some instances, like France and Europe proper as a whole. But kinda terrible in other theaters, namely the pacific and Italy where the terrain meant your four attached Sherman’s couldn’t or wouldn’t do shit and led to some crazy loadouts such as assault platoons rocking all BARs and Tommy guns so they can try and still fail to get a firepower advantage against an MG42 on a chokepoint.

>>65238760
>it was never particularly doctrinally desired to attach LMGs let alone LMGs to squads
cope
when push came to shove they let the Airborne carry them because everyone knew it was necessary
>But kinda terrible in other theaters
and they would have adjusted the orbat accordingly if they had enough resources to shift towards a wider issue of squad automatic weapons, but they didn't
>led to some crazy loadouts such as assault platoons rocking all BARs and Tommy guns
that's just basic infantry doctrine

just admit the BAR was a failure as an LMG (great as an assault rifle) and move on

>>65238753
Don’t know if I’d agree. The battle of the bulge and Normandy both caused horrific casualties and a few more Okinawa like fights would have basically brought American taste for the war to its end. Yes the US had more men, but another bulge or a worse Normandy could have soured the home front on the war entirely. Ike was very cognizant of the fact D-Day had to succeed and not just barely but decisively or it could cause Congress to sue for peace rather than abide by the unconditional surrender. By 44 there’s no way the Nazis are getting to have peace on their terms either way, but 400k was as many dead Americans as the USA was willing to take, bump that up by another 100k and the associated 250k wounded that would have entailed and I can definitely see a Japan that doesn’t get occupied post war.

>>65238766
none of which battles ever reached even 100,000 total casualties
>could have soured the home front on the war entirely
yeah, that was my point
every other nation experienced lost battles with greater casualties both in proportion and in absolute, but their national spirit (for lack of a less corny word) was resilient enough to keep on trucking. the US public had it easy.

even the Vietnam War casualties was relatively low compared to large WW2 battles. but it broke Americans for years because they couldn't take losing.

File: wewee.jpg (175 KB, 1228x770)

175 KB JPG

>>65238766
>but 400k was as many dead Americans as the USA was willing to take, bump that up by another 100k and the associated 250k wounded that would have entailed and I can definitely see a Japan that doesn’t get occupied post war.
pathetic
the US as a population barely got tickled in WW2

>>65235722
why the fuck would an indian even fight for their colonialist oppressor english of all sorts of people and against the japanese, who they have no beef with whatsoever? never made sense to me desu. they could as well have fought for the japanese and get parts of siam as a reward or sg. like that.

>>65238810
>why the fuck would an indian even fight for their colonialist oppressor english of all sorts of people and against the japanese, who they have no beef with whatsoever?
money

>>65238810
>why the fuck would an indian even fight for their colonialist oppressor
because they weren't actually colonialist oppressors until the post-WW2 nationalist narrative became convenient.
why do you think migrants moved to live in the West rather than stay in their own lands? because their own lands were fucking shitholes ruled by even worse scumbags. because colonialism and racism was actually a better alternative than "home".

>>65238807
even less so in iraq and afghanistan, but a few hundred casualties are enough for the american people to feel like its stalingrad. and while germans and soviets were fighting on their home soil for basically survival, for americans it was basically just fighting for their rich elite against some unknown country on the other side of the planet, so not exactly very motivating for the average grunt to risk his health and life for such a thing.

>>65238825
>it was basically just fighting for their rich elite
well, you felt as if you needed the sandniggers actually taking over your cities, stealing your welfare and raping your girls before you felt like fighting; so wish granted
here they are

File: 1708870222102710.gif (3.56 MB, 300x287)

3.56 MB GIF

>>65238815
>because they weren't actually colonialist oppressors until the post-WW2 nationalist narrative became convenient.

>>65238810
Even post independence, a lot of older indians, and for that matter basically most former colonies have a subset of the populace that both remember and lament the British and them leaving
Look at how many of these countries still use colonial era infrastructure, it shouldn't suprise you why many felt this way

>>65237626
The BAR is a LMG. Magazine fed LMG were common in WW2 with lewis, bren, type92, type99. 20-25 round magazines were a bit small, but not unusually so.
At the company level there's lots of .30cal and .50cal browning GPMG and HMG along with mortars.

The main point is the US had semiauto rifles as standard and more automatic weapons in every squad and then had even more firepower and the ammo to support firing all those big guns.

British colonial troops tended to have bolt actions and fewer supporting machine guns and fewer other weapons. Artillery is king of battle because it is the greatest casualty producer. Infantry without artillery are a mere obstacle.

>>65238848
>The BAR is a LMG
here we go again
A 20-mag, bottom-loading rifle with no quick-change barrel does not fulfill the role of LMG
It is an automatic rifle

>>65238848
>Artillery is king of battle because it
kills everything and has the longest range
>semiauto rifles as standard
not really a big deal in WW2; average aimed fire was only 25% faster than bolt-action
>more automatic weapons
this however
more Thompsons and BARs, and eventually grease guns
>a bit small, but not unusually so
is the correct appellation for guns like the Bren with only 30 rounds
>Lewis
45 rounds
>Type 92
equally retarded if not moreso

a gun like the BAR with 20 rounds is, in WW2 terms, an automatic rifle

>>65238784
The US was a functional democracy and democracies cannot deal with losing fathers brothers sons and neighbors for random ideas that don’t actually matter to them. If any axis countries had been democracies then, well they wouldn’t have started the wars in the first place, but they also would have surrendered years earlier than they did. Russia probably would have collapsed halfway into Barbarossa if it had been a democracy actually.

>>65238560
The browning m1919 30-06 GPMG was a little heavier than its WW2 competition. The water cooled ones were heaviest, but the air cooled versions were pretty much contemporary.

The guy complaining the BAR is an assault rifle not a LMG is correct for the wrong reasons. The SMG and early assault rifles provided firepower to an attacking squad that bolt action rifles and a GPMG could not do. The bolt action couldn't match the volume of fire and the belt fed GPMG couldn't reposition fast enough.

>>65238864
Type 92 wasn’t bad it was just fucking old and the Japanese didn’t have an economy or industry to get anything better since they spent half their GDP on the Yamato and Musashi.

>>65237884
A bit unfair considering the comical amount of Japanese manpower that was being swallowed up in the Chinese shitfest. Yes our Navy had the predominate role at sea but the Japanese troops on the islands up to a certain point in the canpaign were a rounding error compared to China.

>>65238879
Actually the Japanese lost a majority of their casualties to the USA. China was a huge manpower sink but not where a majority of their casualties came from. It was a large but relatively quiet front by ww2 standards. A whole lot of casualties the Japanese actually suffered were from island garrisons that got surrounded, passed, and then were unable to be rescued or resupplied so they just. Starved to death.

>>65238879
The single largest source of dead was actually the Phillipines at 490k KIA. All of China from pre ww2 to the end, was only 456k. Tack on the pacific as a whole and the Japanese lost over 1 million men just against the USA. They also lost another 400k in about two weeks when the Soviets invaded Manchuria, though a lot of those soldiers were native militia at that point.

>>65238873
>functional democracy and democracies cannot deal with losing fathers brothers sons and neighbors
Asiatic philosophers missing the famine for the wheat. The US has a low tolerance for casualties, because of that, the US is willing to expend a large amount of treasure on ammunition and equipment to keep the casualties low. The inferior european and asiatic is a bean counter that thinks lives are cheap and ammunition is expensive, so they are content to accept higher casualties.

What makes it ridiculous is the British and German traditions of career soldiers and slow progression which means that replacements and training are actually more expensive because their "cheap" soldiers take longer. Meanwhile American training in WW2 was metaphorical drinking from the firehose, but had a lot of academic investment and analysis. The result was that US greenhorn troops had more formal military education than german veterans while german, russian, Japanese and even British recruits were trained only to a very minimal level.

US also had "Advanced Placement" where recruits that scored well on the WW2 ASVAB were tracked to officer, nco or specialty jobs. The US put talented recruits in the harder jobs. It sounds normal now, but it was the opposite of worldwide military traditions.

>>65238884
On the whole Japan didn't seem to suffer as many casualties as I thought during the war. Bad, yes, but not Germany level. The homefront bombing only started to get really bad in the last year or so and I guess surrendering before the enemy is actually inside your borders helps.
Funny how the Japs get a bad rap as suicidal fanatics while the Germans didn't surrender until their retard-in-chief was dead with Russians prowling around a few hundred meters away.

>>65238145
Yes, the flight leads had operable radios and were provided Force Z's frequencies and codes; staff operations were bad but completely excluding the Air Force liaison officers from the planning tables would've been unconscionable even for the RN.
No 453 had been standing by with engines warmed for takeoff since dawn at RAF Sembawang; past noon Repulse's captain finally took matters into his own hands and requested their assistance, after a third wave of bombers appeared on the horizon (having already dodged two dozen bombs and torpedoes) and despite proceeding at military power (rather than fuel and overhaul-sparing cruise) the fighters arrived less than an hour later, just in time to watch Phillips's flagship capsize. By the time the Navy egos admitted they were in need of help, help was simply too far away to change the outcome.

>>65238908
>Funny how the Japs get a bad rap as suicidal fanatics while the Germans didn't surrender until their retard-in-chief was dead with Russians prowling around a few hundred meters away.
Really dude?

>>65238908
Because they didn’t surrender. Germany mobilized far more of its population to fight while Japan was only semi industrialized, still heavily reliant on basically peasant farmers. Most of their soldiers were peasants, even. For every German who died two surrendered. For every Japanese soldier who surrendered twenty five died. Japanese casualties are proportionally catastrophic as while it is lower as a % of total population, as a military force their casualties approached 100% and their kia usually was the casualty rate too.

>>65238908
>Funny how the Japs get a bad rap as suicidal fanatics while the Germans didn't surrender until their retard-in-chief was dead with Russians prowling around a few hundred meters away.
well Japan was the only nation to have an explicit "suicide charge" infantry tactic, suicide aircraft, civilian suicide, and a general death-over-surrender

>>65235951
Americans had a much larger manpower pool to pick from they could easily take the cream whilst leaving plenty enough for auxiliary roles and home front war production and that without having to resort to 16 or 45 year olds in the military, let alone direct combat roles. Plus Yanks tended to be better fed, trained and paid.

>>65238897
Wasn't the Philippines where Mac's intel guys gave him a low and a high estimate for how many Japanese defenders they were up against, they planned for the high number as a precaution and still ended up being off by half? Absolute nightmare of a time for the Filippino population too, the Japanese seemed to know it was the end and just went wild on them.

File: file.png (304 KB, 750x489)

304 KB PNG

>>65238908
>Funny how the Japs get a bad rap as suicidal fanatics when they launched hundreds if not thousands of kamikaze attacks while the Germans deepsixed the Fieseler Reichenberg and only 35 German pilots are recorded as having made deliberate suicide attacks

>>65238908
The Wehrmacht had roughly double the amount of personel and fought the largest land war in history where hundreds of tousands of soldiers on the frontline were a strategic skeleton crew while the Japanese fought in dense jungles, islands and the sea where less manpower is required or even possible at all to utilise.
If you compare the ratio of Japanese KIA to POW to the Germans, the Japanese were far more fanatic, even more so than the Germans on the Eastern Front despite having a higher chance of survival in Allied Captivity than a German would have had in Soviet hands.
Also, the Japanese prepared many of their resources to fight a last stand in their homelands which never happened, as opposed to Germany which lost over half of its men (only talking about KIA's) in the last 14 Months of the war.
Throughout the entire war, the Germans had a 2 POW for 1 KIA ratio. The conservative estimates for Japanese is 1 POW for 30 KIA. Even the Waffen-SS was much less extreme

>>65238908
>>65238915
>>65238926
>better fed
Japan is the only axis power I'm aware of whose war criminal convictions includes acts of officially-sanctioned cannibalism in New Guinea and elsewhere. If that's not fanaticism, what is?

>>65238907
>US greenhorn troops had more formal military education than german veterans
and more wisdom from the Appalachian hills

>>65238941
The Philippines is a very overlooked theater of the war in general but it was Okinawa before Okinawa in a lot of cases. It was also being fought constantly from occupation to recapture, due to the Filipino guerrillas picking off patrols and the reprisals that happened after. The 490k dead is total. Only 382k were suffered during the recapture of the islands, which is still enormous mind you plus another 115k captured as that was one of the few times mass surrenders by the Japanese occurred. The other 108,000 dead Japanese occurred between their initial invasion of the Phillipines and the guerrilla war.

>>65238912
>>65238914
>>65238915
>>65238946
Alright I guess I phrases that poorly. What I meant was its an odd juxtaposition of the two countries, where one was ridiculously flippant with its military lives but came out of it with its homeland (relatively) unscathed due to throwing in the towel but the other didn't quit until it was literally split in half and its leaders comitting suicide.
Do you think Hitler would have had a similar "come to god" moment and authorized surrender following an atomic strike on Germany? I think he would have offed himself anyway but I can't realistically see the other members of the high command carrying on with resistance after something like that.

>>65238959
Honestly probably not. The atomic bombings were not any more catastrophic than the firebombings. The difference is the US would have tried to bomb the Nazi high command and the survivors, freed of Hitler and his high command in an atomic blast, very well may have surrendered.

>>65238926
Actually wrong, the quality of American military personnel was unevenly distributed. The vast majority of the well educated and physically fit men joined the Navy and Air force and the few adrenaline junkies preferred Marines and paratroopers. The average Soldier was indeed better fed than the average German and especially the average Japanese by virtue of having better logistics, but most of them still went through hunger during the great Depression and/or were immigrant wageslaves. Compared to the Brits and the Dominion Troops American Soldiers paled despite being better equipped, also visible in their casualty ratios which often exceeded 100% (at least on the Western Front) despite facing an ill-equipped and worse trained enemy

>>65238810
Mate, the British conquered India using Indians. Never underestimated the power of people to turn against their fellows and loyally lick the boots of their overlords for a shilling. Especially if they're Indian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepoy

>>65238840
Friendly reminder that Gandhi got an education in Britain, became a lawyer, and only turned against Britain after getting kicked off a train in South Africa, and even then he spent the next 20 years campaigning for Indians to be treated better, not blacks.

>>65238959
>What I meant was its an odd juxtaposition of the two countries, where one was ridiculously flippant with its military lives but came out of it with its homeland (relatively) unscathed due to throwing in the towel but the other didn't quit until it was literally split in half and its leaders comitting suicide
a point to ponder, true
consider however that the Japs had been at war since 1936, and by 1939 the home front was already facing rationing, which only worsened in 1941 with US sanctions on everything that could conceivably be used for war from butter to boots
and that the speed of war left the German nation overrun relatively very quickly after D-day

>Do you think Hitler would have had a similar "come to god" moment and authorized surrender following an atomic strike on Germany? I think he would have offed himself anyway
yes and yes

>>65238963
>The atomic bombings were not any more catastrophic than the firebombings
the atomic bombings were carried out with much less loss of life for the attackers and with much more ease
in peoples' heads is a vague KDR figure whereby it's easier to accept 100,000 casualties knowing you killed 10,000 of theirs, than to accept 50,000 casualties knowing you killed a handful or even zero of theirs
it's not strictly logical but neither are people

>>65238959
The Nazi Goverment was more centralised and until Hitler's death the Nazis could do pretty much anything on their turf unopposed that they wanted to do. Japan on the other hand was a political mess with multiple competing factions. Funnily enough, it were the ''Civilian' autocrats in germany that wanted to fight until the death while the military wanted to surrender in Germany where as in Japan it was the opposite with the Military being the suicidal fanatics.

>>65238972
This is such a bad meme. The Americans faced the single highest concentration of German power and quality outside of Kursk and walked away with a bloody nose while chasing the shattered remnants of the German army they’d just kicked the shit out of. The Germans had 19 mobile divisions, their best divisions, their best equipped best trained most experienced divisions that managed to survive three years of war against the Soviets intact (and with well above 100% casualty rates learn what that actually means most German units suffered 300-500% casualty rates through the war) only to run into a bunch of well trained, well equipped, mostly green units and get annihilated in operation Cobra. The idea the us military and the army especially wasn’t actually all that good is not at all reflected in reality and it’s Wehraboo cope. The US military rolled the Germans and it was barely a fight. The only battle the Germans ever won against the Americans was Kasserine and their inability to learn that the US had learned from and would never again repeat those mistakes are why the Germans performed so poorly in Western Europe against the Americans. And I say that but the field generals knew this, they warned Hitler than they were losing and needed to pull back. But Hitler and the high command were gambling and expecting on another Kasserine to defeat the weak blood amerimutts and lost more AFVs in one month to the Americans than they lost to the Soviets in three years.

>>65238988
>the otherr didn't quit until it was literally split in half and its leaders comitting suicide
That's why the Nazis (not Germany) actually won WW2. Their primary goal was for there not to be a repeat of the 1918 situation and fight to the end either way.

>>65238997
>if you kill yourself you win

>>65238994
*their best divisions after 5 years of losing their best divisions
but more than that it was economic
overwhelming material superiority in every area probably tends to help on the offensive

>>65239004
These are Nazis we are talking about.

>>65238994
>The Germans had 19 mobile divisions, their best divisions, their best equipped best trained most experienced divisions that managed to survive three years of war against the Soviets intact (and with well above 100% casualty rates learn what that actually means most German units suffered 300-500% casualty rates through the war) only to run into a bunch of well trained, well equipped, mostly green units and get annihilated in operation Cobra. The idea the us military and the army especially wasn’t actually all that good is not at all reflected in reality and it’s Wehraboo cope. The US military rolled the Germans and it was barely a fight.
Doesn't the massive allied advantage in air power have something to do with that?

File: 1748411682393394.jpg (285 KB, 1280x849)

285 KB JPG

>>65238997
>Jews control the Western World
>The Nazi's actually won

>>65239013
You live in the world controlled by Jews, the Nazis don't.

>>65238994
>The Germans had 19 mobile divisions
Settle down now, half were Volksgrenadier.
The Brits faced more panzer divisions in a smaller area at Caen, and same with the Soviets during Spring Awakening.

>>65239008
Yes but also no. CAS was almost useless against armor, heavy bombers knocked out more tanks than typhoons. But for the most part what beat the Germans was, outmaneuvering them. Heavy tank battalions were mostly defeated by their own drive trains. They would be driven around when discovered, then they would inevitably break down or run out of fuel, and then be destroyed by their crews losing all heavy tanks for a dozen Shermans. What air superiority did was help break down supply chains but the biggest benefit and what won the war in Europe for the Americans was their integrated artillery that completely and utterly trounced German artillery doctrine. All of it was mobile and a solid chunk was self propelled. The Germans just didn’t have enough mobile firepower even when they concentrated over 70% of it in Normandy and the American army literally drove circles around them while moving 122mm guns in range of their rear lines while 155mm guns blew up anything that tried to slow the advance. The airforce killed supply trains, the artillery annihilated strongpoints, and the army encircled and destroyed the army.

>>65239006
German losses were nonexistent until Barbarossa, and these “ground down” units were kicking the Soviet’s teeth in just fine. Even after Kursk German losses were still fairly light and the army was at its strongest by far with plenty of experienced and battle hardened soldiers from the original army of 1939. What made Bagration so successful for the Soviets was that the Germans took all but two of their best mobile divisions and more than a few motorized and good infantry divisions, the divisions that had blunted every Soviet offensive with near ease, and wheeled them to France. Where they all got smoked and never recovered because now they actually did just lose their best men and heaviest materiel and even if they hadn’t the Germans now had to split their forces 40-60 instead of 5-95 on the western and eastern fronts.

>>65239021
Volksgrenadier divisions didn’t exist until after Normandy as a reaction to the Germans just losing their best divisions in Falaise. I assume you mean the multinational garrison units

>>65238994
>the single highest concentration of German power
was in 1941 at the start of barbarossa.

>>65235645
americans are low moral gaijin

>>65238994
Learn to read what I said. I didn't say the U.S. Army was worse than the army, I specifically stated the quality of their infantry was poor, a fact that you can easily verify with statistics or battles where the U.S. couldn't leverage its overwhelming superiority. Aachen, Hürtgen Forest or the entire Italian Campaign are more than evident of this, where the U.S. struggled against 2nd rate troops in Close quarter combat despite superiority in logistics and firepower.
>German power and quality outside of Kursk
The only quality German divisions left were the SS tank divisions, divisions that were almost annihilated ont he Eastern Front and had a higher quality because they spent months rebuilding. Those tank divisions usually fought the British and the Dominion Forces because the Germans considered them the more capable opponents. But I'm talking about the infantry and thecapable German Infantrymen were already dead at this point and they had to increasingly rely on conscripts with a few weeks of training and foreign cannon fodder.

>>65239021
>>65239028
Oh and only two of those divisions were static divisions, not even close to half. It’s a bad meme by Wehraboos who don’t know actual history. Almost all the divisions present in Normandy had been pulled directly off the frontline with the Soviets, they were all chock full of experienced and battle hardened men and using mostly panthers, tigers, and even a few tiger 2’s. And they lost hard because Hitler was stupid and ordered an attack onto the American front that his generals were warning him could unravel the entire frontline. And boy did it.

>>65239026
>Even after Kursk German losses were still fairly light and the army was at its strongest by far
June 1941 is unassailably peak operational strength.

Training declines from 1942
Manpower quality declines from 1942
Officer quality declines from 1942
Morale declines from 1943
Survivors are deadly but drowned out by a flood of replacements

>>65239033
Please tell me how the Germans at Hurtgen, Aachen, or the ones in Italy were second rate. This is a bold and stupid claim, considering Aachen was defended by the remnants of the 16th panzer division. Or how Aachen is supposed to be that bad. Is “poor” taking 7000 casualties to your opponent’s 5000 while they’re dug in across a river in a fortress supposed to be bad? That’s far better than every other nation performed in similar circumstances. Hurtgen is an example of American forces struggling against second rate troops even? They Italy? You seem to think the Italians were defending Italy. The German formations in Italy were small but very good and extremely well led. You’re actually denigrating the Wehrmacht perpetuating this myth, as if Kesselring was just lucky the Americans were bad. Or you could take the position of any historian or contemporary and realize that the 10th army was competent with a competent general and extremely advantageous terrain.

>>65239046
>Please tell me how the Germans at Hurtgen, Aachen, or the ones in Italy were second rate
By 1944 replacements were poorly trained.

You should know this, if you had an ounce of self-honesty. By 1945 after just 3.5 years of war, only 1.5 years after commencing operations in Europe, American troops were bitching that unit replacements were not properly trained. Yeah well everyone else in Europe had had 5 years of it by then.

No doubt the Americans performed many commendable feats in WW2, but as for any gripes they have, the answer is: Get in fucking line, sissy.

>>65238862
wrong
see: >>65238848

>>65239046
>Hurtgen is an example of American forces struggling against second rate troops even?
Yes it's a perfect example of facing primarily eithers VGDs or infantry formations rebuilt after the Falaise pocket

>>65239045
June 41 is most effective relatively and by virtue of having actual oil reserves and firepower superiority in spades. But the German army of 1944 would still beat the German army of 1941, by virtue of having much better firepower at the squad to divisional level, plus the number of divisions being fielded, and also a better refinement of tactics and strategy. I’m not even going to get into the nitty gritty of how a panther is effectively a god of war compared to the majority panzer II early war army, and if you give the Wehrmacht of 41 access to 44 firepower it’s no contest. But in turn if you give 44 Wehrmacht 41 levels of materiel stockpile then they win no contest in turn. The main reason 44 Germany looks so weak is because they had for the entire war been the side with a firepower advantage and if not air superiority then at least the ability to contest the air. Normandy happens and now the Germans can’t do anything but complain that the Amies don’t fight fair and just mortar and artillery anything that tries to fight when that was half the reason they were so successful and unstoppable for the first three years of the war.

>>65239045
>German losses were still fairly light
barbarossa had 1 million german casualties by end of 41 already.

>>65239061
>June 41 is most effective relatively
How else can effective in this case be judged if not by relative? Why bring something ridiculous like technology differences into this?

>>65239062
Replying to the wrong post good buddy

>>65239061
>the German army of 1944 would still beat the German army of 1941
irrelevant
the US Army of 1950 would beat the living shit out of the US Army of 1944, but that doesn't prove the US Army of 1944 was weaker than any other nation's army in 1944

>>65238689
Early M60s had reliability issues (particularly the sear and bolt were prone to early wear), also belt bags for the M60 were a late addition that never actually quite made it to all units and without a bag keeping the belt from fouling is difficult on the move.

>>65239059
Only five of the thirteen divisions were VGD and it was a heavily fortified dense forest on top of that while also being a staging ground for Watch on the Rhine. Also known as the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans were stockpiling materiel and concentrating firepower like it was going out of style. I swear to fuck half of you people watched the history channel and never actually read any of the history and the other half just repeat those chucklefucks. Hurtgen is an example of US intelligence failing, not US soldiers being bad. The US was throwing second rate units into a meat grinder as a diversion for the main thrust not realizing they were attacking headfirst into four elite divisions.

>>65239068
You’re making a strawman. The argument was that the German army of 44 was the strongest the German army was in ww2, even compared to 41. Bringing up 50s America is irrelevant to this line of thought.

File: file.png (442 KB, 527x587)

442 KB PNG

>>65239077
>The US was throwing second rate units

>>65239063
The argument is explicitly which army was stronger and the German army of 44, despite its materiel shortages, its critical fuel rationing, and its issues with replacements was still the peak of German strength in ww2. This changed directly as a result of Normandy and Bagration, which fed directly off the success of Normandy. After that the German army collapsed and suffered catastrophic, irreplaceable casualties. I am specifically referring to the German army of June 1944. It had training problems and quality issues, but they were more than capable of still slugging it out with the Soviets and winning. When they lost the cream of the crop in Normandy, the Soviet’s operation Bagration carved out the rest of the army leaving very little to rebuild and causing the actual competency crisis the Germans never recovered from due to their catastrophic losses.

>>65239083
very well, here's a more apt analogy to jam in your thick skull
the '44 British Army would still beat the '41 British Army
the '44 US Army would still beat the '41 British Army
this is wholly irrelevant to how the '44 British Army stacks up against the '44 US Army, however
therefore, you trying to bring it up in a discussion about the US Army vs the Wehrmacht in '44 is wholly irrelevant, and you are a nigger for bringing it up, and a double nigger for doubling down on your dogshit theory when pointed out

now fuck off

>>65239089
>The argument is explicitly which army was stronger
in relative terms, because no idiot would compare on direct terms

>>65239086
Very cute, but I am actually referring to many of the literally green divisions the US was feeding into the area. Particularly because they expected, wrongly, that the Germans didn’t have anything to resist with. And it’s very telling that you call out Aachen because it’s all Wehraboos have to go off of. Considering if they bring up any other battle with the Americans that happened the german army is getting rolled over like pavement.

>>65239090
I don’t think you understood what I wrote because your response here is unintelligible nonsense and doesn’t at all refute my original point

>>65239061
44 germany had no reserves in men left and no fuel, so basically couldnt counter offensive anymore. that was the case since kursk 43 when the germans spent their last offensive power. after that fighting the germans got easy because you didnt have to calculate in possible larger counteroffesives. getting industry and logistics bombed without contest also severely limited mobility. the germans in france were basically sitting ducks in 44.

>>65239092
Ok but that’s not what I said. I said and I quote
> Even after Kursk German losses were still fairly light and the army was at its strongest by far with plenty of experienced and battle hardened soldiers from the original army of 1939

So what exactly are you trying to argue by saying that relatively speaking compared to a bunch of drooling retards the German army in 41 was relatively more powerful when my point was that the German army in early 44 was extremely powerful and more than capable of resisting the Soviets, yet it couldn’t resist the western allies particularly overwhelming American firepower?

>>65239101
Again this is mostly just because of superior American firepower. The Germans did have fuel, enough to do stuff with, they were even still letting civilians have a tiny bit of gas in early 44 and it hadn’t hit peak “ohfuckwehavenogas” prior to Normandy. They had both Romanian oil fields and synthetic oil plants were coming online and it was enough, nothing close to what they needed, but enough to deal with the Soviet attacks. Technically they ran out of reserves in 42. Hard to have any when the reserve limit imposed by Versailles is so tiny. Even still, what they had in spring of 44 was a large, well equipped, battle tested and determined army, and it was even high in morale. But the best trained experienced and determined soldier can’t do anything when twenty artillery shells land on him.

>>65239102
>German army in early 44 was extremely powerful and more than capable of resisting the Soviets
thats completely wrong though, like literally factually wrong. the eastern front totally collapsed in 44 and before that the germans hadnt even been able to stop the dniepr crossing, which should have been easy as fuck as its a big wide river. pretty much the only thing holding the soviets back in late 43 and the first half of 44 was the winter and mud season.

>>65239102
What exactly are YOU trying to argue by saying that absolutely speaking the Germany army had become more powerful when compared to its opponents in relative terms it had become weaker? The only value power has in this discussion is how it compares to opponents, how does arguing absolute power make any sense?

>>65239113
>and it was even high in morale
we've hit peak delusion

>>65239131
Hey, when did the front collapse in 44? Was it before or after they pulled 23 divisions including all but two of their best mobile divisions off the line where they mysteriously disappeared in France never to be seen again?

>>65239096
It's very telling how you completelly missunderstand the point he brought up by repeatedly bringing up Wehraboos out of nowhere.
Aachen is a popular example and the reason why it's brought up because it is one the few battles where the U.S. couldn't leverage its superiority in armored warfare, air power and artillery and gives a good picture at how American infantry compares to the others. Because you show the inability to comprehend what we are talking about, let me explain it to you: We are talking about infantry, nobody hete states that the U.S. military as a whole wasn't superior to the Wehrmacht. The strategic victories are irrelevant to this discussion except if you actually explain how those American successes hinged on the competence of the American infantryman rather than overall superiority.
Anyway, you want another battle, fine for me. Battle of Garfagnana where 18.000 Allied Soldiers and 120 Tanks faces 9.000 Axis soldiers. Most of them Italians, so don't come at me with the cope that these were super nazis to excuse the Allied Failure. Btw., the Allied were on the defensive too. Another example, Operation Fourth term, also against Italians.

>>65239138
The German army was nowhere close to being done in 44. Had it been used better, had German tactical and strategic doctrine been better, it would have also performed better. The German army massively underperformed compared to what it was capable of mostly through arrogance. You are right, in relative strength they had declined. The Germans failed to realize this, and ate absolute shit because of it.

>>65239151
>Garfagnana
Oh wow an equal 1000 casualties in a mountain where the axis achieved local superiority this truly proves how bad American infantry were

>>65239154
This is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. The U.S. had plenty of great victories, IDK why you need to exeggerate the capabilities of a mediocre enemy just to look better.

>>65239160
>Actually it doesn't count because I said so, ok?
Nigga, you lost to Italian

>>65239164
*lost to Italians as soon as you didn't have overhwelming artillery and air power. And a 2-1 advantage and 120-1 tank advantage is not local inferiority

>>65239142
Again. Pre Normandy. Your average German grunt thought they could still win before D-Day and not even in a cope way like a lot of them thought by the winter with wunderwaffles, but in an actually “we’re going to throw the Amies off the beach and then deal with the Soviets” way. It wasn’t until after D-Day when German morale collapsed and the mood changed from here’s how Hitler can still win to how can we surrender to the allies before the Soviets reach Berlin. Propaganda, information blackouts, and strong corps did a great job in maintaining morale until that just became way too impossible to bullshit.

>>65239172
The average German soldier did in fact not believe that the war could be won by 1944.

>>65239166
Again, if you actually read about the battle the terrain split the allied forces up. The axis leveraged knowledge of the terrain and allied unfamiliarity with it to drive a wedge and routed a small force, achieving local superiority and outflanking the other allied units. Kesselring and the 10th were competent, the invasion of Italy was a mistake and the terrain was hell. But there’s a reason all the axis victories against the US are these tiny things like this.

>>65239172
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008510318;view=1up;seq=9
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008510300;view=1up;seq=26

Two volumes of American reports, a third of the German citizens, I repeat, citizens far away from the front, believed the war was over in late 1942-1943. See table 13 Volume 1.

>>65239179
>But there’s a reason all the axis victories against the US are these tiny things like this.
Yes, we keep telling you it in every single of our comments, but for some reason you show an inability to even notice a single remark despite the high repetition.

>>65239163
>IDK why
because, independent of whether his original point was right or not, he chose a moronic line of reasoning and doesn't have the intellectual honesty to concede that his reasoning was dogshit, so now he has to protect it at all costs
the retardation is only going to double down from here

>>65239175
Not by summer, no. But the belief after 42 and 43 was that they could pull a Prussia and achieve a favorable peace. After d-day and Bagration you had people coping and most realizing there was no shot at anything but surrender.

>>65239182
Specifically said soldiers, not civilians.

>>65239186
The average soldier will have an even better grasp at how the war is going because he has direct experience with the war rather than just being spoonfed carefully selected propaganda. If 1/3 of the civilians could see behind the propaganda of aeguably the most effective propaganda apparatus in histroy, how many soldiers do you think came to the conclusion that the war is lost?

>>65239163
>>65239185
You should read about what Rundstedt told Hitler that got him relieved, because ultimately the biggest benefit to the allies was bad German tactics ordered by Hitler against the advice of everyone on the ground urging retreat. Cobra was massively successful but it didn’t actually have to be that easy, the Germans could have just retreated and kept their army intact.

>>65239189
About the same actually. Again let me clarify, repeat, the average German soldier thought they could fight to a favorable peace in early 1944. This opinion changed a whole lot after summer. So too did the rations, which probably did at least as much to hurt German morale as the defeats. But morale actually resurges by winter in the army, specifically because of mass propaganda. Delirious optimism is how one historian I read described it. German morale by Christmas is actually at its highest since before Stalingrad then it craters after that fails since a whole lot of the upsurge was on the promise that the Allies would be knocked out of the war by the start of 1945 and when that doesn’t happen that’s when you start seeing massive surrenders and desertions among the German army which you don’t see even at the worst moments of 1944.

>>65239189
soldiers often know less than civilians because they are isolated on some deployment with mail not reaching them or relatives at home not wanting to tell them that their brothers have died. civies get reports from soldiers on leave and obviously you cant hide millions of men not returning home and trains from the frontline being loaded with masses of dead and injured soldiers.

>>65239210
>you cant hide millions of men not returning home and trains from the frontline being loaded with masses of dead and injured soldiers
you think not?
all civilians would know is that they lost a relative and so has everyone they know
they don't know under what circumstances, and they have no idea at all what combat looks like
wounded are returned individually to their homes, those trainloads headed to hospitals are always shielded from public view
in contrast, soldiers can actually see dozens of comrades mown down and over time even the rate of reinforcement and the rate THOSE reinforcements get mown down

leaving aside the raw numbers, even the psychology of the situation is far worse for the soldier, as they see people around them whom they know dying by the dozens, whereas the social circle of civilians remains largely intact other than the aforesaid one or two relatives

>>65239184
It’s just not actually true though. And, also it’s extremely up in the air. You have really good American units like the 1st, the 101st, hell the British 11th armored, that could and did give as good as they got even in the worst situations. Then you have divisions like the 92nd at Garfagnana which was effectively an American Volksgrenadier division. Half of the British Indian divisions were also third rate formations. But it’s always the same cope where if the Americans succeed it’s because the German units were just volks and when they aren’t it’s because they all died to the Russians and when thats not true either then its because the Germans were out of gas but the most minor victory the axis can pull out of their ass that doesn’t accomplish anything and achieved no strategic advantage it’s because the allies sucked can’t we just, get past this history channel oversimplification of real history?

The Germans had plenty of great formations in 44. They had plenty of bad to ok ones too. Same with the Americans and the British and even the Russians. I don’t even know what you guys are arguing about actually.

Great thread btw guys, I’m enjoying all this long format discussion

>>65239219
Esprit de corps is a powerful thing. Also propaganda. You need to understand contextually how much Germans didn’t know, and how a whole lot of the ones who fought ww2 grew up as kids and teenagers during the 30s when the Nazis were making them believe they were superhumans, inheritors of destiny, the legacy of Prussia, and were unstoppable if united. I recommend reading some German war journals or listening to some audio books. Even guys on the eastern front maintained fairly good morale up until near the end of the war, and plenty were fully convinced that Nazi super science would turn the tide. Plenty of them were poorly educated or only got education as a result of the Nazis; Germany still had peasants before Hitler got rid of that social class in fact, and even the ones who were educated were rarely allowed to be free thinkers. Most of the civilians who realized the war was lost was the educated intelligencia and older folks who had gone through ww1 and recognized patterns showing back up again and how paltry the food rations were getting. Many young people by contrast still had faith in Hitler until the day he died. Just look at Trump, two in three people over the age of 60 loves the guy in America, and that guy’s way dumber than Hitler. Cult of personality is a helluva drug, especially when it’s dosed out when people are forming their identities and sense of self as teenagers.

how did a thread on the Burma campaign turn into talking about Germany?

>>65239026
>Heavy tank battalions
Didn't enter Normandy till over 2 weeks after D-day. The allies faced Stugs, Panzer III's and IV's, captured French tanks, and improvised AFV's, and when the Heavies did roll in there where only a handful of them

>>65239035
>panthers, tigers, and even a few tiger 2’s
American education at its finest. Refer to my post above, it took over two weeks for the first heavy tanks to enter Normandy, and only a handful of them actually entered the fight. IIRC there where less than 15 King Tigers in Normandy throughout the entire campaign. I think it was 5, total, but I can't remember exactly.

>>65239026
>what beat the Germans was, outmaneuvering them. Heavy tank battalions were mostly defeated by their own drive trains. They would be driven around when discovered, then they would inevitably break down
thanks to bombers attacking their workshops, a tactic that worked wonders as the British discovered at 2nd El Alamein
elsewhere not affected by this bombing, German heavy tanks had acceptable readiness rates despite fighting off the Soviet hordes
>integrated artillery
again, a British development from El Alamein, which saw every available barrel including tanks and AAA tied into the fire plan

>>65239435
>Didn't enter Normandy till over 2 weeks after D-day
because of the bombing, as anon said

As a SEAfag, watching this argument over bongs, jeets, and japs is incredibly cathartic. Thank god my grandfather learned to tunnel and hide.

>>65235645
simple, it didnt

>>65239444
17 actually

>>65239435
Half of the armor the allies faced were Panthers. And. Sorry what does two weeks have to do with anything at all? I’m not sure why you even bring it up. It’s kind of irrelevant to any of the points

How long did it take to move units from one front to the other?