-but the dirty sanchez is for men too??
-well,we need now the dirty sanchez topic ,thanks for reply bluffcove
-very confusing,i don`t understand anything,what have the brazilians about the waffen SS,dirty sanchez
[/quote]
You barstewards, I can hardly breathe! That’s a work of genius!
-but the dirty sanchez is for men too??
-well,we need now the dirty sanchez topic ,thanks for reply bluffcove
-very confusing,i don`t understand anything,what have the brazilians about the waffen SS,dirty sanchez
[/quote]
You barstewards, I can hardly breathe! That’s a work of genius![/quote]
- :roll: - :lol: - 
.
the only i understand was that`s a work of a genius
K haha funny funny…enough with the dirty sanchez stuff and back to the topic. 
Unfortunately, it is true that Germany had the best trained army in the world during WWII.
but I dont speak german so somewhere along the line there must have been a better force
I believe you missed the rest of my post.
Rubbish,
Unfortunately, it is true that Germany had the best trained army in the world during WWII.
That’s why they were beaten then eh? Let’s ignore the fact that some of Germany’s best equipped and trained formations couldn’t hold back the western allies advance into Normandy. Or why the British Airborne division at Arnhem without any heavy support held out against two german ss panzer divisions for five days!
Or better yet how about the 101st at bastogne?
As a war studies student with access to the world’s largest collection of military history etc. and having written a rather long (several thousand words) essay on the subject i can happily say that you are 100% wrong.
The german army was indeed good, they had a excellent maneourvre warfare doctrine and some rather gucci kit but they were by no means the best trained. If one considers that the British military had been engaged in some form of warfare every year in the last century (yes that includes the inter-war years) and in the beginning of the war was entirely made up of volunteers. Furthermore you cannot compare units such as the SS to such formations as the Guards, Commandos and Paras.
rant over, safety catch, magazine unload, fire off the action,forward assist, safety catch on.
They were grotesquely outnumbered by a determined foe and the sneaky landings bypassed the most concentrated areas of the German defense.
You are missing some critical information that has led you to an incorrect conclusion. Allow me to explain it to you.
As for the US army, it was well trained, but not as thoroughly as that of Germany. I cannot speak of the Russians because I know little of how well they were trained, but I do not think all that well, as so many were quickly pressed into service, from what I have learned. There were several reasons for Germany’s demise, most of which had little if anything to do with the quality of the training that soldiers on either side received:
The German army’s doctrine for war was badly flawed. They armed the bulk of their army with bolt action rifles (no match for the majority of their enemies who used semi or fully auto weapons) and supported them with MG fire from the rear and advancing mechanized units. While this works fine for blitzkreig, especially in open areas, it sucks when fighting an enemy army which is better armed in slower moving combat. Remember also, that very few German soldiers had MP40’s. They were mostly in the hands of officers and squad leaders, while the advancing Americans and Russians used Sphagins, Thompsons, M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, etc. A bolt action rifle is not a match at less than 300 yards for an M1 Garand, and it’s a suicide weapon against an M1 Carbine at under 200 yards, all other things being the same, that is. Once the Germans were no longer the aggressor for the most part, thier capabilities suffered. When it came to foot soldier combat, the Germans were outgunned.
Also, American and British bombing of German manufacturing and transportation facilities crippled Germany badly. Not long after they built it, it got blown up. It is impossible to conduct a war with continuously destoyed factories against the most industrialized nation in the world (US) and the immense human resources of the Soviet Union.
Furthermore, partly because of the superior manufacturing capability of the US, and because of the superior tank warfare tactics of the British as seen in N. Africa, the Germans were outperformed in mechanized warfare with the exception of their use of blitzkreig early in the war. The Battle of Britain cost Germany badly, where the RAF kicked the crap out of the Luftwaffe despite the terrible disadvantages of failing airplane parts and being bombed by Germany. Over mainland Europe, the US air power shamed Germany’s already deminished Luftwaffe (thank you Britain).
Add to this the fatal mistake of declaring war on the Soviet Union and bogging themselves down in a churning, agonizing front on the east when they were no longer able to properly supply their forces thanks to US and British bombing, and you can see that Germany was not defeated because the Allied troops were better trained. It was for many reasons, having little to do with training.
The Red Army was very ill-trained and ill-equipped.
The German doctrine of small-scale infantary was based around the machine gun - the German section had far more mobile firepower than a British section, and probably comparable to a US squad, although the ethos was different - the firepower in the German sections was concentrated primarily in the MG, in the US squads it was more dispersed, with the personal weapons being self-loading. Until the appearance of the M1919A6, the US squads had nothing at squad level with a comparable amount of firepower (indeed they had a “firepower gap” since the BAR is too light to be a serious support wpn), and the M1919A6 was crap by comparison, being rather heavy (14.7kg).
One well-sited belt-fed machinegun in defence can hold up a large formation of enemy - the defenders always have the advantage. And rifles, whether self-loading or bolt action, are no match for a well-sited machinegun spewing fire and death.
This is classic though, I must quote it before it disappears:
A bolt action rifle is not a match at less than 300 yards for an M1 Garand, and it’s a suicide weapon against an M1 Carbine at under 200 yards, all other things being the same, that is. Once the Germans were no longer the aggressor for the most part, thier capabilities suffered. When it came to foot soldier combat, the Germans were outgunned.
Very few German soldiers used an MG, and Germany did lose. Obviously, the MG could not do enough. Every army envolved in WWII used MG’s, btw.
Oh bugger we’ve been here before “the M1 carbine” snore :roll: it’s amazing that the US army still hasn’t got it considering the amount of wars it seems to have won. :?
Wow! Tinwalt’s come up with a whole new theory of why the Germans lost the war!
No, not the strategic bombing campaign
Not the overstretched supply lines in Russia
Not the sheer weight of Allied tank and aircraft production
Not the winter of 1941
Not inept leadership from Hitler
It appears that they lost the war because of their small-arms - their MGs couldn’t do enough.
Maybe if every man had been armed with an M1 carbine, they’d have won, eh? :roll:
In all seriousness, the Germans had the best all-round machine guns (MG34 and MG42), and their small-scale tactics revolved around them. They were experts in their use. You don’t need many of them to hold up a serious advance. OK, a Vickers might be better in the SF role, a BREN might be better in the LMG role, but the Germans had an awful lot of firepower to bring to bear at Section level - whatever the limitations of their bolt action rifles, the MG34/42 makes up for it. You should also remember that the Brits & Commonwealth forces were armed largely with the SMLE/No.4 - bolt action rifles (albeit significantly better than the Mauser as battle rifles).
Dammit, I knew we were the bad guys all along. Thanks to go Mr. Tefal for the correction!
Oh, and you still haven’t answered Scaley’s point about Arnhem, despite outnumbering the British, having better arms, and the British not being armed with the M1 carbine at the time :roll:
Sorry to correct you Man of Stoat, but Ironman has already explained that, since the British Commonwealth dissolved in the 19th Century, there could hardly have been Commonweath troops fighting in WWII.
Sheesh, how could you make such an obvious mistake? :roll:
Unfortunately, it is true that Germany had the best trained army in the world during WWII.[/quote]
obviously
Perhaps a perusal of Hein Severloh’s actions on Omaha might prove interesting.
Speaking as a soldier I can completely understand his feelings.
Or even Empire Troops.
Yes, I fail to grasp how Man of Stoat can make such basic errors.
It’s obvious, there is only one font of all knowledge.
That history, physics and experience conflict with Tinwalt’s pontifications only proves that he must be correct.
I wish I had used my time to play computer games and gain his insight rather than waste it on operations and real contacts.
How could I have been so naiive ?
If you actually read the post, you might have learned something. The only reason for Germany’s failure that I left out that amounted to anything (that i can think of anyway) was the US and British ending German superiority in the Atlantic…
…but you didn’t. You just opened you little mouth. Poor boy. LOL!
OMG, you mean Germany lost the war because they didn’t have enough MG42’s??? Holy guano batboy!
they were grotesquely outnumbered and the sneaky landings went round the main german force
Sorry are we to Understand that it is wrong to encircle, evade, snipe the dominant embedded defensive technologically superior force.
That my friend is tactics and if the Germans could deal wit hfacing our tactics - well its plain to see, they will lose, Incidentally they did. Still dont see how a nation that lost a war can be claimed as “best.”
Germany chose to fight the war, it had introduced conscription five years prior to the start of the war, even the German conscripts were better trained than a large part of the BEF at the time. At a battlefield level the autonomy granted the troops may have been superior. But the Military as a whole under the leadership of Hitlers Council failed to plan and operate effectively,
I refer you to
Man of Stoats post - avoiding his rhetoric
No, not the strategic bombing campaign
Not the overstretched supply lines in Russia
Not the sheer weight of Allied tank and aircraft production
Not the winter of 1941
Not inept leadership from Hitler
The german Military failed to account for these factors in its military warplan, The training may have ben superior but the implementation and usage of these superior forces was poorly executed and ultimately led to a defeat.
you are a Complete idiot
IRONMAN we shall discuss your Idiocy when you have the good grace to attend the Thread on ARRSE where you educate the entire British military in the art of infanteering - you are suspicious by your absence and some people are even saying you might have realised youve been proved wrong.
Now if you had a spine you would not stand for that - step forth and defend you valour - you are too old to be a hero in the USMC and make your father proud, now be a real internet hero and take on the British Army at their own game…No not that game, put COD back in the box…the real game the one played in the real world. Soldiering!
True.
You’re lost kiddo.
There must be hundreds of university, government, and historical society web sites with published documents on the Net that prove everything that I said. I suppose now someone is going to argue that some of the indellible facts that I stated for Germany’s demise were untrue and make a complete dork of themselves. I can’t wait to see that. :lol:
BTW, it goes without saying that Germany’s leadership was phucked, otherwise they would not have made some of those things possible, but since it goes without saying, let’s stick to the tangible reasons for Germany’s demise.
Let’s see what kind of moronic arguments will come from the “blather-without-thinking-for-the-sake-of-arguing” attitudes that have already been expressed toward the facts that I stated. Come on kids. Let’s see how much of an idiot you can make of yourself!
Bet No 2:
$10,000 to the one who proves that the world is wrong and they are right on this one.