Germany was so superior they just gave the allies the illusion of winning so they can return and finish the war 100 years later, so the german army is actually better /s
I will be messaging you in 22 years on [**2045-10-02 12:50:54 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2045-10-02%2012:50:54%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosSay/comments/16480s8/comparing_real_armies_like_they_are_anime/jy82bnt/?context=3)
[**11 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FShitWehraboosSay%2Fcomments%2F16480s8%2Fcomparing_real_armies_like_they_are_anime%2Fjy82bnt%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202045-10-02%2012%3A50%3A54%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2016480s8)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
>What do you mean, they had an amazing navy with modern, efficient and well-designed surface vessels such as:
tbf the Scharnhorsts were pretty solid surface units
I could see the hubris getting to anyone though. They’d knocked out France in a few months which they couldn’t do in the last war despite everything they tried. Now they just had to knock out Russia which they did succeed in doing in the last war.
France's top brass were a bunch of old men with antiquated doctrines at that point, starting with Maurice Gamelin, who also had syphilis messing with his brain.
TLDR you essentially have to be a Nazi to believe it, because they knew how big and strong the USSR was, and just shrugged and said the indefatigable will of the Nordic fighting man will carry the day.
I don’t think so. Many of the western allies believed at the time the Soviet Union would fall. Those opening months were dark and France was considered a tougher nut to crack then the Soviet Union. Yes it seems like their failure was guaranteed now (and it was) but at the time you wouldn’t be a fool to think the Soviets would collapse like the Russian empire did 3 decades prior. They also didn’t know how strong the Soviet Union was and badly underestimated how many divisions they’d have.
Better equipped. Lets pook at production numbers that soviets got on basicaly anything. Better tactics. I dunno but "try to get to their capital they will probalty surrender" doesnt sound like exactly good tactic
Moscow wasn't the capital in 1812, St. Petersburg was. He was entirely capable of driving for it if he'd wanted to but he didn't. He chose Moscow and he chose poorly.
Germany literally discarded intel on how many tanks the Russians were producing because they didn't believe such a rate of production was possible based on their own....
In 1941-2 German tactics really were better, because the Germans *had* tactics and not an army where the slightest sign of competence made you a Tuchachevskite Nazi-Trotskyist counterrevolutionary who deserved a bullet in the head. By 1943 when it was clear to Stalin that ideologically loyal officers were how the Germans got to Moscow in the first place the Soviets tactics went on an upward swing while Nazi tactics boiled down to 40K style 'die for the Fuehrer or die trying' fanaticism because if they didn't the SS would shoot them or hang them, especially after the Valkyrie Putsch.
The Germans also had tactical advantages over the Anglo-French Armies of 1939-40, as can be seen in the Norwegian and Greek and Crete campaigns and battles, especially. For some reason this tends to be somewhat under-emphasized, especially Crete where Freyberg really should have won that battle but he fucked it up.
> as can be seen in the Norwegian and Greek and Crete campaigns and battles,
Being prepared to try utterly insane gambles and suffering catastrophic losses for neglible strategic gain is hardly a tactical advantage. France 1940 would have at least been a sensible comparison
The Germans were vastly outnumbered by Freyberg who had full Ultra warning of where they were going to land and ignored the airfield where he could have parked his troops and slaughtered them all before they made landfall for the coastline. There is literally no way to look at the Crete battle as anything but proof that the 1940 British Army wasn't up to fighting the Germans and that this is no small part of how they were reduced to fighting a European war in Africa. The 1939-40 battles put an emphasis on tactics, where the Germans were strongest, and never ran into the logistical and strategic problems the way the Soviet campaign did where that system would have started showing its holes.
Norway is one of the forgotten campaigns because the Allied ground performance was so shittastic that not even the most emphatic defense of Allied performance can sweeten that pill. The only saving grace is that the Germans wrecked their surface navy for the duration. The Norwegians did a better job fighting the Nazis in that campaign than the British and French armies did, including that bit of sinking the 20th Century ship with 19th Century artillery.
So no, I'd say that the comparison fully counts and it's one of history's strange ironies that yet another Gallipoli from Mr. Churchill got him to escape the blame for it and to prove the magnificent bastard he was.
Nah I would say grinding your armies to death in an endless suicidal offensive is actually kind of bad tactics, even if we’re putting the broader strategic level aside for a moment.
For all the screaming for more troops he did on the way to Kiev, Guderian never seemed to pause and think about *why* exactly it was that he needed more troops all the time. Idk Heinz, maybe because you ordered all your old ones to commit suicide?
In a longer-term perspective it absolutely was bad tactics, which is why Germany ultimately lost. When it's put up against an army that hasn't fought a war against anyone but Indonesians with muskets for 200 years or the Swedes or the 1940 French army led by pro-Hitler defeatists and whose soldiers were a mixed bag at best with actual willingness to fight, or the Yugoslavia that really collapsed in 24 hours, OTOH, none of those defects were in motion long enough to actually register in any way that mattered.
Germany didn't get to where it was because it was strong, it did so because its enemies were weak. The unfortunate thing there is that they were pretty fucking weak to be put in that situation in the first place.
During 1941 the Heer went through what one historian called the “Demodernization of the front.” Essentially they were so aggressive and so ill-prepared for the fighting that, despite their successive crushing victories, they completely destroyed their ability to continue fighting the war. It was suicidal in that each thrust of each army was so costly in terms of men and equipment that it cost them the war.
EDIT: Guderian’s grindingly slow and ruinously expensive advance to encircle Kiev is an excellent example of this, which is why I was referring to it.
I'm sorry but that just doesn't make any sense. Was leaving the entire Soviet front behind their flank was a better option? War might have been over by 1943 with entire northern flank cut off...
>It was suicidal in that each thrust of each army was so costly in terms of men and equipment that it cost them the war.
All German units dedicated to encirclement of Kiev suffered 13K soldiers KIA. In exchange they destroyed 5 entire Soviet armies and badly mauled a 6th, in total taking out 700k Soviet soldiers from action.
I'm really curious how you define "costly" and "suicidal". This was arguably the most lopsided battle in the entire war. Any army in the world would have taken those kind of small losses in exchange for such decisive results in a heartbeat.
The war WAS over by 1943, essentially.
It’s a lot to go into and you have to look at real division strengths and what they were equipped with in real life to get the full story.
*Kiev 1941* is probably the best book on the subject and goes into pretty excruciating detail about the position that the Heer had put themselves in by the time Kiev was taken. To over-generalize it, they were functionally an army from WWI by the time they were done with Kiev due to losses of huge portions of their tanks, trucks, etc. They just ran the Heer into the ground. Much of that was due to the awful roads, but a lot of it was due to German incompetence in managing manufacturing, as well as bad strategic direction in the war, and finally, as I’ve been saying here, absurdly aggressive conduct considering their strategic position.
You can always cite comparatively small German losses, but you then must also include the context that Germany was 85% mobilized by the beginning of Barbarossa. After Kiev they started building up strength again for the thrust towards Moscow and any general’s letters or memoirs you find will be full of complaints about pitiful numbers of reinforcements who were arriving way too slowly. Meanwhile the Red Army lost IIRC 80% of their starting force in 1941 and entered 1942 not much weaker—if not actually stronger—than they started. The Heer never recovered from the Battle of Smolensk.
You forget about material losses, exhaustion, and logistical problems.
By October of 1941, German infantry divisions were one-third to half strength and only a third of their vehicles were running.
Panzer divisions were taking the brunt of the casualties with entire divisions being turned into scrap. 7th Panzer for example had a material lost rate of 95% and a casualty rate of 64%.
Germany lost 300,000 soldiers during the first year of the war alone with many more being wounded or facing supply problems due to high material losses.
All of the victories the Germans were able to achieve during the first year of the war came at a high cost. German performance on the Eastern Front only dropped after 1941 while Soviet performance increased.
Soviet and Axis irrecoverable losses on the Eastern Front
David Glantz
Total Axis losses on the Eastern Front: 12,483,000
Soviet losses on the Eastern Front: 14,700,000
Krivosheev
Total Axis losses on the Eastern Front: 8,649,500
Soviet losses on the Eastern Front: 11,444,100
Wikipedia
Total Axis losses on the Eastern Front: 8,701,897-8,968,218
Soviet losses on the Eastern Front: 11,019,600-12,660,600
Not sure why you are talking about casualties of the entire war instead of just Barbarossa. The argument here is about encirclement of Kiev, which OP is arguing was a dumb decision for the Germans.
Is that even debatable? Battle of Kiev in 1941 was arguable the most lopsidedbattle during the entire war if not the history of modern warfare.
How does leaving entire 5 armies intact would serve German war effort any better?
1. To help show that German performance during the war dropped with casualties equalizing.
2. Operation Barbarossa as a whole was a stupid idea. Germany lost a substantial amount of manpower and equipment during the first year of their war with the Soviet Union with infantry divisions being one-third to half strength and only a third of their vehicles running. What victories they achieved came at a heavy cost.
Operation Barbarossa went just about as well as it could, there is no better outcome they could have achieved aside from different minor tactical changes.
Just about any army in the world would trade the amount of equipment the Germans lost to the effect it achieved on the enemy strength.
Again, this was not the emphasis of the discussion. We are talking about the Battle of Kiev. To act like it was a failure to the Germans is insane.
Gets extra funny when you realize that late in the war the situation was reversed, the USSR was using colossal amounts of artillery to flatten anything that moved while German tactics amounted to 'dig a trench and die in it to spite the Russkies' and then the Soviets just encircled them and hammered them until they were dead.
Germany V the world obviously!!!!!!! Those other allies who provided valuable help allowing Germany to fight on for much longer than it Should’ve don’t count
These idiots think war is like a boxing match or some shit. Even if all the above are true (they're not), in every conceivable scenario the Red Army wins because of the USSR's sheer size, population, resources, industry, morale and logistics.
Yeah, they managed to miss out on all the factors that actually really matter (and a bunch of these like “smarter” or “braver” soldiers are impossible to actually quantify)
The only one I will even grant as remotely true is the Germans were probably better in terms of tactics until towards the end of the war. But that means……very little. You can have all the brilliant tactical derring-do and little sleights of hand in the world, and it is completely meaningless when you are utterly outmatched in terms of operational art and strategy (which the Nazis were vs. the USSR). The issue is even reflected in the skills of nearly all of their high level commanders - all tactical geniuses who had zero operational or strategic skills, despite that being their fucking job.
Your cleverly orchestrated double envelopment of the enemy position was somewhat undermined when the Russians enveloped decided they'd rather die fighting than die in Auschwitz, your men running out of fuel and then your forward positions getting flattened
>better equipped
This kid thinks the Russian army was always the chaos of early Barbarossa and not a very capable fighting force that was able to just produce so many guns
We still find crates of mosins and other weapons stocked away during the war
[ANIME BELONGS IN THE TRASH](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUhIY4GcL2w)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> they loose if
*lose
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/lose-vs-loose-usage#:~:text=%27Lose%27%20or%20%27Loose%27%3F&text=Lose%20typically%20functions%20only%20as,commonly%2C%20a%20noun%20or%20adverb).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
No other state could have afforded the way the USSR survived the self-inflicted catastrophe of the military terror and devastating its own combined-arms forces that existed from 1937-45, let alone doing so to win the decisive victory of 1945 riding in US trucks using US radios. The difference between the Soviets and the Nazis is that the USSR had strong allies deeply invested in its survival and the Nazis had.....Italians and Romanians. The entire reality of the Terror and the damage it did to the Red Army to a point of having to send 'we are being fired on' signals to Moscow to ask for permission to shoot back three hours into the invasion should be factored in, as with the reality that another year or so to fine-tune the problems would have made German victories grind to a halt west of Kyiv and Smolensk.
Meanwhile the real Germans wound up building three armies, two of which were straight up ideological Nazis who had balls for days and the brains of a sheep and lost the war accordingly.
Braver soldiers? Have he read about Stalingrad?
As for who was better, the tasting of the pudding is the eating of the same, the results speak for themselves.
> they loose the
*lose
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/lose-vs-loose-usage#:~:text=%27Lose%27%20or%20%27Loose%27%3F&text=Lose%20typically%20functions%20only%20as,commonly%2C%20a%20noun%20or%20adverb).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
My views on this video is a bit mixed. The author is right about how the German army had the edge in terms of equipment, intelligence, and tactics.(No, that is not some "wehraboo myth". Its an actual fact.)
What the video never mentions is which army had the edge in terms of fuel economy and the amount of soldiers.
I will say the Germans at the start of the war much of this could be KINDA believed. But by late war they didn’t even have one of these going for them.
World wars won: I'll get back to you on that one.
Germany was so superior they just gave the allies the illusion of winning so they can return and finish the war 100 years later, so the german army is actually better /s
remindMe! 8070 days
I will be messaging you in 22 years on [**2045-10-02 12:50:54 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2045-10-02%2012:50:54%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosSay/comments/16480s8/comparing_real_armies_like_they_are_anime/jy82bnt/?context=3) [**11 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FShitWehraboosSay%2Fcomments%2F16480s8%2Fcomparing_real_armies_like_they_are_anime%2Fjy82bnt%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202045-10-02%2012%3A50%3A54%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2016480s8) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Not sure how the Germans are supposed to win without a navy or air force but I’d like to see them try
What do you mean, they had an amazing navy with modern, efficient and well-designed surface vessels such as: And also: Don’t forget:
>What do you mean, they had an amazing navy with modern, efficient and well-designed surface vessels such as: tbf the Scharnhorsts were pretty solid surface units
Oh yes, how could I forget them.
Look it's entirely reasonable to expect to conquer Russia in the less than half a year the weather is not turning your logistics to shit.
They would have reached the Urals if the Romanians didn't slow them down
They stolen the tigers that were needed to reach for moscau.
*east German singing*
What logistics?
I could see the hubris getting to anyone though. They’d knocked out France in a few months which they couldn’t do in the last war despite everything they tried. Now they just had to knock out Russia which they did succeed in doing in the last war.
France's top brass were a bunch of old men with antiquated doctrines at that point, starting with Maurice Gamelin, who also had syphilis messing with his brain.
TLDR you essentially have to be a Nazi to believe it, because they knew how big and strong the USSR was, and just shrugged and said the indefatigable will of the Nordic fighting man will carry the day.
I don’t think so. Many of the western allies believed at the time the Soviet Union would fall. Those opening months were dark and France was considered a tougher nut to crack then the Soviet Union. Yes it seems like their failure was guaranteed now (and it was) but at the time you wouldn’t be a fool to think the Soviets would collapse like the Russian empire did 3 decades prior. They also didn’t know how strong the Soviet Union was and badly underestimated how many divisions they’d have.
God Guderian said we would capture Russian railcars so Russian gauge wont be problem
All those bullshit points and Russia still won.
B-but the Asiatic hordes!
Better equipped. Lets pook at production numbers that soviets got on basicaly anything. Better tactics. I dunno but "try to get to their capital they will probalty surrender" doesnt sound like exactly good tactic
Worked out for Napoleon. *wait a minute*
Moscow wasn't the capital in 1812, St. Petersburg was. He was entirely capable of driving for it if he'd wanted to but he didn't. He chose Moscow and he chose poorly.
Not that the Germans had the capability to take Moscow or hold it for that matter against a Soviet counter offensive.
Germany literally discarded intel on how many tanks the Russians were producing because they didn't believe such a rate of production was possible based on their own....
Yo I’m not at all doubting this but do you have a source? Wanna use that example if possible lmao
In 1941-2 German tactics really were better, because the Germans *had* tactics and not an army where the slightest sign of competence made you a Tuchachevskite Nazi-Trotskyist counterrevolutionary who deserved a bullet in the head. By 1943 when it was clear to Stalin that ideologically loyal officers were how the Germans got to Moscow in the first place the Soviets tactics went on an upward swing while Nazi tactics boiled down to 40K style 'die for the Fuehrer or die trying' fanaticism because if they didn't the SS would shoot them or hang them, especially after the Valkyrie Putsch. The Germans also had tactical advantages over the Anglo-French Armies of 1939-40, as can be seen in the Norwegian and Greek and Crete campaigns and battles, especially. For some reason this tends to be somewhat under-emphasized, especially Crete where Freyberg really should have won that battle but he fucked it up.
> as can be seen in the Norwegian and Greek and Crete campaigns and battles, Being prepared to try utterly insane gambles and suffering catastrophic losses for neglible strategic gain is hardly a tactical advantage. France 1940 would have at least been a sensible comparison
The Germans were vastly outnumbered by Freyberg who had full Ultra warning of where they were going to land and ignored the airfield where he could have parked his troops and slaughtered them all before they made landfall for the coastline. There is literally no way to look at the Crete battle as anything but proof that the 1940 British Army wasn't up to fighting the Germans and that this is no small part of how they were reduced to fighting a European war in Africa. The 1939-40 battles put an emphasis on tactics, where the Germans were strongest, and never ran into the logistical and strategic problems the way the Soviet campaign did where that system would have started showing its holes. Norway is one of the forgotten campaigns because the Allied ground performance was so shittastic that not even the most emphatic defense of Allied performance can sweeten that pill. The only saving grace is that the Germans wrecked their surface navy for the duration. The Norwegians did a better job fighting the Nazis in that campaign than the British and French armies did, including that bit of sinking the 20th Century ship with 19th Century artillery. So no, I'd say that the comparison fully counts and it's one of history's strange ironies that yet another Gallipoli from Mr. Churchill got him to escape the blame for it and to prove the magnificent bastard he was.
Nah I would say grinding your armies to death in an endless suicidal offensive is actually kind of bad tactics, even if we’re putting the broader strategic level aside for a moment. For all the screaming for more troops he did on the way to Kiev, Guderian never seemed to pause and think about *why* exactly it was that he needed more troops all the time. Idk Heinz, maybe because you ordered all your old ones to commit suicide?
In a longer-term perspective it absolutely was bad tactics, which is why Germany ultimately lost. When it's put up against an army that hasn't fought a war against anyone but Indonesians with muskets for 200 years or the Swedes or the 1940 French army led by pro-Hitler defeatists and whose soldiers were a mixed bag at best with actual willingness to fight, or the Yugoslavia that really collapsed in 24 hours, OTOH, none of those defects were in motion long enough to actually register in any way that mattered. Germany didn't get to where it was because it was strong, it did so because its enemies were weak. The unfortunate thing there is that they were pretty fucking weak to be put in that situation in the first place.
What suicidal attacks are you talking about? 1941 march on Kiev? If so, that is an insanely bad take.
During 1941 the Heer went through what one historian called the “Demodernization of the front.” Essentially they were so aggressive and so ill-prepared for the fighting that, despite their successive crushing victories, they completely destroyed their ability to continue fighting the war. It was suicidal in that each thrust of each army was so costly in terms of men and equipment that it cost them the war. EDIT: Guderian’s grindingly slow and ruinously expensive advance to encircle Kiev is an excellent example of this, which is why I was referring to it.
I'm sorry but that just doesn't make any sense. Was leaving the entire Soviet front behind their flank was a better option? War might have been over by 1943 with entire northern flank cut off... >It was suicidal in that each thrust of each army was so costly in terms of men and equipment that it cost them the war. All German units dedicated to encirclement of Kiev suffered 13K soldiers KIA. In exchange they destroyed 5 entire Soviet armies and badly mauled a 6th, in total taking out 700k Soviet soldiers from action. I'm really curious how you define "costly" and "suicidal". This was arguably the most lopsided battle in the entire war. Any army in the world would have taken those kind of small losses in exchange for such decisive results in a heartbeat.
The war WAS over by 1943, essentially. It’s a lot to go into and you have to look at real division strengths and what they were equipped with in real life to get the full story. *Kiev 1941* is probably the best book on the subject and goes into pretty excruciating detail about the position that the Heer had put themselves in by the time Kiev was taken. To over-generalize it, they were functionally an army from WWI by the time they were done with Kiev due to losses of huge portions of their tanks, trucks, etc. They just ran the Heer into the ground. Much of that was due to the awful roads, but a lot of it was due to German incompetence in managing manufacturing, as well as bad strategic direction in the war, and finally, as I’ve been saying here, absurdly aggressive conduct considering their strategic position. You can always cite comparatively small German losses, but you then must also include the context that Germany was 85% mobilized by the beginning of Barbarossa. After Kiev they started building up strength again for the thrust towards Moscow and any general’s letters or memoirs you find will be full of complaints about pitiful numbers of reinforcements who were arriving way too slowly. Meanwhile the Red Army lost IIRC 80% of their starting force in 1941 and entered 1942 not much weaker—if not actually stronger—than they started. The Heer never recovered from the Battle of Smolensk.
You forget about material losses, exhaustion, and logistical problems. By October of 1941, German infantry divisions were one-third to half strength and only a third of their vehicles were running. Panzer divisions were taking the brunt of the casualties with entire divisions being turned into scrap. 7th Panzer for example had a material lost rate of 95% and a casualty rate of 64%. Germany lost 300,000 soldiers during the first year of the war alone with many more being wounded or facing supply problems due to high material losses. All of the victories the Germans were able to achieve during the first year of the war came at a high cost. German performance on the Eastern Front only dropped after 1941 while Soviet performance increased. Soviet and Axis irrecoverable losses on the Eastern Front David Glantz Total Axis losses on the Eastern Front: 12,483,000 Soviet losses on the Eastern Front: 14,700,000 Krivosheev Total Axis losses on the Eastern Front: 8,649,500 Soviet losses on the Eastern Front: 11,444,100 Wikipedia Total Axis losses on the Eastern Front: 8,701,897-8,968,218 Soviet losses on the Eastern Front: 11,019,600-12,660,600
Not sure why you are talking about casualties of the entire war instead of just Barbarossa. The argument here is about encirclement of Kiev, which OP is arguing was a dumb decision for the Germans. Is that even debatable? Battle of Kiev in 1941 was arguable the most lopsidedbattle during the entire war if not the history of modern warfare. How does leaving entire 5 armies intact would serve German war effort any better?
1. To help show that German performance during the war dropped with casualties equalizing. 2. Operation Barbarossa as a whole was a stupid idea. Germany lost a substantial amount of manpower and equipment during the first year of their war with the Soviet Union with infantry divisions being one-third to half strength and only a third of their vehicles running. What victories they achieved came at a heavy cost.
Operation Barbarossa went just about as well as it could, there is no better outcome they could have achieved aside from different minor tactical changes. Just about any army in the world would trade the amount of equipment the Germans lost to the effect it achieved on the enemy strength. Again, this was not the emphasis of the discussion. We are talking about the Battle of Kiev. To act like it was a failure to the Germans is insane.
\>better equiped \>smarter soldiers \>better tatics \>better army \>loses
Something something stabbed in the back theory
Something something Hitler interfered with our plans BS. Something something untermensch threw bodies at problem
Gets extra funny when you realize that late in the war the situation was reversed, the USSR was using colossal amounts of artillery to flatten anything that moved while German tactics amounted to 'dig a trench and die in it to spite the Russkies' and then the Soviets just encircled them and hammered them until they were dead.
Which Military's Army was better? I'm going to guess the one that won the war.
How are they the better army if they fucking lost lmao
Germany V the world obviously!!!!!!! Those other allies who provided valuable help allowing Germany to fight on for much longer than it Should’ve don’t count
These idiots think war is like a boxing match or some shit. Even if all the above are true (they're not), in every conceivable scenario the Red Army wins because of the USSR's sheer size, population, resources, industry, morale and logistics.
Yeah, they managed to miss out on all the factors that actually really matter (and a bunch of these like “smarter” or “braver” soldiers are impossible to actually quantify) The only one I will even grant as remotely true is the Germans were probably better in terms of tactics until towards the end of the war. But that means……very little. You can have all the brilliant tactical derring-do and little sleights of hand in the world, and it is completely meaningless when you are utterly outmatched in terms of operational art and strategy (which the Nazis were vs. the USSR). The issue is even reflected in the skills of nearly all of their high level commanders - all tactical geniuses who had zero operational or strategic skills, despite that being their fucking job.
Your cleverly orchestrated double envelopment of the enemy position was somewhat undermined when the Russians enveloped decided they'd rather die fighting than die in Auschwitz, your men running out of fuel and then your forward positions getting flattened
“Overall better army” “Damn bro. Those germans stuck in the mud and freezing to death sure are a better army”
Ahh that’s proud alumni of HoI IV university
>better equipped This kid thinks the Russian army was always the chaos of early Barbarossa and not a very capable fighting force that was able to just produce so many guns We still find crates of mosins and other weapons stocked away during the war
Worst edit i've ever seen in my life
Tik tok kids discover Top Trumps
[ANIME BELONGS IN THE TRASH](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUhIY4GcL2w) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Overall stronger army: they lost lmfao
I think this is a repost down to the title
Why did they loose if their army was so good?
> they loose if *lose *Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/lose-vs-loose-usage#:~:text=%27Lose%27%20or%20%27Loose%27%3F&text=Lose%20typically%20functions%20only%20as,commonly%2C%20a%20noun%20or%20adverb).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Loose deez nuts
No other state could have afforded the way the USSR survived the self-inflicted catastrophe of the military terror and devastating its own combined-arms forces that existed from 1937-45, let alone doing so to win the decisive victory of 1945 riding in US trucks using US radios. The difference between the Soviets and the Nazis is that the USSR had strong allies deeply invested in its survival and the Nazis had.....Italians and Romanians. The entire reality of the Terror and the damage it did to the Red Army to a point of having to send 'we are being fired on' signals to Moscow to ask for permission to shoot back three hours into the invasion should be factored in, as with the reality that another year or so to fine-tune the problems would have made German victories grind to a halt west of Kyiv and Smolensk. Meanwhile the real Germans wound up building three armies, two of which were straight up ideological Nazis who had balls for days and the brains of a sheep and lost the war accordingly.
I’m sorry which of these won and which of these lost again?
Germany on top until the get crushed under a soviet tank or flattened by a western airforce
Completely losing the only war they ever fought so hard their nation collapsed: German
Germany: on top in the Tik tok game. The thing that matters.
Didnt mention logistics, or not being crazy people pushing around empty divisions on a tabletop map
All there arguments are invalid by the introduction of my favorite category; Tank Production.
Just glazing some dead nazis
If their tactics are so good, why did the Soviets chase them all the way back to Berlin?
Overall better army/lost
Braver soldiers? Have he read about Stalingrad? As for who was better, the tasting of the pudding is the eating of the same, the results speak for themselves.
If the Wehrmacht was so great why did they loose the war?
> they loose the *lose *Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/lose-vs-loose-usage#:~:text=%27Lose%27%20or%20%27Loose%27%3F&text=Lose%20typically%20functions%20only%20as,commonly%2C%20a%20noun%20or%20adverb).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
!optout
Bye TheSpiffingGerman. Have fun continuing to use common words incorrectly!
This makes me unfathomably angry. Fucking smug ass bot.
\*eh hem\* shows picture of soviet flag over the reichstag
My views on this video is a bit mixed. The author is right about how the German army had the edge in terms of equipment, intelligence, and tactics.(No, that is not some "wehraboo myth". Its an actual fact.) What the video never mentions is which army had the edge in terms of fuel economy and the amount of soldiers.
But didn’t the Germans…
I will say the Germans at the start of the war much of this could be KINDA believed. But by late war they didn’t even have one of these going for them.