Hitler the Military Strategist

I believe a well planned preemptive strike would of forced churchill to surrender altogether and the massive death toll would of forced the U.S. to back of . Not to mention the mass public outrage in the U.S.

Think about it, the attack on the damascus suburbs in 2013. 2 sarin filled artillary shells, fired at random killed over 1000. Now imagine greater quantities and more effective means of delivery at the hands of what was, easily, some of the greatest generals and warriors the worlds ever seen.

Reminder: Hitler had typhoid when his generals disobeyed the containment theory on Stalin (NATO) and rushed in to destroy all hope like Napoleon 2.0

Despite everything else he did well, Hitler may have singlehandedly lost the war by fucking up at Dunkirk. Hint, capturing infantry is the army's job, not the airforce

It seems to me that the greater success a Fascist nation had militarily and industrially (in war) correlated directly to how totally they had purged the aristocracy and the reactionary/monarchist elements. Consider Italy for example that was a disaster and tried to work with the aristocracy, who merely sabotaged everything they could. Then compare to Germany, which as time went by was largely removing as much aristocratic influence as it could, but failed to do the job entirely and saw smaller scale sabotage as well.

The lesson here is pretty clear: if a Fascist nation is to succeed it's vital that the aristocracy be purged, and the reactionaries/monarchists sent to camps next to the communists. They will sabotage a Fascist nation if they can, out of butthurt over "commoners" (tradesmen, soldiers, farmers, and so on) deciding their own fate instead of inbred jew-blooded nobles.

Hitler was useless. Generals like Von Manstein were so incredible at operations that they are still studied by War Colleges today. It's the other way around to the OP, had Hitler listened to Manstein, they might have won the eastern front.

This is lost on beta male LARPers, as you faggots supplicate yourselves to weak leadership masquerading as strong. Kings, Warlords, and Emperors are built off the back of a competent military leader. Fuck philosopher kings.

Chad warlordism is the future of Europe and the West. Reactionaries, NRx, Natsocs, and the rest of you faggots supplicating to weak monarchy and weak leaders who commit suicide need to fall in line.

Man, I never thought George von Hohenzollern looked that Jewish: he looks even more Jewish than Jared Kushner! I mean, they always had the hook nose, but not the fangs and the pointy ears.

In my opinion, the most famous nobility should be reduced to ceremonial purposes, similar to the Royalty of Japan during the periods when the Shogun had de facto power.

wew

CHAD WARLORDISM
CHAD WARLORDISM
CHAD WARLORDISM
CHAD WARLORDISM
CHAD WARLORDISM
CHAD WARLORDISM

Is that why Germany lost the Battle of Britain?

~1,000 planes left in the air, British anti-air defenses nearly completely destroyed, and he orders a retreat. I've always been flabbergasted by that one. If not Hitler, then who is to blame?

Considering how he was suffering from parkinsonism, I'd say he did a pretty good job.

Way to put your retardation on full display for us all to see, I was just about to type out a serious reply to your previous post to, thanks for saving my time.

Reminder that CHAD WARLORDISM allows a few days per week for funposting.

Hindsight is 20/20, Germany didn't know the Brits were on their last leg in the air. Ge didn't order a retreat either so already your understanding of the events is flawed. They switched from bombing airfields and military targets to more civilian targets in response to Brits hitting German civilian targets.

youtube.com/watch?v=eJcjXC3YRT8

Do you have a link to a pdf?

Hitler was a social revolutionary, not a tactician.

Hitler was a painter, not a social revolutionary.

Look how well he did at both.

Check >>>/pdfs/

Thanks, got it
>>>/pdfs/4673

The most recent conflict that Germany had to base their expectations on was WWI, which was 4 years of back and forth with the western allies (plus their empires) over relatively little territory. Fast forward to 1939 and beyond, where the Wehrmacht steamrolled all resistance by the French and British in what was comparatively no time at all. If they achieved in a few months what they couldn't decades prior at the cost of 4 years and countless lives, it wasn't misplaced hubris of Hitlers to assume that they were significantly advantaged over every former enemy, including the Russians. In WWI, Russia was barely industrialising, and pulled out of the war due to internal strife. With the victory in the west, and Russia's history of capitulation, it was reasonable for Hitler to assume that the eastern front would be a string of victories - which given a few costly exceptions, it probably was.

Russia had been industrializing for years when Barbarossa came around. They had more tanks which were of a higher quality than the Germans, more artillery, more airplanes, and more troops. If they hadn't foolishly deployed so many of their troops, tanks, and airplanes so close to the German border then they would not have been rolled over by Germany in the early phase of the war. They were planning to invade Germany from the East while the Allies tied him up in the West. Hitler's hand was forced. The reason that Barbarossa was so hastily planned and executed was because it was a response to Russia preparing to invade.

The argument that Russia was 'barely industrialized' by Barbarossa is simply untrue. Every piece of evidence relating to Russian industrial infrastructure attests to this.

Related.

...

Yeah Hitler is underrated and actually made a lot of good calls. Very forward thinking guy.

BECAUSE THE FUCKING TREASONOUS US GOVERNMENT GAVE IT THEM.

All of Russia’s first-class aviation fuel was supplied by the USA. Their boots and most of the uniform material, as well. Blue rubber for their tires, all of their aluminum, fully ⅓ of their munitions, over 500,000 trucks (all far better than the 200,000 Russia produced themselves during the war). Upgunned (76mm) Sherman tanks were a big part of the Russian drive through the Balkans, where hundreds of them participated and had a measure of success. Aerocobras, P40s, C-47s, and A-20s (18,000+) all considerably assisted the Russian war effort. Almost all telephone communication was over American phones. The Russians produced 92 railway locomotives; they got 2,000 through lend-lease.
Well over half the Luftwaffe was engaged in the west from 1942-5, and 75% of German aircraft casualties were against the western Allies. Each U-boat cost 5,000,000 Marks to build. The Germans built over 1,000. A Panther tank cost 117,000 Marks, That means about 40,000 tanks were not built so that the Germans could wage the War of the Atlantic. Think 40,000 panthers might have made a difference against an unallied Russia in the East? Each V2 rocket cost, in labor and material, the same as 3.5 fighter planes. The Germans launched over 3,000 V2s. Do the math on that.
The British and Americans deployed over 20,000 heavy bombers against the Germans, causing great destruction. The Russians never developed one. The Allies supplied 317,000 tons of explosive materials, including 22,000,000 shells–over half the total Soviet production of ~600,000 tons. Additionally, the Allies supplied 103,000 tons of toluene, the primary ingredient of TNT. In addition to explosives and ammunition, 991,000,000 miscellaneous shell cartridges were also provided to speed up the manufacturing of ammunition. In addition to military equipment, other wartime commodities were essential to the effort. These included 2,300,000 tons of steel, 229,000 tons of aluminum, 2,600,000 tons of petrol, 3,800,000 tons of foodstuffs, 56,445 field telephones, and 600,000 kilometers of telephone wire. The Soviet Union also received 15,000,000 pairs of army boots. Lend-lease aircraft amounted to 18% of all Soviet air forces–20% of bombers, 16% of all fighters, and 29% of naval aircraft.
There were also 10,000 heavy caliber anti-aircraft guns defending the Reich. Do you think those would have shored up German defenses in the East?
What would have happened if Rommel’s Africa Corps and the 30+ German divisions in France would have been in the don bend in fall 1942 protecting Stalingrad instead of waiting for British and American divisions to land? What would have happened if the 400,000 troops stationed in Norway could have helped Army Group North capture Leningrad? What would have happened if, in 1944, the German armies trying to hold the divisions fighting in Italy and the Balkans could have been freed to fight against the Russians in the south? What would have happened if, in 1944, the German armies trying to hold the Allies out of France could have been sent to Bylorussia prior to Bagatron? The Germans were never really able to muster more than half their strength against the Russians. They were fighting a technological war against the Brits and Americans that required a huge manufacturing effort.
Russia gives the western allies no credit for tying down so many German resources and destroying so many others (30% of 1944’s total production) with their strategic bombing campaign. Russians like to think themselves hard and are proud of the fact that over 20,000,000 Soviet soldiers died in WWII, when that only shows how useless and undisciplined Russian soldiers are.

Yep.

Bloodlines. Read about them. Inbred royals aren't "Jewish" but they are the worser kind of Jews that are balls deep in Cabbalism. Jews that abandoned the Jewish God during very late a Roman times and committed to Satan big time.

He's considered one of the best commanders ever.

No

do you honestly believe that? really?

Hitler had a thing against using gas though, ever since he nearly died in a WW1 gas attack.
Which is why the agreed-upon "official narrative" of the Holocaust makes absolutely no sense.

A big factor is that Hitler didn't want to defeat Britain and free up her empire to be gobbled up by USA. Britain had also been very fair to Germany regarding reversing the Versailles treaty ala reconfiscating Poland and Hitler likely thought diplomacy was still possible.

We should start making a "Best Bait of the Month" to award posts like these

10/10 user

German soldiers on the eastern front suffered from frostbyte and many perished by cold because they lacked proper winter clothing and supplies. Call it a central planning problem, blame it on sanctions or whatever, but Hitler was certainly not infallible. The german women were desperately knitting woolen sweaters and socks for their brothers, husbands and fathers on the east front, because Hitler and his subordinates did not manage to provide them with adequate winter clothes.

Another decision that made no sense. Germany was fighting three empires. The russian empire, the british and the emerging american empire, but Hitler kept fighting with one hand behind his back as if he'd get brownie points for posture. The german chemical industry was the backbone of the german war machine and far superior to the american or british one. Using chemical and biological weapons would've given germany a competitive advantage. All this talk about "total war" was total BS.

Hindsight is 20/20. Germany in WW2 tried to fight it out as cleanly and strongly as possible. They were a titan of their time. I don't think anything can ever really be similar to that even if everything goes absolutely right, something died with Germany in WW2 and I still can't quite place it.

That actually was a result of direct sabotage by aristocratic Generals.

No there were not the quality of soviet tanks during the war were notoriously poor. The analysis of the T-34 & KV by the allies later reveals that much of the vehicle was not even
heat treated and were over hardened causing massive spalling and cracking. The Anti- armor projectiles of soviet manufacture were very primitive as well as were the propellants which cased a far lower MV and erratic performance.

and the sections that were had been over hardened
Soviet testing of the IS-2 revealed massive cracking when hit by a soviet 76.2mm round .

In the beginning of the war the Soviets did indeed have an advantage in tank quality. Remember Germany only had up to the Panzer III with a 3.7mm gun on it at the onset. The sloped armor on the T-34 forced this to quickly change though.

There was a fear that use of biological and chemical agents would invite Allies to do that same, and with their air superiority in later part of the war, that would mean indiscriminate dropping of gas on German cities.
The tactical gain was not worth the strategic losses on home territory that it would bring about.

As for German industry - far too much time was devoted to superprojects like Tiger or V2, when in reality the needed more Panthers and assault rifles. They were fully able to match equipment production for the standard-grade stuff, but every heavy tank meant less materials for 2 or 3 normal tanks that would've plugged the gap better.
Same with air reserves - too much time was devoted to research on projects like Me-262, which came about too late and too little focus was on mass production of existing vehicles that needed replacing after Battle of Britain (which was winnable, if See Lion operation itself was not achievable)

It's worth bearing in mind that Hitler always saw his true enemy to the east as well. He believed the UK would be a natural ally at first and even when that proved impossible he still waged war with the purpose of sparing as many white lives as humanely possible, that was the prime motivator for blitzkrieg. While I cannot allow you to talk shit about my tankfu I will agree that the MKb 42 not being fielded was a mistake. Hitler was devoted to the concept of the SAW, and he was right about it as its something we still use today, but I guess he didn't totally see how much better those MGs get when supported by much more mobile assault rifle toting dudes rather than just pinning them down and picking them off with rifles. But like has been said already in this thread hindsight is 20/20.

Hitler was doomed the moment he was born into a world where Anglos who chose allies over axis existed.

You realize that Hitler was a geopolitally incompetent Britaboo who desperately wanted to get good with the UK and was surrounded by a gaggle of Anglos who constantly fed him nonsene about the friendly disposition of the British ruling class before the war broke out?

"Anglos" were never what you think they were, they would never side with resurgent Germany. Why do you think UK and US were prime locations for fleeing Jews?

Hitler was a military genius. Easily one of the best who ever lived. He made mistakes, sure. So did Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Belisarus, etc., The thing with great military leaders like this is that they get consumed by their ambition. Just think of some famous leaders, how many of their dynasties or empires lived beyond them? Not fucking many.

Hitler wasn't big on WMD's. It happens when you get gassed during the war.

OTOH, here's a whole page talking about Churchill wanting to gas Germany.
archive.is/wd4Fc

Probably because they were off the continent. Jews always flee from where the immediate danger is. The whole reason Germany was having problems with Jews is a whole pack of them fled there in 1905 when they failed to overthrow Russia.

The Nuremberg trials "official record" makes the Nazis out to be both incredibly evil and incredibly stupid. Which was probably the point, as with all propaganda.

To be fair, Jews deserve to get gassed far more than any other enemies.

You are attributing thicker/ sloped armor with quality that is not the case. Nor is it unique to the (((USSR))) the Germans faced this first with the French who's vehicles not only featured sloped armor but were thickly armored ( for the time). The french LIGHT R-35 tank for example was 60mm thick on the front to compare the t-34w 45mm.
Soviet armor was miserably substandard in every respect…. no articulated sights, commander' s cupolas, chairs for the turret crew, turret basket, proper ammo stowage, and also they idiotically stored FUEL in the crew compartment which attributed to many deaths as a result.

Wrong, first the Panzer III F's and below ( 3.7 cm armed Pz III's) were lowly produced second the Panzer III series underwent upgrades of gun and armor starting halfway through the French campaign of 1940 to immediately before the Barbarossa campaign.
NOT one FRONTLINE Panzer III in Operation Barbarossa was ever armed with the 3.7 cm KwK 36 L/ 45 rather they were armed with 5 cm KwK 38 L/42 ( + APCR ammunition) and starting in late 1941 was further upgraded the 5cm Kwk 39 L/60.
The 5cm was dangerous to the T-34 and KV….
This is to say nothing of the Panzer IV and Stug III & their Hollow charge ammunition use in 1941.

Pic related first is T-34 junk-pile (fuel explosion), second is early Panzer III with additional +30mm plate upgrade and 5cm L/42

Not really OP. He really made some bad decisions, and he had the worlds best generals. He should have listened to them.

Pic related. That is all.

The Panzer III and Panzer IV series are always underrated despite being equal to or better than their competitors.
The Panzer IV late G and H's 7.5cm Kwk 40 L/48 Pzgr 39 (APCBC-HE) could pierce the T-34's sloped "armor" in excess of 1,200 meters…. The Tiger I 's 8.8cm Kwk 36 L/56 is just over kill.

Reich'em

agreed

That would be a folly on Hitlers end. Yeah churchill was a POS drunk and traitor. Except for the U.S., I can't think of any country that has served jewish interest throughout the ages more than england. Like I said in another post, I believe a well planned preemptive strike would of forced churchill to surrender altogether.

Alot of brits would lost their lives, but it would pail in comparison to what they face today. The loss of their homeland.

Thats assad did it (especially during the same time the UN inspectors were in syria)? No. Do I believe sarin was used? yes.

Also the German AP shells had explosive filler, whereas the Brits and Americans used mainly solid shot. Essentially, the German shells were more potent against tank crews.

Yeah, Hitler's biggest mistake was not genociding the British.

So what is the conclusion, then?
Were Soviet tanks good or not? Germany was crippled military because oficina Versailles, And so investigation and development of military hardware wasnt up to the rest of nations, and in then beginning, german tanks werent that good, right?

And althought Suvorov musnt be believed 100%, his description of the Soviet Machine looks validación…

So what it is? Were soviet tanks good, or shit then?

I hate using the phone

They were shit, but it didn't really matter because the Americans gave the Soviets all the material they needed to pump out tens of thousands of them

I've been studying the German side of WWII for years and here's my armchair autist opinion. Although Hitler was a literal genius he wasn't a great Field Marshall. Yes, there were a lot of yes men and incompetent people in the military who made the situation even worse, but if Hitler had simply appointed someone like Manstein or Gurderian as commander of the Wehrmacht and let him do his thing, the Germans would have probably won the war.

Hitler's biggest avoidable mistake: Swinging the Panzer divisions of Army Group Center towards the south in order to encircle the Soviet armies around Kiev in August 1941 (650,000 prisoners taken) and capture the raw materials and factories of the Ukraine. To an amateur this would seem like a great victory, but profesional soldiers like Guderian recognized it for what it was - a pyrhic victory.

The proper course of action which was argued for by all of his generals was a push towards Moscow and beyond. Army Group Center had already covered about 3/4 of the distance to Moscow from it's starting point in Poland. The balance of German attackers to Russian defenders was greater than 1-to-1 in the Germans favor (which given the high ability of the Germans and the disfunctionality of the Soviet armed forces was highly favorable). If in mid-August the Wehrmacht had driven towards Moscow, rather than swinging south towards Kiev, Moscow would have been taken by the begining of September. Moscow was the hub of the Soviet rail and communications system. If Moscow fell, the Soviet forces would have been thrown into disaray and the Wehrmacht could have driven east to a line running from Archangel-Gorki-Saratov-Rostov. This would have accomplished the objective of the drive towards Kiev - the capture of resources of the Ukraine and of large numbers of Soviet troop - as well as inflicted a defeat and loss of territory so overwhelming as to make a sue for peace by the Soviets a real possibility. Even if the Soviets hadn't sued for peace, the Germans would have been materially stronger and the Russians materially weaker in this alternate scenario than was actually the case in the winter of '41-'42 and would have therefore been able to hold the line east of Moscow.

What actually happened is that Army Group center drove south, achieved a massive tactial victory at Kiev (the Germans themselves suffering over 100,000 casualties including 28,000 dead and numerous destroyed and broken down armor and vehicles), and then drove back the way they came to begin their drive towards Moscow in early September, i.e. when they should have already taken it and be driving further east mopping up scattered and unorganized Soviet troops. Whilst the battle of Kiev was going on the Soviets in front of Moscow were digging in and more and more divisions and tanks (notably the T-34 which began to appear in large numbers at this time) were being transferred via the intact Soviet rail system towards the Moscow area. By the time the Wehrmacht finally attacked they a faced a numerically superior, well equipped, well prepared defender. The final nail in the offensive's coffin was the Rasputitsa (the autumn rainy/snowy/rainy season) starting in October that turned Russia's shitty dirt roads into waist deep rivers of mud. Blitzkrieg requires freedom of movement against an enemy who is kept off balance, not against an enemy who's had weeks to prepare for your attack over impassable roads. By the time the winter came the Germans had lost the initiative and the Russians were preparing their winter counter offensive.

Hitler was a genius and polymath who rarely failed at anything he put his mind to, but he just didn't seem capable of realizing that there were other people capable of leading the Wehrmacht better than him. Many of the Prussian officers in the Wehrmacht didn't like Hitler and the NSDAP and he was understandably wary of them, but the Prussian officer corps were as a group the best military officers in the world who had spent their whole lives studying the art of war. For the most part they found the idea of disobeying their Commander-In-Chief in time of war (let alone overthrowing him) abhorent. I think it was a combination of fear of a coup by his generals, dislike of putting the Wehrmacht and therefore the fate of Germany into the hands of others, his previous successes in the politcal sphere which always succeeded despite the doubts of others, and perhaps his feeling that he was destined to lead Germany to victory which explains Hitler's ultimately tragic choice to lead the Wehrmacht himself.

Despite the Wehrmacht's failure to take Moscow in 1941, the Germans could have inflicted such high casualties on the Soviets during 1942 and 1943 that they would have been forced to sue for peace, but only if Hitler allowed the Wehrmacht to fight on it's own terms and within it's own abilities. In 1942 the ability of the Wehrmacht to capture and hold the oilfields of the Caucuses was dubious at best, let alone taking the Caucuses AND Stalingrad. The battle of Kursk in 1943 which the Soviets were clearly expecting and had been preparing for for two months was a meat grinder which practically sealed the fate of Germany. Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Tunisia, the 200k man strong but utterly useless Lufwaffe Field Divisions - all clusterfucks, and all Hitler's doing despite the advice of his best Generals who had showed themselves capable of astounding victories.

Despite his mediocre abilities as a military strategist his insticts as a politician and leader of his nation were quite sound. The decision he made to risk war with France and Britain in '39 was a reasonable one because France and Britain were rearming and Germany would only grow weaker in relation to them. His attack on Russia was a reasonable one for the same reason and also because they were very likely preparing to invade Eastern and Southeastern Europe and most certainly would have invaded Germany if given half a chance. Kike controlled France and England to the West, kike created (I get the impression that Stalin was trying to wrest control of Russia from the jews) Soviet Russia to the east, and Germany with hardly any natural resources sandwiched in between them. At best Germany would have an uneasy peace, jewed at every turn by hostile nations who wanted to see her destroyed. Or, as he attempted, Hitler could take them on piecemeal, breaking the power of France and hopefully England (which he admired and never wanted to fight), before going to war with the USSR annnexing so much of it that it would cease to exist as a world power, replaced by a Germany too powerful to bully or invade. If Germany had won, there would be 300 million or more Germans living in a Third Reich stretching from the Rhine to the Urals, Europe would be poz free, and the example of the high standard of living and fulfillment that National Socialism brings would probably have inspired North America to depoz itself. Or maybe after Hitler died some asshole would have become Fuhrer and fucked everything up, who knows.

The Wehrmacht was the best military force the world has seen since the legions of Caesar. On the whole, despite some excellent equipment, Germany was ridiculously materially inferior to Russia and the Western allies. But they made up for it in the quality of it's men. If Hitler had only used his intelligence and intuition to recognize and support competent professionals like Manstein, Guderian, Raus, Balck, Dönitz, Galland, Speer, Milch etc, worked with them to establish ambitious but feasible objectives, and allowed them to carry out their tasks without interference, Germany could have won the war. Hitler was a great man who loved Germany, but the sad reality is that he wasn't a great general and wasn't able to recognize that fact.

For more on Operation Barbarossa and how it could have gone read "Hitler's Panzers East" by RHS Stolfi. To see how tragic and stupid (and not entirely Hitler's fault) the actual attempt to take Moscow was read "War Without Garlands" by Robert Kershaw.

Well said user, it's a sad thing to realise that victory was never impossible.

Holy fuck, Nigel Askey, is this you? You summed up my thoughts perfectly. operationbarbarossa.net/about-us/

In this thread:
Things Hitler did wrong.
1) invade Russia in the fucking dead of winter
2) never coordinate with Japan and let them blow all their resources in worthless Philippines
3) concentrate majority or forces near the end of the war stacking the city of London 'for physiological reasons' thinking he would demoralize them
3) not using Erin gas
4) not properly leveraging technological advantages he had at the beginning of the way (air superiority, submarines that were undetectable, infantry and artillery that was the finest in the world)
5) invading fucking Africa. Africa! Seriously! Why would anyone ever bother with that shit.

The battle in Africa was designed to secure the Mediterranean and prevent the Allies from attacking Italy and the Balkans.

It was reasonable. Not enough resources were put into that, nor enough put into stopping Britain.

Mostly everything is spot on except this

Donitz, Speer and by extension Milch got in the positions they were because of Hitler and not despite.

Speer was appointed the head architect only after Troost died and as a result of his competence and loyal service he was eventually made minister of armaments. That was a good choice considering Speer's efforts raised the industrial efficiency of Germany and was even peaking in July 1944 when the allied bombings were the strongest. In a scenario where Hitler is too stubborn or misguided to see the truth, you wouldn't even have Speer in that spot to begin with.
Milch was working under Speer and reporting to him, if Speer's memoirs are to be believed (they have a lot of contradictions and poz) he was praising Milch for his ability and mentioned a couple of times he was ignoring orders from Hitler or other higher-ups and doing his own thing and Milch was 100% supportive.

Same story for Donitz, I forgot who he replaced but it was a standard case of disobedience and/or prussian military pride. It's Hitler himself that gave the greenlight to Donitz for increasing the size of the U-Boat fleet and he was approving of other misc stuff like the Donitz U-Boat pack tactics and snorkel devices.

Hitler actually did a decent job in purging useless and/or rebellious elements such as Halder but like someone else already mentioned in this thread, the aristocratic and monarchic elements should have been dealt with entirely instead of ignorance and half measures.

Nobody mentioned the OKH and the Abwehr in this thread yet and how disastrous their treachery was to the war effort and that was mostly the fault of the aristocracy. I think if you went back in time and got rid of Canaris alone you change the war in Germany's favor significantly.

Hitler was at least a decent and I'd argue a very good commander. His mistakes just stand out more because Germany had to play more or less perfectly in order to win and that doesn't really happen often. For example if you study military history on the allied side you'll be surprised how incompetent the Canadian units were in Normandy or how much of a predictable carebear Montgomery was.

And like I said, a lot of his mistakes should not be attributed to bad judgement but rather deliberately bad/fake intel.

Forgot to mention Guderian / Manstein. I don't ever recall Hitler being in disagreement with either of them for something big.
Manstein originally came up with the Ardennes offensive and when he showed the plans to his superiors he was automatically dismissed and demoted by the OKH. It's either Hitler himself or someone in the OKW that noticed his genius later on and restored his title. Supposedly Hitler came up with the same plan and nobody would think it was a good idea and he found validation and common ground with Manstein but I'm not 100% sure if that's how things went.

It was mostly quarrels about retreating / holding positions, Hitler's argument was (and I agree) that if you can't hold a fortified position with all your equipment there, what makes you think you'll hold a line 30 miles backward when you left all your heavy equipment behind. That's how retreats usually went, most times you had to leave a fortified / dug in position and abandon everything that's too heavy to carry or too slow to transport. Fighting to the last man however as brutal as it can be for the frontline troops and overall numbers generally put up better results. Every time one of the generals disobeyed a hold order they didn't accomplish anything except saving the bulk of the forces, lives that were wasted later on in hopeless engagements like Kursk or worse, in Syberia after they got captured.

Care to tell more about the Canadians on Normandy? Didn't they land on a relatively unoccupied beach?

Please user, I want to learn this stuff too. I want to become an expert when it comes to WWII and the German tactics and decisions. Which books am I supposed to buy and read? Which books are not written by (((them))) and are actually legit?

They did but after they made their way towards Caen and further inland they were terribly uncoordinated and inefficient for the numbers they fielded against any resistance.

Here's a quote from Kurt Meyer's "Grenadiers":

The fighting south of Caen clearly demonstrated that the Canadians
did not have a dashing armored commander at their disposal. Further-
more, that battle was conducted with e normous superiority in troops and
equipment. At no time, however, did the unit commanders dare to make
instant decisions or take advantage of favorable situations. The combat
their tanks into the depth of the enemy's rear. The Canadians slugged their
way south-hesitant, with trepidation and waiting for orders from "above".
General Simonds had the following forces at his disposal for Opera-
tion "Totalize":

British 51st Infantry Division
Polish 1st Armored Division
Canadian 4th Armoured Division
Canadian 2nd Infantry Division.
Canadian 33rd Armoured Brigade
Canadian 2nC! Armoured Brigade.
Canadian 3rd Infantry Brigade (reserve).

Meyer was holding all of this with 1/10 of the numbers. It's also VERY IMPORTANT to note that the Germans by that time were left with absolutely no air support in the west and the allies had free reign over the skies and by extension over the entire battlefield. A lot of supply/fuel depots were bombed and destroyed, most roads blocked for miles with debris and destroyed vehicle columns. All land movement was kept in check.

Of course, this is just an example I remembered easily cause I read the book recently but if you study the military side on both sides you'll quickly realize the Allies won through sheer number superiority alone and there was nothing outstanding about their commanders (except Patton), decision making and army movements.

Please, Hitler was no more than a jumped up Corpral trying to be a general. His orders and inability to give greater autonomy to people who knew what they were doing is why the war was lost. His mistakes were logical, backed up with reason, and made some sense, but they were mistakes and those mistakes cost Germany the war.

From overall grand strategy down to individual military maneuvers he made plenty of mistakes that cost the war.

The early successes in the war happened when Hitler's generals had their greatest autonomy and they got shit done. After those successes Hitler fancied himself a brilliant strategist and involved himself more and more in the military planning to the point where the whole command structure was all fucked up. He got too ambitious even and sought too much glory and fucked it all up in the end. He was a great charismatic figure head that brought the people together, but he was no brilliant military strategist.

How are your squats today?
Mr. Totally not a Slav.

I think that Hitler's worst mistake was not executing every last one of the British Expeditionary Force anglos at Dunkirk. He wanted to set an example of sportsmanship, yet he had no idea how much of a cryptokike Churchill was.

Chamberlain is portrayed as weak by the kikes, but read into him - he should have been the one serving the whites.

Why? Because I think if Hilter had done a better job winning hearts and minds he would have had an easier time? If he lived up to the hype of being a liberator more people in the east who were sick of communism would have collaborated and helped a lot more. A. There would have been less partisan activity. B. There might have been a larger eastern legion force to help the Wehrmacht and C. Stalin would have a much harder time keeping it together when people are jumping ship to freedom. It would have been beneficial for all involved.

Or is it because I think the idea of invading the USSR period was a bad idea? That ought to be self evident with the hind sight we have.

t. Blyadnik RIDF

Three fronts, at least get your facts straight.

Except the ring around the 6th army already closed by the time any retreating orders were even suggested. The reason why that even happened is because the Romanians defending the bridgeheads on the Don fled from an easily defendable position leaving behind their heavy artillery and ammunition dumps. Other non-german troops from other sectors such as Hungarians and Italians had a suboptimal performance too.
The importance of actually not fleeing like a coward when you have all the advantages on your side except numbers.

No, that's exactly what happens when you get zerg rushed by a numerically superior enemy that caught up in tech. Something something Lend Lease. The more they waited the deeper their graves were dug.

Your slav is showing hard now, the brutality started only after the partisan warfare. There's no such thing as playing nice when you have rats blowing up your railroads and sabotaging/ambushing your supply convoys through illegal warfare. Soviet Russia not abiding by the Geneva convention means Soviet Russia burning.
There were partisans in France but nothing burned in France. Maybe because France's population wasn't purged of its intelligentsia and bourgeoisie class and the rest turned into obedient commie slaves.

You what now? That's new, I wonder where you pulled this one from. The Atlantic wall was 20% or so complete and most of the commanding officers were away from their posts, partly through bad luck (in case of Rommel) and partly because of bad intel.
Remember the slaughter at Omaha beach? That's one of the very few sectors where everyone was at their post.

Then there's the thousands of bombers keeping the armored divisions in check but whatever, as long as you can blame Hitler everything else can be disregarded.

I'm guessing you're completely ignoring how WW1 went now. Absolutely impossible for another (((Zimmerman telegram))) or Lusitana to happen.
Next thing you're gonna start crying crocodile tears over Pearl Harbor and tell me Japan started the war.

3/10, maybe actually open up a book sometime instead of parroting Wikipedia and History Channel documentaries.

They couldn't put enough in there, part of the problem with fighting on multiple fronts

Fuck off m8s, churchill being a warhungry fucktard shouldnt be blamed on the soldiers.

If the japs hadnt brought america directly into the war with their preemptive strike on pearl harbor, there would have been no way the UK would have been able to commit to the normandy landings in a relevant time frame, the american contribution in terms of sheer man power was close to half.

...

No, but thanks for the link.

True, but let's take Speer's appointment as Minister of Armaments in February 1942 as an example of one Hitler's major flaws as wartime leader. The average German monthly tank production during 1941 was about 200 tanks a month (It was less than 100 at the start of Barbarossa). Seventeen panzer divisions were divided amongst the three army groups, plus a number of motorized infantry divisions (not sure how many) which ideally would have a panzer regiment. That gives us an estimate of the equivalent of 20 panzer divisions, which means that each division could only receive 10 replacement tanks a month if they were divided equally. By December 1941 there were panzer divisions with only one or two dozen tanks instead of 160 or so. To quote Guderian:

Now put yourself in Hitler's shoes: it's January 1941, you're planning to invade Russia. Britain and her Empire are still in the fight, the USA is providing Britain with lend lease aid, FDR would like nothing better than to be openly be at war with Germany, and the kikes would like nothing more than to genocide the whole German race. What if the Soviet Union doesn't collapse on schedule? To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, "What if our shit gets fucked up by some unknown, unknown?" (which is exactly what happened, i.e. the unexpected resiliency and productive capability of Russia) In such a scenario, Germany could lose the war and the kikes would be in a position to rape and genocide your people. You could call it hindsight, but given the stakes, wouldn't it have been prudent to go balls to the wall even if you end up producing a shit ton of unnessary war materiel that never gets used?

But that's not what Hitler did. All throught 1941, Germany was still producing consumer goods at almost the same level as before the war started. Sure, it might not have been a good idea to go on a total war footing like they finally did in 1943, because to do so might have alerted the Russians to the fact that something was up. But why not go on a total war footing starting on June 22nd 1941? According to Speer, armament production in Febrauary 1942 was a decentralized (not in a good way) clusterfuck. By June 22nd at the very latest he should have made either made Speer or his predecessor Fritz Todt War Production Fuhrer (the Führerprinzip), and done the same with the armed forces. But again and again Hitler would muddle along, until a problem became so glaringly obvious that he was forced to make a decision.

Again, an avoidable mistake was made here, which Hitler tried to correct too late. Prior to the war Germany's navy was focused on being a surface fleet, which had a submarine component. Yes, a surface fleet was very useful as evidenced by the invasion of Norway, but given the disparity between the British fleet, the German's shipbuilding capability, and their limited iron ore resources, the only possible decisive war winning naval force they could have built was the uboat arm, and this should have therefore been the top priority. At the commencement of hostilities Germany had only 57 uboats (under normal circumstances only 1/3rd of the uboat fleet could actually be on patrol) despite the fact that Dönitz had (correctly IMO) estimated that it would take 300 boats to force Britain to sue for peace in a war scenario. Sure it would have required a degree of foresight to realize the importance of the uboat arm, but given Britain's status as an island maritime empire, it's not too much of a stretch to say that the low pre-war priority given to the uboat arm was an avoidable mistake. It wasn't until after the war started and the uboats proved themselves wildly successful that Hitler began to prioritize the uboat arm. Given the infrastructure and the length of time required to build a uboat, it wasn't until August 1942 that the numbers of the uboat fleet approached the 300 called for by Dönitz, but by May 1943 the allies had achieved the material and technical superiority over the uboats which caused the disastrous 75% casualty ratio suffered by the uboat arm. Warfare demands the application of sufficient force in the right place and at the right time. If any part of this equation is incorrect, disaster can and often will ensue as evidenced by Kursk - a good idea in May but a terrible one in August - Moscow a great idea in August but a dubious and costly proposition at best in September - North Africa, right place, right time but insufficient force.

Definitely agree.

This is definitely incorrect. They both describe in their memoirs numerous instances of trying to persuade Hitler to take a different course - for example Guderian trying to convince Hitler to go for Moscow instead of Kiev. Manstein's tried to convince Hitler to order a breakout of the encircled Sixth army rather than trying to supply it by air (Goering told Hitler it could be done. Why was this fat fuck still the head of the Luftwaffe?) A constant theme in high level Wehrmacht field commanders' memoirs is their constant struggle with Hitler over which course of action to take.

I'm not sure either if Hitler thought up the Ardennes idea concurrently with Manstein, or merely agreed with it. In any case this was an example of Hitler choosing the right plan of action.

This whole problem about retreating is what I find most depressing about the eastern front. In the winter of 1941-1942 Hitler's insistence on the Wehrmacht holding its position WAS the right course of action. But the reason that it was right was due to the fact that the Wehrmacht's motor vehicles were in such a terrible state due to losses, lack of fuel due to logistical difficulties and the extreme cold. If the Wehrmacht could actual move itself, then undoubtedly, a retreat to shorten the front and wage a mobile defense would have been the best course of action.

Unlike in the First World War, armies in the Second could rapidly shift overwhelming firepower in the form of armored vehicles, motorized troops, aircraft and artillery (all of these things were available in the first world war, but their firepower and ability to quickly penetrate deep behind enemy lines had greatly increased). In order to counter this firepower a defending force must either retreat, or itself shift firepower to the threatened sector. If it does neither of these things, a mobile enemy will penetrate deep behind it's lines and encircle it thus cutting it's supply lines. Barring a breakout or a reopening of the lines of supply, the capture or destruction of encircled forces is certain. It was in this manner that 1.3 million German troops were able to kill or capture roughly 6 million Soviets during the first six months of the war. German armies could and did make withdrawals bringing with them most of their heavy weapons, but it was key that these withdrawals be prepared for and executed in a timely manner (which Hitler constantly prevented from happening). The Soviet forces would pursue the German enemy, advancing further and further from their lines of supply and their cohesion and fighting power would start to diminish. It was at this point that the Wehrmacht could and did many times launch a counter offensive and kill or capture the Soviet attackers. For a brilliant large scale example of this see Manstein's "backhand blow" in February and March 1943.

What happened starting in 1942 was that a general would petition Hitler to make a tactical withdrawal to shorten the front and free up desperately needed reserves. Hitler would refuse. Then the Soviets would launch a major attack but the Germans didn't have enough reserves to repel it. The general would ask Hitler to withdraw. Hitler refused. Eventually the Soviets would make deep advances with their mobile units which threatened to cut off entire corps or armies. The general begs Hitler for permission to withdraw his forces. Hitler refuses. At this point any normal army would be beyond hope, but still somehow the Germans manage to hold on. But inevitably the point of no return approaches and the general feels that his duty to his troops and his nation supercedes his oath to Hitler and he starts withdrawing his troops without authorization. If he's lucky Hitler finally faces reality and authorizes a withdrawal (which is already in progress) or the general bites the bullet and tells Hitler that he's ordered a withdrawal and faces the consequences. By this point things are so far gone that the men are lucky to survive, let alone bring their heavy weapons. If Hitler had simply authorized a shortening of the line to free up more reserves and allowed his generals to conduct a mobile defense followed by a counter attack these horrendous defeats would have been avoided and would have in many cases resulted in huge losses of manpower and equipment for the Soviets.

He was a very good military commander - for an amateur. But compared to Manstein he was shit. If he had the kind of men and material that the allies had the Germans would have definitely won the war, but they didn't and therefore the Germans had very little room for error. A quote from Manstein:

I'm sure that if Hitler had attended a school for military officers and spent his whole life in the military he would have been a kick ass general. But he was like your annoying boss who doesn't know how to do your job but tells you how to do it anyway.

I see much virginity in your future.

Anything by David Irving is good. The Osprey books are great and easy to read. Books published by publishing houses which specialize in military stuff are generally )))good(((. Download some good maps to refer to while reading. Wargames like Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue, John Tiller's Campaign Series, and Grigsby's War in the East will give you a much better "feel" for the regiments, divisions, corps, and armies of the Wehrmacht and how they were handled, but be warned these games take fucking forever. Also Silent Hunter III is a hell of a lot of fun and you'll really respect the men of the U-boat arm after playing it. Here's some good books:

General History:

Hitler's War by David Irving
Hitler Moves East 1941-1943 by Carell
Scorched Earth: The Russian-German War 1943-1944 by Carell
Steel Storm - Waffen-SS Panzer Battles on the Eastern Front 1943-1945
The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe: The Life of Field Marshall Erhard Milch
The 7th Panzer Division in France and Russia: Rommel’s Ghost Division
Battleground Prussia: The Assault on Germany's Eastern Front 1944–45

Written by Generals (better to get a decent grasp of the history of the war before reading these):

Order in Chaos: The Memoirs of General of Panzer Troops Hermann Balck
Grenadiers: The Story of Waffen SS General Kurt "Panzer" Meyer
Panzer Operations: The Eastern Front Memoir of General Raus
Panzer Battles by Major-General F. W. von Mellenthin
Grenadiers: The Story of Waffen SS General Kurt "Panzer" Meyer
Panzer Leader by Guderian
Lost Victories by Manstein
Attacks by Erwin Rommell
The First and the Last by Galland

Written by soldiers and lower ranking officers (These are my favorite war books to read. After reading them you'll never give up on today's Germans):

Eastern Inferno: The Journals of a German Panzerjäger on the Eastern Front
Tigers in the Mud: The Combat Career of German Panzer Commander Otto Carius
The Eastern Front: Memoirs of a Waffen SS Volunteer by Leon Degrelle
In Deadly Combat: A German Soldier's Memoir of the Eastern Front
Soldat: Reflections of a German Soldier, 1936-1949
The Forgotten Soldier by Guy Sajer
Stuka Pilot by Hans Rudel

The Young Hitler I Knew by August Kubizek
(The book that proves that if Hitler were alive today he'd be a shitposting no fap neet)

Interesting. Do any of the books you mentioned have production numbers inside?

I based my entire point about Speer on his own memoirs where he is very adamant about actually improving the industry and nothing of the sort was mentioned.

I stand corrected, I completely forgot about Moscow when I wrote that.

Stalingrad however is different, I don't think Paulus had the nerve and the courage to properly execute a breakout nor the troops the morale for it. I can see why Manstein would still want to try it even after failing to secure the flank (not through his own fault) because anything is better than a stackwipe through starvation or surrender.

I'd put the blame on Goring for this one, he was probably the most incompetent out of all the big authority figures. It's a standard case of Hitler being fed the wrong information and this time it came from Goring. If you really had the capabilities to properly supply your army through the air, that is a better option than going through the meat grinder while trying to escape.

For an amateur he was still doing better than his allied counterparts, don't get me wrong I agree that he should have let Manstein call the shots but given Hitler's political history and his success through sheer determination it's natural to see why he though he was the only one who could win the war, I think he said so himself. He was wrong but no other leader in that period or probably in history was ever in his shoes, it's hard to imagine the pressure put on him and the stress he went through, easier to understand when you look at the shit Morell was pumping into him.

We can both agree Germany had to play perfectly in order to win for how the war actually went but Hitler's mistakes are only highlighted because of that and in any winner versus loser scenario it's always easier to pick on the loser's mistakes.

You get rid of all the rats in the OKH and the Abwehr from day 1 and I'm pretty sure Germany wins with that advantage alone, even with all of Hitler's mistakes. For example Paulus was late 16 days at Stalingrad because of oil shortages and logistical nightmares, mostly caused by sabotage from the inside.
There's countless other scenarios where stuff like this happened.

Just my two cents.

The most significant thing that Hitler did wrong was not commit genocide on the Jews. Anything else would have been secondary to the eradication of European Jewry.

Military strategy begins in the hearts of your subordinates.
If you can't keep your troops in line, it's your fucking fault.

No. On paper alot of Soviet designs look very nice, they have good engines, solid armor and a good gun. But no Soviet design ever survived the sheer incompetence and corner-cutting of the Soviet Bureaucracy. They have nowhere near the consistency in quality as the American or German tanks. Meaning one from the Tula factory could be put together by skilled laborers with welds that are good enough and armor that's to the standard of what the engineering department ordered. Meanwhile in Leningrad or Stalingrad (places closer to the front mind you) could have entire features missing such as paint or hatches, shody welds, and steel that's not qualified to be tank armor.

They also lacked fundamental equipment that was common on German tanks of the time. Such as a Radio, Escape Hatches for every crew member, Large enough turret for an efficient 3 man crew (Loader, Gunner, Commander), Tungsten munitions for those extra tough targets, and above all optics for proper sighting and ranging. Obviously all these had been remedied by the end of the war, but they were very prevalent problems within the early tank models of the Soviet union. They were still using flags for communication, I think you get the idea they were behind.

Couple this with the generally under-skilled and underfed supply lines and you get the same problems facing the Soviet armor as the Soviet airforce of the early war faced. Basically if a Soviet tank broke down, the Soviets had no plans to recover them, they'd just commission a new tank, because the crew lacked either the skill or the equipment to fix them.

I've also heard stories of inconsistent shell penetrations due to the fabrication process of the metal within the round leading to brittle munition. Basically the shell would break apart on impact of enemy armor, leaving the target totally fine. AFAIK this was only a problem on the 85mm guns which were anti-aircraft artillery guns which had been converted for tank use, same deal as the Tiger's and Pershing's guns except the Soviets didn't properly test the AP rounds. Opting instead to field them as quickly as possible.

What they were was effective and numerous.
Could they out maneuver an enemy unit with their superior communication? No.
Could they deflect the puny 37mm and 50mm rounds fired on them by opposing German tanks? Yes.

But that only gets you so far in combat because you're missing the fundamental elements necessary to prevail in battle. If you can't see the enemy, you're pretty much dead. If you can't tell your mates where the enemy is, you're all pretty much dead.

TL;DR

Germans had skilled labor put into manufacturing their tanks, Soviets had numbers.
Sherman is best tank of the war, despite what ((( HISTORY CHANNEL ))) drones tell you

Well they kinda had to deal with the soviets…

That shoddy engineering sure did a great job on utterly BTFOing overly engineered and expensive german tanks.

Maybe if Hitler hadn't focused on "BIGGER IS BETTER" Germany could had seen what the Russians were doing, and designed their own incredibly cheap and easy to produce tanks that had typical German craftsmanship. Then Germany would have had unstoppable land warfare.

Millions of shitty cheap tanks over a few thousand overly expensive tanks that required 90000 tools and a workshop to fix the simplest of repairs any day of the week.

It's pretty obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. Germany could build all the tanks in the world, and they would still be worthless if there is no one to fill them. In that case quality is obviously optimal.

Never heard of this "meme" but anyone that falls for it is a bluepilled newfaggot.

Sorry for the late reply. It was 3am and I had to go to bed. I'm not quite sure what you mean. I don't doubt that Speer really did achieve more or less the kind of production he claimed, it's just the fact that even in 1942 the German war economy was still operating in a disorganized manner which Speer had to work hard to streamline and rationalize which shows that Hitler had a kind of "it'll sort itself out, no way can we lose" attitude in regard to the war. To be fair to Hitler, Russia was a backwards shithole, and people like Canaris we're passing along false intel. According to Mannerheim Hitler said to him "“We did not ourselves understand… just how strong this state was armed. If somebody had told me a nation could start with 35,000 tanks, then I’d have said, ‘You are crazy!’

As far as production numbers, I don't have a book with extensive production figures, it's just scattered around among various books. If anybody can post a good link or knows a good book about it that would be awesome. There's one book I have called "The Wages of Destruction" which deals with the Third Reich's economy and war production from 1933-1945. It's written from a pozzed perspective but it's a fascinating read.

This is very interesting. I knew Canaris was a rat and that the Soviets were getting excellent intel from highly placed sources, but I haven't read much about deliberate sabotage of the army. Do you know any books or links about this?

Hey now, remember Meindl's Felddivision!

I'm not the user you have replied to but that book goes down the traitors rabbit hole.

Poz or not it's better than nothing, thanks.

I guess I have to give you the same answer myself, haven't read anything that focused on this alone but bits and pieces from many books.

Otto Skorzeny mentions in "My Command Operations" the treachery of Canaris and the impact he possibly had on the entire war. For example, Canaris and Franco actually knew each other and as a result of that he was the one that was sent to negotiate / persuade Franco to join the Axis. This at the time didn't sound like a bad idea but knowing everything about Canaris after the fact, it is speculated he persuaded Franco NOT to join the war.
Ignoring Spain's military prowess entirely, you can already see the massive advantage the Axis would have gotten had Spain joined the war with the control of Gibraltar alone.

Then there's the intel, he was the head of the Abwehr after all. I forgot where I read this but supposedly 80-85% of the good intel never made it to the high command because of the subversive elements in the Abwehr. It was either suppressed or ignored.
It wasn't just Canaris though, Ribbentrop's two adjutants also turned out to be traitors that threw away a lot of important mail.

I read something about troops in one sector needing supplies desperately and they got crate loads full of stuff like toothbrushes and general household crap instead of ammo and rations. Another one that was occurring pretty often was supply wagon sabotage, sending them in the wrong locations or delaying them for made-up reasons. The logistical sabotage was all from the OKH

I vaguely recall Hitler's Revolution covering some of this stuff too like pointed out.

Wasn't Skorzeny also tasked with planning and preparing the capture of Gibraltar, which was blown off on recommendation of Canaris?

Why do you say the Sherman was the best tank? How was it better than a Tiger?

Precisely, here's a quote directly from the book:

"It was said that this operation was thwarted by the Chief of the
Abwehr (the Wehrmacht ’s intelligence and counter-espionage ser¬
vice) Admiral Wilhelm Canaris. At this point we must take a closer
look at Canaris, whom I got to know personally in 1943/44 and who
played an extremely important role in the course of the Second World War."

Here's the book My Commando Operations archive.org/details/MyCommandoOperationsByOttoSkorzeny1995OriginallyInGerman1975
ia601508.us.archive.org/11/items/MyCommandoOperationsByOttoSkorzeny1995OriginallyInGerman1975/My Commando Operations by Otto Skorzeny (1995, Originally in German 1975).pdf

Oh fuck. Wasn't Bormann also a spy or was that a Soviet meme?

Left me with a profound sense of sadness. What could've been… Maybe such great things weren't meant to be. Napoleon, Alexander, perhaps it is the bane of such genius to not be able to see it past yourself.

So much of this.

The Soviets overcame these problems but the experiences in the war shaped Soviet doctrine to this day. Soviet engineers and planners began to see weapons and vehicles as disposable items.

Men will scavenge what they need from damaged equipment
Men will scavenge what they need from damaged equipment
It's a waste of time and resources.
Either the equipment is in-use or brand new, no in-between to complicate logistics

The Soviets dedicated entire units to scavenging and collecting parts to ship to factories for rebuilds. Brutal, but efficient.

They, of course, favored incremental upgrades to "giant leaps" insofar as technology goes. They liked proven things that COULD be built. Complicated optics that require Zeiss-tier craftsmanship are out of the question when inferior sights will still WORK, even if not as well.

This guy's right too, the Sherman was the BEST tank of the war from a strategic (rather than tactical or operational) perspective.
A Sherman from Detroit is the same as one from Philadelphia, New Jersey, or New York- zero difference and the parts will fit together.
It might blow up because of the gasoline engine, but at least it runs. It doesn't break down and the tank can be where it needs to be in order to fight.
Things can kill it, yeah, but it's reasonably difficult to kill and its armament CAN kill the enemy's stuff- even if you need a volume of Shermans to do so

It boils down to the simple fact that having forces to fight somewhere that CAN fight is always the preferable option to superior forces who either
or

Also, for the record
is a meme. Russian engineers were and are excellent. The thing that has always hampered the Soviets and even modern Russia is the production process. Were their equipment built in an American or German factory with American or German workers, managers, QA, QC, etc. then their products would be perfectly fine.
dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a241165.pdf

I'll admit I fantasize about what I'd do with a time machine in this particular regard.

Germany could have supported an amazing export economy of consumer goods like non-stick kitchen wares, plastic goods, etc. while building its military-industrial base to account for the new technologies. If you caught them in 1933, they MIGHT have been able to pull off a modernization in time for 1939.

Thead theme.

bump

Bump

I remember reading that he gutted the Abwehr though.

But yeah the meme that Hitler was a bad commander is just a lie.