Profile of AvNY

... and in some atspects, even surpassed the US, notable example being the A6M zero being superior to everything the americans had in stock, until the F6F hellcat was introduced.

However, their land army was basically inferior in every way. Their tactics were outdated, their weapons were also outdated, hell, the japanese lacked something as basic as a submachine gun (altho in coh 2 i guess that doesn't really matter due to LMGs dominating the meta), they also lacked any kind of good tanks, sure they managed to make some "decent" tanks in 1945, but even they were very very subpar for 1945, most of their tanks were total rubbish. Their rifle or machine gun was decent, but nothing special. They even lacked proper ANTI TANK guns in some cases. Their artillery was also not exactly sophisticated at all.

They really didn't have any AT. To the point that "AT" consisted of a pit with a 500lb aerial bomb and a volunteer to set it off when the tank rolled over it.

The F4F was a match for the A6M Zero when used properly. It was slower to climb and turn but faster in a dive, was much better armed, and had both armor and self-sealing tanks. US pilots were innovating tactics like the Thatch Weave and competing with, and sometimes owning, Japanese fighters well before they had the F6F.

I am more fascinated by the behaviour this changes. There seem to be fewer of the popular streamers streaming. Where they playing because they were being watched?

A German sniper captured with his comrade by soldiers of Gen. George S. Patton’s Third Army in Germany, March 26, 1945. The sniper in the foreground was wounded in an exchange of rifle fire.

If they were snipers they are probably lucky to be alive.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said "that was all there was to it". YOU were the one painting the D-Day landings as something the Allies had to do in haste and miraculously pulled off, when in reality it was the most carefully planned and executed military operation in human history and they had the complete luxury and ability to stockpile the weapons, munitions, and men to carry it out while being behind the English channel.

If anything the English channel was a godsend to the British and western Allies as they would not have lasted into 1941 without it. By the time the landings were carried out the Kriegsmarine or Luftwaffe were no where to be seen, and the Allies had complete superiority in this regard. When you have complete air and naval superiority, a beach landing is simple a matter of execution.

I don't know where you can get that I said the landings were amateurish or hastily planned. One can say the planning went on for two years, and there was so much focus on the landing that they neglected to prepare for fighting in the Bocage.

But it is hard to talk of the benefits of the English Channel since it just IS. Without it the whole history of Europe, not just Britain, would be different from the times the Romans invaded the British isles and onwards. Such is the case behind most "what if" scenarios, that the "what if" really wasn't even possible and that was why the choice was never made.

The Allies were not concerned with the defenses or the actual landings...they only feared the appeared of the 15th Army which was still expect another landing in Pas de Calais. Of course that never happened but the Germans continued believe Normandy was a diversion. Tactical victory which allowed the logistical support to remain intact. Hardly amateur.

One always wants to be within the enemies OODA Loop because it gives you more initiative than he has. That said, I wouldn't say that they "feared" the appearance f the 15th. That was by definition the thing for which they had to prepare since it was much more likely than Kriegsmarine or Luftwaffe counter attacks. But it was still possible that the Kriegsmarine would try and it was still a very very real fear, especially after the losses to E-Boats during the Operation Tiger exercise just 6 weeks prior.

Well ultimately you need to win battles too, that is what affords the logisticians the opportunity to apply their craft.

That's an interesting thought experiment. There are still a few instances where factions won all (or most) of the battles yet still lost the war. Invariably the reasons were political or economic and not strategic. Three that come to mind are the US Revolutionary War, the US War of 1812, and Vietnam. Certainly all the losses didn't mean that side lost.

A big reason why the performance of the panzer divisions was so good in 1941 and consistently good until 43 had to do with this outstanding preparatory effort in which they discovered the correct synergistic mix and the correct training doctrine. This added even more to their pre-war lead in executing mobile war. After 1941, the general organizational form did not change drastically throughout the war, as it was flexible doctrine that worked well.

This is what I talk about when I say that the German military of '40 and '41 is "experienced". They have actual, real life, experience operating a million men at a time in foreign and hostile territory. Theory aside, figures aside, you will see in real life where the stresses and weaknesses are in your organization. You will see which of your men, NCOs and officers are capable, which aren't yet but can be retrained, and which are hopeless. You will find which of your figures were wrong and where are the weakpoints. These are the things you TRY to emulate in maneuvers but never really do adequately. You will be more effective even if you find no changes to make in your doctrines.

But mostly in '41 (and much of '42) they benefited from an unusually unprepared Soviet military. What saved the Soviets was a combination of 3 things; The depth of the country that needed to advance as the Germans, after some 400-500 miles, started to run into limitations in supply and then the progress was in fits and starts until it ground to a halt (similar to the Allies in France, the Soviets during Bagration, etc.). The second was not the size of the Soviet army, but the size of its reserves. There were already some 15-18 million men who had had military training and were still of fighting age. This was why they were able to put more units together so quickly. Germany did not have this depth of reserves, and as an industrial society, the older the male population the more likely a potential soldier was also a necessary worker. And finally, as time went on the Soviets were no longer inexperienced and incompetent. By the Stalingrad counter attacks they had been at war for a year and a half.

The W. allies took two-three years to rework their system to a competitive standard and according their own needs. By 44', the Germans didn't have a particular edge anymore in mobile forces against the west.

The irony is that the three reasons the Germans gave for their defeat aren't really good explanations:

The weather - this is a neutral factor. The weather affects both sides and at times that helps either one. Remember that at first the Germans welcomed the first frosts as it meant the mud hardened and they could finally move and supply again.

The greater size of the enemy - This was always the case and they knew about this going in. 3 million men invaded in Barbarossa, and quickly killed or captured 4.1 million Soviet soldiers, so by definition they were outnumbered from the start. And in the latter offensives the Soviet operations would be on fronts where there were under 2 Soviet troops for every German defending, but the Soviets had learned on attack to have 3-5 to 1 in the area of the attack (often as the result of maskirovka operations).

Hitler's meddling - Until the summer of '44 Hitler often took the advice of his generals, and also at times he was right when they were wrong. Many of the generals we consider brilliant also still thought in terms of quick and decisive engagements to defeat the enemy. They were the ones who felt it was important to capture Moscow and Leningrad where it was Hitler who focused on the south and the resources. In that case Hitler was probably in the right in that this was going to be a long and drawn out conflict and its resolution would be political and not military (the same way that the capture of Poland, Czechoslovakia and France was defeating them politically and not militarily capturing them).


The more I learn about the nitty gritty of the war the less impressive the Germans are as compared to the myths. They had some sharp uniforms and started off with some great doctrines, but by '43 they were believing their own hype a bit too much. The reason we often think what we do about the Germans vs. the Russians is that prior to the fall of the USSR most of our history comes from the German side, and most of that is from the German generals who fought the wars of '39-'43... they were the ones who survived.