/k/ - Weapons

>>535456

Don't mess with Ivan.

The eternal anglo happened.

Hitler could have won if he just left Africa alone for a while but concentrated his forces on getting that sweet sweet russian oil. His forces stalled without fuel. Then the whole planet jumped on him at once.

>Hitler "Germany started a war with four of the largest powers in the world and lost. Clearly this is because the Jews were fucking with us; don't worry though, don't worry though I have a plan to make sure we'll do much better next time."

>>535476

Don't you have a spoon to bin?

>>535479

Go back to your bong

>>535486

>Dunkirk

>Should have got them as POWs for a bargaining chip. With that many people they could indoctrinate enough to form at least a brigade and send it to the east. Imagine the propaganda potential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Free_Corps

Why didn't they?

>>535492

You still lost that fight, lmao

>>535501

Because you suck, lmao

>>535467

What about dem Libyan oil fields?

>>535503

>says the country letting shitskins flood Europe

The krautism strikes again

It's always nice to see yet another thread ruined by salt and flagshittery. and yes i do know a brit started it. Some of the people posting in this thread seriously need to consider ending their own lives, or make a new board for this whiter-than-thee brother slayer feud bullshit. You could call it /kint/ or perhaps just /kinder/.

>>535456

Basically every strategic decision of Germans and especially their allies was poor. On a tactical and operational level they were the best, but that wasn't enough.

>>535514

It would have happened regardless of flags, friend. Every war thread has some level of this but WW2 threads have the most instances of conflicts between national pride in winning and the cold truth that the reward was worse than nothing at all.

Polite sage

>>535466

You do realize that Kaiser Friedrich I of the HRE was nicknamed Barbarossa, right?

>>535521

I think he was referring to operation marita.

>>535521

That actually makes it worse, naming an incredibly important military campaign after a guy who drowned in hip deep water because of his own armor

>>535522

>I think he was referring to operation marita.

<consequently creating delays for the Barbarossa

>>535523

Ironic and sad, but I think an even funnier irony was that Friedrich spent most of his earlier life BTFOing the Italians, hence the Italian name.

>>535486

They weren't ready for war but war would have come to them eventually, when was Stalin planning on invading again? That and the Polish situation made Hitler realize he had to move fast or else he would have a few more (((pearl harbors))) and the same situation then if he didn't.

>>535457

They should have fucked with Ivan more instead of pissing around in Africa and the Balkans. And as someone else said pressure the mongols into helping him at Leningrad. If one could kill 700 Russians a whole army would have been a big help

>>535509

>Destroy the only Country that is standing against Communism, Marxism and Jews

Jews were in the SS, the Gestapo and were running work camps.

Also when Hitler got into power he was congratulated by Stalin, both Hitler and Stalin were allies at the start of the war when they both invaded Poland, then Hitler BETRAYED Stalin by invading Russia 2 years later.

And you expect the UK to side with a man who betrayed someone he saw as an ally 2 years later again?

That one move set in motion the MAIN reason why the UK didn't side with Hitler, he wasn't a man to be trusted diplomatically.

He went behind everyone's back and built up a military, betrayed his allies, and when he didn't betray them call them subhuman (in the case with Italy).

I don't know what it is with you Germans but you always suck Austrian dick for some odd reason.

>>535540

>Hitler BETRAYED Stalin by invading Russia 2 years later.

Remember the part where they were massing troops at the border? Barbarossa was a preemtive strike.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy

>>535542

Both sides had operational plans against eachother in the works before the war.

If you even read Mein Kampf it was a plan in his god damned book before he got into power.

Germany was led by Hitler instead of Rommel or Hess. But I think you mean the other mistakes. Ok.

One major mistake by Hitler was expansion that was too rapid, and inadequate preparation for occupation. Germany needed to expand or it would fall into a depression worse than Weimar days, but that expansion could have been two times slower which would still be plenty fast to overwhelm defenses but slow enough for mop up.

Mistake two is the Navys obsession with long range u-boats and capital ships at a moment when aircraft fucked capital ships robbed them of manpower and punching power. They could have built 500 nimble air defense frigates no anti-ship armament, just 10x40mm bofors and 20x2cm guns. Basically AAA dakka boat to protect their supply ships from air attack that could avoid torpedo bombers and sweep the sky clear of enemy aicraft. Also they could have built 1500 medium range u-boats who would kill any enemy supply ships or enemy battleships that thought they were hot shit. They could have escorted all their ships and denied allies travel anywhere within 500km of France or nothern Europe. UK would eventually be starved into submission and there could be no Normandy attack - Allies would have to liberate the continent only from the Mediterranean.

Mistake three is focusing on fighters and interceptors. The only fighter in German air force should have been a heavy fighter/escort variant of Do-17. Remainder of air force should be torpedo and bomber variants of Do-17 and Ju-87 whose tasks would be to torpedo fuel ships, bomb fuel depots, bridges, factories, hangars, and airfields that serve the allied bombers. This would have stopped the bombing of Germany in a few months. By focusing on wasteful interceptors and fighters to combat allied bombers, Germany essentially invited the allies to have the first few punches, and only then to respond.

Mistake four is attacking Soviets, and that's a doozy. 3/4 of the Wermecht died in the ostfront, those men would have easily repulsed the attack by allies in Normandy. Essentially the only thing allies could have done is continually try to bomb the continent, but the continent would be German. Eventually the Allies would give up, and Germany could consolidate most of Europe. THEN and only THEN, should he have attacked east.

#1 objection to this is "Stalin planned to attack Germany". No shit. However while being beasts at defense, slavs absolutely suck at attack (re: Winter War). Soviets would have gone 100km into Poland with BT tanks and 500k men in active service, got their asses handed to them by dug in Wermecht, and retreated behind their barricade/fortress line never to show their face in WWII again. By attacking first Hitler helped Stalin consolidate his power, recruit fucking everyone, and get aid from the west.

It's important to note that nothing ITT could be known by people living at the time, it's all 20/20 useless criticism.

He didn't immediately hand poland over to the Magyars and tell them to go wild.

>>535492

>>535501

>lets start a war with germany

That is NOT what happened.

Also invading Poland, Slovakia, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Greece or Yugoslavia had nothing to do with the Aryan or Jewish stuff, or even the myth that Germany was "fighting bolshevism". It was a naked land grab. You made your intentions clear long before you started messing with the major powers, but invading a world power without a cassus belli proved to the world that not only was Hitler after a naked land grab, he also couldn't be trusted to keep his word and he was absolutely insane. Invading USSR without even a FAKE cassus belli basically ended all chance of Germany ever being left alone or signing a peace treaty with anyone. The rest of the world was going to hound you until you died.

>hurr map

It's no mystery why most of that map is green.

Most of those countries joined against you because they didn't want to be next.

Everyone saw how you were behaving in Europe and how Japan was behaving in the pacific, no one trusted you, and everyone knew they'd be on your dinner list eventually unless they banded together.

In politics all you have is your word, there's no such thing as a third party arbiter.

>>535509

>nazi germany

.standing against communism marxism and jews

Don't make me laugh.

>meanwhile let niggers and durkas in europe before Merkel is even known

Shredder was known.

Although granted, Tiny Flair and that Shit Rack retard in France did their parts for fucking up Europe, it was a joint effort.

>>535542

>oh look you're putting on a kevlar vest I better preemptively kill you

So if the purpose was a preemptive attack, what was the point of capturing Ukraine and Moscow? Those "massed troops" were fixed fortifications which were destroyed in the first week of fighting, after which Hitler could have pulled back and sued for peace. As >>535543 said the extermination of slavs and occupation/colonization of Eastern Europe was Hitlers plan from day 1, the Molotov line "massed troops" you're talking about was being built out of pieces of decommissioned Stalin line and both were purely defensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_Line

If Stalin was going to "invade" he might try to capture choice bits of Poland in minor skirmishes with Germany, but he was never going to go on an extermination war against the reich. That's complete bollocks.

>>535466

>Ivan and his 1/10 k/d ratio would be laughable without the Russian Winter.

>muh winter

Yeah, Russians are obviously magical creatures that are immune to all cold attacks. It's just like my tabletop games.

>k/d ratio

Yeah because it's not like being taken by surprise and being outnumbered in individual conflicts at the beginning of the war made any difference to that. It's cool, though. The Germans can keep k/d ratio. They still lost. Don't mess with Ivan.

>>535554

>>535555

Greeks aren't white, otherwise they wouldn't doublepost like double niggers.

>>535456

Political capability and admittedly quite valorous frontline WW1 service don't translate into strategic competence.

Also standard German autism with logistics and taking on half the fucking world at once.

The Bismarck-era Second Reich was better.

>>535563

>Russia had no roads. The moment the first winter rains started, the whole place was nothing but knee-deep mud and swamps. That slowed down the German advance, but that alone wasn't what caused the defeat.

Here's an idea: Stop advancing. If they stopped for the winter and consolidated what they captured, then sat at a table with Russians and demarcated properly, they wouldn't have had to invest any troops in Eastern Front. Even ignoring Mein Kampf, the very fact the Wermecht kept advancing proves that Barbarossa wasn't defensive.

As for the rest of your post, are you counting aircraft and tanks or just men? Because Germans had a similar number of men and FAR larger number of tanks and aircraft.

At small battles like Brest they had 3:1 advantage in everything. As an example at larger battles like Smolensk, Germans had 1500 aircraft where the Soviets had 0 aircraft and a few hundred fewer tanks (of lighter types). At the largest battle of Moscow, Germans had 1.2-1.9 million men facing a Soviet 1.2-1.4 million men.

Soviets had more reinforcements who came in to replace the hugely outnumbered and slaughtered Soviet units at the start of Barbarossa. And only when those reinforcements are counted to they seem to have huge numbers of personnel, but that's not how it works. You have to remember those reinforcements didn't all teleport there at once, they arrived in dribs and drabs.

Where the metal meets the meat, the Soviets were either similar or far weaker compared to Germans until NKVD started forced recruiting.

>What Germany achieved with so few forces in such short time was the greatest military operation ever recorded in human history.

>To believe that Russia had even the slightest of involvement with defeating Germany is laughably wrong.

>defeating the greatest military operation isn't an achievement

I didn't read far enough to realize you're a troll.

How not to fuck up WW2 as Germany without needing magical 20/20 hindsight:

1. Don't ally with the Japs, keep the existing sort-of alliance with (the various) China(s)

This pissed off the USA and a long-term trading partner and frankly Japan would have fucked with France and the UK in East Asia either way.

2. Don't let Hitler or any other non-General have any influence in strategic matters

Self explanatory but difficult given the way the Government was structured.

3. SANE LOGISTICS

No snowflake calibres, no snowflake weapons, no snowflake vehicles. Don't randomly introduce wunderwaffe into the supply chain. Actually move the economy to a total war economy BEFORE YOU FUCKING LOSE AT STALINGRAD no really, Germany's industry wasn't properly war-focussed until mid-1943. Let women actually work in armaments factories. Even little things like not making so many different sizes of bloody helmet, and just using different sized liners would be good. Be careful of slave labour because they'll often sabotage production. Don't give fucking Göring primary control of industry in the important early years, in fact don't give him any control over anything because that fat fuck is useless. Don't base your entire economy on permanent expansion/invasion of other nations, this is obviously unsustainable. Try not to use horses for everything (granted this is easier said than done). Don't have the SS, Luftwaffe ground forces and KM's infantry forces all have their own fucking logistics and procurement. Actually on that note…

4. No Waffen-SS

Don't let the SS become a state within a state, they had their own armed forces etc with massively snowflakey logistics and generally caused issues with the already messy command structure. Keep them as a weird paramilitary police force if you want but both the SS and Gestapo were terrible at their jobs within Germany. They were still halfway decent in occupied territories though they did upset the locals a bit.

5. Make proper use of the minor Axis powers

The allies fought as a unified group of nations, providing each other with technology and often actual equipment and even integrating their command structures. The Axis fought as a bunch of individual states with snowflake equipment and actually both Italy and Germany had massive inter-service rivalry and snowflake paramilitary units within their armed forces. At the very least actually allow licensed production of German designs abroad, ideally provide them with some form or other of arms where possible.

On the rare occasions when Italian troops fought under German officers (even with their own sub-par equipment) they were actually quite effective. Now obviously Mussolini won't let you replace them all like that but improving communication/offering training would go a long way.

6. Don't go to war with the USSR, at least not yet

They're your only trading partner and frankly couldn't pull off an invasion if they tried. Ideally ally with them, failing that ignore them until - at the very least - the UK leaves the war. If the UK doesn't quit then modify your long-term goals.

7. If you're dead set on war with the USSR stop giving them important military technology for fucking grain

Unbelievably dumb move. For example all Soviet optics technology was based on shit the Germans gave them in the 30s.

8. Decide to target either oilfields or Moscow and stick to it

Pretty self-explanatory.

9. No Battle of Britain

There is no way this would ever be a German victory. Your fighters will always be low on fuel, you have no heavy bombers of note and any veteran pilots shot down over bongland are permanently lost (1 escaped during the entire war). The UK can put downed pilots back in the air the same day and has a massive defensive advantage. Also the whole thing was a huge propaganda victory in the UK and particularly the USA, British propaganda was far too effective at portraying the Blitz as murder even if the UK was doing similar things. Also this will help with defending Germany from bombers.

10. Come up with a sane, non-Sea Lion plan to get the UK out of the war

Basically you've got to break the morale of the public and politicians while not angering them too much. Pushing for a win in Africa without wasting time on the BoB and offering generous terms should be enough. Also if you weren't dumb enough to ally with Japan you don't have to require the UK to give up claims to the colonies it lost, this makes it even more attractive for the UK to quit on friendly terms. If you have to sell Mussolini out a bit then so fucking be it, the useless cunt can be bullied pretty easily. You'll also have to give up on the occupation of France (~10% of all German production in WW2 not counting force labour) but that'll actually free up a ton of occupation troops.

11 Rotate combat veterans back to train new recruits

This is particularly important for armour crews and pilots. Sure you won't get your muh 100s of kill aces but propaganda-value aside this is a much better idea. The allies did it and it worked wonders.

12. Promise the Eastern European slavs independent countries if they fight against the Soviets

If we're still doing the whole 'invade the USSR' thing then at least capitalise on the fact the locals see you as liberators. You don't actually have to follow through with this promise and hell the troops don't even have to be that valuable, it's mostly a matter of freeing up people you've got on anti-partisan duties.

13. Don't fuck with the Jews and other groups until after WW2

It's a waste of potential soldiers, workers and a disproportionate amount of scientists/researchers. Also camps and ghettos waste guards and supplies and shipping prisoners around puts strain on an already strained system of logistics. If you want form the men up into 'special service' battalions and promise them that anyone who shows bravery will have proven themselves worthy of full German citizenship post-war Strafbattalion-style, women can be used for force labour on the same terms this promise doesn't actually have to be true.

14. Start training Snipers again before the end of 1943

Germany actually abandoned Sniping post-WW1 because the Wehrmacht had decided it was obsolete in the age of manoeuvre warfare. Now obviously that's only clear in hindsight but they should have realised long, long before they did that this was wrong. It would have helped massively with removing partisans and the Eastern Front in general, Soviet troops without officers are fucking nothing.

15. Persuade the Finns to actually encircle Leningrad

Also self-explanatory.

Commonly suggested but unlikely to help that much

>Don't let Italy enter the war so early/Don't get involved in the Balkans/Don't get involved in Africa

Promising Mussolini that he'd get some of the spoils of war even if he just stayed neutral would have sufficed in keeping Italy out until 1941, the earliest they'd actually have been prepared for a war.

On the other hand the RM tying down the RN in the Med is what let the Japs go crazy in the East and, assuming you're following a sane strategy that wants to push the UK out of the war, you really need that threat to the Empire. Africa is similar, you've got to threaten the Empire and closing the Suez is far and away the easiest way to go about that. The Balkan invasion delaying Barbarossa is a bit of a myth but it should be avoided anyway because it will just waste occupation troops.

>Get Spain to join

They'd probably be another Italy but worse, also their demands would upset Vichy France. Their only use would be in taking/besieging Gib after Africa falls if the UK still won't settle.

Of course this is all pointless because once Hitler dies you'll have a horrible succession crisis and quite possibly civil war. Even if you avoid open conflict all of the likely candidates to replace him are out for power for its own sake. Now even if you luck out there and get a good leader the same thing happens when that leader (likely an elderly member of the party's old guard) dies. For a whole bunch of reasons the NSDAP was in a state of near-permanent anarchy and internal conflict and Germany's legal system was set up to give absolute power to a handful of fags so preventing this requires a pretty major overhaul of the entire working of the Third Reich.

>>535561

Greeks are whiter than you my amerimutt friend

>>535545

>>535648

The only thing anglos have been doing consistently last 100 years has been fucking over white people and helping brown people whenever they can.

>>535655

>tldr; find a way to murder that lunatic Churchill and his friends

>>535654

1. So instead of allying themselves with an actual autonomus military nation, they should ally with a peasant nation relying on military equipment from multiple countries, including germany and possibly piss off said autonomus military nation? Chinas military was a joke and having japan beat them and use their ressources instead sounded better than building and training a force from scratch.

2. Hitler influenced the military after the various fuckups of other generals. True, he should have not been in charge at all but in the end he probably just wanted to "do it himself".

3. Oh you mean the first working assault rifle, first working jet engine and first working MBT? Not talking about the possible first strategic weapon? The only thing they should have done in the Wunderwaffendepartment is invest everything in the V2, possibly attach a nuke to it and send it at Moscow. That would have closed the west theater quickly, possibly any further conflict.

4. I agree with the "no own logistics" thing to an extent but the SS was compareable to something like the Marines or Rangers. An elite unit with the actual spirit to go down fighting. Loyality and Zeal is very hard to come by when everyone around you screams in pain.

5. Agreed.

6. Soviet Union would have invaded europe some month later. So instead of letting the soviets build up strenght, Germany just wanted to come first and take them by suprise.

7. Agreed but then again: who would have thought that there would be a full blown world war at that time.

8. Agreed. And stay out of fucking Stalingrad. Just shell the fuck.

9. Returning to my statement with the V2.

>>535655

10. Vergeltungswaffe 2; The V1 already worked wonders.

11. The start of the war went like a breeze. France blitzed, Poland blitzed. They haven't thought that they maybe had to recruit more after Moscow and as soon it became clear that the war wouldn't end in 1941 on the eastside, it was already too late and veterans were needed to actually make a difference.

12. Easter Europeans, esspecially Polaks were prideful people at the time who believed that Britain were their allies. They'd rather fall down a cliff than grab a german hand to be pulled up. Its their retarded pride, that fucked themselves by both sides as well as the corrupt goverment and generals which took all the gold and left the country for dead even before it was apparent that germany and soviet invade. Half of that gold was then gone, "sunked" while shipping. As for other slavs: Croats and Ukranians fought for the Axis side, esspecially Croats who finally got their independence after 500 years or so.

13. But the jews fucked with them since before the rise of the 3rd Reich. They were sabotaging everything they could and poisoned the well just as they poison it today.

14. See 11. They thought they would just literally Blitz into victory. There was no need for virgin snipers; only chad shocktroops.

15. I would agree but Finns had their own share of problems with the soviet at the time.

>>535625

>Stop advancing

>When Moscow is less than 1km away and so far you've been roflstomping the Soviets every single time

You're absolutely braindead just like the autismo generals Hitler had to deal with.

>Germans had more tanks and aircraft

Not even once. You're fucking retarded. Look at statistics. With the exception of the ground troops at the first days of the offensive, the Russians had way more aircraft and armored forces available. Despite all that they got their asses handed to them and it wasn't until America and Britain had to give them a lend lease that they managed to push back. And that was with the forced labor and conscript of local citizens. Children as young as 7 working in horrible conditions in factories, many dying and starving. Women and elders forced to work and dig trenches.

The Soviets had to beg for help from the very nations they despised while killing off their own subjects just to protect their worthless fucking leader who not once in his entire life did he give a single shit for the nation.

>>535626

>He thinks Russia was the one to defeat Germany

If it wasn't for the allies, Russia has absolutely zero chance of winning. Moscow would be captured within weeks and the rest of the country would soon follow.

>If you don't believe in laughably wrong documentaries and shit historians you're a troll

Kill yourself faggot. A retard like you will not teach me what happened back there. Nor will any other "historian". Worthless liars all of them.

Many blunders include:

1. Fail to link up with Japan/Japan being a shitshow.

2. Italy was a shitshow and divided the force that would supposedly go into Russia.

3. Attacking the USSR at all instead of consolidating their forces and legitimize their rules.

>6. Soviet Union would have invaded europe some month later. So instead of letting the soviets build up strenght, Germany just wanted to come first and take them by suprise.

The evidence for the USSR planning an invasion at all, never mind as early as a few months later, is pretty shakey. Even if they were it'd be a massive flop.

>7. Agreed but then again: who would have thought that there would be a full blown world war at that time.

The man who wrote a book that was in large part about an inevitable conflict with Russia would be a good bet.

>9. Returning to my statement with the V2.

>10. Vergeltungswaffe 2; The V1 already worked wonders.

The V2 would arrive in 1944 at the earliest, the longer Germany fights the UK the worse it suffers from blockades. Additionally (and as I said above) it was inaccurate and cost-ineffective (you wouldn't even be able to scale it up due to lack of fuel even if you could spare the other raw materials, labour etc). You aren't going to successfully remove the RAF with V2s and any damage you can do to cities in a full year of dropping V2s on them will be repayed with a single RAF bombing so you won't win a war of attrition either. You're really overestimating the V2. V1 I'll agree was more effective but it's limited to hitting Southern England and would eventually be countered (in fact it was already counterable).

>11. The start of the war went like a breeze. France blitzed, Poland blitzed. They haven't thought that they maybe had to recruit more after Moscow and as soon it became clear that the war wouldn't end in 1941 on the eastside, it was already too late and veterans were needed to actually make a difference.

Overconfidence from how easily France fell was indeed a huge issue but the rotation of veteran pilots at the very least could have been done if not for the BoB.

>12. Easter Europeans, esspecially Polaks were prideful people at the time who believed that Britain were their allies. They'd rather fall down a cliff than grab a german hand to be pulled up. Its their retarded pride, that fucked themselves by both sides as well as the corrupt goverment and generals which took all the gold and left the country for dead even before it was apparent that germany and soviet invade. Half of that gold was then gone, "sunked" while shipping. As for other slavs: Croats and Ukranians fought for the Axis side, esspecially Croats who finally got their independence after 500 years or so.

Compared to the USSR they'd happily fight for the Third Reich, at the very least they wouldn't actively resist as partisans and that's already a huge help. Really it's as simple as setting up a few puppet states instead of treating the captured territory as parts of Germany.

>13. But the jews fucked with them since before the rise of the 3rd Reich. They were sabotaging everything they could and poisoned the well just as they poison it today.

Perhaps but what I said is still significantly more effective than any other solution. Always leave people a way out and they'll work hard at it.

>14. See 11. They thought they would just literally Blitz into victory. There was no need for virgin snipers; only chad shocktroops.

They had enough evidence that this was wrong by late 1941 or early 1942, waiting until mid-1943 to resolve it was unacceptable.

>15. I would agree but Finns had their own share of problems with the soviet at the time.

They could have closed it fairly easily.

I forgot to add: don't invade Norway.

This one is questionable since the protection/continuation of Swedish imports was necessary but so many troops had to be wasted garrisoning Norway it's amazing (somewhere between 300,000 and 400,000 because of local resistance and Commando raids).

probably should have gassed all the kikes and then waited for a couple of years for the nation to heal before going to war with a dozen cunnies

also should have fought wars on a different continent so all of those white people didn't get killed

>>535456

Germans can't into logistics.

>>535655

i agree with everything up to

>dont fuck with the jews

a bit late for that, since his whole platform was rightly built around "fuck the jews"

>>535694

>fuuuuck the jews

>fails to carry out the holocaust

>aryans are the beeeest

>allies with mud slime, insect people and bix noods

>kills 50 million whites

I hate hitlerians just for that, neo-hitlerians are dumb scum worshiping failure and labeling themselves so they can be fucked up by the system. WN will go nowhere until it shakes off the chains of the past and makes an effort generating an original movement.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

I'd get banned by the mestizo mods of /pol/ for saying that, and I'm both whiter and more committed to the cause than them.

>>535719

GB2 >>>/leftypol/

>>535461

>there's a classic satire book (and movie adaptation) called "career of Nicodemus Dyzma"

>yfw it's Literally churchill's biography except at the End dyzma rejects the proposition to become prime minister

>>535486

Beck needed to be removed from power and so did every retard in (((national democucks)))

>le epic jew hater dmowski, somehow didn't mind biggest jewish crime organization, soviet union because dey didnu nuffins, need mo money for dem revolushuns

However giving away Gdańsk was an extremely difficult decision, and impossible if Gdynia was supposed to be given along with it.

Unless of course Axis loses regardless, Poland flips back with really stern looks like Finland did and then ask for Gdańsk back because evil gnatzees while keeping USSR at bay and participating fully in all the good boys club

Then again if Poles didn't decode the Enigma for anglos good guys would likely win Europe

However FDR couldn't be allowed to be president and McCollum's memo couldn't be enacted so Japan doesn't get provoked into MUH RIGHTEOUS RETRIBUTION, THEY STRUCK US RIGHT IN TEH HAMBURGERS

>Make one, or at least draw a few lines on the map and call it a day. Use this to recruit as many Ukies as humanly possible and throw them at the reds.

That was our strategy, we even had Based Ukrainian nationalists who would do just that AND reject all claims to Leopolis, unfortunately they didn't win so in the same generation Ukraine got holodomor'd because Soviet union will guarantee better Independence than Intermarium (^:

>>535509

>Destroy the only Country that is standing against Communism, Marxism and Jews

We did it first and stopped Soviet Union from joining together with your commies before a certain talented Austrian painter got to power.

HOWEVER Soviet Union could've been destroyed if Dmowski didn't reach Japan in 1905 and Piłsudski was more successful in his diplomatic trip where he wanted to set up Polish Legions in Asia, arrange arms deal between Poland and Japan and if possible make Japan fuck Russia up further so we can have a successful uprising.

That way 15 years after establishing a good alliance, Soviets could've been obliterated thanks to either just better equipment, or if Japan decided to annex Siberia for its resources, bolsheviks would've been forced either to lose morale by failing to liberate your own people with no mention of liberating the west, or fighting two fronts at the same time. democuck fucked everything up, because Piłsudski's brother Bronisław was an acclaimed ethnographer of the Ainu people, and Piłsudski still got quite a large amount of money to further his cause from the Japanese Government despite being a very exotic, unknown foreigner

>>535740

tl;dreverything was complete chaos

Would it been possible for Germany to bait the UK into invading Ireland? Something like meeting with representatives of their government and various radical organisations, and promising Northern Ireland if only they let them set up a few airfields and use their ports. It doesn't even have to happen, just seem to be real enough for the people in London to panic and do something stupid. Imagine the IRISH-AMERICAN COMMUNITY sperging out all at once, demanding everything from harsh words to joining Germany's war effort. Would be the perfect chance to form both Irish and American Legions. And it would also give a chance for German-Americans and Italian-Americans to raise their voice in support of the axis powers. And American national socialists and fascists too could join the shitstorm.

>>535740

>le epic jew hater dmowski, somehow didn't mind biggest jewish crime organization, soviet union because dey didnu nuffins, need mo money for dem revolushuns

Excuse me, but what?

>Piłsudski was more successful in his diplomatic trip where he wanted to set up Polish Legions in Asia, arrange arms deal between Poland and Japan and if possible make Japan fuck Russia up further so we can have a successful uprising.

Could you tell us more about this?

>>535753

>WN is bad memer is on this board

>he's a martian

Explains why it's been so shit around here for the past month tbh

>>535510

Why do people always make Mosley responsible for having the UK involved. He was the only one that didn't want a war between England and Germany.

>>535775

It's part of the meme.

>>535765

Wow Hilter was a fucking pussy then. Can't even kill any Jews. Why do you fags worship him?

>>535786

Why don't you worship him if he didn't kill any jews?

I mean, you're always defending jews, shouldn't you be all for someone who didn't go out of his way to kill them?

Shouldn't you be more focused on hating Stalin instead since he actually did kill a fuckload of jews on top of shitloads of his own people?

>>535791

So what you're saying is that Uncle Joe is obviously better and not a cuck like Hitler? Gotcha.

>>535510

>Mosley

Nani? He didn't want a war and was even sent to prison when WW2 broke out.

>>535791

> on top of shitloads of his own people?

Did not know he killed any Georgians.

>>535716

While I'd generally agree there are some flaws with your points: specifically comparing end-of-war numbers, comparing numbers without considering individual quality (quality of design matters a lot in some areas, you bring up the wildly obsolete Po-2 but it is not 1:1 comparable to a Hurricane or P-39) and focussing too much on just combat equipment over rear-line support (e.g. generally more than half of the fuel and munitions the USSR used in a given operation 1942-1945 were American in origin).

You have to look at Lend-Lease to the Soviets in stages:

1941-early 1942: lots of British planes and tanks, some American food/trucks etc. Hurricanes (often with pilots and ground crew in the very early period) and Valentines (the UK actually sent all new production Valentines to the USSR while keeping the obsolete 2-pounder variant in service with its own forces, Soviet Valentines were in use until 1945 though increasingly in less important fronts) in particular were influential, Matildas and Churchills less so but still relevant. It's true they both made up a small overall % of Soviet tanks and aircraft but they were a much larger % of actually useful tanks and aircraft (lots of obsolete light tanks were being produced domestically, Soviet aircraft were obsolescent at best and had shit pilots). A lot of the British lend-lease was freed up by America promising to fund production and/or replace what was sent eventually. This is the only period where front-line military equipment was truly the main help, Moscow in particular might have fallen without lend-lease tanks and aircraft, but even here there was a lot of rear-line help (Universal Carriers and trucks, radios and even uniforms).

1942-1943: Shermans were very important on the slav front though planes were also being sent and were a massive help, the vast majority of lend-lease to the Soviets is now directly American though often shipped by the British Merchant Navy (Valentines still being shipped though, Russian tank crews were apparently a fan). Rising importance of trucks, jeeps, food, fuel and munitions over front-line equipment.

1943-1945: Bazookas, trucks, jeeps, half-tracks, food, ammo, fuel (particularly aircraft fuel). The US-produced trucks specifically were massively superior to their Soviet-produced counterparts (actually they became the standard Katyusha platform) and the Soviets only managed to advance so quickly because they could focus all their production on front-line equipment and more or less ignore logistics.

In other words the early period was 'oh fuck the Soviets need modern equipment now', the middle period was a mixture of modern equipment and logistical support and the late period was almost entirely logistics.

Obviously the USA was also supplying the UK heavily too even before Pearl Harbour. This indirectly contributed to tying up German forces on other flanks. Also the British and American bombing efforts were fairly important. Without lend-lease the Soviets would, at best, have turned the Eastern Front into a horrific stalemate due to a complete inability to actually supply any counter-attack. At worst they would have folded entirely.

>>535757

That faggot ruined everything to be honest.

>>535758

>Would it been possible for Germany to bait the UK into invading Ireland? Something like meeting with representatives of their government and various radical organisations, and promising Northern Ireland if only they let them set up a few airfields and use their ports.

No, though they actually did try backing the IRA (who at the time were reduced to something little better than a joke) in WW2 and were partly responsible for the 1916 rising in WW1. The Irish Government (note: very much not the IRA at this point, in fact they'd just fought a Civil War) was working with the UK rather than Germany anyway.

Not done with this thread just yet

>>535817

He killed a lot of his own family members. The man did not give a fuck about his own people.

>>535796

So you don't like jews and want them all dead?

You're an awfully hateful person anon, maybe you should be more like Hitler.

>>536014

>Compared to what, the Curtis Owl?

Compared to the Hurricane, the P-39 which combined are far and away the two most numerous planes sent to the USSR and to any given frontline German aircraft. Also nice cherry-picking, there were less than 30 Curtis Owls sent to the USSR.

>Po-2 was a stealth aircraft, repairable by hammer,

It had its uses sure, a front-line fighter aircraft is not one of them. It's quite hard to repair the plane (or, indeed, revive the pilot) with a hammer when it's been shot down by a massively superior fighter.

>and used up until the 90s by half a dozen countries.

I'm pretty sure it's actually still in use in North Korea at the very least but I fail to see your point, objectively obsolete tanks are still in use worldwide (hell the fucking Sherman is in service in Paraguay). Shit nations will use whatever they can get their hands on, particularly for rear-line/reserve use.

The Po-2 is not the only case of you failing to look into your figures. The 120,000 'tanks' produced during the war figure you quoted includes roughly 35,000 light tanks and a large number of non-tank armoured vehicles. The 'unknown pre-war stocks' would be about 20k and again almost entirely light tanks with a handful of KV-1s, most of these were destroyed in the opening months. The actual figure for directly comparable or superior tanks (T-34 variants and the various heavy tanks) would be around 90,000 for the entire war (in other words 3/4 of your figure).

Production by the end of 1942, the period in question, would be roughly 25,000, 40% of which was light tanks (so 15,000 medium and heavy tanks).

Finally the Sherman remained superior to the T-34 throughout the war (the Soviets even got 76mm Shermans eventually).

>They had 80,000 domestic fighters, 14,000 lend lease fighters was a decent HELP, but it did not win the war for them as the troll claims.

In which year did they have 80,000? That's something like 50% of their total production of all types of aircraft (fighters, bombers, ground attack aircraft, your beloved Po-2s and even non-combat aircraft) in the entire fucking war. Are you talking total fighter production through 1945? Are you counting things like the IL-2 as fighters? Considering that my point was again that the (far superior) LL fighters were essential in 1941 and early 1942 comparing total war production is not valid. You must compare what they had during the same crucial period. Additionally it must be a like for like comparison, not a 1:1 comparison with outdated aircraft or ground-attack planes pressed into the fighter role.

Moving on from that figure most of what the Soviets were producing in the way of fighter aircraft in 1941 and 1942 (and had made pre-war) was inferior and obsolete. Production of more modern designs like the Yak(s) would not be sufficient until early 1943 at the very least. LL aircraft (and indeed tanks) were a small % of the overall total but a high % of the actually usable, modern vehicles.

You're ignoring the fact that most of the pre-war stocks of fighters were destroyed on the ground and the few that managed to get in the air were lost due to inferior pilots, another flaw with simply comparing overall numbers. Finally, once again, the Hurricanes specifically came with trained pilots and ground crew who not only flew their aircraft in combat but helped train up Soviet counterparts.

You've also completely ignored my other points so I'm going to restate them: half of all Soviet munitions and fuel (weighted heavily towards aircraft fuel, something the USSR struggled to produce domestically) came from the USA. The majority of the actually useful trucks which carried these supplies to the front were American made. The food everyone ate was largely American. Jeeps and Bren Carries were LL. Even the fucking boots soldiers wore were were often LL. Lend-Lease went far, far beyond just combat equipment.

Modern front-line LL equipment in 1941 and 1942 is what kept the USSR from collapsing immedietly, rear-line logistical support in 1943, 1944 and 1945 is what let the USSR actually advance.

>At worst, without lend lease, the Soviets would have been a few months later in winning it.

How? Without the early LL Moscow (at the very least) would likely have fallen. Without the later rear-line LL they'd have had insufficient fuel, ammo, food or trucks to move the (admittedly now non-existent) supplies to the front. Assuming the USSR even could have made up these shortfalls it would have to sacrifice production of tanks and aircraft to do so. Winning at all would be lucky, winning it merely a few months later is a fucking joke.

>>536014

>>536115

Actually I'm going to question your claim of only 7,000 tanks too. The Shermans (75mm and 76mm) and Valentines alone come out to at least 8,000 or so which is already larger than that. The Maltias and Churchills come out to around about 1,500 more. The M3 Lee alone was around 1,400. Even the Stuart, the only light tank sent in any real number, is about 1,500. That gives me 12,400, a pretty major increase over your figure.

Now granted the Lee and Maltida had flaws (though in 1941 and early 1942 a tank was a tank) and the Stuart, although a stellar light tank, is still a light tank but the number is quite clearly higher than the 7,000 you appear to have pulled out of your arse. Where exactly did you get it?

>>536115

You're comparing hurricanes to a scout plane? Come on, the hurricane is shitty, but it's not that shitty. I already gave you the number of lend lease fighters vs soviet modern fighters, why don't you compare those?

>he 120,000 'tanks' produced during the war figure you quoted includes roughly 35,000 light tanks and a large number of non-tank armoured vehicles.

So we're going to ignore non tank abortions like M3 Lee, or Tetrarch, Stuart and Valentine light tanks?

>The actual figure for directly comparable or superior tanks (T-34 variants and the various heavy tanks) would be around 90,000 for the entire war (in other words 3/4 of your figure).

You aren't counting pre-war stocks, where most of the lend-lease crap came from. If you're going to delete that,, then delete the Lees and other garbage they got from lend lease numbers.

>In which year did they have 80,000?

In which year did they receive 14,000 lend lease fighters all in one go?

I'm trying to compare apples to apples, wereas you keep desperately trying to compare apples to testicles.

It's not going to work mate.

Also here's a higher source for tanks.

1223 - Stuart

969 - M3 Lee

4100 - Sherman

1 - Pershing

2 - Chaffee

2074 - Valentine

1388 - Canadian valentine

832 - Matilda

258 - Churchill

20 - Tetrarch

6 - Cromwell

= 10874 vs 120,000

Or minus M3 lee and the lights

= 5199 vs 70,000 medium and heavy soviet tanks (T-28, T-34, KV, IS etc)

https://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/

I really don't know of any higher one, and compared to the 120k number there's still no way it supports this claim:

ALLIES WON THE WAR FOR SOVIETS

>>536133

I think that link is high because it conflates Shermans without the 76mm with Shermans with the 76mm, then posts both as seperate numbers.

>>536133

>still ignoring fuel, food, trucks, and all the other things that actually let a war machine run

>>536138

I'll address it when he provides definite searchable numbers.

Not looking for source, I can find source myself, but I need a starting point.

>>536133

>>536150

>>536150

I'll provide you a proper argument once I'm free in a few days but even from your own fucking link:

>During the war, Russia produced only 343,624 cars and lorries due to the heavy commitment of major automobile factories like GAZ to armoured vehicle production. The USA alone provided the Russians with 501,660 tactical wheeled and tracked vehicles, including 77,972 jeeps, 151,053 1-1/2-ton trucks, and 200,622 2-1/2-ton trucks.

>>536150

>>536310

>>536138

>>536133

In fact here's another interesting passage from your own link:

>Under the Lend-Lease act large numbers of American aircraft were assigned to Russia. A total of 14,833 US aircraft of all types were sent to Russia between 1942 and 1944.

>Russian aircraft production 1942-1944 was 42,427 fighters and 11,797 bombers (additional 30,506 ground attack planes), which results that approximately 20 per cent of the fighters and 30 per cent of the bombers of the Red Air Force were American-built and approx. 10 per cent of the fighters were British-built.

14,000/80,000 * 100 gives 17.5% rather than 30%, again not accounting for any disparities in quality.

>So we're going to ignore non tank abortions like M3 Lee, or Tetrarch, Stuart and Valentine light tanks?

Valentine is more of a medium medium tank, at least in 1941-42 terms and, particularly when armed with the 6-pounder, was well liked by both Soviet commanders and tank crews (better, in fact, than the Matlida for various reasons). Mostly this is because, despite paper stats, it was a solid tank in actual field use. That's a total of 3,500 tanks of direct relevance. The M3 Lee, while not the best tank, was far better than the light tanks available and still counted for quite a lot when it arrived (1,000 or so more so 4,500 on top of your 5,200 figure). As usual with the Lee it's a matter of it being a stop-gap rather than the best tank ever produced.

The Stuart I'll agree should be discounted as it was a light tank but not because it's a 'non-tank abortion', it's actually a bloody good light tank. I'll go over the rest of this line (and these points in more detail) later. The Tetrarch is so small in number as to be irrelevant either way but sure ignore it.

And another one:

>In total, Lend Lease armoured vehicles amounted to about 20 per cent of the total number of armoured vehicles manufactured by Russia in WW2. These shipments were the equivalent of 16 per cent of Soviet tank production, 12 per cent of self-propelled gun production, and all of Soviet armoured troop transporter production, because the Soviet Union did not produce armored troop carriers during the war.

Those being bland numbers for the entire war it doesn't account for the relative quality of the relevant vehicles compared to their Soviet counterparts nor when they arrived, something which I've stressed is particularly relevant (extra tanks and planes in 1941 and 1942 matter one hell of a lot more than in 1943-45). Interesting is the line about armoured troop carries, a surprisingly important part of some Soviet assaults.

As I said I'll give you a proper rebuttal once I've got spare time but before that I'm not sure your source is actually supporting everything you're reading into it (and you're still comparing end of war numbers).

More from your own source https://ww2-weapons.com/red-army-1941/ (actually while we're on the subject I'm not seeing its citations and it seems pretty thin as-is, granted you can generally grab these figures from fairly well-documented government sources anyway but you wantt to be careful with that).

>What made the situation worse was that of the 24,000 Red Army tanks in 1941, 29 per cent required major overhaul and 44 per cent required rebuilding.

>In other words, only 27 per cent or about 7,000 tanks were in good enough mechanical condition to last more than a few days fighting before suffering mechanical breakdown.

Also note the table, pre-war tanks (ignoring light tanks) gives you a grant total of 1,400 T-34s and KVs. As established the vast majority of that rather tiny figure would be unusable and most of those that were would be destroyed very early on. Pre-war stocks of tanks are barely relevant in any serious discussion of Soviet tank forces vs LL.

As I said: currently quite busy (blame Christmas) but there's some basic stuff to chew on.

>>536310

Again, we can say that's a help, but it doesn't win the war for them.

>>536320

>Russian aircraft production 1942-1944 was 42,427 fighters and 11,797 bombers (additional 30,506 ground attack planes), which results that approximately 20 per cent of the fighters and 30 per cent of the bombers of the Red Air Force were American-built and approx. 10 per cent of the fighters were British-built.

>Lend Lease armoured vehicles amounted to about 20 per cent of the total number of armoured vehicles manufactured by Russia in WW2.

Doesn't count pre-war manufacture. It drops down to about 10-13% if you account for that, and you have to account for it because some of the lend-lease vehicles predate WWII.

>disparities in quality

Yak is superior to Hurricane, KV-1 superior to churchill, T-80 superior to valentine, and T-34 is superior to the matildas. If you want to talk quality the lend lease gets thrown out the window, most of it is obsolete crap. The only decent thing is from the Americans the Sherman with the good gun, and even that tended to get stuck in East Europe terrain conditions.

>Valentine is more of a medium medium tank

Nah.

>The M3 Lee, while not the best tank

It's a stretch to call it a tank, it's a garbage assault gun. If you're using M3 Lee I want to use a Soviet assault gun.

>The Stuart I'll agree should be discounted as it was a light tank but not because it's a 'non-tank abortion

The Lee is the non-tank abortion. It's

>So we're going to ignore non tank abortions like M3 Lee, or Tetrarch, Stuart and Valentine light tanks?

Not

>So we're going to ignore non tank abortions like M3 Lee or Tetrarch, Stuart and Valentine light tanks?

But now we're talking grammar.

>pre-war tanks (ignoring light tanks) gives you a grant total of 1,400 T-34s and KVs.

Grand total. And if we're ignoring light tanks then the valentine goes out the window. You don't get to compare apples to cinnamon buns, sorry.

>As established the vast majority of that rather tiny figure would be unusable

Established when and by whom? Considering they were actually used in the war, I wouldn't label them "unusable".

>>535550

why are you hiding your flag, moishe?

>>535757

>jewpig repeating the old "germany started ww1" myth

i guess there is really nothing more sick and twisted than a jewish mind

>>536388

jews sound pretty smart.

>>536549

It's true, but there are caveats. Most of those predate it. Most can't be taken out by a muddy road or a slight incline. Most would see its barn like profile and indian smoke signal making aircraft engine long before it saw them.

In peacetime development speed it's like comparing a T-52 with an Abrams.

>>536549

>fucking tankettes

>interwar tanks

>captured tanks

>hungarian tanks

I'm actually impressed, I don't think it is possible to pad the list further.

>>536629

Half tempted to dump it on some normalfag site maybe imgur and see if it turns that into a shitstorm?

>>535456

>What went wrong?

>1.) Dunkirk.

>2.) Air campaign over Britain. (Why didn't they bomb the RAF Airfields back to stone age? Preparation for Operation Sealion, perhaps?)

>3.) North African Campaign. (Pulling Rommel out of Russia and sequestering of equipment that is meant for the campaign in the east, bad juju.)

>4.) Has allies that can't into war. (Italy. Imperial Japan OTOH, has other plans. Killing the kikes ain't in it I guess.)

>4.) Did not stop and fortify the Stalin line and made defenses "in depth".

>5.) Did not prioritize the capture of the Caucasus Oil Fields and other vital resource rich states. (Buna is nice and all, but you need other sources and alternatives.)

>6.) Did not capitalize on the newly liberated USSR satellite states. (Those satellite states still have an axe to grind against the gommies, even up until now.)

>7.) Confusing command structure. (Everything needs to be approved by Uncle Adie himself.)

>8.) Merchant marine vessels getting blown up instead of being taken over and using the allies' own resources against them.

>9.) Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe falling behind tech-wise and failing to secure naval and air superiority on western europe. (RAF & USAF dropping bombs, Jedburgh teams, and OSS agents inna Western Europe.)

>10.) Made the whole war into a political one. (Focus on Stalingrad, and Leningrad instead of getting resources and proper Lebensraum.)

There could be more than these. Feel free to add.

>>536629

>>536549

That fucking abomination of FT17 that finns used ought to be thrown there as well.

>>536718

Did it ever see action against the M4 Sherman with the 75mm? If it did I will throw it in.

>>536789

Those EE-9's and EE-11's I should point out are essentially rebuilt M8 Greyhounds :^)

>>536789

>Bradley is a main battle tank

>No

>NOD UN RRGOOMEN!!! XDDD!!

Fuck off. I don't need an argument to use words as they're meant to be used. And if you're still sticking to your retarded viewpoint that redefining words is ok, I'm going to redefine "argument" to say that sticking to definitions is an argument, and I'm going to ask you to write an essay proving me wrong.

>In the meantime, please observe these images.

What is that to me? I already agree Sherman is a decent tank, it's just not meant for the vast muddy plains of East Europe.

>>536347

>Again, we can say that's a help, but it doesn't win the war for them.

He actually missed out the second paragraph, the full text should read

>Far more critical to the Soviet war effort was the supply of tactical vehicles, primarily from the United States. During the war, Russia produced only 343,624 cars and lorries due to the heavy commitment of major automobile factories like GAZ to armoured vehicle production. The USA alone provided the Russians with 501,660 tactical wheeled and tracked vehicles, including 77,972 jeeps, 151,053 1-1/2-ton trucks, and 200,622 2-1/2-ton trucks.

>The aid was vital, not only because of the sheer quantity, but because of the quality. While Soviet auto­motive production concentrated almost exclusively on antiquated copies of American 1930 lorry designs, the vehicles provided under Lend-Lease were modern military designs with multiple powered axles and useful cross-country capability.

Trucks aren't just 'a help' they're downright vital for any form of modern warfare. Life isn't a video game supplies don't just appear where they're needed. Actually neither do soldiers and they can't all ride on the tanks, all of the Soviet armoured and most of the unarmoured transport capability was sent from the West. Those massive attacks wouldn't have worked without that shit.

>T-80 superior to valentine

Your mind on War Thunder.

>>536389

Good question though to be fair sometimes people will ignore your argument because of your flag. For example /k/'s resident Paraguayan shitposter has made some pretty good points ITT and yet I can still feel pressure to disregard everything he said and laugh at his shit-tier excuse for a country instead. Still seems kinda suspicious for someone to be so blatantly in favour of a single country and have a hidden flag though.

>>536728

>>536549

Did the Sherman actually fight all of those tanks and assault guns? Also you should make a second chart that's for tanks it could fight on an equal basis instead of just tanks it could kill before they could kill it. That'd be more interesting.

>>535610

>Second Reich

>Not First Reich

Shit tier taste.

>>536816

Paraguay can have a single shred of my respect when it wins a one war in its entire existence.

>>536819

>Paraguay can have a single shred of my respect when it wins a one war in its entire existence.

They won the Chaco war.

>>536811

Valentine is a infantry tank in British designation, light tank in other nations designations and historical records. I don't have to argue anything as I'm not the one making the claims. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, he made the claim, let him back it up. A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>calling something a FACT in all caps changes over 70 years of military history

Nah.

>accusing me of saying shit i didnt

>you can count assault guns as tanks but i cant

>you can count light tanks as mediums but i cant

Rest of the post is funny.

Ok, by your retarded standards, Britain single handedly won WWII and every subsequent war for fifty years after that. By standards which are actually fair, reasonable and of use in comparisons the only standards I'm interested in… UK was a help to USSR but the Soviets could have won without, just after taking more casualties and the war lasting a few more months longer.

>>536822

That's more of a case of Bolivia defeating itself but fair enough. Apologies to Paraguay on that insult.

>>536825

>A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Like the T-80 being superior to the Valentine?

>>536828

That's an opinion, not a statement of fact.

Saying the valentine is a medium tank is not an opinion, you're trying to edit history.

>>536837

>That's an opinion, not a statement of fact.

An opinion you've given no evidence for when someone else has supplied a counter-argument.

>Saying the valentine is a medium tank is not an opinion, you're trying to edit history.

I'm not saying shit, I'm telling you to back up what you're saying.

Also

>Editing history

Pretty rich coming from what I've seen of your claims so far.

>>536838

><Either way the Panzer III, certainly the variants in use in 1941 and 1942, was generally considered a medium tank and the 6 pounder valentine is superior to that in every factor other than a two man turret and aesthetics.

Actually the Valentine had comparable and often superior armour to a lot of the PZIV variants through 1943. Often it was up-armoured further in the field (30-40mm more in certain areas, a massive increase) by the Soviets because of the reliable engine the tank as a whole was much more reliable than designs like the T-34 outside of a snowstorm and fact it was already slow so a bit slower didn't matter and then it was really quite difficult to kill. You can occasionally see this appliqué armour on some surviving Russian Valentines and in some period pictures.

The 2-pounder versions were in the strange position of having this heavy armour but with a gun that wasn't anywhere near as good. It wasn't half-bad in 1941 when the Germans were mostly using light and the lighter medium tanks but by 1942 the 2-pounder tanks were most useful as mobile MG mounts and for fucking over halftracks/remaining light tanks (Germany couldn't upgrade production sufficiently)/flanked tank destroyers and so on. Also as I think you said it was small and very quiet so good for digging in for ambushes though that was less use once they went on the offensive and anyway harder for the Soviets to pull off.

It was obviously not a top-tier Medium tank but to claim it was worse than the T-80 or disliked by the Soviets shows a distinct lack of knowledge (or more likely willing ignorance) of the Eastern Front. The UK was actually going to stop production in mid-1943 but the Soviets asked them to continue production of the up-gunned variant for export to them. Reliability, radios, small size/sound profile and other soft factors counted for a lot apparently.

The possible-shill anon is spending a lot of time on this single issue and a very small amount of time talking about other points like food/fuel/trucks/Shermans/jeeps/universal carries/pilots/boots/providing solid numbers for fighter variants in service in 1941 and 42 and so on that's been mentioned repeatedly. Really makes you think…

>>536347

>KV-1 superior to churchill

They're about equivalent, the KV-1 wins on paper but in practice the Churchill had factors like superior sights/crew conditions, armour and reliability outside of winter conditions.

>Yak is superior to Hurricane,

Depends on the variant and even the earlier ones weren't really around in significant numbers until late 42 or early 43.

>>536819

>Did the Sherman actually fight all of those tanks and assault guns?

The 75mm version did indeed although there's a few that it operated in the same theater where said Tanks were present but there's debate whether it actually faced them or not.

And if I add equal footing I would probably have to go into 76mm-105mm territory and expand the Tank list again, mainly include stuff from the Korean War to Early Kosher-Kebab Wars

>>536845

>These two statements are directly contradictory, you were the one who first started redefining terminology.

It's meant to be ridiculous. That was only brought up because he wanted to pad the numbers with trucks and armored cars. Lee numbers in lend-lease aren't so big for me to give a fuck either way.

>Debates don't work like that.

It's not a debate, it's a comparison. I posted official numbers for tanks and aircraft, and he started stacking the other side with trucks and armored cars. So I responded

Ignore your roach instinct calling you to aid another roach releasing stress pheromones, for a just second, and consider what he's saying:

USSR would not have won without allied aid.

Not only is it ridiculous at face value, but it also ignores the fact that Allies were also fighting for their life. It's not like they could use the fucking Valentines on the British Isles or Lees on American soil, so keeping them there would be a waste and let the Wermecht and Luftwaffe kill a LOT more people on both the Allied and Soviet sides. Giving them those vehicles tied up 3/4 of the German military in the Eastern Front, which made Normandy possible in the first place.

Whereas what I'm saying is a rational and historical fucking fact:

Team effort.

>>536839

>>536838

Twice the speed, three times the range. It's shorter and has a slimmer profile, which helps it hide. It had a better off road performance. It used sloping, so despite having similar armor to a valentine, it was much lighter. The gun it had was more suited to light tank duties, it could bust bunkers and elevate to take out higher floors. It had a smaller crew, which means less people lost in high risk operations.

In my opinion all this and more makes it a better light tank. Satisfied?

>I'm not saying shit

Ah I see, the asshole who made the original claim has disappeared in smoke, whereas three other people are telling me to provide an argument for refuting his baseless claim.

Kindly fuck off.

Family is coming over, my hand was just in a turkey, I don't have time for this Wile E. Coyote bullshit.

>>536903

>front line

>behind the urals next spring

A) The front line was literally in Moscow, their factories were making T-34s and the T-34s were firing at the German lines before they exited the assembly hangar.

B) Soviet logistical line was measured in meters, the German in hundreds of kilometers. See >>535716

There is no fucking way in hell Germany was going to successfully occupy USSR, and anything but a successful occupation was going to get them BTFO sooner or later considering the size of the place.

>>536899

>It's meant to be ridiculous.

Mission achieved.

>That was only brought up because he wanted to pad the numbers with trucks and armored cars

Trucks and armoured transports were clearly a separate logistics-related issue that you've repeatedly ignored and continue to ignore. The Lee is also quite clearly neither a truck nor an armoured car.

>Lee numbers in lend-lease aren't so big for me to give a fuck either way.

Somewhere between 970 and 1400 depending on how many were sunk on the way. Considering you've talked about tanks and planes like the Tetrarch and Curtis Owl that numbered in the low 10s and the T-80 which numbered just over 100 I'm not sure on your logic here, please explain.

>USSR would not have won without allied aid.

That's up for debate. On paper the USSR maybe wouldn't have lost militarily without allied aid but it would have taken until something like 1944 to even begin turning it around: you claimed it would only delay the end of the war by a few months when it'd really be 3+ years.

In real terms losing Moscow and the Southern Front, interestingly the two areas where Lend Lease saw most use, probably would have pushed them out of the war politically. The Germans only really intended to hold or take in negotiations the Arkhangelsk to Astrakhan line since that had all the fuel and food and then leave the a Soviet rump state and those are pretty attractive terms if you've already lost everything west of the Urals.

>It's not like they could use the fucking Valentines on the British Isles or Lees on American soil, so keeping them there would be a waste

What is North Africa? The British army often complained to the government about the Russians getting priority for tanks and particularly up-gunned Valentines over them. Lees and Shermans were also diverted from this front to help the Russians. Obviously the UK and USA could use the planes they sent to the Russians too, not just for tactical operations but also to defend the UK against German bombers which were still a thing after the Blitz.

>Giving them those vehicles tied up 3/4 of the German military in the Eastern Front, which made Normandy possible in the first place.

Normandy was actually pushed for by the Soviets, the Western allies were tying up German forces elsewhere too. North Africa and later Sicily/Italy and even Norway as >>535692 said tied up the better part of 3/4 of a million troops and assorted tanks, planes and fuel between them.

>Whereas what I'm saying is a rational and historical fucking fact:

>Team effort.

Actually what you're claiming is that the USSR could have won the war alone and in only a few more months. That's the exact opposite of 'Team Effort'.

(1/2)

>Twice the speed

On roads sure, off-road it was still quite a lot faster but not a full 2x.

>three times the range

Cross-country/off-road range was only about 40km further at 180km vs 140km assuming, of course, that it didn't break down before that due to Soviet production quality. You appear to have compared a theoretical road-only range with an off-road/cross-country range.

>It's shorter and has a slimmer profile, which helps it hide

The T-70 was shorter by 8 inches 20cm in continental and slimmer by a foot or so, height is the only thing that really matters for practical use and that difference isn't huge. The T-80's turret had to be enlarged to fit two crew members instead of one and actually came out around the same height. The Valentine was already a small tank for its effectiveness and the T-70/80 was downright cramped.

>It had a better off road performance.

In certain weather conditions and assuming we're talking about the T-70M/80 rather than the plain old T-70 but that's a given if you're being at all serious.

>It used sloping, so despite having similar armor to a valentine, it was much lighter.

Front-on they're about comparable as the Valentine's was thicker but less sloped, the front of the turrets is similar but with the Valentine being 5-10mm or so thicker. Everywhere else the Valentine is superior specifically the sides of both the tank and turret were 2-3x thicker. The Valentine also had a thicker lower front plate with 60mm to 45mm and comparable sloping. The rear was mildly better armoured but not hugely. The T-70 paid for this sloping with horrifically cramped crew conditions.

Without any in-the-field Soviet additions the Valentine was protected sufficiently against most German tanks before the long-barrelled 75mm became common in later years. Once it did the Russian tank crews would add 30-40mm of often sloped extra armour to the front, turret and turret ring since that was a major weak spot and that did the job as frontal armour would reach 90mm plus with a bit of sloping with this even if it was strictly speaking against the rules. This was possible only due to a highly reliable underlying design.

>The gun it had was more suited to light tank duties, it could bust bunkers and elevate to take out higher floors.

The 2pdr was considered about equal to the Russian 45mm for AT duties if not a little better with good ammo so I assume you're referring to the lack of HE capability the 2pdr had and fair enough. Both version of the 6pdr and the 75mm variants of the Valentine though all had a massively superior main gun.

>It had a smaller crew, which means less people lost in high risk operations.

The T-80 and earlier Valentines both had three crew members, the T-70 which was far far more common than the T-80 only had two in common with other Soviet like tanks. Setting that aside the very reason for the T-80's brief existence was sticking a extra crewman in there so even the Soviets realised this was dumb. Obviously the later Valentines had four crew members but that's something that every sane military adopted after it proved so effective: are you seriously arguing that a two or three-man tank is better than a four man tank in any practical WW2 field use? What the fuck have you been smoking?

The Valentine obviously had better sights, fittings and provision for things like radios.

As a final point the T-70 started production in mid 1942 and the T-80 in mid 1943 and accounting for a few months delay in reaching the front in any real numbers that's late 1942 and late 1943 respectively. The Valentine was produced from 1940 and supplied to the Russians from October 1941. Your comparison is again ignoring the timeframe issue entirely.

>Ah I see, the asshole who made the original claim has disappeared in smoke, whereas three other people are telling me to provide an argument for refuting his baseless claim.

Multiple people calling you out on obvious bullshit isn't surprising because this isn't halfchan. Also if you weren't a newfag you'd know that the dirty Paraguayan scum ITT is a regular poster here on /k/ too feel free to check any thread talking about Paraguay or Argentina if you want to confirm that one. The 2-3 Magyars on /k/ are also common occurrences.

>Family is coming over

They let people like you breed?

(2/2)

I was enjoying lurking this thread so would everyone please just filter the /leftypol/ faggot and go back to explaining how Uncle Adolf could have won the war. You blame us leafs for sperging and derailing stuff but that's nothing compared to this thread.

>>536924

Agreed unless you're the lefty shill changing IDs and revealing your flag only because you know you lost

>>536927

Surely someone would ID hop to a more respected flag like Hungary?

>>536929

Only if they were a hippo.

>>536937

Thanks anon you Hungarians truly are the best of the Strelo/k/s. I don't actually know anything about this subject I was just enjoying learning from the other fags here.

>>536937

>I'm really not familiar with them, so I can't comment it. But the bongs had a plane made of wood and canvas if I remember correctly, and that could work well for them too. Or develop the Volksjäger, but with a name that doesn't ooze desperation.

There were about 320 Heinkel He 162's built, with an additional 600 in production, all made primarily out of wood, and they were one of the fastest and easiest-to-control WW2 jet fighters. They had their fair share of problems, including a 30-minute fuel capacity, but that was mainly the result of rushed production.

>>536937

>As you can see these are all things that are pretty obvious looking back, but would be revolutionary at the time. This is the problem of these kind of threads: we are feel so smart here, but we'd be just as lost if we had to prepare for ww3.

Yeh, all of your suggestions are spot on but you're right about them needing 20/20 hindsight. Also you couldn't swap immediately PZ IV production during the actual war because the Germans needed PZ IIIs or anything else right now. Basically they had no gap to perform a hard swap and had to phase things out slowly. Something they could have done without too much magical foresight would be to go for motorisation right from 1934 or 1935. Removing horses from the logistics situation would have been nice and doable with planning and was something that'd be quite obvious to anyone who was looking at what everyone else was doing.

>But the bongs had a plane made of wood and canvas if I remember correctly, and that could work well for them too.

That'd be the Mosquito, great for a bunch of weird niche uses including as a night fighter which obviously the Germans would benefit from.

>>536940

Is making me feel weird part of your plan?

>>536943

Indeed, that's the Volksjäger I've referred to. I imagine it would have been quite nice as a defensive plane. Honestly, at that point of history I can see planes being a lot more efficient than ground-based AA.

>>536945

Indeed, if they started to actually gear up for war in 1933, then replacing all horses with trucks would have been a trivial task. Instead they were spending money on surprisingly random things, and I'm still not sure how their economy actually performed. And maybe they really needed all those gigaprojects to earn the people's approval.

>you couldn't swap immediately PZ IV production during the actual war because the Germans needed PZ IIIs or anything else right now

I'm speaking about switching to the Panzer IV even before the outbreak of the war. Also, they had close ties to the USSR, spying on them and learning of the T-34 would have been possible.

>>536949

>Indeed, if they started to actually gear up for war in 1933, then replacing all horses with trucks would have been a trivial task. Instead they were spending money on surprisingly random things, and I'm still not sure how their economy actually performed. And maybe they really needed all those gigaprojects to earn the people's approval.

Yeh even 1937 or 1938 would have given them enough time and at the very least they should have started on the war stuff in 1939 like the UK and France.

>I'm speaking about switching to the Panzer IV even before the outbreak of the war.

Oh, well that could work but they'd need to know about the flaws in the existing doctrine of III for AT and IV for anti-infantry for that to work.

>Also, they had close ties to the USSR, spying on them and learning of the T-34 would have been possible.

This is another thing that is definitely correct though, there was no excuse to have such poor intelligence on what the Soviets were doing.

>>536949

I figured you were saying that the He 162 was never produced, as I misread you in the post I replied to. ("Or develop the Volksjäger, but with a name that doesn't ooze desperation.") But yeah, the He 162 was just built too damn late, like the Sturmgewehr.

>Indeed, if they started to actually gear up for war in 1933

I don't believe Germany could have started immediate, full war economy by 1933, not only because of the economic problems back then but also because of the threat that the Allies posed to Germany. One wrong move, and Germany gets invaded and Hitler deposed.

>then replacing all horses with trucks would have been a trivial task.

One of the main problems with replacing all the horses for trucks would be the massive fuel requirements it would take, though I suppose the Germans would have built some more synthetic fuel plants or taken more oil from their allies and occupied lands to compensate.

>Instead they were spending money on surprisingly random things, and I'm still not sure how their economy actually performed. And maybe they really needed all those gigaprojects to earn the people's approval.

I believe the main point of the gigaprojects like the Autobahn was to increase the popular morale and give the economy the boost it needed to get right back up again.

>>536921

You're picking and choosing qualities of the valentine. You want to pick the 75mm, but then ignore that the 75mm valentine had an extra crew member and less side armor. Come on.

You know I'm right, valentine was built to obsolete "tank goes as fast as infantry" doctrine.

>They let people like you breed?

>He says while his wife is getting bred by pajeet's 2 incher

>>536927

Claiming victory is not an argument, coward.

>>536960

>Claiming victory

>>536960

>You want to pick the 75mm

I don't 'want to pick' anything, I'm stating that it's an objective fact that both types of 6pdr and the 75mm were all superior main guns to the Russian 45mm.

>but then ignore that the 75mm valentine had an extra crew member

Firstly I stated right here: >>536921

<earlier Valentines both had three crew members

<Obviously the later Valentines had four crew members

So I did not ignore it you're just unable or unwilling to read what I've written. Secondly are you really saying that a three man turret is in any way a downside in comparison to a two man turret? Are you also still claiming that a two or three man tank is better than a four man tank? Surely by this logic it's also the case that the T-70 is then better than the T-80 since it has only a one man turret? And again: what the fuck are you smoking?

Even your claimed benefit of 'less men die if it gets hit' doesn't work because the T-70/80 and most other Russian tanks were too cramped to get out of in a hurry, the heavy sloping and poor quality steel contributed to heavy spalling casualties and Russian ammo storage conditions and poor quality contributed to reasonably common catastrophic explosions. There's a reason they had the highest crew morality per knocked out tank in WW2.

>and less side armor.

Still more side armour than a T-70/80.

>You know I'm right, valentine was built to obsolete "tank goes as fast as infantry" doctrine.

How it was intended to be used has no bearing on how it actually worked in practice.

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=HV2nIkqnGBI

I'm not sure if codemonkey lets us embed hooktube yet but this thread reminds me of this video

>>537050

spandau boys in the house

>>537050

>Lindymeme

But anyway Chodemonkey even updated the FAQ a few months to say what sites are supported and hooktube is on there but I can't seem to embed that link. Anyone know why?

https://8ch.net/faq.html#which-websites-can-be-embedded

>>537045

>All three roles suffer massively. God help you if you're also trying to command other tanks.

You seem to suffer under the delusion that light tanks act like medium tanks. This delusion is probably why Valentine failed at the one thing it was made for - supporting infantry.

>Thirdly you're comparing turrets only, the driver down in the hull of the T-70/80 had fuck all room

>Fourthly you're comparing a T-70 turret to a Valentine turret rather than a T-80 turret

I posted an image that shows the early generation of valentine and the T-70 having similar internal space. I'm not capable of pretending that expanding turrets on both to include an extra crewman would result in less space on just one of the tanks. But then again I'm not a roach ETERNALLY BUTTHURT over someone implying his hive was crooked twenty fucking posts ago.

Show images of internal space of the T-80 and for once in this fucking thread prove a single of your fucking claims. I'm sick of disproving your BASELESS claims with images.

>>537069

>still ignoring fuel, food, trucks, and all the other things that actually let a war machine run

>>537069

>You seem to suffer under the delusion that light tanks act like medium tanks.

Explain why the Russians added an extra crewman with the T-80 then. What makes them and indeed every other military in the world wrong and you right?

>Show images of internal space of the T-80 and for once in this fucking thread prove a single of your fucking claims. I'm sick of disproving your BASELESS claims with images.

Why don't you show an image of the interior of a T-80? I asked first after all. Is it perhaps possible you tried to find one with a simple google search and, as it was so rarely used, could not?

>>537073

Wars are won by the side with the least men in the turret anon nothing else matters.

>>537062

>doesn't even have the balls to link to someone he's insulting passive-aggressively

Quintessentially British.

https://files.catbox.moe/jhsm0d.jpg

>>537073

Addressed it awhile ago bud.

>>537076

>Why don't you show an image of the interior of a T-80?

Because I didn't make the claim that everyone dies in one because they're too tiny. Why the hell am I under obligation to prove your claims????!?!

>>537079

>Addressed it awhile ago bud.

Please show everyone where.

>Because I didn't make the claim that everyone dies in one because they're too tiny. Why the hell am I under obligation to prove your claims????!?!

You did however try to compare an empty T-70 turret to a full Valentine turret. If finding a crewed T-80 turret is too hard I'll meet you halfway and say an empty one is fine.

>>537084

>a bit Janet and John

Anon I don't thing bongs under a certain age will get that reference never mind the more colonial posters. Friendly reminder the modern versions have been given the 'multicultural' treatment à la nuThomas the Tank Engine.

>>537084

>bitchboi finally musters the acorns to respond directly

>spaghetti everywhere

Can't handle a little bit of banter?

>>537090

See >>536347

>You did however try to compare an empty T-70 turret to a full Valentine turret.

What? The hell is your point, its just for showing internals, you can see where the T-70 guy would sit. Why don't you direct your industrial strength nitpicking autism into supporting your own fucking claims, still waiting on T-80 internals. I don't care if it's full of dildos just show the internals.

>>537107

>Until then please continue to allow everyone to laugh at you.

Of course, laughter of retarded children is a reward.

Only an absolutely british turdwank would consider denying people the right to laugh.

>>537113

its time to stop and think about your life choices

>>537115

They're fine.

>>537105

>See >>536347

>Again, we can say that's a help, but it doesn't win the war for them.

You mean this is your response to the issue of trucks, food, ammo and so on? In what world is that addressing the issue? You wrote off the entire field of logistics something that has decided entire wars at least as far back as the Romans with a one-sentence non-answer. How is being supplied with the food you eat, the fuel your tanks and planes use, the ammo you fire, the boots you wear and the trucks that move both these supplies and yourself to the front line simply 'a help'. Where would the Russians get these things from otherwise?

In fact I don't even have to bother going further into this retardism because we have yet another case of your own arguments being self-contradictory: let's examine this post >>535716. Consider the reverse situation of Russia not only having to cover that distance back to their own borders but then moving all the way through Germany to Berlin: surely they now have the same or worse problem of massive supply lines with German factories right behind the front line. How do they manage to deal with this at all without Western trucks and supplies? How do they manage to do it 'in only a few more months' than in reality? Why is logistics a war-winning matter for the Germans but merely a minor consideration for the Russians? Why exactly have you hidden your flag and why did a leaf suddenly appear trying to end this 'argument' after your bullshit was called out? Suspicious how he only made three posts right when you stopped and you started posting again when he stopped. Maybe he's just an autist and I'm reading too much into it but the timing was impeccable.

>Why don't you direct your industrial strength nitpicking autism into supporting your own fucking claims, still waiting on T-80 internals. I don't care if it's full of dildos just show the internals.

You were asked first and, after realising your standard wikipedia/first link on google 'research' wouldn't turn it up, tried to turn it around on me that shit just won't fly. You clearly went and dug up pictures of the Valentine's and the T-70's turrets so why not also post one of the T-80's? Alternatively you could just finally admit you picked the barely-used T-80 out from the tanks available in War Thunder and we can move on.

If we're going to start on unsupported claims I'm still waiting to see some evidence for a one man turret being better than a two or three man turret in a tank, light or otherwise. You are after all making a claim that flies in the face of all historical and military orthodoxy so you'd better have something good to back it up. If you want evidence against the idea that a one man turret was an advantage of the T-70 the very existence of the T-80 should suffice. Please explain why the Russians even produced the it at all if the T-70's one man turret was not a only not a problem but an advantage over other designs.

>>537121

>Thinks I'm a Bong

Are you a dirty fucking pole or something?

>>537122

>Implying I'm not a Rhodesian exile

>>537129

If only anon, if only.

>>537130

Unfortunately I had to eat my shortshorts to survive.

>>537131

Do you at least still have your FAL?

>>537132

Disassembled it and smuggled it through God's hideyhole. It got a bit of extra brown to the camo but to not have it well I may as well be dead.

>>>/v/14038748

Dear /k/: please take your retard back. We don't want him. Love from /v/.

>>537869

Why? Are you mad he had to break a simple concept down for you?

>>537879

>In WW2 the 3 Man Turret was a bad idea

Nice proxy.

>>537896

So my assumption was right.

>>537121

>so far not a single source or reference

>cant counter my arguments with help from a half dozen intellectually stunted peons

>accuses me of being behind a proxy because 8ch can't resolve my ip

>he himself resolves to fucking UK but claims to not be british

This is rich.

>>537869

>>537896

Are you fuckers trying to passive aggressively tell me off, because I can't tell…. your bumbling attempts at strawmen are too dislocated from what was actually said.

I don't remember saying a one man turret was better than a two man turret, it's a strawman here >>537120 of a strawman here >>537045 of a strawman here >>536965.

If someone ignores your strawman, the proper thing to do is NOT to keep making it even more ridiculous.

>>537899

In what universe is a two man turret better than a three man turret?

>>537910

>He's still at it

Hop lel.

>>537910

>I don't remember saying a one man turret was better than a two man turret, it's a strawman here >>537120 (You) of a strawman here >>537045 (You) of a strawman here >>536965 (You).

You were arguing less crew was an advantage. The three-man Valentine's extra crew over the two-man T-70 was in the turret. The four-man Valentine's extra crew over the three-man T-80 was also in the turret. Obviously the early Valentine and the T-80 have the same number of crew so there's no comparison there. In both cases this is a direct upgrade and thus your argument of less crew being better directly translates to less men in the turret being better: if you want to argue against the orthodoxy of the three man turret in WW2 then the burden of proof lies squarely on you.

Now true you did not originally bring up the T-70 but as we've been through time and again the T-80 is in all but name a minor modification of the T-70 that was fielded in very low numbers two years after the first Valentine arrived in Russia and was so rare you've still been unable to provide the requested picture even when the criteria was loosened.

However if you insist on focussing only on the T-80 against the later versions of the Valentine I'm willing to hear all of your arguments only for the two-man turret against the three-man turret. That should be interesting enough in and of itself.

>he himself resolves to fucking UK but claims to not be british

Given that he's also claiming to be a Rhodesian Bush War veteran living in Rwanda and smuggling FALs around up his arse I think he's probably just shitposting. I'm quite impressed it went over your head though.

>>537929

>Implying any true Rhodesian would joke about smuggling FALs up their ass

You've just made an enemy kiddo.

>>536899

>It had a smaller crew, which means less people lost in high risk operations.

>>536960

>then ignore that the 75mm valentine had an extra crew member

>>537038

>T-80 had three crew to later valentines four but then id have to also admit its a lower personnel requirement

Somebody obviously thinks that a smaller crew is better in ww2 tanks.

Also

>still ignoring fuel, food, trucks, and all the other things that actually let a war machine run

>>537929

>You were arguing less crew was an advantage.

No I was arguing that the smallest necessary crew was an advantage, in the specific unit of WWII light tanks, in the specific situation of the highly dangerous reconnaissance missions they did. You generalized that ridiculously specific situation all the way to a Sherman like a fucking idiot then kept strawmanning all the way until you were a step away from claiming I said that 1 man tanks are best. And I would have ignored that strawman like all your other pathetic attempts. That was just ONE of the many advantages the T-80 had, you hooked onto it and strawmanned it because you couldn't refute the others.

>That should be interesting enough in and of itself.

Reload speed isn't as much of an issue for a light tank because it's not a major requirement for infantry support or reconnaissance, and the shells usually aren't so heavy to need it. Therefore having a dedicated loader and dedicated gunner isn't as important as having a dedicated commander with binocs doing the recon.

I would say your response would be interesting but I'd be lying, you're probably going to focus on a single term in what I just said above, and then redefine it or nitpick the definition.

>fielded in very low numbers

In what numbers was the 76mm valentine fielded in Russia? The one you keep claiming is a medium tank, remember. Unless you've changed it to claim the TWO POUNDER Valentine is a medium tank?!!?!?

>>537932

>quote mining

>ignoring an addressed point

You're a fucking idiot.

>>537937

I bet you thought the Maginot Line was a great idea.

>>537939

Static fortifications in general are a bad idea, they require more resources and provide less protection. Scythians proved that 3000 years ago.

>>537957

>alium is against building walls

something tells me youre an illegal alium

>>537961

There's already a force with half a million troops and actual equipment (mines, rockets, vehicles, air power) literally called the national guard that can seal the border so not even a squirrels fart can get through, but you think a fence and twenty thousand poorly equipped volunteers is a superior solution. OK that's your opinion and you can have it, I like Trump but I think his carpenter reflexes led him wrong on this issue. A simple minefield, and running frequent NG and military exercises on the border, would solve the problem for less money and work better. Do you know we actually pay people to pretend to be terrorists and sneak around on the ground so we can train our UAV pilots at observing and tracking people on the ground? Or that we send our guys to Colombia to track drug dealers to give them experience? Just redirect those activities to protecting the border. It wouldn't even require funding, just an executive signature.

fucking burgoblins

>>537961

Everyone knows walls do not work. Ask the pope, Israel, Jordan, Ancient China, Israel and Israel. Oh yeah and Israel.

>>535461

the eternal jew happened.

>>538266

> Ask the pope,

Literally a wall to keep out fans.

>Israel, Jordan , Israel and Israel. Oh yeah and Israel.

I think shooting anyone who approaches the wall and dropping bombs on any tunnel makers is doing more of the protection than the actual concrete barrier.

>, Ancient China,

Actually didn't work, they got BTFO by Mongols anyway. And later they got BTFO by British and Japanese and the walls, facing the wrong direction, were no help.

If Trump just builds a wall and doesn't prevent crossing by deadly force, it will be useless. And the first democrat president will destroy it, just so s/he/it can virtue signal, just for the kennedy-like photo op: "tear down that wall mr.president"!

>>537975

>>537975

How the fuck do you not realize this: We want a wall because it is not discretionary. The govt *does not* want to guard the border. They deliberately let people in. This is why they constantly talk about the wall as a metaphor and mention drones and sensors and shit– all those things can be ignored or turned off. The gang of eight amnesty Bill promised more for "border security" than the wall could have cost even in the most delusional libtard fantasy.

When Pete Wilson was governor of California he sent the national guard to the border and facilitated prop 187 to keep the beaners out.

The u.s. Federal govt fought him because he was never supposed to actually stop them, only talk about it

>>538435

>When Pete Wilson was governor of California he sent the national guard to the border and facilitated prop 187 to keep the beaners out.

If you want secure borders this needs to happen nationwide again. I was asked if a stationary barrier is a good strategy, I said it wasn't. Applies to the border wall as well, especially if the problems with government aren't solved.

It's a bandaid. Worse, a wall with no men on it, is just a speedbump.