/k/ - Weapons

Geography of Vietnam is ill-suited for conventional warfare, and the US wanted only to waste money with wasteful bombing missions.

>>667099

Arty would have had limited application due to the dense forests that covered a majority of vietnam and wouldn't be as effective.

>Also do you think we should have used actual chemical weapons for the jungle

>what is agent orange

The US made massive use of artillery; firebases were dug in across the countryside in an effort to give permanent artillery support to every US controlled area, patrol bases typically had extra mortars inside the wire, and mortars were carried by most patrols as well.

Extremely heavy use of artillery was one of the defining features of the Vietnam war, with the US Army and ARVN fighting for control of hilltops to install artillery pieces, and NVA and VC fighting to deny unoccupied hilltops or overrun established firebases.

And as much shit as the Soviets gave us in the UN and international courts for using the xm193 in our M16s, I don't think that dumping VX on random swaths of jungle would have been a wise political move.

>>667144

We were already dumping Agent Orange though.

>>667151

No one officially knew it caused birth defects at the time. They thought it was as harmless as DDT insecticide. Which turns out also caused birth defects.

>>667184

When your 76mm Shermans and 90mm Pershings are wiping the floor with the opposition, why would you strain your logistics so much to bring out a massive, unreliable hulking mass made to defeat a very specific tank that was confirmed to not be in this theater?

>>667185

>When your 76mm Shermans and 90mm Pershings are wiping the floor with the opposition,

Weren't the losses 1:2? Half the american tanks broke down before reaching battle.

>>667099

Arty retards couldn't make proper fuses, so the shells kept exploding on contact with leaves of the jungle, or 10 seconds after burying itself in mud of a rice paddy.

American arty basically stupide'd itself out of existence.

>>667184

Because there was no need for it.

The Norks wiped the floor with the South tanks (T-34-85 VS M-24).

Then landing at Inchon happened, leaving the Norks tanks trapped, they were basically all abandoned/lost.

They China sent a bunch of people to get executed by US ammunition and never committed armored assets, while the soviet shipped a bunch of SU-76 as infantry support and that was basically it.

Since there was no tanks in front of them the US tanks had nothing to do and where just used as infantry support, which anything with small arms rated armor and a gun can do.

Add the fact that NATO didn't want to ship out the already badly outnumbered units from Europe (that were getting all the new toys first) and most tanks in Korea were WWII era relics.

>>667223

Pershings were too heavy to move around most of the time, yeah.

US arty in Vietnam performed fine. It's just not interesting to talk about.

>>667223

Pershings had serious problems starting in the brutally cold winter. Their non-orbital gear transmission and heavy weight also made hill climbing a pain. These problems were only solved with the M46 Patton. In the meantime they could be kludged back into working order by half chewing tootsie rolls and sticking them to the cracked fuel and coolant lines. The M103 was at the same time, known for being a maintenance hog and a bit of a nightmare to keep running. Basically no one wanted the Pershing around ether because it was overkill for the battle to begin with on top of the part that it didn't start in the -50 degree weather which was something the M4 and M24 didn't seem to mind. The M103 would have been those issues taken up to 11.

>>667370

Those are very dangerous words to speak around these parts.

a lot of the redleg stuff you hear about from vietnam were actually, because of firebase locations and the nature of the enemy (guerilla/insurgency etc) in some places, are infantry-esque firefights where they were overrun

i.e. sammy davis and the like

>also beehive rounds are some of the most badass things ever fired from a cannon period

>>667908

>>667907

Was this because they kept all the good shit, like the m103 for example, in Europe in case the Soviets decided to let their nuts hang

>>668462

The video said in the beginning that the majority of the equipment was in Europe. And again, the M103 was not wanted or needed in Korea due to the lack of IS-3 tanks in that theater on top of its dubious maintenance needs. The M103 was in Europe because of the expected deployment of such IS-3 tanks but then it turned out it was nothing but a parade piece. The Army sold their M103s to the Marines who held onto them until the early 60s if only because they could just have new tanks for cheap if I remember correctly.

>>668462

there were suspicions abound that Vietnam was a Soviet distraction for an offensive in Europe.

>>667908

>>667907

I didn't know about any of this, that's really cool.

>>668484

Something about the presence of pigment and how it affects the springiness of the hair maybe?

>>668517

Tendency towards curliness in humid environments, probably.

>>668462

We would have loved to bring more shit over, but our logistical capabilities were in such shit shape due to Truman-era budget cuts that we were stretched thin just supplying the existing forces.

>>667184

I wish that tank actually saw use.

>>667908

It made me really sad that they scrapped all those Russian, German and Japanese vehicles.

>>671230

Me too, same with the conqueror.

>>668517

>>668484

>>668522

Water vapor condenses in the tiny cracks in human hair, making it stretch, thus triggering the mechanism the human hair is attached to.

No idea why blond hair is required, maybe it has more/less places for vapour to condense.

What is required though is that every hair is same length and one device contains hair from one individual so it can be individually calibrated.

I used shit called hygrometer in college to measure humidity

>>671273

Are they still used with human hair today?

>>667099

Most CHEMICAL weapons were legitimate herbicides and pesticides. Rather than starting a fire in a moist jungle, crop dusting seemed to be the next best thing…for just clearing canopy to see the ground. When it came to killing kids, we know what call was made.

CS (tear gas) was EXTENSIVELY used in Vietnam to deny areas and to plug the tunnels. It would piss off animals and sometimes rodents, and obviously stir a reaction that would essentially incapacitate a person.

Surprised no one has mentioned the use napalm and WP rounds….

>>671285

>>671285

>CS (tear gas) was EXTENSIVELY used in Vietnam to deny areas and to plug the tunnels. It would piss off animals and sometimes rodents, and obviously stir a reaction that would essentially incapacitate a person.

It sounds like you are saying that rodents, irritated by the gas started incapacitating people?

That cant be right.

>>671289

>gas cans that spread rabies

Gives a whole new meaning to tunnel rats.

>>671283

There are still some old ones that do use human hair (we used the one with human hair to demonstrate the principal).

Although they are mostly replaced by modern ones that use synthetic materials or some sort of material that changes electric resistance depending on humidity level.

I remember watching some documentary where they used human hair as a croshair for bomber sights, so using human hair for its properties goes further than some measuring instrument

Polite Sage for offtopic

>>671233

Don't forget the millions of rifles and all the ammo dumped into the Sea of Japan and the English Channel at the end of the war.

>>671405

>its the local turbo-retard again

>>671423

They weren't any worse than the Pershings when it came to reliability or electronics. They would have made good breakthrough tanks to combat chink swarms. Their 120mm HE shells would've been good for breaking zerg rushes and providing good infantry fire support. They would;ve been a good morale booster for us and moral breaker for them.

>>667099

>Was the united states lacking good artillery during the Vietnam war?

Bringing firepower to bear on spots wasn't much an issue in this war

>I seen all the talk about the m14 and m16, but I don't hear about the main killer in wars.

Not the main killer in Vietnam, or even in WW2 - in both the main killers were airpower

>Also do you think we should have used actual chemical weapons for the jungle

You DID use actual chemical weapons, and you shouldn't have.

>>671453

You faggots still don't get the big picture. Everyone was expecting those IS-3s to come crashing through the Berlin wall at any moment and when that moment came we needed to make sure we had the tank specifically made to stop the IS-3 dead in its tracks to be there. We did not make a hell of a lot of M103s and all of them were in a place where they could not have easily made it to the Korean peninsula. Their big guns would have done the job, yes, but so did the four other kinds of lighter and easier to move tanks already in Korea and around the pacific theater in close reach of the peninsula. And along with moving the vehicles themselves though Germany and Turkey and then through the very politically hot Suez you would have to make sure they got all the spare parts and proprietary ammo they would need to keep functioning in that theater. It would be the definition of too much trouble for what its worth because for the effort to just move a single measly platoon of 4 M103s you could have landed maybe 100 or more M24s or M4s that were already on standby in Japan for the same cost. And that 75mm gun can spit HE out a lot quicker than the 120.

>>673251

> IS-3 was a total ruse and not even expected to fight

Except for the several times they did fight and did pretty well.

>>673278

I'm going to need a citation on that. Because 24 total shells in the ammo stowage and no proper recoil system for the gun along with its laughably short service life points to it being nothing but a scary parade float that would be used to run over protestors at the worst of it. Again, all the books and historians Ive ever read or heard state it was just a bomber gap ploy to get the west to waste money.

>>673280

>During the early 1950s, all IS-3s were modernized as IS-3M models. The Egyptian Army acquired about 100 IS-3M tanks from the Soviet Union.[7] During the Six-Day War, a single regiment of IS-3M tanks was stationed with the Egyptian 7th Infantry Division at Rafah and the 125th Tank Brigade of the 6th Mechanized Division at Kuntilla was also equipped with about 60 IS-3M tanks.[7] Israeli infantry and paratrooper units had considerable difficulty with the IS-3M when it was encountered due to its thick armor, which shrugged off hits from normal infantry anti-tank weapons such as the bazooka.[7] Even the 90 mm AP shell fired by the main gun of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) M48 Patton tanks could not penetrate the frontal armor of the IS-3s at normal battle ranges.[7] There were a number of engagements between the M48A2 Pattons of the IDF 7th Armored Brigade and IS-3s supporting Egyptian positions at Rafah in which several M48A2s were knocked out in the fighting.[7]

>>673283

Owned.

>>673284

>>673283

>1963 tank has better gizmos than the 1945 one.

You think?

The fact that the IS-3 (with inbred retards manning them) were capable to fight M48 on equal ground is what is amazing.

>>673295

Equal ground? They were wtfpwnd.

>>673311

I think he's suggesting that the IS-3 was a piece of shit compared to the M48 exactly because everything on it was obsolete, and the thick armour couldn't save it, and that's why it's a wonder that they weren't just obliterated.

>>673312

Ahh, ok. Then I have no issues with what the Frenchie said.

The IS-3 would have been a genuine threat all the way to the M47 since its tiny little cannon couldn't have done much against it.

After that, even the T-10 upgrade became useless against NATO and the ruskies eventually realized that.

>>673311

You're still missing the fact that these tanks came out ages before in different conditions.

EQUALIZE THE CONDITIONS

EQUALIZE THE TIMEFRAME

Of course their build quality sucks:

1. Their factory owners got shot for being capitalist in the 1930-1935.

2. Their factories got moved around '35-'40 because planning "comittees" thought it would be more efficient

3. Their factories got continuously shelled and bombed 1940-1045 where T-34s rolled off the production line and began firing on German positions before even fully rolling out of the factory doors

4. Most of the tanks they're being compared to were made decades later

Like a T-34 is a 1934 design and I see it being compared to late model PzIVH and J (a ten years later design!) or even Panthers as if this is normal. Or Shermans which were designed from the ground up after seeing 5-6 years of combat data rolling in from Europe. You can't compare that build quality to something built in Germany or America.

The fact of the matter is that when people argue online, we ARE arguing designs and NOT local differences in quality, by the metric of "if T-34 was build by America/Germany, would it be better than tanks built by America/Germany before 1935". Which is a no brainer answer, and the reason why so many people get pissed at herpaderps saying otherwise.

>>673309

And this is why the M-103 and Conqueror tanks were retired so quickly. Once everything had an L7 there was no need for an entirely different tank with different parts and different shells to be lugged around. But even then, I doubt the IS-3 would have done much damage even to tanks with 90mm guns that could avoid direct confrontation and exploit their bad optics and low ammo count.

>>673311

But the Sherman had all the things you listed. Excellent crew comfort, periscope mounted low magnification unity sight for the gunner and gyroscopic stabilizer for superior hill fighting capability and ammo that fit in the breach and went bang.

>>673324

I don't quite see it because the Panzer 4 was also a 1930s design made when tanks were literally illegal to make in Germany. And like the T-34 it had a lot of changes done to it over the course of the war to keep up to date.

>>673315

>a pair of 7.62mm machine guns in the back of the turret

I could never understand the design purpose of this. Was it supposed to be used during retreating?

>>673356

The KV-2 and some other earlier designs had a similar thing. It was for protection against infantry most likely before they developed proper combined arms tactics.

>>673348

But then you'd compare Panzer III/IV early variants to the T-34 itself right? Except that's not whats happening, every time the comparison comes up its shermans, late model panzer series and PANTHERS to early T-34.

>like the T-34 it had a lot of changes

As in? It got re-barreled in 57mm and 85mm which cut through all contemporary tanks like a plasma torpedo, but T-34 never gets mentioned with these guns. It's always the fucking 76mm pop gun. The Panzer series changed radically during its lifetime, changing dozens of guns and armor systems and radios and drive types…. meanwhile the T-34 only really had no serious changes in turret shape, hull shape, armor types, drive types, or manufacturing methods. When the pop gun expired they just put in a bigger gun that took up more crew space and reduced effectiveness.

If you compare early T-34 to early PZIII or PZIV it isn't even a contest.

>>673368

The T-34 went through at least 5 different turrets that I can think of as it evolved. The Panzers were made with the bigger guns and heavier armor in mind, but they could not build them like that until later under the arms treaties they were put under.

And no, the panzer 3 with the long barreled 50mm gun was wiping the floor with T-34s at the opening stages of barbarosa due to it having superior optics and crew comfort that the Russians never thought to take into account.

>>673371

>at the opening stages of barbarosa

Its often said that Soviets had 20,000 tanks at the start of Barbarossa. This number counts mostly retired tankettes and obsolete BT tanks, many of which weren't even in Europe at the time.

The truth is that ~900 T34s were the only medium tanks capable of holding back over 3000 comparable german medium tanks (PzIII/IV) until the introduction of a cannon to specifically kill the T34 itself. Of course a cannon introduced specifically to kill the T34 is going to kill the T34, but barbarossa would not have succeeded without the german ability to upgun to meet the threat.

>>673377

> barbarossa would not have succeeded without the german ability to upgun to meet the threat.

T-34s that early in the war were garbage without radios. Visibility sucked due to lack of a cupola and decent periscopes. They could have 20,000 of them, half of them would get abandoned and the rest blown up anyway.

>>673366

>It was for protection against infantry

But why in the rear?

>>673456

Because if the enemy infantry gets behing the tank, then they don't have to rotate the whole turret to fire at them. Also, climbing up to the back of the hull is suicidal now. Today you don't see it, because the new standard is to have a remote weapon station on the top that can fire in any direction, including behind the turret.

>>673456

In case they came from behind. It makes sense when you remember they were coming from designs with multiple turrets.

>>673425

Sherman also had a partial gun stabiliser.

>>673388

>The leaf. Behind every shitpost, as usual.

In what universe was that shitposting?

>>673574

>boomer believing in the invincibility of the m4-ronson

You probably aren't even aware of your own idiocy, hm?

https://militaryhistorynow.com/2017/09/12/tank-busting-blowing-up-the-myth-of-the-mighty-m4-sherman/

The ronson was a death-trap. Luckily, the usa could field 20 times the numbers of it compared to all German tanks ever made. And still lost 4000+ tanks with total air superiority fighting an outnumbered foe with no fuel and weak supply chain.

All that so jews could enslave the entire world.

>>673580

ups, 5 times at least

>>673580

>unironically posting that article

Instead of reading the article, the comment by Hydro6104 is much better

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html?m=1

This mostly has to do with how shit T34 was, but references the study showing high Sherman crew survival

http://knowledgeglue.com/dispelling-myths-surrounding-m4-sherman/

This one show Soviet penetration testing results

https://www.c-span.org/video/?433629-2/design-history-m4-sherman-tank-world-war-ii

Moran has plenty of sources about reliability and crew survivability. Tank was fine chill your Krautism

>>673673

>>673574

Neither the Lee nor the Sherman sucked.

The reality is that the US army and especially the US leadership sucks at maneuver warfare.

It sucked balls during the whole war (despite fighting mostly German rear guards and depleted units), it sucked balls during the Korean war, it sucked balls during Vietnam, it even sucked balls against Iraq in 1991 (the republican guard outmaneuvered the US army and escaped destruction and encirclement quite easily despite being the US main target, look it up).

>do you think we should have used actual chemical weapons for the jungle

No. You should have used biological. War parrots. This is a shitpost.

In the Guadalcanal campaign, many Japanese soldiers would hear voices shouting "Hikouki, hikouki!"; thinking their lives were at stake, they would scramble and run for cover.

In the Four Pests Campaign, sparrows were proven to be very hard to kill. Most of them died from exhaustion. The Chinese had to shake trees all the time so the birds couldn't stay on the branches for too long. In one interesting case, a flock of sparrows sought diplomatic refuge in the Polish embassy, which refused to let the birds go, and was then surrounded by an angry Chinese mob that loudly played drums. Many of the sparrows died and the Poles released the survivors. Either your enemy will have to live with your parrots or he'll have to shoot them and shake trees and be loud in the jungle.

A parrot platoon could be composed of between 100 and 1000 trained parrots divided into two squads, one squad would be deployed near the front lines and its parrots would be trained specifically to spread misinformation, yelling "enemy to the front!" or "take cover" or other such things. The second squad would be deployed to the enemy's rear and should be trained to taunt, spy, follow etc the enemy. They would say things like "I'm watching you." etc. Psychological warfare, intelligence and counter-intelligence. War parrots.

The prospect of war parrots is greater today, now that we can hide cameras and other sensors in animals. Parrots are the most intelligent birds. They're far cheaper and easier to use than any micro or nano weapon or drone. To say nothing of their cost-effectiveness. A parrot platoon could be trained and maintained by a few veterinarian officers. If I were a staff officer of a jungle unit, I'd test this idea in an exercise, without letting any of my troops know it. I guess parrots are not necessary if you can make a small but potent enough loudspeaker that a bird can carry around its neck.

Or maybe drones are just cheaper.

I thought of making a thread about this but I don't the idea deserves it.

>>673688

I meant company. A company with two platoons.

>>673456

Retreating soldiers.

>>673678

So what happens when they fight the Russians? Act like a bitch & go nuclear when they get their rears handed?

>>673742

>unrionically being this smug that you defeated Germany and ruined the entirety of white future

>>673742

>Claims Field Marshall Montgomeries victories in North Africa and Sicily as his own

>Ignores Monty's Anglo-Canadian forces taking the heaviest defended beaches and dealing with most of the German counter attack in Normandy

>The officer who made the bulk of US 'victory' in Europe possible, and you call him 'dead weight'.

America really is just the boomer nation at this point, isn't it.

Oh boy we are re-enacting WW2 in this thread.

>>673742

>mutts ran away from first encounter back to anglos

>"we din dall ourselves, nomsane?"

>>673744

Since when is simply stating what happened being proud?

>>673770

>takes the easy route through Sicily and still loses the race to Patton

Yup, he was certainly helpful. Monty was an egotistical blowhard who only wanted to kill "muh Germans" and find glory in killing as many as he could. He was a pain in everyone's ass as he begged for supplies to lead his pointless "unified front" campaign which did nothing but hand Berlin over the the Soviet rape hoard because he had the same brand of European pettiness that gave us the Dresden bombing and England not accepting peace terms from Hitler after the fall of France. You are the boomer, England.

>>673774

Like I said, if that battle was such a "disaster" then why did it not even slow the capture of North Africa and Sicily?

>>673864

Hey, feel free to believe whatever nonsense helps you sleep at night m8.

>>673864

>Soviet rape hoard

The greatest amount of rapes and also prostitution happened in the west, already after WW1. Damn the Frogs and Yanks to hell for bringing nigger hordes into Europe. Well, I know of course that both countries were already heavily kiked at that time, but still…

>>673864

Because if you have enough industrial power, efficiency of weapons and generals can be ignored. Ex. Israel lost its entire armored force in a war and America airlifted in 1:1 replacements.

>>673864

>Soviet rape hoard

Fucks sake ever heard of negermischelange? Soviets didnt rape hardly any germans because they didnt really hardly capture any territory where germans lived. Allies took 4/5ths of Germany and the 1/5th Soviets took was populated by slavs (serbs/poles/cheques) as much as Germans. Half the stories of Russian raping Germans are absolute provable bullshit published by CIA during cold war to "maintain an ally".

If any Soviet rapes took place it was probably Ukrainians raping Poles or something similar, since Ukrainians were used for prison guard forces.

How can you have such WRONG conceptions about basic shit.

>>674063

Yeah, Berlin is not Germany territory.

I think the Soviet apologism on this board is hitting critical mass.

>>673878

>taking and losing Tobruk 8 times and having everyone concentrate in liberating the fucking Netherlands which you dragged into the war by boarding a fucking German ship sitting in a neutral waterway instead of getting to Berlin before Stalin was super helpful to the war you guys

>>674051

>prostitution

So you're going to start screaming and crying about comfort girls now?

>>674062

And yet Kassarine pass never happened ever again because we learned from the mistakes that were made.

>>674063

>denying the rape of Berlin

The leaf. Do you also believe that the man waving the hammer and sickle on top of the Reichstag's roof didn't have an arm full of looted watches?

>>673742

>I'm guessing that North Africa and Sicily conveniently didn't count anywhere in there?

North Africa was over by the time the US intervened, the axis fighting a rear guard battle. And the only time the US had a major engagement was Kasserine pass. After that the UK systemically took on the brunt of ALL the western theater campaigns.

>Sicily.

Sicily was largely undefended (due to a very successful British deception), most of the italians run away due to early OSS/Mafia shenanigans and the Germans withdrew safely and entirely (with the remaining Italian that hadn't turn-coat) from A FUCKING ISLAND despite allies having an overwhelming advantage in sea and air power.

Italy was a such a shit show Germans were still holding almost all of the industrialized parts of it by April of 1945.

Maneuver warfare is the art of inflicting a maximum of casualties by outmaneuvering your opponent usually by cutting his forces off and then promptly reducing the weakened pockets thus formed.

Something the US never managed to do once in WWII even if by some miracle (usually called Patton) a pocket formed said pockets were almost never properly weakened as they formed over a stupid amount of time allowing the trapped units to properly grab as much supplies as they could and dig deep defensive positions (hell you still had Germans pockets in France in May 1945, they conducted air and even submarine operations until they ran out, of their extensive stock, of fuel).

Patton (*kofkof* who was french cavalry trained *kofkof*) was literally the only US general that understood that. And was therefore belittled, only used as a last resort and all of his breakthrough efforts immediately pissed away by his peers.

And the only one the Germans deemed a threat.

>>674063

>1/5th

>>673324

Panzer III is contemporary with the early T-34 and was a superior tank.

The Panther enters service BEFORE the T-34-85 and 76mm Shermans.

Panther vs M4 and T-34 is absolutely a fair argument.

>>674086

>So you're going to start screaming and crying about comfort girls now?

N-no, of course not he he… cries softly into sleep

>>674139

I get and apreciate your point, but calling those eastern parts "slavic natives" after 800 years of Ostsiedlung is exagerated.

>>674141

It may be a stretch but its technically correct if we're looking at it from genetics perspective. Soviet raping Germanized Sorbs didn't really soil the German gene pool nearly as much as outright fucking Africans raping actual Germans. The second offends me a HELL of a lot more than the first.

>>674139

Berlin was the capital of Germany and contains a shitload of women regardless of actual landmass.

>>674146

I'd want to see the ethnic composition of Berlin, and how many people left the city as they saw the house of cards collapsing. I'd be super surprised if half the people around in Berlin weren't soldiers or levies from farther east.

>>674147

Alright, waiting actual research then.

If you trust the Soviet narrative, muh rape is natzee propaganda and didn't happen.

>>674147

Fun fact: there were both French and Hungarian SS units in Berlin.

>>674148

I don't trust any narratives, but I'm extremely leery of believing globalist narratives that are generated to promote hatred among a vanishing phenotype of humanity.

>>674149

During the last days I would be surprised if the leadership of Germany didn't call in fucking everyone.There were even slavs flying their jet fighters near the end.

>>674136

Okay.

Early Panzer III (Short 50mm, F-H, 1940) was superior to T-34 models 1940 and 1941, and arguably the 1942.

>Again Panthers were purpose-built to fight T-34

How can the Panther be purpose built to counter to counter a tank that entered service after it.

Sure, but we are trying to compare contemporary tanks. I'm not talking about the T-34-76.

The T-34-85 was in service AFTER the Panther and was an objectively worse design.

And don't start with the cope that Panther was a heavy tank.

>>674144

> its technically correct if we're looking at it from genetics perspective.

No, that is absolutely incorrect.

You are a retard who gets his information from troll /int/ infographs.

>>674188

Ah, fucked up my formatting, switch lines 4 and 5.

>>674167

>I don't trust any narratives, but I'm extremely leery of believing globalist narratives that are generated to promote hatred among a vanishing phenotype of humanity.

Nigger, "the rape of Berlin didn't happen" is a globalist narrative.

USSR is globalist, the same shit as the US.

The only ones who do mention the rape themselves are the germans or german sympathizers.

>>674144 (checked)

>>674192

>>674226

Rapes absolutely did happen, of course, with the greatest orgies of violence occuring in the eastern parts like Prussia and Pommerania. Due to the dawning Cold War and the necessities of rapidly integrating the conquered territories, the Ivans quickly and quite harshly decided to put a stop to it and re-instated discipline among their troops - even resorting to capital punishment in some cases. If anecdotes are to believed, already from '46/'47 onward, German women could move without fear within Berlin and the rest of the Ostzone. In general the Soviets followed the policy of strictly separating their troops from the civilian population; it was rare for an average civilian to encounter Russian soldiers outside perhaps of military service later on. Actual numbers are hard to come by in any case.

>>667908

>>667907

Most of those vehicles were in US depots, ones that were neglected after WWII so badly that those were more of scrap yards than storage depots. Stuff that was battlefield recovered hulks were salvaged during or immediately after WWII, but weren't overhauled properly after the war. Basically occupation troops neglected all the equipment that they didn't use on daily basis. Since Shermans and Pershings were too heavy for many Japanese roads and bridges, only tanks they kept running were Chaffees. Even the undamaged Shermans and Pershings in those depots required heavy overhauls to get operational, due to pure negligence. That negligence also contributed to poor reputation Pershing had, due to its unreliability. Also those depots contained lot more trucks and jeeps than occupation troops needed. So those too were neglected.

>>674226

>"the rape of Berlin didn't happen"

t. wikipedia

>>674226

Oh the rape of Berlin DID happen, but it certainly wasn't russians doing it. As it was pointed out earlier in the thread, the soviets had only 1/3rd of berlin, the other 2/3rds were controlled by niggers from america. Google negermischlinge.

It's a Jewish invention that russians somehow raped german women, but mullatoes, anglos, spics, and niggers from allied states didn't.

>>686601

People didn't "flee" west, they emigrated west for jobs. Why do westerners keep thinking that anyone who crosses a border is a fleeing refugee?

Also what the fuck do civilian immigrants in the 60s have to do with mass armed nigger rape in the 40s?

>>686606

<wanting threads to stay on topic and wanting to control the flow of discussion

Join a forum, this is an imageboard.

>>686611

>im allowed to argue with the Hungarians over CT rounds and ACR program rifles in any thread i want

Cool!

>>686612

>allowed

What a british thing to say.

>>686655

>I will shit up any thread with whatever I want because fuck focusing on any topic whatsoever

What a can'tadian way to act.

>>686696

>i want to control what people talk about

>i dont want to see where a natural discussion leads

>im not interested in what people actually think i just want you to be my puppets

What a Leftist thing to say.

>>686707

Why do retards like you go to topic specific boards, open a thread about an even more specific subtopic, and then shit them up with irrelevant shitposts like this?

Just go to /b2/ for fucks sake.

>>686714

1. I didn't start shit, don't put this on me

2. It's not off topic, it's still actually about /k/ stuff

Or do you think discussion about historical view of vietnam war is "derailing" if it goes into WWII a little bit.

>>686707

What a /leftypol/ false flag.

>>687038

>>687143

<post war germany had lots of intact factories and farmland you dumb leaf there was no reason for german people to leave other than millions of slavic cocks pushing the germans out of the country with the sheer girth of reeeeeeeeeeeeeee

😒

>>687235

>people didn't "flee" west

<but they fled west

>>687270

>>687270

For the last time there was no fleeing. People migrated for jobs and better living conditions such as welfare and health care, many of them were invited into the west or shangheied (operation paperclip). To confuse fucking refugees with migrants this hard is to say that alboniggers deserve to live in germany because theyre 'fleeing'.

>>687278

>>687278

>For the last time there was no fleeing

lol jewpigs and their history forgeries

>>687286

A leafjew no less.

Contradicts himself and then tries to twist his words around to compensate.

I really wish there was a flag filter, there's only like three leafs posting here anymore and two of them are total cocksuckers.