|
Nenonen posted:I'm not sure about Japanese jet engines, but weren't some of their designs bought from Germany during the war? IIRC they were reverse engineered from lovely photographs in a way that displays serious engineering talent. They had the talent but more than anything Japan didn't have the wide base of industrial knowledge. They couldn't get octane ratings worth a drat and their metallurgy was behind in areas so their engines sucked, for example. More than anything that's what the US had going for it, they were world class in everything to the point they could throw together a tank that they could pretty much throw any drat engine they wanted in and it worked well, and iterate on the design fast enough to have a decent design in a few years. Hogge Wild posted:If you're going to compile it, try to avoid making it Wehraboo but in reverse. And please don't use clickbait headlines. Probably what they did with their armor moving it north of the Ardennes and then back so they didn't have the use of a lot of their best armor. It's a sensationalization though, of course it is. Speaking of, the SS panzer corps in 1943 after Kursk is pretty good, they got shot to drat ribbons counterattacking into strong positions and basically won a pyrrhic victory with a lot of support just so they could be spun as elite assault troops for internal purposes.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:50 |
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:My favourite thing about France is that I the Germans found nothing use whatsoever in their tank factories. Basically every other occupied nation contributed to German tank production, except France. I thought the Germans took every machine tool that wasn't nailed down (for example the Luftwaffe) and repurposed pretty much everything on 2 or more wheels?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:My favourite thing about France is that I the Germans found nothing use whatsoever in their tank factories. Basically every other occupied nation contributed to German tank production, except France. Wikipedia article on SOMUA S35 posted:After the armistice plans were developed to resume production, partly for the benefit of the Axis powers. On 28 May 1941, the German ambassador in France Otto Abetz concluded an agreement with the French government, the Protocols of Paris. These included the intention to produce eight hundred SOMUA S40s, two hundred for France itself and six hundred for Germany and Italy. However, Hitler, suspicious of a French rearmament, declined ratifying the agreement. Why would they do that if there was nothing of use in French tank factories?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I thought the Germans took every machine tool that wasn't nailed down (for example the Luftwaffe) and repurposed pretty much everything on 2 or more wheels? Far from it. A lot of factories even kept making what they used to, just for new masters. The Czech LT vz 38 had an illustrious career in the Wehrmacht, plus the Czechs had a few bids on the Panther project and made the rather successful Jagdpanzer 38(t) which they also offered to the Soviets once the tables turned. As for anything with two wheels, nope, there were tanks so bad that even the Germans didn't want them even as training tanks. The Infantry Tank MkI is the only non-French tank I can think of, and this is keeping in mind that they used the T-37, T-38, and crazy outdated poo poo like two-turret T-26es.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Why would they do that if there was nothing of use in French tank factories? The tanks France went into WWII with were hilariously expensive. I don't know about the SOMUA 40, but the 35 cost as much as two of the most expensive T-34 variants to produce. The tank that was supposed to be the main French battle tank cost more than twice as much as the T-35.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Polikarpov posted:Also ignoring parallel achievements on the Allied side. Like extolling Fritz X, an MCLOS glide bomb while ignoring the more advanced US ASM-N-2 Bat, which was a goddamn active radar guided glide bomb deployed in combat in 1945. Admittedly "combat" was beating the dead horse that was the IJN in late '45 but its not the weapons fault that the Axis didn't have a navy left. A semi-active version of the Bat designated Pelican was also ready for production in 1943, but the Navy decided that Bat was more important. There was also Moth, a Bat that homed in on radar transmitters, and number of Army Air Force experiments into MCLOS, TV and infrared guided bombs, the most notable version being ASM-A-1 Tarzon, a Tallboy with a guidance package that was used in Korea to blow up several important targets like hydroelectric plants and bridges. I've heard that all the research into guided weapons totals up as the third most expensive Allied project behind the B-29 and Manhattan project. Also in 1944 the Navy had conducted successful combat tests with the Interstate TDR, a UCAV. Further testing didn't continue due to mechanical/operational issues and the project was canceled, for the obvious reasons of trying to make a UCAV in 1944.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Goddamit, the catchpa bullshit just caused the forums to eat half of my post at 1am  I'll redo the other half tomorrow._____ So, now that I'm back from my Baltic trip, I have now the time and the means to  Lithuania was probably the coolest place to go to overall with the best prices, national food and the most interesting things to see. The (free! entry!) War Machinery and Transport Museum is decent if a bit small and has a large collection of various trucks which are often underappreciated in MilHist and quite a few odds and ends of military equipment. I was certainly not expecting to see any Swedish equipment, but lo and behold there was a KP-bil and a Bandvagn 206. There is also a Bofors 40mm in a working traverse and elevation turret which was cool to actually be able to play around with. Perhaps because of :Eastern Europe: it was possible to actually get inside and have a look at the  vehicles and an M113GA1 because nobody had locked the doors  There's the obligatory T-72M1, but they also have a rather rare Polish T-55AM "Merida".  The "Vyutas the Great" war museum in Kaunas is also worth a visit (as is Kaunas for the food!), they actually have a rather extensive collection of small arms from pikes to assault rifles on the 2nd floor. I found the Latvian War Museum in Riga to be rather disappointing. It's very small and unless you really would like to find out more about the Latvian war of Independence in 1918-1920, I'd actually recommend giving it a miss. The Estonian history museum also has an oddly extensive arsenal in it's basement. I didn't have a chance to go to the Estonian War Museum as it was outside the city center and I didn't have the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Far from it. A lot of factories even kept making what they used to, just for new masters. The Czech LT vz 38 had an illustrious career in the Wehrmacht, plus the Czechs had a few bids on the Panther project and made the rather successful Jagdpanzer 38(t) which they also offered to the Soviets once the tables turned. Czech? What is this, surely you mean the former part of Ostmark that isn't within the fully sovereign state of Slovakia???  But to be serious, the Škoda factories were perfect for Nazi Germany. There must have been enough German workers even after 1918 to ensure a smooth transition to Nazi control, the region was promptly annexed to Germany proper, all the necessary networks already existed and the area was hard to reach by Allied bombers. Some tank factory in France wasn't going to be nearly as handy, no matter how good tanks it produced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
The French actually managed to develop a prototype heavy bomber before WW2. This prototype went into a hanger when the Germans invaded, where it survived the German invasion and occupation, and the subsequent Allied counter-invasion without a scratch. It was weirdly the allied troops that opened up the hanger again. France "contributed" a bit to the Nazi war machine, at least with the air force. The upper limit on aircraft engines saw a few French aircraft engines used in German types (the Hs 129B, and the Me 323.) Due to limits of production in Germany, they also had their aircraft firms assigned to work on Luftwaffe projects, typically heavy bombers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Czech? What is this, surely you mean the former part of Ostmark that isn't within the fully sovereign state of Slovakia??? The Škoda works were entirely within the Czech ethnic zone, not that it mattered much since forced labor was a thing (and additionally relied entirely on resources delivered from mines located within the regions annexed by Germany thanks to the Munich Treatyú.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Siivola posted:So, uh, spears? Pikettes
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
WW2 Data Sick, here's an update for UK Practice, Infantry Training, and Miscellaneous bombs. Why were some of the practice bombs only good for low-level bombing? Why did the Brits bomb their own infantry on exercise? What is a "Nickle" leaflet bomb made out of? And which one of my favorite air defense mechanisms sees a return?! All that and more at the blog! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
I read about nets with grenades as air-to-air weapons in WWI, never thought those would make a comeback.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I read about nets with grenades as air-to-air weapons in WWI, never thought those would make a comeback. Its at least the second time we see it. But don't worry, we'll see the boat version soon enough 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
If there's one problem I had with the barrage balloon as a weapon it's that I can't chuck it out the back of my spitfire at 600mph.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Does the guy say how that's supposed to go in German? According to Katatonische Erscheinungen im Rahmen Manischer Erkrankungen by Johannes Lange, 1922, Blücher is supposed to have said: Blücher posted:[...] gemeint haben, er sei mit einem Elefanten schwanger, sein Kopf sei aus Stein; man solle ihm mit dem Hammer darauf schlagen. [...] Translation: [..] he said, he was pregnant with an elephant, his head was made from stone, someone should hit it with a hammer. [...] In German this indeed sounds a lot like he was just joking aroung about a severe headache. Would be kind of funny if all that poo poo about his dementia and manic-depression in that medical book I found was all just a misunderstanding of his strange sense of humour. Here's a link to the source. Anyway, after some searching I think regardless of if it was meant to be taken serious or not, it was something he came up with himself, it's not, in fact, a German/Prussian saying. Libluini fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, does anyone have any information about the Soviet M4M project? From what I understand, the Soviets were quite happy with the performance of the M4's gun (particularly since by then the design flaw in the AP rounds had been corrected), but experimented with rearming it with (IIRC) the F-34 out of concerns about the ammunition supply. The project was cancelled after the US demonstrated the ability to keep the 75mm rounds coming, but I've seen very little hard data on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Ah cool, thanks. I don't think I've ever encountered the elephant saying anywhere else in my third of a century speaking German. Also man how can you not post the next sentence from the Blücher book.quote:Seine Dienstboten seien durch Frankreich bestochen, ihm den Boden so einzuheizen, daß er sich die Füße verbrennen müsse. "His servants, he claimed, had been bribed by France to heat his floor such that he would burn his feet."
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:Out of curiosity, does anyone have any information about the Soviet M4M project? From what I understand, the Soviets were quite happy with the performance of the M4's gun (particularly since by then the design flaw in the AP rounds had been corrected), but experimented with rearming it with (IIRC) the F-34 out of concerns about the ammunition supply. The project was cancelled after the US demonstrated the ability to keep the 75mm rounds coming, but I've seen very little hard data on it. I'm not aware of re-armament of the Sherman. The main concerns with imported tanks were with British ones for two reasons: they had no HE shells and very little ammo was coming in for them. The Sherman suffered from neither of those defects. The Soviets weren't shy about airing their complaints about tanks coming in from their allies, either. There were interesting re-armament projects like PzIII and Pz38(t) with a 45 mm gun, PzIV with a 76 mm gun, Tiger and Tiger II with 100 mm guns. The SG-122 and SU-76(I) were the only ones actually built, and those required a radical rebuilding of the casemate to work. Interestingly enough, the Germans considered jamming the F-34 into a PzIV as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
This thread never fails to impress. EE gets a solid historypost in before anyone can make a joke about the Soviet M4M project.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
i think we all want to hear more about soviet m4m edit: affectionate comradeship should be encouraged, not mocked HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:The US papercliped a lot of Japanese unit 631 Unit 731  To date, this remains one of the biggest U.S. dick moves of the war. One thing is fearing that the Russians would get to it first, but it's hard to forgive their condemnation of soviet trials as communist propaganda, which eventually lead to the rest of the world ignoring the survivors' stories 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
its a russian tuant
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Goddamit, the catchpa bullshit just caused the forums to eat half of my post at 1am Should have gone to the Riga aviation museum, which is this tiny boneyard thing near the airport. As for the "all the touching" policy at the free motorization museum, yeaaah, you let your kid break his neck while climbing a BTR. I'd post pictures, but goons would shout at me. Glad you liked our country!
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
I just want to hear about the good food tbh But yeah sounds like a rad time. Also as always thanks y'all for the holiday reading.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Glad you liked our country! I'm telling everyone I now have "Lithumania" I was also disappointed that I couldn't find that famous basketball skeleton T-shirt anywhere NLJP posted:I just want to hear about the good food tbh Bernelių užeiga is the name of a few palces in both Kaunas, Vilnius and London(!) that does fantastic food food for a decent price. The gruzdinti koldunai dumplings chicken dumplings with butter sauce stood out as especially tasty. The various potato dumplings, pancakes and etc also were very filling. Very similar to Czech food actually. If you do try it, I reccomand the "farmer's feast" and a plate of the dumplings with a beer. Dammit, now I wanna go back xthetenth posted:Don't forget the parts about the Panther's combat debut culminating in calling it the "worst combat debut for any major weapons system in the Second World War" (so many mechanical failures in the road march and under fire and some occasional fuckups leaving thin flanks exposed. Not the way to use Panthers). That was also a fun bit to read about. The Panther was uncool and bad, which leads us on to the next point... Taerkar posted:By being the least bad early on mostly. Inertia's a hell of a thing to overcome in warfare. The issue is that most of the Wehrabooism isn't about the early years of the war, it's all about 1943 and later when all of the big hardware starts to show up. The cats, the jets, the rockets. When the Nazis were sinking deep into both desperation for that wunderwaffe and the later stages of craziness, denial, and wackiness that have been building up in the various parts of their leadership and industry. It is interesting to see that the good performance of the Early-War Wehrmacht (EWW) gets conflated with the rather lackluster performance of the Late-War Wehrmacht (LWW), particularly in the Panzertruppen, but with some thought it is easy to see why. If they were able to do so well in Poland, France and Barbarossa with Pz.1/2/3/4/35t/38t etc, then it means they must do amazing well with the much more impressive Panthers, Tigers and Elephants, right? Of course this surface level looking at mere technical differences is missing the forest from the trees. The big thing that allowed the EWW such success was the fact that they were the least bad of the continental armies on the leadership and control front. Their officer core wasn't stuck with a large group of old officers who hadn't adapted to new ideas blocking the path of young, dynamic and ambitious officers. Also, at least at the start of the conflict Hitler's meddling in military affairs was not yet actively harmful. I'm not that knowledgeable with the state of things on the Allied side, so I'll hold my tongue. But on the Soviet side their biggest problem was that Stalin's meddling actively hamstrung them for years by shooting Tukhachevsky and purging other officers like Rokossovsky and also blocking the RKKA becoming more professional as that would be a threat to his own power. Stalin constantly browbeating commanders into making attacks that were not ready yet was also a major source of the early lopsided exchanges early in the war which I keep finding utterly flabbergasting. I mean gently caress, when on the defense 50 or so tanks can last a long goddamn time, but when you attack you can lose 250 in short order for no real gain and when you are wanting to block the enemy advance due to already demonstrated catastrophes on the attack the logical thing would have been to let them come to you. But anyway, back on to the Germans. EWW was primarily able to make their great victories because they had an active and functioning combined arms team centered on the Paznertruppen that was extremely effective. Panzergrenadiers and Pioners in SPWs, accurate and coordinated artillery support both indirect and AT, good communication with the luftwaffe, etc. It is around the mid-point of the war that this combined arms team starts unraveling at the same time the soviets manage to get their own into action. 1943 is when you start hearing of attacks getting bogged down in minefields due to no Pioners, Pz.Grens being used as flank security due to no supporting infantry (weakening the main push), Panzers breaking down on the march and etc. This was a result of many things, poor industrial policies making spare parts not widely available, all new designs instead of modified workhorses, low production numbers and a lack of manpower. The last of these was further impacted by the personal armies of Himmler and Goering which diverted much needed resources from the Wehrmacht into their pet projects which ultimately performed worse than equivalent Wehrmacht groups with what they had. Time and time again Panzer divisions were left under strength as most replacements went to the SS or Luftwaffe field divisions (:eyeroll:), which would be used in an operation, burned up near completely because such groups must get some sort of achievement for propaganda purposes even if it's a terrible idea militarily. In terms of equipment the Germans went down an entirely wrong approach in the middle of the war towards heavy tank designs instead of workhorse mediums. Heavy tanks are more difficult to produce, maintain, move and support than medium tanks. A broken down Panzer 4 is much more easily recovered than a Tiger is double the weight. The increasing weight also had impacts in tactical and strategic mobility where many bridges, pontoon bridges and other terrain elements were unable to take the weight of such massive vehicles. Larger vehicles also means that they need much more fuel to move around, which is a bit of a problem for the 3rd Reich late war when fuel shortages start becoming endemic. In addition, their transmission problems rules out large movements on tracks, confining them to operate close to rail transport least they take large losses due to mechanical breakdowns. This and the spare parts issues results in a large amount of damaged, theoretically repairable vehicles becoming total losses when their crews are forced to blow them up to avoid capture by the soviets. Later on Hitler's increasing meddling with military affairs was disastrous to the Nazi war effort. Nonsensical no retreat directives, wunderwaffe and shuffling of front line commanders for not doing the impossible are only a few examples. Also, the declining quality of replacements in the late war also meant that even if the Nazis could scrape together the equipment for a unit, they would have nobody to crew them with. This was primarily seen on the western front where the JgTiger seemed to take more losses from crews abandoning/misusing their vehicles than any other source. The degradation of the human resources available to the 3rd Reich can also be seen in the number of times an operation is derailed by failing to plan for things like "mud" and "river crossings" in Eastern European autumn, or more generally "minefields". So in short the things that allowed the EWW to have such success early on all eventually deteriorated into nothing, while all their problems grew larger and larger into complete dysfunction. Briefly, on the Soviet side we see the reverse progression. At first they gently caress up horribly ('41/early '42), they then start trading equally (late '42/ '43) and then they start doing much better in the end ('44/'45). On the technical side they focus on a few workhorse designs that essentially see service for the entire war with other vehicles based off these hulls (like the SU series). Obsolete light tanks > T-70/SU-76(M) T-34/76 > T-34/85 KV > IS This is important, because once you hit the middle of the war, Soviet designs become rock-solid and reliable tanks that have much better fuel economy and strategic mobility than what the Germans become stuck with. The Soviets also develop an effective officer and staff core the hard way in the course of the war. They start off poorly, subject to political meddling from Commissars to Stalin and with no experience on what they should be doing. But over time they are able to trade time, space, materials and men to learn the required lessons and by 1943-44 have become a very effective fighting force. This is mostly showcased in Operation Bagration where seemingly everything comes to a head. Soviet superiority in materials, fuel, equipment and command meeting against the German's lack of fuel/equipment/manpower, technical issues and etc. Most importantly, this was the biggest operation where Stalin sat back and let the professionals in STAVKA do everything and set their own time-table and objectives. Without Stalin breathing over his neck, Zhukov was finally able to setup the kind of operation that he had been trying to do since the start of the war. The stunning success of Bagration was unfortunately undermined later with how the fighting around Berlin was conducted. Stalin meddled in the operation, wanting to capture as much territory as possible ahead of the allies and played Konev and Zhukov off against each other which undermined co-operation between the two when it was needed most. This mismanagement caused the Soviets to take far more casualties in the final days of the war in Europe than they needed to. So while the Soviets were much improved by the end, they still suffered from structural issues until the end. So in conclusion, the Germans were actually the rotten wooden door that would fall apart after a few good hits (Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration) while the Soviets were the owners of a wooden door factory that took customer feedback into consideration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
quote:So in conclusion, the Germans were actually the rotten wooden door that would fall apart after a few good hits (Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration) while the Soviets were the owners of a wooden door factory that took customer feedback into consideration. Heh, I like this line.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Germany's not much of a rotten wooden door unless you're kicking both the front and rear entrance down, establishing a fenced perimeter around the property, and are actively demolishing the roof.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Dissecting Nazi Germany's exceedingly poor geopolitical strategies and strategic objectives is, however, a post for another time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
It's not so much that Germany was a rotting door as much as it was a guy using his tools way past the point where they were falling apart, with results to match.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
You kick through the rotten door with ease but your right boot is now stuck in the hole and you hop in on one foot with the other still through the door, stepping into a rake someone left in the hallway, after which you pull your stuck foot so hard that when it gets free (your boot stays however) you lose balance and fall through a second door and stumble down the basement steps. Finally after being attacked by a cat and setting off a rat trap in which you also lose the left boot, you crawl out of the coal chute and go back to your shack. The house owner comes out and follows the trail of coal dust to your home and the entire village barges in to give you an asskicking and find out that you have been beating your wife and children. Afterwards you find your house divided by the neighbours who you offended, with the guy whose door you destroyed also taking all tools from your garage to pay for the damages in his basement and also builds a new wall to permanently split the house into two separate condos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
So the first two years of the Eastern Front was Home Alone?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
man this thread gets off on talking about german wartime policy Serious questions: 1) can someone give me a source that has a succinct but accurate overview of WWI infiltration tactics and 2) is there a relatively accessible open source that discusses contemporary Russian operational level doctrine?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
bewbies posted:man this thread gets off on talking about german wartime policy Battle Tactics of the Western Front has a good overview of the development of infiltration tactics by the British post-Somme, including comparisons to what came before it in the form of linear wave tactics. It's a real good book in general anyway, and pretty short.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
I'm interested how Maneuver Team/MG Team split worked in practice in WWII in platoon and larger assaulta.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Battle Tactics of the Western Front has a good overview of the development of infiltration tactics by the British post-Somme, including comparisons to what came before it in the form of linear wave tactics. It's a real good book in general anyway, and pretty short. I second the recommendation. The book does a good job dispelling the myth that the Germans were the only ones working on tactical innovations for the offensive while the Allies bravely marched into machine gun fire. There was really a great deal of innovation in the use of both artillery and infantry on the Allied side and the significance of "German storm troopers" is way overblown in most folks' minds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:I second the recommendation. The book does a good job dispelling the myth that the Germans were the only ones working on tactical innovations for the offensive while the Allies bravely marched into machine gun fire. There was really a great deal of innovation in the use of both artillery and infantry on the Allied side and the significance of "German storm troopers" is way overblown in most folks' minds. Didn't the stormtrooper thing work out being kind of pointless by WW2 when basically any decent infantry turned out to be able to do the same things?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Didn't the stormtrooper thing work out being kind of pointless by WW2 when basically any decent infantry turned out to be able to do the same things? No....it still needed to be invented by someone, right? The Germans got to it first, although by the time they did in ww1 they didn't have the resources on a strategic level to really exploit it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
I was thinking the other day about the immense effect ww1 had on militaries, it basically saw the formation of modern infantry tactics and militaries are still scared shitless about chemical warfare
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:50 |
|
|
spectralent posted:Didn't the stormtrooper thing work out being kind of pointless by WW2 when basically any decent infantry turned out to be able to do the same things? No, it was a very specific tactic the Germans used in 1918. As a tactic it worked really well; but as Thalantos already noted, the Germans couldn't really exploit the breakthrough. Plus, the making and use of stormtroopers burned out Germany's really good infantry, since a lot of them became stormtroopers and then became casualties in the 1918 offensive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:12
|
|