Terror spread after word got around in the Wehrmacht that prisoners would be force fed vegemite.
Hitler versus Rothschild: the Logistics and Background of World War Two
- Thread starter MusicForThePiano
- Start date
Terror spread after word got around in the Wehrmacht that prisoners would be force fed vegemite.
This happens reguralry in Nato exercises in the eastern Med.
The US units consistently underperform and the exercises have to have the stipulation that the participants should act "as if" the American units can perform their part as they should.
The notion that the US soldier is good exists only in Hollywood and Trump's speeches. In WWII, man for man, the American soldier was the worst of all the participants by all metrics.
Last edited:
It would be interesting to see a breakdown/list of this. I assume Germans are on the top of the list?
I will look this up when I get back home, but iirc, the study I am refering to is a post-war US army study, in which the US infantry squad was 80% as effective as the German Volkgrenadier squad (top of the list as expected). And that is counting the late war Volkgrenadier squad (1943–1945), which despite having more firepower than the early war German infantry squad, it was not trained and led as well and almost always operated under enemy air superiority and logistical constraints.
Edit: I found the actual ratios:
WWII average CEVs (Casualty Exchange Ratio)
| Force | Typical CEV range |
|---|---|
| German | 1.20–1.30 |
| British | 1.05–1.15 |
| U.S. | 0.90–1.05 |
| Soviet (1941–42) | 0.60–0.80 |
| Soviet (1943–45) | 0.90–1.05 |
Last edited:
Come on now. American casulaties are always a fraction of what the opposition suffer.
In a fictional enviroment where the playing field is equal, American soldiers probably won't do very well. But that is not the reality. American soldiers fight with overwhelming might in terms of technology, firepower and combined arms.
They will carpet bomb the entire area before they send soldiers in on the ground.
In a fictional enviroment where the playing field is equal, American soldiers probably won't do very well. But that is not the reality. American soldiers fight with overwhelming might in terms of technology, firepower and combined arms.
They will carpet bomb the entire area before they send soldiers in on the ground.
The table compares effectiveness at the squad level, not the divisional or army level. External modifiers like logistics, air superiority etc were excluded from the calculation. If anything, if they are included, the German infantry advantage becomes even more pronounced.
Yes, those pesky Americans and their far superior logistics, air supremacy, overwhelming superiority in numbers, weapons etc.
If only they didn't have all those things and more, things would have been different.
The USA spends over a trillion dollars a year in military. The Venezuelan soldiers from 3 weeks ago said they were incapacitated by some sort of sonic or microwave weapon that left them vomiting blood and unable to move.
The USA soldiers walked in with no fight and got maduro and walked out.
If your point is during ww2, the Germans had the best fighting infantry men? Sure, they still lost and part of their surrender was to give up having a military and now they have no military, no infantry, no submarines etc
My real question is, if the USA is the worlds policemen, why are we not using the sonic microwave weapons more often? Like against Iran last year?
The USA soldiers walked in with no fight and got maduro and walked out.
If your point is during ww2, the Germans had the best fighting infantry men? Sure, they still lost and part of their surrender was to give up having a military and now they have no military, no infantry, no submarines etc
My real question is, if the USA is the worlds policemen, why are we not using the sonic microwave weapons more often? Like against Iran last year?
Well, that would require military on the ground first.
It could be because there was some kind of additional "agreement" to facilitate everything that happened in Venezuela. Iran may not be aligned enough yet for an impressive show.
This.
Charts like that smack of Luftwaffe '46 navel gazing fantasies and eternal 'what ifs.'
The point of the study was to compare infantry effectiveness. You clearly don'tlike the results, because it exposes the personal defficiency in moral courage of your so-called greatest generation. Whenever they found themselves without those extenral modifiers they got plastered by superior men.
And Patton admitted it!
Last edited:
"The Germans are colder and hungrier than we are, but they fight better."
The only Allied general that could be an average panzer general in the Wehrmacht. Everyone else was a talentless bureaucrat with political connections and no strategic thought passing anywhere near them. The enormous material superiority afforded by Jewry allowed the Allied generals to blunder their way to victory.
"Here is the story of the Normandy campaign in a nutshell. Acute German shortages on the one hand, and on the other an Allied cornucopia which could provide an overwhelming level of firepower and a remorseless stream of replacements that could compensate for the grossest tactical bêtise. Add skilled public relations and a press hungry for heroes, and you had the circumstance so propitious that even Montgomery and Patton could seem like great commanders." - Brute Force, by John Ellis
Last edited:
This post is claiming Chamberlain was wide awake to Hitler's war plans, and while he proclaimed "Peace in our time", he immediately committed thd UK to begin preparing for war with Germany.
The point is that you fight with the weapons you have at your disposal. Americans didn't need to be as effective at infantry level simply because they had overwhelming superiority in all other areas. It's like losing a fight and saying that if only your opponent hadn't been stronger, faster and better at fighting you would have won.
Britain had a full on war economy long before Germany did. They knew what they were doing.
If it was the Germans that had won the war through having an industrial material advantage I'm sure the pro German posters would instead be talking about how it's a sign of the German genius for organization and efficiency that won the war. Since the Americans won instead this material advantage is being talked as Jewish financial sorcery.
The Americans won?
By every measure possible. It's not America that had to live by rations after it ended. Just as much as Poland was the biggest loser, even more than the Germans!
History repeating itself. Fascism will make a return. Dies it defeat satanic communism + fake Christian multi-racialism this time?