I'm no Wehraboo but I'd think it would stand to reason that the majority of German war equipment in general would have been destroyed or captured. Considering they fucking lost.
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
92 points (95.1% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
3586 readers
306 users here now
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's a fair point.
Counterpoint, they wouldn't have lost if their equipment wasn't shit.
I mean, yes? But also no?
The US famously lost to poorly equipped guerillas on at leat two occasions (Vietnam and Afghanistan).
Superior numbers and equipment are less relevant in asymmetrical fights, but the US still did well in terms of numbers. The wars just became too unpopular before they could accomplish their goals (though I don't think Afghanistan is even capable of being stabilized under any real type of government).
Just more evidence
Explanation (though I'm sure here on NCD there are plenty of tankfuckers who could correct me on any number of details here): A great deal of popular mythology has grown up around the Nazi Tiger tank in WW2, especially in comparison to the main American tank of the later war, the Sherman tank. Thing is, while the Tiger tank was a massive and dangerous beast, it was also hyperspecialized for tank-on-tank combat, which means accounts of Allied tankers going "Oh God oh fuck it's a fucking Tiger" are not fully representative of the actual wisdom of the Tiger's design and deployment. In reality, the Tiger was unreliable and maintenance-heavy, slow, and not particularly survivable - Tiger losses were, as the graph shows, nearly total. And of those losses, German tankers were not particularly likely to survive the loss of their tank - 80%+ of crew of destroyed German tanks were kaput.
By contrast, the Sherman was an excellent multipurpose tank which could support infantry and fight toe-to-toe with enemy armor when necessary. But, in general, we Americans preferred to let specialized, fast-moving tank destroyers and airpower to do the lifting on destroying enemy tanks. Perhaps more importantly to tankers, the survivability of the Sherman was the reverse of German tanks - the Sherman was built with escape of the crew in mind (and repairability of the vehicle, for that matter), meaning 80%+ of the crew of destroyed Sherman tanks survived, and the tank itself was often repaired and returned to combat in a matter of weeks as well.
Lend-Lease tanks are counted as all destroyed just to demonstrate the point - Lend-Lease tanks were largely in the hands of the Soviets, who considered it a comparable tank to the T-34, but didn't keep exact records on combat losses of the Sherman. Even if 100% of them were destroyed, as the graph shows, the dreaded Tiger still doesn't come out looking too great in comparison to the comfy compartments of a Sherman!
To be fair, we Americans liked air power to do most of the heavy lifting in basically all jobs in WWII.
FDR didn’t understand what air power would do in the war, but his decision to prioritize air power over everything else reaped enormous benefits to the antifascist forces.
To be fair, we Americans liked air power to do most of the heavy lifting in basically all jobs in WWII.
Reminds me of a WW2 joke.
If you can't tell the identity of an infantry squad, fire a few rounds over their heads.
If they respond by a loud URRAAAAAHHHH and rapidly approaching submachinegun fire, they're Soviet.
If they respond with rapid, accurate rifle fire, they're British.
If they respond with immediate machinegun chatter, they're German.
If there's no response, and then five minutes later your position is obliterated by air strikes and artillery fire, they were American.
And that reminded me of an old Aussie WWI joke. “The English will fight to the last Australian”
Comparing tank loses doesn't really mean anything. Tanks aren't supposed to fight tanks, next to fighting planes it's very low on the list of priorities. German tanks usually had every advantage in defense, yet despite this suffered horrendous losses. American tanks had almost opposite conditions, but still performed quite well because they were in-fact well designed for the purpose they served.
It's also comparing a standard issue tank with an overhyped propaganda model. I think the Stug 3 would be better for this comparison since it was Germanys most built fully tracked armoured vehicle with a bit more than 10.000 pieces.
Lazerpig explains it far better, and with 300% more hyperbole than I could ever manage.
Don’t listen to Wehraboos, the Panzer IV was the better Wehrmacht tank by far. And it still couldn’t scale enough to meet the battlefield demands of WWII.
Less of a factor today, but don't forget about MICaboos.
They praise the Tiger too, just like they praised the FOXBAT. By making the enemy look bigger and scarier, they get more funding to make bigger and scarier materiel.