Worst army of ww2 awards ceremony

British commonwealth
>20-30 round box lmg the entire war
>bolt actions the entire war; can't even make a straight shooting jungle carbine
>consistently the worst tanks of the entire war with underpowered guns
>muh universal carrier!
>heavy artillery is ww1 vintage with new munitions; literally had to use wooden blocks to keep the gun from jumping away
>Sten
>PIAT. This thing couldn't even be reloaded under fire
>Chindits suicide missions. Just look it up, no other army would ever have reinforced such titanic failures
>Completely BTFO by one panzer div in North Africa so badly they had to create the legend of the Desert Fox
>Muh Monty, this guy is soooo good because his tempo of operations is terrible
>Italy, entirely Chuchill's idea
>Utterly stymied in western europe after D-Day
>Market-Garden
>basically lost the battle of the atlantic till murica came around
>Sells off most of Europe to the soviets in the postwar, turns around and goes muh Iron Curtain
>Even their helmets are terrible

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah it's astounding how even winning WWI so thoroughly fucked the UK and France socially, economically, and militarily.

    WWII would've been really dull without us funding/supplying the allies

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if Churchill had conceded to reality and made peace with Hidler ww2 would have ended then and there. Nothing terrible would have happened, the world wouldn't have ended and millions of lives would have been saved

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        oh I'm sorry must've missed the part where the Japanese weren't eying up my country at the same time.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sorry flip/Thai ladyboy/whatever variety of moronchink you are, but your jungle shithole is rightful Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere clay.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >not wanting to fight for some nice ladyboy cock

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            He's talking about Australia you fucking mong

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              'We never had enough troops to [invade Australia]. We had already far out-stretched our lines of communication. We did not have the armed strength or the supply facilities to mount such a terrific extension of our already over-strained and too thinly spread forces. We expected to occupy all New Guinea, to maintain Rabaul as a holding base, and to raid Northern Australia by air. But actual physical invasion—no, at no time'.
              - Hideki Tojo, before his execution

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous
        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Imagine what the Pacific would have been like if that's the only theater of war America had to focus on. Hundreds of Essex-class carriers I tremble at even the thought of such an amazing timeline

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            D-Day, except Japan and a fuckton more casualties.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Imagine Asia now under Japanese rule... wait, that would be better.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          He's talking about Australia you fucking mong

          Millions of Australian men not having to be deployed to Europe and Africa would have probably helped with that potentiality tbh

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >If Hidler had conceited to reality
        FTFY

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Apparently we're in the BoBo phase of 4chan tourists

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Does 4chan even like nazis anymore? Pretty sure it's the only thing putin managed to denazify

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >noooo it’s the guy that won the war that had to face reality

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >if Churchill had conceded to reality and made peace with Hidler ww2 would have ended then and there. Nothing terrible would have happened, the world wouldn't have ended and millions of lives would have been saved
        True, they entered the war over Poland and handed it over to Russia

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ROOSEVELT
          ROOSEVELT
          ROOSEVELT
          ROOSEVELT
          Do you people even know where Yalta is?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you people even know where Yalta is?
            Yalta, Idaho, is southwest of Moscow, duh

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              if you adjust the angles and how far you're willing to travel; yea, you are correct.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          When will this Russian agit prop end.
          The entire treaty was to defend against Germany, that was literally it.
          And even though that was the case, the bongs still spent decades trying to free Poland.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >if Churchill had conceded to reality and made peace with Hidler ww2 would have ended then and there. Nothing terrible would have happened, the world wouldn't have ended and millions of lives would have been saved
        it truly would have been peace in our time

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Surely that would be the peace agreement that Hitler would never break
        He was the Putin of his time, untrustworthy and always about to attack.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        sometimes I wonder if you people even know when churchill became PM
        like of course someone who has read a single paragraph about WW2 would know what they're saying is impossible even if their worldview of hitler being right is correct, but at the same time it's said with such conviction

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Nothing terrible would have happened

        Being forced to speak g*rman and adopt g*rman customs would be the most evil thing to happen to all the people on this Earth. Also, Churchill became PM in 1940 you massive mongoloid 4chanmoron tourist.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >forced to speak german
          Are you polish? This would not have happened to any western European or American country.

          Surely that would be the peace agreement that Hitler would never break
          He was the Putin of his time, untrustworthy and always about to attack.

          If he got the remaining ethnic Germans what other reason would he have to invade?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        This is all pointless when you come to the realization that united world garden gnomery is behind the world wars (started and funded both of them and all sides of each war) so that the end result would be their further financial takeover of all European powers as well as the deletion of millions of the most able bodied men of the each of the nations involved. We truly live in a matrix since this takeover

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        If the Nazis had won, they'd have gassed subhumans such as yourself. You're right, we have been denied a better world.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Hitler is the one who made Churchill PM lmao
        Churchill was saying in 1938 "this Austrian bro is gonna keep invading countries, kick his ass right now" but Chamberlain chose to negotiate and sacrificed Czechoslovakia to appease the Germans.
        Then Churchill was immediately vindicated when Hitler annexed Czechia and invaded Poland.
        Hitler broke his agreement with Chamberlain and thereby ensured no serious British leader would make himself look like a fool again.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          The UK shouldn't have stuck its nose in places it didn't belong and made unenforceable guarantees which made war inevitable.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            No, you see, the US executed Lend Lease, most of which went to the bongs, who were a beggar poverty nation.

            Daily reminder that the bongs were beggars and only survived at the US' pleasure.

            Starving and running out of ships

            Really trying to figure out where you’re from, I’ve never seen a country live so rent free in your head. Keep crying and Rule Brittania.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >loses empire in gay war they started for no reason

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >The UK shouldn't have stuck its nose in places it didn't belong
            Germany shouldn't have invaded countries which didn't belong to them?
            Czechs speak Czech, Poles speak Polish. They are not Germans and do not want to be Germans.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Bro the reason he invaded is because they had huge populations of ethnic Germans who did speak German, the allies should not have partitioned Germany as they did.
              The sudentenland did speak German, as did most of Danzig

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Having people speak your language in another country has never been a proper casus belli against that country.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Then why did you claim the fact they didn't speak the language meant he was unjustified? If a bunch of ethnic Americans in Hawaii were suddenly under Japanese occupation, wouldn't that give us SOME reason to want Hawaii?

                Oh, no shit? My grandmother is from Danzig. I've asked her about the war a few times, I'm fairly sure she'd prefer having to cross the border a few times and live in Poland, rather than getting throw into an Autistic freak's "Vernichtungskrieg" and having her entire Prussian homeland wiped out in the process because they successfully pissed off every Slav in Europe to a biblical level.
                I'm well aware of the Sudetenland, what you're forgetting is that the Brits actually agreed and they let the Germans have it, do you not learn about the Munich Agreement in school? The Brits sold out the Czechs just to appease Germany, hence why Chamberlain is called a coward. Germany shat on this agreement in less than a year and proceeded to also invade and annex Czech speaking areas.

                That retard said "Czechs don't speak German" as if that has ant relevance when there literally were German speaking people there. Plenty of slavs liked the Germans and the Poles actually had amicable relations until their leadership changed. Many Germans were actively discriminated against on Poland.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Plenty of slavs liked the Germans and the Poles actually had amicable relations until their leadership changed. Many Germans were actively discriminated against on Poland.
                Yeah, they admired Germany, until Germany elected a lunatic who wrote and published a book where he talks about exterminating them and expanding Germany to the east at their expense. This isn't a secret document, Hitler was very public about all this and wrote a best seller on it kek.
                Czechs not being Germans is relevant, they have their country and it's not Germany and therefore Germany shouldn't invade them. It's quite simple.
                >Many Germans were actively discriminated against on Poland.
                Meh. My great grandad owned a sugar mill in Poland (south of Danzig) and he kept running his business. Danzig itself was a city state with a NSDAP majority council government actually, Polish government couldn't rule over them, which is exactly why they built the Polish port of Gdnyia instead.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Bro the balts and Ukrainians were very pro German well into the war. Hitler never discusses genociding slavs but rather expansion into them as they were weak states. This is how nations worked universally until the idealists of the twentieth century gained dominance.
                >Czechs not being Germans is relevant
                Your logic was as follows
                >Czechs aren't Germans so he shouldn't invade
                okay but what about all the Germans that did live there
                >W-well thats irrelevant
                The Czechs were not even fully annexed, they were made a puppet state with defined borders. The western powers should not have trapped two million Germans in czechoslovakia and not expected that to cause issues.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                > The western powers should not have trapped two million Germans in czechoslovakia and not expected that to cause issues.
                Western powers shouldn't have even left a german state after ww1.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                This guy actually thinks Hitler wasn't going to genocide the slavs after he got full power over them.
                They basically did nothing wrong and were really nice to them after the war, given how their populations were treated by "anti-partisan groups" and Hitler's explicit desire to colonize the east. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together.
                Also there was 0 intention of creating an independent Ukraine they wouldn't even get protectorate or general government status they were just going to get rolled over native american style. Modern LARPers are retarded.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Buddy states naturally expand their borders, Germany could not have occupied all of thdt territory with a hostile regime and there's no evidence of wanting any Slavic mass genocide anywhere. General plan ost has one shitty document backing any sort of situation like that, not to mention all of the temporary governments outside of Poland had natives in charge.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, no shit? My grandmother is from Danzig. I've asked her about the war a few times, I'm fairly sure she'd prefer having to cross the border a few times and live in Poland, rather than getting throw into an Autistic freak's "Vernichtungskrieg" and having her entire Prussian homeland wiped out in the process because they successfully pissed off every Slav in Europe to a biblical level.
                I'm well aware of the Sudetenland, what you're forgetting is that the Brits actually agreed and they let the Germans have it, do you not learn about the Munich Agreement in school? The Brits sold out the Czechs just to appease Germany, hence why Chamberlain is called a coward. Germany shat on this agreement in less than a year and proceeded to also invade and annex Czech speaking areas.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        So true.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Based. I also hate all british except for the top gear chads and Oswald Mosley.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's sad Britain sided with France instead of Germany at all since they were both Germanic Protestants. Now look at the state of Europe

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        religion hadn't mattered in geopolitics for hundreds of years at that point

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Anglicans barely count as Protestants

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sure the British army had many flaws, but they were far from the worst in WW2, they had their successes.
    For example They utterly humiliated the Italians in North Africa before the Germans intervened.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      mostly thanks to Australia. once they left they started losing everything in Africa

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Like the other anon said, without australia the brits got immediately fucked in the ass by the guidos.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No it was the black female amputees who bailed them out

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I wonder where the Aussies got the vast majority of there arms and resources from?
        Without the rest of the Commonwealth, they'd just be a backwater shithole surrounded by the Empire of Japan and you know it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I still wouldn't say the Italians were the worst either, given picrel. Just take this in context that the winners here got fucking rolled by the western Allies and realize that not only was Operation Unthinkable entirely possible (and would have been a damn cakewalk even without the nuking Moscow) and the only opposition to it was communist sympathizers.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The Italians got wrecked on the Eastern Front and the Soviets single handedly fucked the combined armies of mainland Europe

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >single handedly
          You mean with ridiculous amounts of American aid in the forms of guns, tanks, and other material required to wage a European land war? Aid that without which, even Stalin himself admitted there would have been a German flag flying over the Kremlin?
          If FDR wasn't a communist sympathizer, there would have been no Soviet Union after 1945. Be that because we didn't give them any aid to begin with, or because Patton rolled our tanks up to Moscow and took that aid back in exchange for the Stars and Stripes flying over the Kremlin instead.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Loses almost the entire military in '41, has to rebuild from scratch
          >Industry only kept afloat by convoy after convoy of American lend lease
          >takes 3:1 casualties in practically every engagement, even as the Wehrmacht was out of fuel, men, material and food and was actively collapsing
          >loses so many people that the population never recovered, even 80 years later
          truly military geniuses

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Who hasn't humiliated Italy?

      One free french colonel captured basically single-handely (with a fireteam on motorbikes) the entire italian command of east africa. (The commander of italian forces of east africa, 8 generals, 440 officers 9500 soldiers and sailors, 100 tanks and 127 guns).

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Italy, entirely Chuchill's idea
    Allies liberated all of France, Belgium, the Netherlands and West Germany but could not advance past the middle of Italy lol

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because of Clark.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Wtf liberating flatlands is easier than fighting in a narrow mountainous península

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    a joke of a military, though please don't call them Commonwealth. Australians fought well

    also
    >surrendering Singapore with barely a fight
    >those stupid helmets with no wides and extremely thin metal

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Success breeds jealousy, and Hollwood breeds contempt.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm curious about what Monty did with his own personal B-52. Does anyone know?

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    still won tho

    Germans and Italians must really be baboon apes

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I forgot the failed bomber harris shit was a British idea

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >failed

        post your dresden old town. the combined bomber offensive destroyed so much much german logistics and tied up so many guns and fighters it completely dwarfs the war in the Atlantic.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          it just killed a bunch of civilians you subhuman cunt

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But you love what Russia is doing in Ukraine, right?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Are you honestly comparing dresden, where bomber Harris killed in a single night 100k germans, about the same number of dead from all causes in the ukrainian conflict?

              Are you seriously comparing the callous and industrial grade bomber offensives to some vatniks throwing a few hundred missiles and flying mopeds with tnt and questionable accuracy?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                25-35k at most

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            wow killing the civvies (old men, women, kids....) really ended the war quickly Harris! WOAH, BASED? Kill every civillian in the town you were going to occupy anyways before they can surrender just because??? Warcrimes, BASED???

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            wow killing the civvies (old men, women, kids....) really ended the war quickly Harris! WOAH, BASED? Kill every civillian in the town you were going to occupy anyways before they can surrender just because??? Warcrimes, BASED???

            Well if it isnt the consequences of their own actions.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it didn't kill enough germans and they should have killed the rest
            fixed that for you you wehrboo gay cuck

            funny how the germans tried the blitz and fucked that up too. germans actually can't do anything right. do it again, bomber harris.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you can't unironically be saying this as a german, that's for sure

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Dresden was the railway transport hub for the entire eastern front, as well as a major industrial centre, it was logistically vital for the German war effort. A lot of civilians died, its true, but that was not the intention, although it was an accepted possible consequence. The British didnt start mass bombing, but they played the game the Germans had started, and played it better, Germans have no right to complain. Dresden wouldnt have happened if The Blitz had not.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >bomb warsaw
            >bomb rotterdam
            >do the blitz
            >WAAAAH WE DIN'DU NUFFIN POOR 40 GORILLION DREDSEN GERMANS

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >dresden
            >it just killed a bunch of civilians you subhuman cunt
            It also denied the Soviets an intact fully functional rail transport hub and city for what would become Soviet territory agreed at Yalta for the feared soviet push or cold war

            Yalta confrence 4–11 February 1945
            Dresden bombing 13 Feb 1945 – 15 Feb 1945

            Does it make sense now?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              The soviets literally asked the allies to bomb dresden, I dunno wtf your point is here

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Women and children staff factories and logistics centers.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            What is the Blitz you Wehraboo fuck?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          wow killing the civvies (old men, women, kids....) really ended the war quickly Harris! WOAH, BASED? Kill every civillian in the town you were going to occupy anyways before they can surrender just because??? Warcrimes, BASED???

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >DO YOU WANT TOTAL WAR?
            You got it chums

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Bombs everyone elses historic cities
        >REEEEE MUH DRESDEN
        Kek, do it again bomber Harris

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sleep tight bomber.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      sleep tight bomber

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sleep tight bomber 🙂

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sleep tight bomber

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      sleep tight bomber

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >if god wanted the germans to win, why did he make them so flamable?
      sleep tight bomber

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      sleep tight bomber

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Sleep tight bomber

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      sleep tight bomber

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      "sleep tight bomber"

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >onsistently the worst tanks of the entire war with underpowered guns
    tbh Comet wasn't so bad and Centurion was pretty good.
    >muh universal carrier
    Not as good as Hanomag or M3, but not a bad machine either.
    >Sten
    First and last models were alright. Others inbetween are horrific.
    >PIAT. This thing couldn't even be reloaded under fire
    I've heard some good things about PIAT.
    >Chindits
    Outside of malaria, seems to be about as hard as soviet-finnish recon wars in 1942-43, when most of the job was done by partisans and scout groups on skis.
    >Italy, entirely Chuchill's idea
    What's so bad about Italian invasion? I may not know this.
    >Sells off most of Europe to the soviets in the postwar, turns around and goes muh Iron Curtain
    First, they did all they could to support right wing resistance in Greece and they won the Greece.
    Second, they did support antisoviet guerillas/bandits/freedom fighters/call them as you like in Eastern Europe - Forest Brothers, Armia Krajowa, Cetnici, UPA, Kings of Sumava.
    Considering that western allies weren't ready to start another war with soviets, they couldn't do more than they already did in that situation. It turned out that it wasn't enough or that SMERSH and MGB managed to undermine their actions.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Chindits
      These guys did glider borne suicide missions behind enemy lines with no appreciable strategic purpose not only once, but twice. Imagine cobbling together a special force just to have them get surrounded by Japs in the woods while having supply and disease issues, and there isn't a hope in hell of artillery support.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Chindits weren't special forces units as we know them today.
        Basically, for every company being sent to Burma, they'd pick one of the training regiments and go "Right, you lads are going to be Chindits" and specifically trained them for Jungle Warfare and Long-Range Recon. Because of that, there were thousands of them all over the place that fought where the Japanese were weakest. People forget that the Japanese detested fighting in jungles and only did so because it was the best way to get to where they actually wanted to fight, so just put up with it despite the fact it made supply lines a nightmare and the mostly urban population of Japan died as horribly to tropical diseases as their European counterparts.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          People forget that the bongs did fuckall for years, until the US destroyed japanese air and naval power.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Italy was an absolute attritional grind that the axis had the advantage of. We were still fighting there into 1945 with no real progress.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Italy was an absolute attritional grind that the axis had the advantage of
        Stalin wanted a second front, D-day wasn't ready yet, boots on the ground in the peninsular drew German divisions away from the East right as the Russians were prepping to assfuck Army Group South (again).It also took Italy and thus freed up most of the USN and RN in the med to go do shit elsewhere. A sound strategic move.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If memory serves Stalin didn't think much of the Italian sideshow for obvious reasons

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If memory serves Stalin didn't think much of the Italian sideshow for obvious reasons
            Memory does not serve.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Sells off most of Europe to the soviets in the postwar
    That was fucking Roosevelt, do you know a single fucking thing about any of the people involved in this war or does your personality end where your lips meet Hitler's balls?

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People make fun of Italy for having poor heavy industries but people don't realize Britain's wonky shit was produced mostly by repurposed bike shops and other smaller industries as well. Its why their tanks are the shit show they are too.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Anons ITT
      >I know nothing and I must post
      Worst army easily goes to Italy but in fairness they werent expecting war to begin until 1940/1941. Its been widely acknowledged Hitler knew Mussolini didnt want war until then but their alliance was structured to cover both offensive and defensive wars. Still their equipment was meme tier and they got btfo by the Greeks and had to beg for help. After that Japan is an easy second because the entire war was the army and navy having s perpetual slapfight for resources while their gains collapsed around them.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Their personal equipment was actually pretty good, but they didnt have enough of it as mussolini had just not planned for such an early war and had sold most of their stocks which they suddenly needed. The exception being their squad machine guns, which belonged in the 1890s, and the lack of any decent tank designs in any quantity, or attempts to design decent tanks which were either sensible or were actually produced. Admittedly most tanks in 1939/1940 were pretty bad but still, britain and germany have cruaders and panzer IIIs, and then Italy just has...rubbish little tankettes, including their "medium" tanks, which dont exceed 13 tonnes. They only just make a prototype for a competitor to the fucking crusader III in 1943. And they only make 103 P26/40s, which are supposed to be "heavy tanks" and yet have only a 50mm glacis, this would have been good in 1940 but, again, they only start production in 1943.
        Planes were generally decent, although fraught with issues and generally underpowered, excepting the G.55 and C.205, of which very few were built. Navy had a lot of powerful ships which were pretty good too, at least in design, shame they never accomplished anything of note. Italians just didnt have the industrial base to go to war in the first place, much less continuously adapt and produce on parity with Britain (or Germany) during the war.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Strong fucking post OP.

    A rare treat

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >20-30 round box lmg the entire war
    The Bren is frequently acknowledged as being one of, if not THE best LMGs of the entire war outside of BARfags. It's a LIGHT MACHINE GUN, not a big heavy GPMG like the MG-42 or M1919.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      shoulda been belt fed. A 30 round box isn't any better than the BAR and the amerifats found it wanting/replaced with the m1919a6

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >A 30 round box isn't any better than the BAR and the amerifats found it wanting/replaced with the m1919a6
        M1919, as the name suggests, came out the same time the BAR did and was the standard LMG throughout the war.

        You're an idiot.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          m1919a6 was pushed into service as an lmg around the time of normandy you fuckwit
          >During the war it became clear to the US military that the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, while portable, was not sufficient as a sustained fire weapon due to its fixed barrel and 20-round magazine... the military decided that a stop-gap solution would be best and adapted an existing design. The M1919A6 was an attempt at such a solution... first saw combat service in the fall of 1943

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            what you're trying to say is
            >it was moved into rifle squads after Normandy

            M1919 has always been an LMG, since 1919.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's a GPMG, not a LMG. Fucks sake.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It became as GPMG, it was an LMG.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ding ding ding

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                HMG. M1919s before the A6 were tripod-mounted 60+-pound affairs that required multiple men just to carry them around.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >M1919 has always been an LMG, since 1919,

              Wrong. It was a company-level, tripod-mounted HMG before the A6 variant.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >M1919A6
            >15kg
            >LMG
            The US machine guns were woeful vs their contemporaries, both the M1918 BAR and M1919 were overweight for their roles.
            The only good MG is the M2, but that doesn't really have any contemporaries outside the Dshka

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >LMG
            >fed from loose box
            No real LMG does this, because it would be extremely impractical.
            Either gunner will take very long to to fire after moving or he will have just a short muddy belt getting stuck everywhere.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              I could've sworn the a6 could attach the box

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Belt feeding is heavy as fuck you mong. They didn't have fucking 5.56 back then.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >BREN
    BAR had a 20 round mag. Your point?

    >Enfield
    One of the most iconic rifles ever made.

    >consistently the worst tanks of the entire war
    Infantry tanks werent bad if you consider their role. Comet was a fantastic tank and so was the Firefly.

    >artillery
    No. Just no.
    QF 25, BL 4.5-inch, BL 5.5-inch, BL 7.2-inch which were their standard guns all entered service in the late 30's early 40's.

    >Utterly stymied in western Europe after D-Day
    Because they baited every German armored division in France and then fixed them so Patton could do his thing? A battle that not only set the stage for the breakout but resulted in the British suffering WW1 tier casualties, casualties they struggled to make up since they had been at war for 5 years at that point.

    >Market Garden
    Operation Varsity

    >sells of most of Europe
    Most egregious of your errors. That was 10001% Roosevelt.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >7.2 inch
      In 1940 the British Army concluded that the only heavy howitzer available to it, the First World War-era BL 8-inch howitzer, had insufficient range for the conditions of the Second World War. As a stopgap the decision was made to re-line the existing barrels to a smaller calibre and develop a new range of ammunition to achieve the desired ranges

      check out those wedges!

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You do realize that gun is a Corps level piece? So, the criticism is
        >this very specific piece of specialist equipment, a 182mm gun, is from WW1

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          imagine having a gun that literally jumps in the air every time it fires because the munition is too potent for the carriage and your response is "okay, let's start hauling around wedges"
          ...

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The problem is?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So in other words, they used old WWI guns as an ingredient to build new WWII guns.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >One of the most iconic rifles ever made.
      That doesn't mean it's good. All of the early century bolt actions are iconic, and all of them were outdated shit by the 40s.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Lee Enfield with its big magazine and quick to cycle configuration was probably the best bolt action of the war but that's nothing compared to the M1. It's a triumph alone that they are even comparable in equipment to other major powers despite being closer to Italy in size though GB was nonetheless slower to develop some weapons (tanks, even despite being the most advanced in them during interwar) than others.

      Talking about 75mm
      And the reports about 76mm arent great, they couldnt penetrate a panther's turret beyond 100 metres unless they had tungsten AP ammo that most tanks would never receive due to scarcity of tungsten, and even that would only have a chance of penetrate the turret up to 900 metres, no chance of penetrating the glacis at any angle or range. German TDs with similar levels of protection to the panther's glacis (jpz IV and the uparmoured IV/70, jagdpanther and tigers) were immortal to the 76mm, and the rest were generally resistant to the 75mm including even the StUGIIIG and hetzer. And they were even less effective against King Tigers or even Tiger Is. Thats why Eisenhower went cap in hand to Churchill to ask for Fireflies. The US was incredibly lucky that the vast majority of post-D Day armoured warfare was between Britain and Germany, with 5+1/2 armoured divisions facing the British forces to the east, but only 1+1/2 divisions facing the US divisions. Despite facing less than 1/4 of German armour, in the very favourable bocage terrain, the Americans were shaken enough to finally start trying to upgun their tanks. Once the allies moved out of the bocage of Normandy the engagement ranges moved from 300 metres to 500-1500 metres and the US started facing proportionally more armour, sherman casualty rates skyrocketed. 76mm is better than 75mm sure, but it isnt a 17pdr or 90mm.

      Mostly American supply autism delaying not fully developed but needed weapons though HVAP was probably just failing to forsee a need which is hard to do when you're consistently winning.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        They didnt foresee it because the US had never fought with tanks before, and were actively ignoring the British experience in north africa, advice to upgun tanks, and intelligence that there were several thousand Panthers. A few listened and pushed to get the Pershing into production, but were prevented.
        Its a paper box the size of a Tiger II, the armour isnt thick or sloped enough to be effective, the sides are massive, flat, relatively thin, and prominent due to its gigantic profile. The 75mm turret is cast and thin, the m4 and m4a1s hulls are cast, the 76mm turret is better but still cast. The 75mm is a gun 3/4 years out of date, which cannot effectively frontally deal with any german armour except for the relatively small number of similarly obsolete panzer IVs, or a very good shot on a StUG. The 76mm can deal with most TDs which bumps up the % of german tanks it can fight frontally, but is relatively ineffective vs panthers, and almost completely frontally ineffective against anything heavier or heavy TDs. These were in total about 1/3 of German armour present. It cannot neutral steer, its centre of gravity is high and its tracks are very thin, which leaves it with very high ground pressure for its size, leaving it with poor rough terrain capabilities. Sure a few had 'wet' ammo stowage, but 80% did not and instead fairly often catastrophically cooked off when hit. It was an absolutely terrible tank which was only used because it was already being made+supplied for, and was genuinely as expendable and cheap as the T-34 is memed to be. Britain would take whatever it could get and had figured out how to moron rig a 17pdr into one, and the US had convinced themselves that only 100 panthers existed and the King Tiger was a myth before D-Day. US shouldve put Pershings into production before D-Day, Britain shouldve put more effort into rushing the Centurion into production instead of spending a year playing with the suspension and transmission.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >except for the relatively small number of similarly obsolete panzer IVs
          and this is how I know you are just retarded
          MUH HORDES of panzers and tigers has always been a total myth

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            This how i know youre retarded. The number of Panzer ivs was similar to the number of Panthers.

            1943-45
            Tiger II-569
            Tiger I-1,290
            Elefant/Ferdinand-90
            Panther (chasis)-6,557
            -Panther-6,144
            -Jagdpanther-413
            Panzer IV (chasis)-11,537
            -Panzer IV(tank)-6,543
            -StuG IV (TD)-1,141
            -Jpz IV (TD)-2,000-2,200
            -Hummel (SPG)-714
            -Sturmpanzer IV (SPG)-somewhere around 300
            -Nashorn (SPG)-some of 494 total
            Pz 38(t)
            -(Hetzer TD)-2,827
            -(Marder III SPG)-1,392
            Panzer III
            -(STUG IIIG TD)-8,432
            -(STUH 42 SPG/TD)-1,299
            -Nashorn (SPG)-some of 494 total
            -*A handful of panzer III Ns, flame tanks, and command tanks were produced between late 1942 and early 1943, these are the last panzer iiis to be produced, most existing stocks are converted to StUG, to an ARV, or used for training purposes. Numbering about 50 command tanks, 700 Ns, and 100 flame tanks. e.g. Around 173 were converted to stug in mid 1944, very few see frontline service after 1943.

            As you can see. Most German tanks were SPGs. From a frontal angle the 75mm is inadequate for many.
            Tiger II- immune to 76+75mm
            Tiger I-mostly immune, unangled ufp vuln to 76mm <500m
            Elefant-immune
            Panther-immune to 75mm, turret at <100m to 76mm or to ~900m with tungsten AP.
            Jagdpanther-immune
            JpzIV-"
            Hetzer-immune to 75mm, vulnerable to 76mm
            Sturmpanzer-"
            Stug III G-Resistant to 75mm (mostly proof but transmission and gunner/driver ports vulnerable), mostly vulnerable to 76mm
            STUG IV-"
            STUH42-"
            Panzer IV-vulberable to 76mm, partially resistant to 75mm (glacis sometimes resistant at >500m at an angle, turret vulnerable at all ranges)
            Nashorn-vulnerable to 75+76mm
            Hummel-"
            Marder III-"

            10,500-700 =completely or mostly resistant to both
            13,999=mostly resistant to 75mm, vuln to 76mm
            6,543=partially resistant to 75mm, vuln to 76mm
            2,600=not armoured vs most tank calibres
            24,699/33,842= ~72.9% of german armour from 1943-45 is mostly or completely frontally resistant to 75mm. Shit gun. 76mm better but still struggles with ~1/3 of armour.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >the size of a Tiger II
          >in the pic it is very clearly not the size of a Tiger II
          what did he mean by this?

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Afrika Korps was not one division. Unsurprisingly, it was an army corps. Plus they had the support of multiple elite Italian armored divisions and 10+ infantry divisions.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      15th panzer/21st panzer. You have autism

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I do not give a shit about German civilians and I never will. Stop crying your crocodile tears about the heckin innocent civilorinos.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anglos are like Russians, if you question any of their military history or actions they spurg out.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      not all of us. I don't know why there's so much Anglo gayry on the board as of late. We've always been about doing a lot with a little, there's no shame in it but there's a new wave of sperging behaviour that makes me cringe.

      There's enough success to offset the long history of leadership blunders, I don't really know where all this insecure gayry is coming from

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Mhmm. How about you fuck off and die warriortard your threads are gay and aids

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Don't mention vietnam,

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >sells off most of europe to the soviets
    bro WHAT?
    Roosevelt is responsible for all of the soviet pandering after the war. Churchill had to order Britain to race to occupy Denmark and make a dash to Berlin because Roosvelt was fine letting the soviets occupy anything. Churchill proposed an immediate invasion of the USSR which the Americans refused to agree to. Churchill complained about the explusion of Germans from territories not agreed to at Yalta, Roosevelt just shrugged, Churchill complained about the continuing occupation of Poland, Roosevelt just shrugged. Bavraia wanted to elect a king and become their own nation, America said no. Both America and the USSR encouraged the decolonisation movement, which caused both Britain and France to decline, the latter into civil chaos, and opened up about 1/3 of the world to soviet influence as well as indirectly starting the Vietnam War. America would go on to back Egypt in the Suez Crisis, causing political chaos in NATO-aligned Europe. American foreign policy was and is constantly schitzophrenic and chaotic, with no seeming purpose other than to fuck over its allies and create problems for itself in the future.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >America would go on to back Egypt in the Suez Crisis, causing political chaos
      t. ahistorical retard

      The feeble bongs and frogs, having embraced 60 years of humiliation and defeat, decided to posture again, and invade Egypt. This gave the USSR an excuse to invade Hungary and slaughter 40,000 people, and reenslave the rest.

      So the bong retards extended the Cold War and got people killed, fighting a greedy war they couldn't win in any event because they're forever retards.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >This gave the USSR an excuse to invade Hungary and slaughter 40,000 people, and reenslave the rest.

        Fucking what? The USSR would have let the Hungarian revolution slide?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What defeats had britain suffered in the 60 years before suez? Only France had actually been humiliated by being occupied.
        The USSR was always going to react to the hungarian revolution by invading, any pretext or excuse the USSR used or ever used was nothing more than political convenience, and either another exuse would be found, or none would and they'd just do it anyways and blame NATO agitators and/or cite something banal like 'security concerns" or "responding to the pleas of the hungarian government to restore order". They were never EVER going to let the Hungarians break away, because when one does and the USSR doesnt use force, they all do, their leadership and academics may have wanted to be there but the vast majority of the populace did not *and* had very recently been totally ideologically at war with the USSR, and thats exactly what happened to the eastern bloc in the end. You must work for the American foreign office, because you are a blithering arrogant retard just trying to shit stir.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >What defeats had britain suffered in the 60 years before suez?
          All of them? Why do you think they were starving and on rations then?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >The USSR was always going to react to the hungarian revolution by invading,
          No, but the bong retards ensured they would, and gave them license to slaughter tens of thousands of Hungarians.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I know this is a troll thread but the bit about Chindits caught my eye. Look up Operation Thursday. 77 Brigade, Mad Mike Calvert and the Battle of Mogaung if you like stories of endurance and warriorshit.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      No strategic value whatsoever. Just bongs being bongs, hunting headlines.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >worst tanks
    that'd be italy
    >consistently underpowered guns
    that'd be america
    >heavy artillery is ww1 vintage
    some of it was, so was some of everywhere else's
    >sten
    mass-produced garden shed version of sterling, same principle as the grease gun except worked better
    >PIAT
    More commonly used as an anti-emplacement weapon
    >Chindits
    The first commandos
    >North Africa
    Won that
    >Italy
    Knocked out Italy as a power, held up along with the USA by massive german reinforcements and difficult terrain
    >D-Day
    Most troops landed, paras didnt drown and actually completed their objectives, unlike the US ones, most successful landings, had to clear the hardest and densest concentrations of inland fortifications. Then got attacked by, and defeated, most of the armour in Northern France, while the US only had to deal with 1+1/2 armoured divisions.
    >Market-Garden
    Not sure what your complaint is
    >Lost battle of the atlantic
    No.
    >Sells off Europe
    His name behins with R and he was an American politician. Britain wanted to invade the USSR and knock it out quickly while it was weak.
    >Helmets are terrible
    Theyre fine for the time and were more effective vs bullets than the thinner US ones.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      contrary to popular belief, Italian tanks were perfectly fine at the beginning of the war
      imo the worst tanks of WW2 were the japs’

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Market Garden was a huge disaster and marked the death of the British Empire. After that the Americans never listened to the British again.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >consistently underpowered guns
      what does this even mean

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >basically lost the battle of the atlantic till murica came around
    moron what the fuck are you smoking

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i think he means the pacific, cause the british got their asses kicked there too in the early stages

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Consistently BTFO by the Nips in Asia too.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i think he means the pacific, cause the british got their asses kicked there too in the early stages

      >in the early stages

      The two years Britain was literally the only Allied power, fighting the entire Axis on multiple fronts?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        still lost your empire so you lost at the end too kek

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        america was part of the pacific war when the british lost singapore and burma, but they werent there en mass and the american industrial machine hadnt fully spun up

        british codebreaking did give the americans a gigantic advantage and saved their asses multiple times though

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bongs are so fucking insufferable. they truly believe to be superior to everybody even though they're a bunch of fat drunks living on the brink of economic collapse. and even when they used to be powerful they slaved their miserable lives under the nobility they love so much. truly deHispanicable people.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hard to disagree. Their delusions of importance have cost them bigly.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody believes that you retarded sack of grease. We suck and you suck just as much. You're insecure about bongland because you will never ever have our history or our cultural output. At least we had a moment in the sun and left behind us beautiful things. Your legacy is set to be dancing minstrels in Disney films and obese creatures born of miscegenation.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Stop embarrassing your self and your country, please.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Can you vocaroo that so I can hear it your clear cut ebonics?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're just getting more pathetic. Not even worth laughing at any more.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Dodges question
              You are quite literally non white, aren't you?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The average Tommy Atkins they sent to rape white women and destroy property wasn't much better than the average moron, either.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      t.pedro gonzalez american patriot

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hard to disagree. Their delusions of importance have cost them bigly.

      Stop embarrassing your self and your country, please.

      You're just getting more pathetic. Not even worth laughing at any more.

      The average Tommy Atkins they sent to rape white women and destroy property wasn't much better than the average moron, either.

      What language are you speaking now?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You do understand you're just proving their point, right? Are British people really this stupid?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So what language is that?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            american

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We speak your language and we don't think about you at all. So, well done. Try not to get confused when no one takes your shit country seriously.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              you seem to be quite mad about us at the moment, for some reason

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah about as mad as I am about the existence of Sudan or Romania or any other irrelevant shithole.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah that's why you make a dozen angry threads about the Sudan and Romania every week.
                Keep seething my brown friend.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                does your military get armour technology, in-flight refuelling systems, jet engines, and license its microprocessor technology from Sudan?
                :^)

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              yet you still rely on us for a lot of military technology. Really rinks your dink

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        American.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is the one thing people get wrong about bongland. We know we're the little underdog island, and we're more aware of it than anyone else. We have embraced this a long time ago. Nobody likes the nobility either, it's just that having a monarch diverts the jingoistic flag waving nationalistic horseshit towards the monarch, thereby ensuring we will never worship and sperg out over the actual political leaders. The monarchy buys us lifetime immunity from Trump rallies, so actual prime ministers just get the scorn they deserve.

      Why do you think its so rare to see a UK flag over here? Outside of the poimp and ceremony in the capital, we don't like that flag waving shit, it's cringe. We only go in for nationalism with thick irony.

      We know we're trash, yet the worlds nations celebrate their independence from us anyway. And we're not even proud of it.

      The UK wasn't equipped to take on Nazi Germany but did anyway, did it alone for a long time, and yet again managed to scrape another victory for the pile, defeating them when they actually threatened the mainland even with all our industrial cities on fire

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's the US honestly, they could do fuck all without fire support or CAS

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Brainlet CoD tier take. Fire support and CAS IS what an army is built around. Almost all tasks the infantry will do is revolved around protecting armour and co-ordinating artillery. Deaths from small arms throughout the war was probably >10% with deaths from individual rifles being maybe at >2%. The vast majority of deaths come from mortars, artillery, armour and CAS, and the American army dominated later war because they slapped a radio on every platoon, and using pre plotted artillery can destroy a target 5 minutes after taking fire. What your saying is basically the same as going "Michael Phelps is only a famous swimmer because of his speed, he could do fuck all without it."

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >20-30 round box lmg the entire war
    Also had exceptional accuracy and range
    >bolt actions the entire war; can't even make a straight shooting jungle carbine
    Le mad minute
    >consistently the worst tanks of the entire war with underpowered guns
    The worst british tank shits on the best japanese/italian tanks, also the Cromwell is consistently underrated because muh bocage. Agree everything else was mostly crap and the cruiser/infantry tank paradigm was a massive blunder
    >muh universal carrier!
    A basic, reliable all-purpose vehicle, g*rms made heavy use of captured models
    >heavy artillery is ww1 vintage with new munitions; literally had to use wooden blocks to keep the gun from jumping away
    If it works it works
    >Sten
    Objectively dogshit
    >PIAT. This thing couldn't even be reloaded under fire
    Only MANPAT that could take out the late-war heavies, lift more pussy
    >Chindits suicide missions. Just look it up, no other army would ever have reinforced such titanic failures
    True, Wingate was a fucking psychopath. A terrible indictment of the upper class old boy network that blights Britain to this day.
    >Completely BTFO by one panzer div in North Africa so badly they had to create the legend of the Desert Fox
    True, mostly Churchill's fault for sperging over Greece.
    >Muh Monty, this guy is soooo good because his tempo of operations is terrible
    Monty tempo is what finally broke Rommel. He was a huge pissbaby about working with Eisenhower though, weird looking cunt.
    >Italy, entirely Chuchill's idea
    True
    >Utterly stymied in western europe after D-Day
    True
    >Market-Garden
    Good strategy shafted by the worst intelligence fuckup of the war
    >basically lost the battle of the atlantic till murica came around
    It's spelled LIDAR
    >Sells off most of Europe to the soviets in the postwar, turns around and goes muh Iron Curtain
    True
    >Even their helmets are terrible
    True
    You forgot the Boys gay

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > the cruiser/infantry tank paradigm was a massive blunder
      The Germans did the same thing with their initial planned paradigm or panzer IIIs and short barrel panzer IVs.
      Also, it's not so much a massive blunder as a less optimal use of resources. It'll still work on the offense. it's less effective on the defense but then again, German tanks weren't really planned to be used defensively either. In Rommel's playbook, you use tanks for offense and anti-tank guns for defense.
      The meta strat, the MBT that everyone now follows was invented by the Brits.
      This is a dumb bait thread for retards and 4chanmorons though. I like the Brits and if by nothing other than geography they were the crucial lynchpin in defeating Germany.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I would argue that late war Panthers with most of the mechanical problems ironed out were the only WW2 tanks that didn't objectively suck

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That seems like you would need a rather narrow definition for "doesn't suck" to come to that outcome.
          I would also argue the Comet was in many ways the equal of the panther, with better reliability from the off. A slightly worse gun (but arguably better ammunition) and worse armor. The comet was faster though with much better power to weight (which is more important off road) and were lighter, which meant they had better strategic mobility.
          I also suppose it depends on whether you consider the Centurion a ww2 tank (I don't).

          I would also say the M26 is better than the panther, better gun, equivalent armor, slower but again more reliable with better strategic mobility.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >True, Wingate was a fucking psychopath. A terrible indictment of the upper class old boy network that blights Britain to this day.
      It's more complicated than that. The initial chindit missions were very successful, considering the resources put into them. The mistake that was made was believing they could be scaled up indefinitely. But that's often the thing about success, it's dangerous. It makes smart people think they can't lose.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Market garden
      Plus, the actual broken link in Market Garden was the Americans. The 82nd parachute division was late to their bridge and it had been reinforced, they then had to wait for British reinforcements and by the time they took the bridge the operation was way behind schedule and the Germans had time to bring up armour.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not really, XXX corps was very behind schedule. If they had been there to support the 82nd, the bridge would have fallen faster.
        The plan was too ambitious overrall, with too many failure points. And yet, with everything that went wrong, the American and British soldiers on the ground NEARLY made it work. Like it had no right to come even as close as it did to success. Market Garden is literally the counter argument to when people say American/British troops weren't good fighters in WW2. Because those poor bastards got handed a shit sandwich of circumstances and nearly made it work.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          the reason the americans needed to wait for XXX corp was because they delayed for more than 24 hours after landing in trying to take the bridge, whole point of the plan was to seize the bridges quickly as possible and hold them while the armour linked up and passed through to arnhem 101st got theirs blown up, 82 didnt take theirs on time

          ironically the only group to actually take their bridge on day one was frosts battalion which then had to try and hold the sodding thing fr 9 days while most of a panzer divisin tried to kill the british paras

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Agree everything else was mostly crap and the cruiser/infantry tank paradigm was a massive blunder
      Comet was good, churchill was actually ok, slow but good cross country and ok gun

      >Objectively dogshit
      worked and cheap as fuck to make, sure there were better SMGs but not for the cost

      >Utterly stymied in western europe after D-Day
      True
      false, did better on D day than the americans, only failed in taking caen day one because of a large scale armoured counter attack from 21st panzer division, proceeded to draw 70% of the available german armour and 60%+ of the german infantry into the fighting for Caen freeing the americans to take Cherbourg and set up for Cobra, then fought to the rhine including some of the heaviest fighting in the wear to clear the reichswald,

      >Good strategy shafted by the worst intelligence fuckup of the war
      but understandable not to believe dutch resistance warnings as dutch had been repeatedly infiltrated by german intelligence and while brave were not therefore entirely reliable, still could have worked if the americans had actually tried to take their bridge on day one at nijmegan instead of digging in around the dropzone. that delay cost days

      >Even their helmets are terrible
      false actually, protected a wider area from the primary threat which was overhead shrapnel, other designs covered more of neck but with thinner metal more easily penetrated and for greater cost.

      and as for the Boys sure it was rapidly obsolete but ever major power entered ww1 with a antitank rifle in pretty much the same role the boys was in and all pretty much abandoned them around the same time for the same reason

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly the cruiser/infantry tank concept wasnt entirely wrong. Cruiser tanks (Crusader, Comet, Cromwell) were largely used for manoeuvre and killing other tanks, infantry tanks (Churchill) were slow but could cross most terrain and were primarily used with and against infantry very effectively. Ultimately the cruiser tank concept won out and evolved into the MBT, but the Churchill was good enough to be used into the 50s. The Centurion, while a little late, is the first MBT, and is still in use today as the Olifant, making it the longest actively serving tank design in the world, alongside maybe the IS-3 which NK may or may not still operate.
      Imo nowadays, we are seeing a kind of move back to cruiser/infantry tank concept. With countries investing in much cheaper and lighter tank destroyers, to complement the increasingly heavy, expensive and difficult to deploy MBTs. Although frankly Britain never completely abandoned the concept, flawed or not, it simply changed to relatively slow and heavy infantry tanks dedicated to tank killing (chieftain, challenger)-but having more of the mobility of a cruiser, and cruiser tanks dedicated to going fast, providing infantry support, and scouting (scimitar, scorpion). Albeit frankly the chieftain absolutely did not have the mobility of a proper cruiser on account of the multifuel engine NATO meme'd Britain into adopting before completely abandoning it.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Le mad minute
      gay. Opinion discarded

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody has a right to complain about the Bren when the Italians had the Breda 30.
    >decide disposable mags are a meme
    >design gun to have non-removable 20rd mag
    >have to reload magazine via stripper clips
    >if mag is damaged, gun is unusable
    >open topped mag and oiling system attracts dust and sand like nothing else
    >sights are on the barrel, requiring resighting any time its changed
    >have to change barrels every 200rds

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Bergsaglieri drip goes hard

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Bren was fine, OP is just an ignorant American desperate to be the toughest guy in the imaginary room by making aggressively stupid statements and seeing if anyone challenges him.

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably not the worst but definitely not the best, however its really not fair to treat the British army this way. The priority of the British government throughout the war was always Airforce > Navy > Army, with resources and skilled personnel being assigned in that order. If you measure airforces on a pound for pound basis, you'll find that the RAF absolutely BTFOs all other rival airforces by a huge margin. RAF pilots, maintenance crews, commanders, logisticians, scientists and especially engineers were of superlative quality. pic especially related.

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    off most of Europe to the soviets in the postwar, turns around and goes muh Iron Curtain
    that's just wrong
    the usa insisted on not using the british embasy in Teheran and instead using the soviet embasy. All the conversations between the american delegation where spied on because surprise surprise the soviets had their rooms bugged.
    And from there on the soviets pushed harder and harder and the usa folded faster and faster.
    Also don't forget that hating on the brits was more of a thing than hating on the soviets amongst american politicians and military personel.

    So if anyone sold out eastern europe it was the usa.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It was totally the USA
      British and russians have fucking HATED one another for centuries, even mid war propaganda dehumanised one another when they were allies, Churchill wanted to push on to Moscow
      Patton did too, the garden gnome us garden gnomed him out of existence and let the crumbling shambles of a state absorb poor war torn EEU
      Fuck Eisenhower

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Worst army of ww2 awards ceremony
    1. France
    2. Italy
    3. Japan
    4. Germany
    5. UK/Commonwealth
    6. US
    7. Soviet Union

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's an extremely favorable view of an army that had little to offer other than endless manpower

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Everything it achieved was done at eye wateringly high cost, but in terms of measurable effect, the Soviets did the most on the ground.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          We weren't talking about what got done though, I thought

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >USSR
      >Entire officer corps purged before the start of the war
      >little to no effort put into organisation or logistical issues
      >tanks often abandoned because they forgot to feed the tankers or that resources need transport
      >Britain supplied half of its logistics
      >USA supplied the other half
      >Spends the war pumping out scrap metal shrapnel boxes and accusing the dead of unpatriotic behaviour
      >tactics consist of relying on infinite manpower and infinite space to retreat
      >Makes crap planes, crap tanks and doesnt even have much in the way of ships
      >Germany consistently sabotged or distracted and prevented from focusing on them at any point
      >Air war effectively won elsewhere
      >loses a significant proportion of its young male population while accomplishing no more than the other allies.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I understand the economic and logistical arguments, the Soviet Union was a basket case without US/UK support, but in terms of actual fighting the Soviets absorbed and eventually defeated 75-80% of German forces.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          North Africa starved Germany of oil and took up a lot of manpower and tanks.
          The Atlantic blockade prevented Germany from further supplies of oil, and nearly any supplies of rubber
          Operations in Norway and bombings prevented the supply of Manganese for hardened steel
          Battle of Britain and subsequent British fighter sweeps and British bombings took up much of german air power before barbarossa even began and then British+US gradually weakened the german industrial base, for one drastically reducing the number of Tiger IIs planned to be built from around 1000 to no more than 500 by the end of the war.
          German forces were split in half by D-Day and Italy, the Soviets didnt face the vast majority of their one opponent's (ground forces) for much more than 2 years, but even then thats a Germany greatly distracted by north africa, without access to vital resources, and with much depleted and distracted airpower. Meanwhile the soviets are effectively fighting only on one front .
          German forces in the west in France, Italy etc generally surrendered instead of fighting to the death and staging non-stop fighting withdrawals, because Britain wasnt known for arbitrarily executing prisoners and sending the rest to die in Siberia. Soviets may well have killed the majority of German soldiers during the war, and thats almost exclusively because the Germans would just not surrender to the Soviets because of the Soviet's own behaviour. Its an example of incompetence and counterproductive brutality rather than the assumption of more of the work. The Germans chose to evacuate from courland rather than surrender, despite the war being over, likewise with the fighting withdrawal from Berlin, many such cases, theyd fight to the death against the soviets up to the last days of the war, just so they could surrender to British or US forces.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Not to mention that the US and UK also defeated Japan, Soviet contribution to which was minimal. Brits had over a million men in Burma, while the number of Americans in the Pacific must be at least double that. Added to that, much of the Soviet dominance over Germany was on account of the fact that German troop numbers in the East dwindled massively once Italy started and once the Germans realized an invasion of France was on the cards.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              The Japanese surrendered when the Soviets swept into Manchuria; the timing of the atomic bombings was coincidental to this.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            That's all true, but it still remains the case that no other country gave so much of itself in order to defeat Germany, they suffered the most casualties both civilian and military, a lot of which may have been due to incompetence, but still they exhausted the efforts of Germany with their armed forces more than any other, and after 1942 they were the ones dealing the most damage to German forces anywhere. So in terms of efficacy the Soviets were the most deleterious to German war plans, regardless of loss and material support from elsewhere.

            SU was a dogshit failure propped up entirely as a UK/US proxy, surviving only because of the bones the west were willing to throw them

            >SU was a dogshit failure
            Clearly not. It was able to weather the majority of German efforts during Barbarossa, and then roll the Germans back, at great cost.
            >propped up entirely
            It received significant support, and wouldn't have stayed in the fight without it, but the same goes for the UK.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >It was able to weather
              It lost almost all of its territory and got demographically destroyed, surviving on a knife edge, and rolled them back with Western boots, stomachs filled with Western food, transported on western trucks and western trains so they could fight the battles with Western intel, western radar, western electronical equipment, western tanks, western planes
              It's pathetic, they only made any gains or progress when the west proxied them, and also fought the Germans on multiple other fronts
              Oh, and the bongoloids at least fought alone while the Soviet scum made treaties with the Nazis
              They were pathetic

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                That's all true, but it still remains the case that no other country gave so much of itself in order to defeat Germany, they suffered the most casualties both civilian and military, a lot of which may have been due to incompetence, but still they exhausted the efforts of Germany with their armed forces more than any other, and after 1942 they were the ones dealing the most damage to German forces anywhere. So in terms of efficacy the Soviets were the most deleterious to German war plans, regardless of loss and material support from elsewhere.

                [...]
                >SU was a dogshit failure
                Clearly not. It was able to weather the majority of German efforts during Barbarossa, and then roll the Germans back, at great cost.
                >propped up entirely
                It received significant support, and wouldn't have stayed in the fight without it, but the same goes for the UK.

                >weather
                Was ruined so utterly that 21st century Britain is a perfect analogue of 19th century Spain.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      SU was a dogshit failure propped up entirely as a UK/US proxy, surviving only because of the bones the west were willing to throw them

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >ranking germany worse than the commonwealth

      They literally did EVERY single thing better in terms of equipment except stuff they didn't even bother using like four engine heavy bombers. Seriously, there isn't a single piece of WW2 british equipment that was better than the german counterpart.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        tempest was better than Fw190, spitfire was better than Bf109, and they never managed to come close to matching the mossie, smle was better than K98

        25 pounder was better than anything the germans had as a field gun
        17pounder was a better AT weapon and the 3.7" was better as a AA piece

        british capital ships were better, british maritime patrol aircraft were better, british cruisers and destroyers were better

        they had some good subs, some nice aircraft and their tanks were good on the battlefield albeit worse to get to the battlefield

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >tempest was better than Fw190
          war was already over
          >spitfire was better than Bf109
          only major impact it had was in the battle of britain and the hurricane (a shit plane) did most of the work, the spit was forgettable otherwise
          >mossie
          ju87 was an absolute workhorse ground attacker that contributed far more despite dropping off towards the end
          >smle
          just another bolt action who cares, the brits never graduated to semi auto so this doesn't mean much
          >AT
          pak 75 did everything it needed to do and was iconically successful at destroying armor, the germans just built bigger tanks for the IS2s
          >navy
          irrelevant in the german context besides submarine warfare where they nearly drove your island to famine, plus they sank the best royal navy ship with a single shell, PLUS brits had comical naval disasters like force H anyway
          >maritime patrol
          irrelevant in german context
          also german ships were excellently made despite them not even caring about the navy after the first 18 months of the war

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >so what if it was better! War was over!
            >nooo! the most iconic fighter of the war was forgettable!
            Yet another cope essay from yet another wehraboo

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >the most iconic fighter of the war
              imagine believing this

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You're talking about it now, right?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                it can't compete with the messerchmitts, fockewulfs, zero, mustang, or thunderbolt
                the spit is a second-tier literally who like the hellcat

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                LARGE if confirmed. Link?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                widespread global public opinion for 80 years re-evaluated at regular intervals

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                So, no link then?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Nah tempest is introduced in 1942
            Spitfire performed better than the hurricane and was present in huge numbers, hurricane had more planes present throughout the battle of britain, but not a huge majority.
            Mosquito did better than the jU87
            SMLE was better than bolt actions commonly used by Germany or USSR, it could essentially fire as fast as a semi auto too. Most doctrine of most nations involved, bolt actions, machine pistols, and squad machine guns.

            it can't compete with the messerchmitts, fockewulfs, zero, mustang, or thunderbolt
            the spit is a second-tier literally who like the hellcat

            Faster than 109
            Better energy retention than 109
            Better armed than 109
            Better turn time than 109
            Smaller turn radius than 109
            Stronger wings than 109
            109 bros...

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >, it could essentially fire as fast as a semi auto too
              ok now thats cope
              it was probably the best bolt action fielded though

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >Nah tempest is introduced in 1942
              What the fuck are you talking about? Tempests didn't enter service until mid-44, which makes comparing it to a fighter that did so in 1941 retarded. I can only assume you think "first prototype flight" means "introduced"

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/cNmpU07.jpg

            >the most iconic fighter of the war
            imagine believing this

            it can't compete with the messerchmitts, fockewulfs, zero, mustang, or thunderbolt
            the spit is a second-tier literally who like the hellcat

            widespread global public opinion for 80 years re-evaluated at regular intervals

            Brownoid hands typed this, post melanin texture pack.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >only major impact it had was in the battle of britain and the hurricane (a shit plane) did most of the work, the spit was forgettable otherwise
            by the BoB the hurri was getting old but was by no means a shit plane. plus its just was to go after the bombers whereas the spitfires dealt with the fighters, leading to the kill disparity. the spit was used successfully throughout the war and was very well liked by its pilots.
            >ju87 was an absolute workhorse
            a completely different aircraft to the mossie with a different role. retarded comparison.
            >brits never graduated to semi auto
            neither did anyone else fully except the US.
            > nearly drove your island to famine
            wrong. germany never once sank enough tonnage to signifigantly impact the UK, only getting close to the minumum for a single month. true, the bismark won that battle, im sure it went on to have a very successful career.
            > also german ships were excellently made despite them not even caring about the navy after the first 18 months of the war
            every word of this is wrong. their ships were often overweight for their size with a poor armour scheme as well as having issues with the sea keeping. their early torpedoes were as bad as the early american ones, they just fixed the issues faster. germans gave up on large surface ships early war but went hard into subs because that was the only thing that could leave port without being immediately sunk, and even those were rendered useless by mid 1943.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The early spits had the inline engine cutting out in -G, but this is resolved from the mk.V onwards, and the late merlin spits are increasingly flawless, especially the mk IX. The griffon spits are not only more agile, but as fast as any other plane designed for high speed interception, and performance only increased at altitude, they had one of the most powerful engines of the war. The LF MKIX was literally able to climb to 50,000 feet, and turnfight zeroes and win. The only issue with any of the spitfires is the same as the 109s, lack of range due to low capacity internal fuel, sacrificed for better performance, the late merlins arent even notably slower than a FW. Typhoon is equal to the FW, Tempest is better, both are also capable ground attackers. Mosquito didnt have a German equivalent.
        17pdr was as good as the long 88
        Britain invents APDS
        etc

        >consistently underpowered guns
        what does this even mean

        Ask OP.
        What i take it to mean is that Americans just dont bother upgrading their firepower, and are mostly milling around with 75mm shermans for the majority of the war, which are basically obsolete by 1944, and the 76mm isnt much better by the time its introduced, especially as the AP ammo was generally not avaliable. Sure it may have been ok in 1942, but not great as an AT weapon, and America doesnt see any proper land warfare until 1943. Meanwhile Germany has the various marks of long 76mm and the 88 and long 88, Britain has the 17pdr and the early war 6pdr was pretty decent, the USSR has its 100mm guns or 122mm. The American 3 inch gun, used by the majority of American tank destroyers, and never by Shermans, is outperformed by the 17pdr or 88. Sure America has the 90mm, but thats on only a very tiny proportion of vehicles, most of which are unarmoured tank destroyers. Generally their firepower was extremely lacking, hence them begging Britain to convert shermans into fireflies for them following the german armoured counter attack.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >and are mostly milling around with 75mm shermans for the majority of the war
          there were good reasons for that

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            retardation yeah

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              read the reports about the 76mm guns anon

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Talking about 75mm
                And the reports about 76mm arent great, they couldnt penetrate a panther's turret beyond 100 metres unless they had tungsten AP ammo that most tanks would never receive due to scarcity of tungsten, and even that would only have a chance of penetrate the turret up to 900 metres, no chance of penetrating the glacis at any angle or range. German TDs with similar levels of protection to the panther's glacis (jpz IV and the uparmoured IV/70, jagdpanther and tigers) were immortal to the 76mm, and the rest were generally resistant to the 75mm including even the StUGIIIG and hetzer. And they were even less effective against King Tigers or even Tiger Is. Thats why Eisenhower went cap in hand to Churchill to ask for Fireflies. The US was incredibly lucky that the vast majority of post-D Day armoured warfare was between Britain and Germany, with 5+1/2 armoured divisions facing the British forces to the east, but only 1+1/2 divisions facing the US divisions. Despite facing less than 1/4 of German armour, in the very favourable bocage terrain, the Americans were shaken enough to finally start trying to upgun their tanks. Once the allies moved out of the bocage of Normandy the engagement ranges moved from 300 metres to 500-1500 metres and the US started facing proportionally more armour, sherman casualty rates skyrocketed. 76mm is better than 75mm sure, but it isnt a 17pdr or 90mm.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        For land forces, you mean? Because I don't see how Germany could possibly have "outclassed" their opponents at Sea or in the Air

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Somehow Germans didn't know the importance of logistics, especially later on in the war. Guns may win battles but logistics wins wars.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Germans did know logistics were important, they were simply physically incapable of finding a solution to that conundrum. Just like a short man cannot simply become taller, Germany could not create oil and metal out of thin air.
          Hitler was simply a hotheaded retard who picked fights that he could not possibly win with Germany's resources and manpower. It was Game Over before it even began.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly I'd rank Germany higher than the Brits, but I guess giving them the rest of the Commonwealth (mainly Canada and Australia, New Zealand's main battle tank was a tractor with a Bren and sheet metal welded to it) brings them up to a higher spot. If we're counting them separately though, then the order of the Commonwealth militaries sees Britain itself relegated to third place at best, with the Canadians and Australians in the two spots above them.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >a tractor with a Bren
        i believe it had like 7 brens or something ridiculous like that

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, it was like 6 or 7 of them intended to be used by that many crewmen inside. I don't really fault the guy who made them, he mostly made it out of frustration that nobody else on that entire island seemed to be doing anything. That was his retort when the other New Zealanders pointed out it was a tractor covered in sheet metal IIRC, he told them that if they didn't like it, they should get off their asses and try making one themselves.
          Honestly though, if he'd used some concrete too he could have made an army of killdozers. At the very least you'd have some kind of proto-IFV given how well Heemeyer's later design protected against bullets. I want to make one like that to defend my land (and double as a farming implement) with one day, assuming I ever get to own property. Instead of a Bren I'd put an AR-15 with a crank lower and a belt feed upper in there. And probably an AC unit or a fan because it has to get hot in there.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah Germany was so shit it just needed a coalition of every superpower on earth to beat them lol

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Bren was consistently praised by the troops that used it. The mistake is thinking that it's a single-man support weapon, like the BAR, which isn't true. It was the primary weapon of the rifle section, which would built around supporting it.

    Every man in the section carried two full Bren mags on them, except for the Bren Assistant, who carried six and the spare barrel.

  30. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Behold, my WW2 nation!
    Geographic location of the UK, infantry weapons of Italy, uniforms of Denmark, tank corps of France, air force of the USSR, surface fleet of Germany, sub fleet of the early-war US, and the intelligence branch of Japan.

  31. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    lost the battle of the atlantic till murica came around
    you mean the atlantic convoys that were never once halted and continued from 1939 -1945?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      They were losing 1939-41.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        define losing when atlantic shipping was getting through uninterrupted

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Starving and running out of ships

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Brits never starved though?
            Their nutrition actually improved during the war, because it ended inequality between classes in terms of who could access nutritional foodstuffs.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Never starved because the US intervened to save them and give them Lend Lease.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You're losing track of your own narrative lmao. The US was delivering equipment to the UK already before the US entered the war, there wasn't any definite point in the battle of the Atlantic where the UK suddenly went from "starving" to "being saved by the USA". The UK successfully kept its citizens nourished for the duration of the whole conflict and did not endure any hunger.
                Lend Lease also refers to equipment like trucks and tanks, not wheat and beef. Funnily enough my grandpa actually made the family money selling beef to the British in WW2 (Argentina)

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >US was delivering equipment to the UK already before the US entered the war
                Correct, and was also fighting and dying vs the nazis. Had to, because the bongs were losing and bankrupt.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Lend Lease also refers
                Lend Lease refers to US aid to beggar nations, and the bongs were the biggest recipient and biggest beggar.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >>Lend Lease refers to US aid to beggar nations
                >he doesn't know the US received LL from the UK

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >US received LL from the UK
                Again, Lend Lease was a US program, for beggars like the bongs. So you seem ignorant here.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Again, Lend Lease was a US program, for beggars like the bongs. So you seem ignorant here.
                You know less than you think you do, So you seem ignorant here.

                "Reverse Lend-Lease to the United States totalled $7.8 billion. Of this, $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. Canada also aided the United Kingdom and other Allies with the Billion Dollar Gift and Mutual Aid totalling $3.4 billion in supplies and services (equivalent to $61 billion in 2020)"

                you've been done.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                No, the US didn't have to beg and could finance itself as well as the bong beggars.

                You see, when you beg for handouts, and you're bankrupt and losing, you're a beggar, as the bongs.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks for the help, Towarisch.
                Why does Uncle Sam give so much gibs to foreign countries while the fat American average citizens have to pay thousands of dollars for insulin and other medications to survive?

  32. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    You forgot 30K IJA annihilating an entire army in Singapore and basically making what was left of Britain flee to Madagascar after a few months

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      That was partially due to incompetence on the part of the command, partially due to incredibly bad luck when HMS Ark Royal hit an uncharted reef off of the East Indies and therefore left the Eastern Fleet without air cover, partially due to japs innovating the mass naval fighter bomber and making HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse the first capital ships to be sunk only by torpedo bombers, and partially due to singapore being almost indefensible without dominance at sea.

      That's all true, but it still remains the case that no other country gave so much of itself in order to defeat Germany, they suffered the most casualties both civilian and military, a lot of which may have been due to incompetence, but still they exhausted the efforts of Germany with their armed forces more than any other, and after 1942 they were the ones dealing the most damage to German forces anywhere. So in terms of efficacy the Soviets were the most deleterious to German war plans, regardless of loss and material support from elsewhere.

      [...]
      >SU was a dogshit failure
      Clearly not. It was able to weather the majority of German efforts during Barbarossa, and then roll the Germans back, at great cost.
      >propped up entirely
      It received significant support, and wouldn't have stayed in the fight without it, but the same goes for the UK.

      >No other nation gave so much of itself
      Yes, and i'd put that mostly down to incompetence and lack of concern/value for human life over petty internal political appearances and/or objectives.
      Dealing the most damage as in? Their air power was heavily hit and was being continuously drained over western europe, true they could replace planes but they had trouble replacing the huge quantity of experienced pilots they lost during the battle of britain, and they were constantly being confronted by british fighter sweeps over northern france as well as bombing attempts. Their surface navy was hemmed in and hounded by the RN, they had no access to resources from outside of Europe, the U-boat fleet had a 75% mortality rate and wasnt able to stop shipping. North Africa took up many of their most experienced men, many of their tanks, as well as most of the fighting manpower of Italy, effectively knocking the 3rd Axis member out of the war. USSR acts like a sponge for german ground units maybe a year or two, like Britain had for German air power, except the USSR had its logistics provided for it, Germany was fighting on another front, and Germany didnt have the benefit of an entirely fresh and intact air force to support its ground units. The USSR was useful for keeping a an additional front open until D-Day, but they didnt single handedly grind the German war machine to a halt, and Britain+USA would have won without them +1-2 years.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        That was 100% due to bong military incompetence.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      how could I forget their use of revolvers. Shame

      >20-30 round box lmg the entire war
      Also had exceptional accuracy and range
      >bolt actions the entire war; can't even make a straight shooting jungle carbine
      Le mad minute
      >consistently the worst tanks of the entire war with underpowered guns
      The worst british tank shits on the best japanese/italian tanks, also the Cromwell is consistently underrated because muh bocage. Agree everything else was mostly crap and the cruiser/infantry tank paradigm was a massive blunder
      >muh universal carrier!
      A basic, reliable all-purpose vehicle, g*rms made heavy use of captured models
      >heavy artillery is ww1 vintage with new munitions; literally had to use wooden blocks to keep the gun from jumping away
      If it works it works
      >Sten
      Objectively dogshit
      >PIAT. This thing couldn't even be reloaded under fire
      Only MANPAT that could take out the late-war heavies, lift more pussy
      >Chindits suicide missions. Just look it up, no other army would ever have reinforced such titanic failures
      True, Wingate was a fucking psychopath. A terrible indictment of the upper class old boy network that blights Britain to this day.
      >Completely BTFO by one panzer div in North Africa so badly they had to create the legend of the Desert Fox
      True, mostly Churchill's fault for sperging over Greece.
      >Muh Monty, this guy is soooo good because his tempo of operations is terrible
      Monty tempo is what finally broke Rommel. He was a huge pissbaby about working with Eisenhower though, weird looking cunt.
      >Italy, entirely Chuchill's idea
      True
      >Utterly stymied in western europe after D-Day
      True
      >Market-Garden
      Good strategy shafted by the worst intelligence fuckup of the war
      >basically lost the battle of the atlantic till murica came around
      It's spelled LIDAR
      >Sells off most of Europe to the soviets in the postwar, turns around and goes muh Iron Curtain
      True
      >Even their helmets are terrible
      True
      You forgot the Boys gay

      >mad minute
      Now this, this is the cope. I remember reading a account of Brits assaulting the gothic line and the commander had the brilliant idea of getting everybody to do a mad minute before jumping off. Thanks for the heads-up, Tommy!

      This is the one thing people get wrong about bongland. We know we're the little underdog island, and we're more aware of it than anyone else. We have embraced this a long time ago. Nobody likes the nobility either, it's just that having a monarch diverts the jingoistic flag waving nationalistic horseshit towards the monarch, thereby ensuring we will never worship and sperg out over the actual political leaders. The monarchy buys us lifetime immunity from Trump rallies, so actual prime ministers just get the scorn they deserve.

      Why do you think its so rare to see a UK flag over here? Outside of the poimp and ceremony in the capital, we don't like that flag waving shit, it's cringe. We only go in for nationalism with thick irony.

      We know we're trash, yet the worlds nations celebrate their independence from us anyway. And we're not even proud of it.

      The UK wasn't equipped to take on Nazi Germany but did anyway, did it alone for a long time, and yet again managed to scrape another victory for the pile, defeating them when they actually threatened the mainland even with all our industrial cities on fire

      you are literally being replaced by muslims in an intergenerational struggle and you think not seeing national flags is a good thing...

      >Agree everything else was mostly crap and the cruiser/infantry tank paradigm was a massive blunder
      Comet was good, churchill was actually ok, slow but good cross country and ok gun

      >Objectively dogshit
      worked and cheap as fuck to make, sure there were better SMGs but not for the cost

      >Utterly stymied in western europe after D-Day
      True
      false, did better on D day than the americans, only failed in taking caen day one because of a large scale armoured counter attack from 21st panzer division, proceeded to draw 70% of the available german armour and 60%+ of the german infantry into the fighting for Caen freeing the americans to take Cherbourg and set up for Cobra, then fought to the rhine including some of the heaviest fighting in the wear to clear the reichswald,

      >Good strategy shafted by the worst intelligence fuckup of the war
      but understandable not to believe dutch resistance warnings as dutch had been repeatedly infiltrated by german intelligence and while brave were not therefore entirely reliable, still could have worked if the americans had actually tried to take their bridge on day one at nijmegan instead of digging in around the dropzone. that delay cost days

      >Even their helmets are terrible
      false actually, protected a wider area from the primary threat which was overhead shrapnel, other designs covered more of neck but with thinner metal more easily penetrated and for greater cost.

      and as for the Boys sure it was rapidly obsolete but ever major power entered ww1 with a antitank rifle in pretty much the same role the boys was in and all pretty much abandoned them around the same time for the same reason

      German AT rifles penetrated about 4mm more of armor. Sticky grenades were a total failure more dangerous to the user than the tank. Not a good show chap

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        sticky grenades were mostly a homeguard weapon and the primary mid to late war british antitank weapon was the PIAT which could frontally pen a king tiger and was very hard to locate if fired from cover.

        a little cumbersome to use but not so bad as is sometimes made out

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          the springs on these things were so taunt it took two men to wind and could not be done outside of cover. Some definite cons

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >pros: kill anything
            >cons: you get one shot
            No different from a panzerfaust if you think about it.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >the springs on these things were so taunt it took two men to wind and could not be done outside of cover. Some definite cons
            I've watched an 80 year old D-Day veteran cock one from a prone position. Fuck off with your boomerfudd myths.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              all I've got are written sources, they've been mostly correct so far

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I've physically seen it with my own eyes.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >the springs on these things were so taunt it took two men to wind and could not be done outside of cover.
            one man can do it, standing or laying down

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            you could have just said that you didnt know how the PIAT works from the start. to cock the weapon you had to pull the spring back, but all subsequent shots would automatically recock the firng pin. this sometimes wouldnt work of course but when it did, it allowed for a pretty fast rate of fire. plus as another anon said, it was very popular for its ability to be used in indirect fire. obviously there were better options, but it was better than anything the italians or soviets had.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You clearly don't know the piat. It can be cocked lying down or standing and the projectile has a charge that resets the spring after firing. I've cocked one before and it's not that hard as it's mostly leg strength

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        I like service revolvers tho

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Honestly continuing to use the Webley was one of the only based things the British military did in the 1940s and onward.

  33. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    WW1
    WW2

    Scoreboard wehraboos

  34. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >20-30 round box lmg the entire war
    Still way better than the bar
    >bolt actions the entire war; can't even make a straight shooting jungle carbine
    All armies except americans used bolt actions the whole war
    >consistently the worst tanks of the entire war with underpowered guns
    British tanks were adequate
    >muh universal carrier!
    What exactly is the problem with that
    >heavy artillery is ww1 vintage with new munitions; literally had to use wooden blocks to keep the gun from jumping away
    It still worked so no reason not to use it. Some smaller countries still used 1800's artillery
    >Sten
    Is a piece of shit but had one goal, shoot and be cheap and it did both
    >PIAT. This thing couldn't even be reloaded under fire
    This one is true and in arguable
    >Chindits suicide missions. Just look it up, no other army would ever have reinforced such titanic failures
    Yea a failure but its not like other armies didnt have stupid campaigns
    >Completely BTFO by one panzer div in North Africa so badly they had to create the legend of the Desert Fox
    They won in north africa eventually
    >Muh Monty, this guy is soooo good because his tempo of operations is terrible
    Idk what you mean
    >Italy, entirely Chuchill's idea
    Italy was a success
    >Utterly stymied in western europe after D-Day
    American media supremacy overshadowing other people nothing else
    >Market-Garden
    Yea this one failed
    >basically lost the battle of the atlantic till murica came around
    Not true
    >Sells off most of Europe to the soviets in the postwar, turns around and goes muh Iron Curtain
    Americans are just as guilty
    >Even their helmets are terrible
    Yes
    Soviets were worse. Italians were worse.

  35. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >worst tank of the war
    >best K/D ratio

  36. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >PIAT. This thing couldn't even be reloaded under fire
    It was cocked before firefights and the charge in the rear of the projectile resets the spring after firing

  37. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Daily reminder that the bongs were the biggest recipients of US Lend Lease, not the Sovs.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >tiny island isolated and surrounded by U-boats

      well no duh

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Daily reminder that the British homeland and the British empire were not the same thing, so no the Bongs were not the biggest recipients of lend lease

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Daily reminder that the bongs were beggars and only survived at the US' pleasure.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Daily reminder that the bongs were beggars
          Daily reminder that the bongs paid for everything

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Daily reminder that when you beg you are a beggar, as were the bongs when the US saved them.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Daily reminder when you pay for things in gold and intellectualy propery, don't have your debts written off you're no begger

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Daily reminder that when you brg and will die without charity, you're a beggar.

                As the bongs

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                paying for stuff with hard currency =/= charity

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >paying for stuff with hard currency
                The bongs were begging, for credit. They were beggars, and losing.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I suspect you are also javascript:quote('56798794'); what the fuck did the british ever do to you mother fucker

                and why the fuck do you presume t lecture oter people when you dont even know the definitions of the terms you are using

                for example 'bankrupt' is when a entity be it state corporation or private individual is unable to service a debt, ie out of money and credit, at no point did that state pertain to the UK during world war 1 or world war 2, out of ready cash reserves during ww2 because the american corporations were charging outrageous prices for weapons, but able to borrow and meet the debt, literally nothing was given to the british that wasnt paid for, and if some of the money was loaned it was paid back on time.

                and the UK was never paid for the information provided by the tizard mission which had a value at the time somewhere in excess of £1billion sterling

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Bankrupt UK put is when you're losing a war you started and can't pay to defend yourself... like the bong beggars when they begged the US to save them.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                how can you be bankrupt when you can pay your debts?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You're bankrupt when you have to beg for credit to fight a war you were retarded enough to declare, but are now losing.

                That makes the bongs retarded, losing, bankrupt beggars.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you using words you don't know the meaning of?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you responding to a bot, anon?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                i'm a bot aswell, icecream? god I love icecream

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you a delusional bong?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                ok cunt lets be honest here.

                you dont know what the fuck you are talking about, have at best a 9th grade understanding of both history war and economics and a frankly irrational hate boner for the british.

                I am not sure what motivates your hate boner, one of your parents abandon you for a brit? lingering sense of cultural inferiority? dropped on your head as a child and never right since, who knows, frankly at this point who cares? You are ignorant, bigoted and not bright enough to pour piss out of a boot without instructions on the heel

                fuck off and stop shitting up the boards

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Man this is one seething bong.

                Try coping and dilating.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                reasoned argument has failed because quite frankly

                Why are you a delusional bong?

                is either too stupid to follow simple facts or so filled with rage and hate that they have no interest in facts just in posting the same bullshit again and again in the belief that if they just say it loud enough and wish hard enough reality will warp around the sheer strength of their vitriol and suddenly what they say will be true.

                alas they go and check any text book and discover it isnt, weep, screech, and post again

                so yes for one moment they dragged me down to their level.

                NB at least a little creativity in response is nice once in a while

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Do recommend the coping and dilation, to go with your bong seethe.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                so you dont actually have a intelligent response then?

                I am surprised

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Coping is your primary, apparently.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                again, you cannt actually refute.

                your responses boil down to repeating the same false statement then adding 'cope' seethe or dilate.

                your obsession with dilating might be telling, but i suspect its simply a reflex response

                go outside, touch grass, read a book, anything but continuing to shit up perfectly ok boards with your retardation

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                This seething bong never quits.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Tldr

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                This seething bong never quits.

                not a argument

                closer to a concession

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                but they didnt need to beg, the lenders saw it as a good risk and a chance to make a handsome profit, which they did

                frankly the interest was higher than justified because they figured the british would waste to much time arguing

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The lenders saw the bongs getting BTFO, and would rather they didn't. So the bankrupt beggars became the biggest recipient of Lend Lease.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                but if they didnt think they would get their money back (with interest) they wouldnt have lent it. Q.E.D. the british credit was still good

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                This is such a retarded point to make. How does it contradict them being bankrupt beggars?
                >Oh well the US thought it could suck interest out of them for the next 50 years
                Sure how does that not make them poor and on the dole? It's almost worse because they're debt slaves to the US in addition to being dependent on them for defense.
                That's not hyperbole they'd get ass-fucked in the Suez crisis like a decade later and be America's lapdog to this day after that.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                well for starters it means that both 'bankrupt' and 'beggars' cannot be said to apply

                bankrupt because it literally means unable to service their debts, this was never the case

                and beggars because if the other guy wants to give you a loan and profits from doing so you dont have to beg, you just ask, its no more begging than taking a mortgage or financing a car.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                No, the US paid serfs to fight for them.

                Didn't work, the bongs were still losing and the US had to save them.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                at no point after 1940 was the defense of the UK a primary concern, taking the fight to the germans was a issue.

                and no thats not what bankrupt means you ignorant motherfucker.

                if the UK had had to beg if the UK had been that desperate the US wouldnt have loaned them the money as it would have been a bad risk, as it was the US correctly assessed that the UK could win if the loans were made and could meet the loan terms. the both won and met the loan terms

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >at no point after 1940 was the defense of the UK a primary concern
                Yes, because the bong beggars submitted to the US, who saved them.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      UK supplied Soviets with Lend Lease too, so that is also incorrect.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        No, you see, the US executed Lend Lease, most of which went to the bongs, who were a beggar poverty nation.

  38. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    France gets credit for having the most retarded pre-war government but the Netherlands gives it a run for its money
    >Been slashing the military budget since pre-WWI
    >Germany invading all of its neighbours, we need to build up our army
    >We need guns, where can we get those though?
    >Oh I know we'll buy them from Germany! They've been making a lot of weapons lately
    >Why are our weapon deliveries constantly being delayed over and over and over again? It's probably nothing, let's just keep waiting for them

  39. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    On the topic of WW2 armies, can we pour one out for the French?

  40. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Holy shit the British coping and seething this thread is amazing
    Good job OP

  41. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Americans are literally British.
    Therefore Britain literally won the entirety of WW2
    Feels good to be anglo

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Americans are literally British
      No they're not
      If they were, they'd be a civilized country like Canada or New Zealand, with universal healthcare, life expectancy over 80+, and policemen who don't execute people on a daily basis.
      Americans are something else, something... Blacker.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >a civilized country like Canada or New Zealand
        Kek

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Careful, citizen. Do you want us to get civilized with you? Pick up that can.

  42. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >i've paid for X on credit that means i'm bankrupt
    fucking moron lmao

  43. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >I'm a retard who declared war on a guy and now he's BTFOing me. I beg of you to give me free stuff and I can't pay you. But dont call me a retard, bankrupt or a beggar.

    Kek

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      i'm a bot aswell, icecream? god I love icecream

      Why are you a delusional bong?

      Here's your (You)s.
      Verification not required.

  44. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Why would the US care about the loans its way more important to keep the UK running otherwise just concede the war.

  45. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Hi, I'm a retard and the guy I declared war on just hung a swastika over my Capitol. Because I begged and begged for help but they said I was a retard. Plus I was bankrupt and couldn't pay. But call me bankrupt beggar and I'll declare war on you too.

  46. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: bait and cope from various subhumans

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *