[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


I've heard it said that the reason the Germans preferred to use gas and death camps instead of just stabbing or shooting the undesirables to death is because it was taking a mental toll on their soldiers, but is there any proof of this actually occurring? I have a hard time believing any German soldier would feel anything but pure bliss bayonetting a Jewish child in the face.
>>
On an unrelated note, why didn't the American squads have a dedicated MG section?
>>
Also, how well trained were American soldiers in comparison to the Germans? I've heard it said that they were only better because of the immense amount of artillery and air support they got, but this sounds like cope to me.
>>
Also, why on God's green Earth was anyone using anything other than belt-fed magazines for machine guns? It seems so disadvantageous to have to reload so frequently with a normal magazine.
>>
Additionally, I know there was a rivalry between the Navy and the Army in the Japanese military. Who tended to get more funding, and could the Army have won the war in China if the Navy lost much of its funding to go to them instead?
>>
Finally, why did the Soviets keep switching squad sizes, and what was the optimal squad size for WW2 combat?
>>
>>11591024
>but is there any proof of this actually occurring?

Himmler vomited after witnessing an Einastzgruppen execution. This incident was confirmed by Karl Wolff, the former SS Chief-of-Staff.

>>11591076

Germany was the only country to have really perfected the GPMG prior to WWII so the US Army and Marines, like most other combatants, used automatic rifles (the M1918 BAR) as their squad level support weapon, with the M1919 Browning being withheld for use at the platoon level.
>>
>>11591024
ironically the british and soviet squads are the most efficient here. Eventually everyone transitioned to a 6 or 4 man squad and its the same to present day.
>>
>>11591115
What the fuck were the Italians thinking?
>>
>>11591123
they don't even know
>>
File: many faces of anne.png (2.13 MB, 1080x887)
2.13 MB
2.13 MB PNG
>>11591115
>Eventually everyone transitioned to a 6 or 4 man squad and its the same to present day.

United States Army infantry has used nine man squads (one squad leader commanding two fire-teams with a team leader, grenadier, autorifleman, and rifleman) since the 1980s and the Marines used the same 13 man squads (one squad leader, three fireteams with a team leader, autorifleman, assistant autorifleman, and rifleman) from 1944 until 2019 when they were increased with 15 man squads with inclusion of dedicated grenadiers, a squad systems operator (basically a nerdy faggot who's trained to operate small drones), and the autorifleman concept being done away with completely.
>>
>>11591149
well I guess its how you define a squad is what matters here. I was in the U.S. Marines and we had 3 4 man squads which were called "sections". Each Squad was theoretically self sufficient though and included a squad leader, rifleman, support and grenadier. but in a larger battle the smaller squads would of course end up fighting as one unit.
>>
>>11591158
also want to add the idea for a 4 man squad was picked up by Carlson's raiders when they studied the Chinese Communist guerilla fighters
>>
File: AnneFrank6.jpg (598 KB, 1816x1823)
598 KB
598 KB JPG
>>11591158

I think you and I are describing the same thing, just using different terminology. Although my understanding was that until very recently, the team leader in Marine Corps fireteams also doubled as the grenadier (the idea presumably being that they didn't want to hand out M203s to inexperienced privates fresh out of boot camp, but instead entrusted to someone who was already deemed mature enough to command a fireteam).
>>
>>11591024
I think that we got some diary entries and some other stuff proving it.
A great deal in getting those executions to work is peer pressure if I recall correcty, I sadly can't remember what story or record it was so take everything with a carthage of salt.
Anyway peer pressure in a way that you did not want to be the guy in the team or group letting the others hang when it came to the question of executing people and so on.
Also during executions that you did not want to be the guy failing at your job when the next five guys do it properly, well who are also probably thinking the same way as you right now.
But I do not recall that the executions were ever made by stabbing, shooting someone makes the whole act probably a lot less personal and impactful.
>>
>>11591024
>I've heard it said that the reason the Germans preferred to use gas and death camps instead of just stabbing or shooting the undesirables to death is because it was taking a mental toll on their soldiers
up until auschwitz got taken down a peg and three million victims had to be found somewhere else in order to keep the sacred sum intact. then it was that historians realized einsatzgruppen shot in excess of one million jews in the east.
>>
>>11591082
Training was far from being the equal of actual combat experience, which German first-line divisions had plenty by the time of the US entry to the war. If you want to talk about the 300- and 700-series German garrison divisions that were sitting on the French coast in 1942 though, as an example, even a green US division would have wiped the floor with them.
>>
>>11591076
Every company had a weapons section, which contained the mortars and heavier MGs to support the component rifle squads.

>>11591092
Effective rate of fire was almost identical between all major powers for their machinegun teams. Belt-fed gave you the option to just hose something down, but it wasn't something you'd do often because it burns a shitload of ammunition and wears out the gun barrel faster.
>>
>>11591111
It was only the US that used automatic rifles. Everyone else had some form of MG in the infantry squad.
>>
>>11591082
There was a much greater range in quality amongst the German divisions compared with essentially every other nation.

The Germans units that swept through France, the low countries and invaded Russia. Where largely not the same units the Americans faced from D Day onwards. The US never fought the wermacht at its prime.
>>
>>11591204
I think you're defintely right about the grenadier role now that I think about it
>>
>>11592528
Actually, there were 1st-line German divisions in France in 1944. Quite a few, though some were recently rebuilt. It's a very different ballgame in June 1944 compared to summer-fall 1942, when only a single 1st-line division (39th infantry) was present in the landing areas for Sledgehammer, supplemented by very thinly stretched garrison divisions that were barely trained and under-equipped to begin with. The US forces kind of lucked out with Overlord, as most of the 1st-line German armor divisions in the area were in the British sectors, so the US had an easier job in Normandy than they would have otherwise.

It is true that the US never fought Germany in its prime, but that's less due to the quality of the units the US fought and more due to the sheer lack of divisions Germany could bring to bear without catastrophically weakening the Eastern front.
>>
>>11591165
Why do we never hear of the chinks having invented this?
How did it come to be?
Thought it was purely American
>>
>>11591123
>our machineguns are dogshit, so we need twice as many
>>
>>11591149
>the autorifleman concept being done away with completely.
Yeah, no. That shit isn't happening ever.
>>
>>11591956
We have always known Einsatzgruppen killed civilians, especially Jews. They killed Slavs, Poles, Roma, and others. Your obsession with Jews just proves you aren't interested in history.
>>
>>11592685
The Chinese war effort is largely unknown and what is known often misunderstood, to an even greater level than the Soviet's and Japanese' war efforts, thanks to the language barrier, subsequent communist takeover, and derogatory stereotypes of the Chinese that were par for the course at the time and as a result colored the perspective of most of the western reports and documents that we based our understanding of their war effort off of.
>>
>>11591099
https://www.battleorder.org/rus-ussr-squad-graphics

Early on, they realized that Wall of Lead > Wall of Flesh, but by Dec. 1944, they probably had enough SMGs to push the needed number down to 6.
>>
>>11592730
It is quite funny how Neo-Nazis often forget that pretty much every (self respecting) Slav remembers the Germans as barbaric invaders too.
Even if the Nazis hadn't laid a finger on Jews, they'd still be remembered as barbarians for what they did to Warsaw.
>>
>>11591082
It isn't really cope. You have to remember at this point in history the US has almost no combat experience compared to most nations. US forces where enthusiastic amateur citizen soldiers. A huge benefit they had was that they weren't fighting the best units, went up against Germany at a time it's war economy was severely faltering and had an absolutely massive material advantage. They also fought under almost total air superiority.
>>
>>11593287
Poles are nazis. You should have seen how they looked at me at Warsaw Airport.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.