The weakest tank cannon ever made

They were readily available compared to newer designs because Puteaux had built fucktons of those things in the '20s (and they had shitloads of ammo on stock).
It's worth remembering that the French Army's re-equipment had stalled somewhat in the early-mid '30s due to the economy having been hit by several crises (recession of 1929, banking crisis of 1931).
Which is why you have what are basically late-20s - early-30s designs (like the several types of light infantry tank) being produced in the mid-30s.
They tried to hotfix things, but they needed an extra 9 months at the minimum to get shit sorted.

user, German interwar """""tanks"""""" were literally made from wood. At the start of WWII, French, British, Russian tanks were leaps better than German tanks but were let down by poor tactics and leadership.

>doesn't know it was illegal for Germany to develop and build tanks

They still got around it by having the Soviet Union build their tanks and let them train in their country.

Or by disguising tank hull prototypes as "agricultural tractors".

This guy knew tho

Attached: 156673783821.jpg (990x1152, 168K)

He didn't get a few things quite right, ex. he wasn't aware of just how useful CAS planes were when combined with tanks. However he had reasonably solid fundamentals.

So basically the management and corruption level of the french army was 3rd world country shit. Why would 2 tanks with identical tanks with the same roles be produced

Why did the brits, who were just as hardly hit from economic crises still create new tanks and tank cannons in the 30s, such as the cruiser tanks and 2pdr cannon? hell even the soviets, who were corrupt as hell, managed to produce tanks with 45mm guns rather than whatever they had from WW1.

>Why would 2 tanks with identical roles with the same roles be produced
I mean the R35 and H35.

>still create new tanks and tank cannons in the 30s, such as the cruiser tanks and 2pdr cannon?
You mean the unreliable (and thin-skinned) Cruisers, the Covenanter who, due to engine issues, wasn't even shipped out of the Home islands, or the maintenance queen (and cramped) Crusader?
The French had plenty of, if not outright good, at least arguably usable designs. What they did not have was money to buy them, at first, then later on large-scale construction capacity to build them and time to build them in. So they tried doing the next bext thing, which was to emergency refit existing vehicles (primarily adding radios and swapping guns) and make small changes to the designs they already had.
The R35 and H35 coexisted because neither Renault, nor Hotchkiss alone could produce a couple thousand tanks on their own in the time allotted to them by the War Ministry. Though in the end it seems the Hotchkiss design won out, since the H39 (more correctly the H35 mod. 39) was selected as main infantry light tank over the R40 (mainly due to its higher speed).

There is nothing wrong with have two different tanks produced by two different companies. Why would you want to wait a year or more for another company to tool up to produce the other's tank? It's also like asking why the Americans produced both the P-51 and P-47 when they were used in similar roles.

There is also nothing wrong with the 37mm the French used. They had lots of them and it wasn't supposed to be used against other armor. Lots of tanks in the 1930s still just had machine guns only or had 20mm. You're looking through the lens of hindsight and comparing those tanks not with contemporaries, but to successors.

The French were aware by 1936 that the SA18 was thoroughly inadequate. However, they couldn't afford to replace it at first, since the production of 47 mm guns took precedence. Also, not all existing light tank models could mount the new SA37: FCM 36 turret welds started to fail after a dozen shots from the new long 37.

It's a rational ratio for WW2 as well. The huge majority of armored vehicle combat was NOT against other armored vehicles. And the German Army in WW2 was not "primarily armored". In the Battle of France the Germans had only 2400 tanks and nearly four million infantry. France fell for many reasons but inadequacy in tank to tank combat was not consequential.

>You mean the unreliable (and thin-skinned) Cruisers, the Covenanter who, due to engine issues, wasn't even shipped out of the Home islands, or the maintenance queen (and cramped) Crusader?
All French tanks(except the FT) were overengineered and unreliable too.

Also most 30s tanks had around 15mm of frontal armor, so the cruisers weren't that poorly armored in comparison. The 37mm puteaux couldnt even penetrate that(it could penetrate only 12mm at 500m lol).

>There is also nothing wrong with the 37mm the French used. They had lots of them and it wasn't supposed to be used against other armor. Lots of tanks in the 1930s still just had machine guns only or had 20mm.
Low calibre guns require higher velocities. Infantry support guns need higher explosive power(such as the short barreled 75mm on the Pz.4 and the 76mm on the T-28) or rate of fire. The 37mm puteaux had neither. It had pathetic velocity, accuracy, and explosive filler. The 20mm on the Pz.2 was actually downright superior because it had much better AP performance and anti-infantry suppression because of RoF. I guess its better than an MG( the brits fucked up with giving the mathilda just a 12.7mm MG).

>Lots of tanks in the 1930s still just had machine guns only or had 20mm.
German tanks were all armed with 20mm+ cannons except the pz.1 tankette. All soviet 30s tanks except their tankettes had 45mm high velocity or 76mm low velocity cannons.

It was in WW1 to an extent. Reading Rommels Infantry attacks theres plenty of maneuver, and shit we do to this very day. Its that in WW1 its not like they didn't want to maneuver, but was they couldn't maneuver.

France tanks were on average better than their German counterparts. Doctrinally however was different

>The 37mm puteaux had neither. It had pathetic velocity, accuracy, and explosive filler.
Which is why they replaced it on as many tanks as they could with the long 37mm (SA38, not SA37 as I mistakenly wrote in my previous post). Unfortunately, that wasn't a great deal many of them.

ONLY the S.35, Char B1, and maybe H39. These were all quite rare and everything else was a pile of crap.

>FCM 36 turret welds started to fail after a dozen shots from the new long 37.
That's just a short sighted design then. The Pz.3 could mount the 50mm after the 37mm. The Pz.4 could easily mount the long 75mm. The mathilda could mount a 2pdr.

The D2 was a workable design, unfortunately about 50% of the nominally-available numbers were actually immobile and eventually cannibalized for parts for the rest.

Well both the H35 and R35 could mount the long SA38 37mm gun with minimal modifications.
It's just that the FCM 36 was a shit tank.

They wanted backwards compatibility with Renault FTs by being able to use a turret that would fit on them and fixed fortifications of the same ring diameter. The issue then is that you can't fit a bigger gun with a larger recoil system and a man in the same turret.

The German doctrine was also shit. Sure, their massed armor could create a spearhead, but all it did was constantly over extend their supply lines making the tanks have to stop. That also makes a very small part of their army take on the full brunt of the enemy.

How come every single thread on historical armaments on Jow Forums seems to be created by picrelated? Is Jow Forums fundamentally incapable of imagining that someone could be perceiving a situation from a different set of available information and context?

Attached: Nottheheroweneed.jpg (800x800, 80K)

>post ww2

>in the late 30s

Some of the R 35, H 35 and H 39 tanks were fitted with the longer SA 38.

37/25 sub-caliber APDS rounds (designed by Brandt) were scheduled for mass production in September 1940.

Attached: 1456436143521.jpg (1600x1054, 407K)

>Researchers from Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the individuals with ASD [autism spectrum disorder] weighted outcome more highly than intention. The ASD group did not reliably judge accidental versus intentional harm.

God this guy was such a cuck. We shouldn't have let him March into Paris first

>The German doctrine was also shit
It was an absolute breakthrough beyond anyone's wildest dreams when opposing the outdated doctrines of European countries on the European theater. But then USSR happens and wehraboo suddenly discovers the concepts of layered strategic defense lines, big distances and consecutive counter-offensives, and how all of those turn his Blitzkrieg into a war of attrition and him into Piper Perri sitting on a sofa.

>That also makes a very small part of their army take on the full brunt of the enemy.
Literally the opposite of truth. Spectacular strategic mobility allowed Wehrmacht to engage much bigger armies with local numerical advantage - the enemy could have 5 times as many forces, but they were elsewhere when the offense happened, and by the time when they could act to reinforce the attacked forces or exploit the weak zones that German concentration of forces created, it was already too late - COMMUNICATIONS BROKEN, PHANTOMS TOO FAR AWAY. This is how 1941 for a good half of Red Army looked like this:
> - The Germans should attack aaaany moment now.
> - What? They have attacked 60 miles to the south? Quickly we mus~
> - WHAT DO YOU MEAN "THEY HAVE ALREADY CUT OUR SUPPLY LINES?"
> - WHAT DO YOU MEAN "NO MORE RATIONING, AMMUNITION OR COMMUNICATION WITH THE HIGH COMMAND?"
> - Alright, we'll just try and pull ba~
> - WHAT DO YOU MEAN "ENCIRCLED US COMPLETELY"?!

Attached: 14729740289430.jpg (305x294, 13K)

French troops retook Paris. Pic related.

Attached: 1436931961160.jpg (1148x1131, 190K)

it was built in 1935. At that time The top German tank was the Panzer I with it's 13mm of armor and twin M13 machine guns. It was only one year later that the Germans started using the 37mm pak 36 that was the top of the line anti tank gun which could penetrate up to 60mm of armor at 100 meters away but anything past 300 meters and it wouldn't go through the 43mm frontal armor of the R35. Overall the design was perfectly suitable to what they expected in war. You should remember that the French only lost do to planning and logistics not due to tank performance.

>It was an absolute breakthrough beyond anyone's wildest dreams when opposing the outdated doctrines of European countries on the European theater.
It really wasn't. Sure, it worked in France, but that's more of luck than anything else. There were a thousands of things that could have gone wrong and any one of them would have destroyed their whole plan. The Belgians helped them a lot be being imbeciles too.
>don't build border fortifications
>don't even man what border fortifications even when you know the Germans are about to invade
>sign a non-aggression pact with a country you know is going to invade you
>don't even let your allies into your country until you're already invaded

>But then USSR happens and wehraboo suddenly discovers the concepts of layered strategic defense lines, big distances and consecutive counter-offensives, and how all of those turn his Blitzkrieg into a war of attrition and him into Piper Perri sitting on a sofa.
In other words, Blitzkrieg is a dumb idea. The Germans didn't have the strategic nor logistical capabilities of such an action, but did so anyways.

>Literally the opposite of truth. Spectacular strategic mobility allowed Wehrmacht to engage much bigger armies with local numerical advantage - the enemy could have 5 times as many forces, but they were elsewhere when the offense happened, and by the time when they could act to reinforce the attacked forces or exploit the weak zones that German concentration of forces created, it was already too late - COMMUNICATIONS BROKEN, PHANTOMS TOO FAR AWAY.
Except their Panzer divisions were 200KM inland, while the vast majority of their army was on foot. Those Panzer divisions were always in the fight, while the infantry were not.

Of course, this stops working when logistics turn into the absolute nightmare where everything needed for hauling forces and material around is in a permanent shortage and/or plagued by guerillas. And the geography intelf forces you to spread your forces thinner and thinner, while the enemy forces their C&C to drop the honored tradition of daily hangover naps until 4 PM via mass shootings, and starts to organize efficiently coordinated counterattacks along the entire front, denying you the opportunities to concentrate your forces. Which turns your neat break-flank-even out-break-flank tempo into the picrelated meatgrinder of strategic guro. And the enemy knows that he wins a meatgrinder of strategic guro by default.

Attached: Map_Soviet_1941_Winter_counteroffensive.jpg (1256x956, 205K)

this. i think it's all because of some video game faggotry

Excuses of an incompetent loser. Just admit that the children of the peasants turned out to be better strategists than the aristocratic degenerates from the German General Staff.

Quite possibly the stupidest tank doctrine of all time.
The day you field a weapon, your enemies start looking for a way to kill it and or improve on it.
What better way to kill a tank than with a better tank.

They were ready to win WW1 faster the second time!

The vast majority of tanks are killed by anti-tank guns and infantry, not other tanks.

Actually using combined arms work far better then just designing a new slightly better tank

>Infantry support tank
>WHY AMS HAVE GUN NO PEN OTHER TANKS?

Jesus fucking christ do you even look at what you type?

That they did so well against the massive Finnish army...oh wait. They got raped by a handful of forest reindeer mongols.
If they didn’t have a 300 to 1 advantage the Finns might have taken moscow.

True. But having better weapons never hurts!

>It really wasn't
It was since it worked.
>Sure, it worked in France
And in Yuogoslavia. And in Poland. And in Czechoslovakia. And in Greece. And in USSR until mid 1942.

>There were a thousands of things that could have gone wrong
That's true for any strategy.

>The Belgians helped them a lot be being imbeciles too.
They were not imbeciles, Cpt. Hindsight, they tried to pull a Poland when Poland failed to, and achieve Peace in Our Time via neutrality.

>sign a non-aggression pact with a country you know is going to invade you
>you know is going to invade you
Not rally, they left their Time Machine in Jurassic Period.

>don't even let your allies into your country until you're already invaded
Aren't you a revisionist little onion bulb? Britain and France were not really anyone's allies in 1939. They eagerly threw anyone they had an agreement with under the bus if it suited their strategy, which THEY hoped would bring them Peace in Our Time. Belgian leadership realized that Britain and France didn't do shit to save Austria, Czechoslovakia and Denmark, and when the Fuhrer comes hither they will throw Belgium under the wheels as well, so they tried to take position that might prevent Fuhrer from coming hither, while not provoking the French into invading them. They failed. But it's extremely unlikely that french-kissing with Paris could help them fare any better - again, Allies are still operating under the Strange War logic of "wait and see". The better defence Belgians could mount, the less likely Britain and France were to intervene. If anything, poor performance in Belgium would only convince them that Germany is actually weak, and stands no chances in combat against the French forces.

>What better way to kill a tank than with a better tank.
back then it was anti-tank guns, much better than having two tanks fight each other

That's generally what happens when any slavnigger can send his CO to gulag with an anonymous accusatory note.
Things didn't improve in the Red Army until Stalin was told in no uncertain terms to STFU/GTFO and leave the soldiering to people who actually knew what the fuck they were doing. He deeply resented that, and a bunch of generals got sent into bumfuck nowhere after the war, until Stalin died.

Considering how German schoolkids and cripples raped the US Army without ammunition and fuel, 1/10 of the Finnish army would have been enough to capture Washington.

Attached: 300px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-J28589,_Kriegsgefangene_amerikanische_Soldaten.jpg (300x197, 25K)

>>In other words, Blitzkrieg is a dumb idea
It's a splendid idea when you are capable of performing it. Germans were capable of performing it in Europe. They thought they could perform it in USSR, but they were wrong. That does not make Blitzkrieg a good idea, not anymore than you trying to hit a target from 2 miles away with an M1911 (due to thinking it's actually close) makes it a bad gun.

>Those Panzer divisions were always in the fight, while the infantry were not.
No user, they were. They followed into the breaches in the frontline and fought the disorganized and cut-off enemy, creating the devastating encirclement cauldrons while panzers regrouped for another breach.

>Excuses of an incompetent loser. Just admit that the children of the peasants turned out to be better strategists than the aristocratic degenerates from the German General Staff.
user I'm literally a tankie sovietboo, describing how Soviets pwned the Wehrmacht.

Attached: 14478950529410.jpg (429x409, 50K)

>Not rally, they left their Time Machine in Jurassic Period.
Seriously nigga?
You think a country who looted the shit out of you 25 years ago, killed your civilians in retaliation for partisan activity, turned your countryside into moonscape, and did all this under a relatively sane (if militaristic) regime, is going to treat you better under a foaming-at-the-mouth revanchist populist?!?
Leopold III was truly mentally deficient.

Because early tank doctrine focused much more heavily on infantry/support and figured that enemy tanks were just going to get bogged down in mud or something and become arty bait anyways, which in a way was true because the Germans fielded the piece of shit A7V and the Entente were overwhelmingly stronger in terms of tanks than the entirety of the Central Powers. France being a pretty heavy player in the Entente thought that plus the Maginot Line would have been more than enough to deter any invasions or attacks, and hindsight is always a bitch.
kek

>That's generally what happens when any slavnigger can send his CO to gulag with an anonymous accusatory note.
AKSHULLY it had more to do with general lack of experience on part of the Soviet offer corps (which may or may not have something to do with the Army purges), and the horrendous terrain (that Finno-German forces failed to advance though in the Continuation War as well), and the constant shortages of material and generally constant underestimation of Finnish forces. Army purges were literally much less reliant on snitching soldiers during the Winter wanr than WWII since commanders were under the constant gaze of commissars with limitless authority, and they preferred to trust their own opinions instead of listening to the men.

>Things didn't improve in the Red Army until Stalin was told in no uncertain terms to STFU/GTFO and leave the soldiering to people who actually knew what the fuck they were doing
Um, that's literally the opposite of how it was. Stalin did try to micromanage divisions and it failed, but his involvement in command did not diminish at all - if anything, successes came with the broadening of Stavka authority and growth of forces directly answering to it, allowing Red Army to act more as a coherent strategic mechanism, instead of every general trying to save his own army in every frontline breach and failing.

You are the mentally deficient one here, nigga. By your own logic Axis could never exist, since both Italy and Japan waged war against the Germany those very 25 years ago. Country leadership does not give a shit about who disrespected whose feelings that one time, it cares about the perpetual Mexican standoff of the current geopolitical situation and conflicting interests. Which is how the current greatest allies of US are a circumcised republic, a raghead kingdom and an Empire that the US itself helped to bomb into the stone age. Or how a democracy was propping up two dozen "our sonuvabich" dictatorships.

>The idea that the Germans would attack with a highly mobile, primarily armored force was unprecedented at the time.
Uhm, user, the German forces were never primarily armoured. Quite the opposite rather. Out of the 157 divisions gathered up to invade France, 10 were panzer divisions (mostly equipped with Pz1, Pz2 and Pz38). The French may have had as much as a 50% advantage in the number of tanks. Nor was the German army motorised to any real degree at the time, their main logistical vehicle was the horse drawn cart.

>157 divisions
Jesus thats a lot of krauts

>It's a splendid idea when you are capable of performing it.
The Germans were not. The vast majority of their army was not mechanized. They require trains and horses.
>Germans were capable of performing it in Europe.
And it showed how poor their army was capable of doing such a thing. Their tanks were worn out from just a few weeks of fighting and yet expected it to work better while doing the same thing for longer distances and longer time frames.
>No user, they were. They followed into the breaches in the frontline and fought the disorganized and cut-off enemy, creating the devastating encirclement cauldrons while panzers regrouped for another breach.
No they didn't. The infantry was on foot or in trains. Walking was really slow and the trains weren't always in the same places as the tanks as tanks followed roads, trains used tracks. The Germans also didn't have trains suited for the tracks and landscapes of Russia. Do you ever wonder why the German army kept attacking in the North instead of the South? The South was the objective as they needed the oil there, except there isn't any train tracks there and the infantry needs trains.

Not only that, they captured fucking invasion plans too. And they did absolutely nothing to prepare.

You are wrong.

The point that user made is not that "Germans had the biggest amount of tanks", but that they used the forces built around the superior mobility of panzers and mechanized logistics to breach the front lines and perform devastating outflanking on a strategic scale, which indeed was unprecedented.

> The French may have had as much as a 50% advantage in the number of tanks
But they were spread out across hundreds of divisions, while Germans got the bright idea of having tanks where they need tanks to do what tanks can do, and then using infantry for the cleanup. Which resulted in most of the French tank forces losing without ever seeing combat. Same happened on Ostfront in 1941, when entire armies worth of armored vehicles had to be abandoned by the Soviets in Minsk, Kiev and Kharkov, due to suddenly finding themselves encircled and without fuel and ammo for said tanks.

>Nor was the German army motorised to any real degree at the time
It was better motorized tha all of their opponents save the US.

>their main logistical vehicle was the horse drawn cart
It was the main logistical vehicle for the French, Brits, Finns, Poles, Italians, Bulgarians, Romanians and Soviets as well. Germans succeed in putting those few trucks and APCs they had where it mattered. Only US and Soviets got that idea at the same time, and Soviets did not manage to properly implement it through the first half of the war due to organizational clusterfuck.

You're fucking retarded. 1.) The Germans just invaded Poland, forcefully took over Czechoslovakia and Austria and were driven by a leader who wrote about conquest and are at war with your neighbor and you're stuck between the two. You would have to be retarded to not see what was going to happen.
2.) The Axis powers always had conflicting goals, they never could agree on anything, nor did they ever trust one another. The Allies always had the same goal and could trust one another.

Which was a political decision user.

>It was better motorized tha all of their opponents save the US.
No they weren't. They only had a few mechanized divisions when they invaded France (and this didn't become better as the war progressed), while the vast majority was non-mechanized infantry. ALL of the British Expeditionary Forces were mechanized.

>The Germans were not.
But they literally did.

>The vast majority of their army was not mechanized. They require trains and horses.
So did everyone else. You don't need to be the Flash, you just need to be faster than the limey. That they managed. Dunkirk.png

>And it showed how poor their army was capable of doing such a thing.
But they literally owned the allies completely on the entire theater.

>Their tanks were worn out from just a few weeks of fighting
That was expected.
>yet expected it to work better while doing the same thing for longer distances and longer time frames
Nobody predicted

>The infantry was on foot or in trains
So was everyone else's.

>trains weren't always in the same places as the tanks as tanks followed roads, trains used tracks
Which is why both Germans and Soviets built literally hundreds of thousands of miles of auxiliary railways to supply their forces.

>The Germans also didn't have trains suited for the tracks and landscapes of Russia
user you fucking retard THE RAILWAY GAUGE CHANGES WERE AND ARE THE PART OF EVERYDAY TRANSIT. YOU KNOW THAT THE GAUGE CHANGE STILL EXISTS TO THIS DAY? DO YOU THINK THAT THERE ARE NO TRAINS GOING FROM BERLIN TO MOSCOW TODAY? You know what extensive modifications trains need to change from one gauge to another? Axis replacement. It takes less that an hour for the entire train, and happens dozens of times every day on border transit points between Poland and Belarus/Ukraine, or Russia and Baltic states even now. Germans likewise changed the axles on their carts in locomotives when rolling them onto the Soviet gauge, mostly in Brest, and then built Soviet gauge on the captured territory. Congrats on exposing yourself as a literal brainlet.

> Do you ever wonder why the German army kept attacking in the North instead of the South
>implying they did not attack in the South
>that North was not important
>that they could attack ONLY in the South and not end up in super outflanking
Mega brainlet.

Attached: 5188_original.jpg (900x599, 87K)

> ALL of the British Expeditionary Forces were mechanized.
>Expeditionary Forces
That's the catch. And those forces were still dependent on local French logistics... which were largely horse-powered!

>The Germans just invaded Poland, forcefully took over Czechoslovakia and Austria
And Frenchies and Brits did exactly jack shit about it.

>were driven by a leader who wrote about conquest and are at war with your neighbor
That was quit the norm for the time. As in - the Brits, the French and the Soviets were doing largely the same thing. The difference was only that Brits and French has already did in the last 50 years, and now tried to preserve the status quo.(and failed spectacularly).

>The Allies always had the same goal and could trust one another.
Except with Britain and France LITERALLY SELLING OUT HALF OF THEIR ALLIES IN MUNICH. Except with the French Campaign being a disaster largely due to the London and Paris failing to coordinate their operations. Except with the Royal Navy resorting to attacking a exterminating half of the French fleet after the capitulation, since a good majority of French command followed the capitulation and acted subordinate to Vichy government, telling de Gaulle to go fuck hiumself. Except with an absolute clusterfuck that were the attempts to coordinate the colonial defenses (Singapore says "hello"). Except with America taking two forevers to joiun the war. Except with the USSR being treated largely as an enemy despite being a clear ally. Et cetera, et cetera...

>You would have to be retarded to not see what was going to happen.
You should try stock markets. You'll become a millionaire in no time, what's with your acute talent for geopolitical predictions.

Other way around on the Char B1.

The 75mm gun was supposed to shoot infantry and fixed fortifications.

The 47 was for shooting at tanks, and it was added on after concerns that the 75mm in the hull wasn't flexible enough to hit a moving target.

>So did everyone else. You don't need to be the Flash, you just need to be faster than the limey. That they managed. Dunkirk.png
The BEF was fully mechanized, the Germans was not. The British and French were just surrounded.
>Which is why both Germans and Soviets built literally hundreds of thousands of miles of auxiliary railways to supply their forces.
And that wasn't enough.
>user you fucking retard THE RAILWAY GAUGE CHANGES WERE AND ARE THE PART OF EVERYDAY TRANSIT. YOU KNOW THAT THE GAUGE CHANGE STILL EXISTS TO THIS DAY? DO YOU THINK THAT THERE ARE NO TRAINS GOING FROM BERLIN TO MOSCOW TODAY?
That's today. We're talking about 1941. You see, the Soviets destroyed their railways, which the Germans had to rebuild. That takes time and resources. It also wasn't that easy to change gauges. That takes time and resources. They were constantly starting and stopping. You also need to bring up supplies for not only building the railways, but for your troops. It was a logistical nightmare.

>that North was not important
It wasn't. The entire point of invading the Soviet Union was to grab the oil, which is in the south. And yes, they did attack the south, but couldn't put as much forces in that area as they needed. The German generals also never got the point across that they needed that oil and kept putting their forces in the north. Moscow wasn't important, the oil was.

The heavy mechanisation was something Germany would have wanted, but in reality they weren't anywhere near that. They managed anyway, but putting one foot in front of the other. Likewise the heavy focus on panzers was neither operational reality, or even the plan. They simply noticed that tanks made for great propaganda, and so they themselves created the image of the German tank avalanche for the home front to feast on. Even when they did scrape together a local concentration of armour that was only one part in the blitzkrieg combined arms doctrine, go pick up "Tigers in the mud" if you want a first hand account of how well tanks do without infantry to babysit them. In short what Germany had was mostly infantry, what they planned on using was mostly infantry, and what ended up doing most of the fighting was infantry. Given that calling them a primarily armored force, well, that's for Goebbels to do and not anyone who cares about historical reality.

>It was better motorized tha all of their opponents save the US.
4.2 million men and 120 000 vehicles, so 35 guys per vehicle. While the French alone had 300 000 vehicles, and if we cram in the entire 3.3 million men of the allies there that's 11 guys per vehicle. But in reality the British brought a good number of vehicles along, the Dutch and Belgians had some as well, so that number is guaranteed to be too high.
Once again, it's mostly old propaganda here that makes people think 35 is somehow less than 11. The nazis wanted their army to look modern, mechanized and armored, so they claimed it was and were very successful about that to the point where most people today think it's how it was.

>That's the catch. And those forces were still dependent on local French logistics... which were largely horse-powered!
No they weren't. When I said the BEF, I mean the fucking BEF.
>And Frenchies and Brits did exactly jack shit about it.
Yes, they couldn't realistically. You see, Poland is on the other side of Germany. Belgium is right next to France and has been an ally of France and Britain.

>The BEF was fully mechanized, the Germans was not. The British and French were just surrounded.
The absolute logic of it all.

>And that wasn't enough.
True.

>That's today. We're talking about 1941.
It was a minor issue even back then. Trains were going from Paris to Moscow wiith an 1-hour stop for axle change back in 19 fucking 13 already.

>That takes time and resources.
Yes. But nobody here didn't claim that. The claim was:
>The Germans also didn't have trains suited for the tracks and landscapes of Russia
Which is an absolute mound of bullshit.

> It was a logistical nightmare.
It was. But that was not the claim I disputed. Stop with this pathetic damage control.

>It wasn't. The entire point of invading the Soviet Union was to grab the oil, which is in the south.
The ULTRA BRAINLET. Nigga, you know what happens if you just push through Ukraine and leave the guys in Baltics to chill? THEY GO SOUTH INTO BELARUS AND CUT YOU OFF! YOUR ENTIRE ARMY IS NOW ENCIRCLED. YOU'RE FUCKED, YOU'RE ABSOLUTE GENIUS OF STRATEGY.

>And yes, they did attack the south, but couldn't put as much forces in that area as they needed
Logistics was only one of the reasons here. The siege of Leningrad was drawing a ton of forces, as were tee efforts to contain the constant Soviet count-offensives in the center, near Moscow. So that they, you know, don't breach the frontline and outflank the entire Army Group South.

>Moscow wasn't important
Yeah, it's only the central logistical hub of the USSR, the largest industrial center in the entire country, the home for millions of people and teh backbone that Soviets used to attack Army Group Center again and again and again until they succeeded.

>The German generals also never got the point across that they needed that oil
Baku oil had NOTHING to do with Wehrmacht need for petroleum, you cretin. Even if they took the South, they would be unable to deliver it to Germany for processing it. The point was in denying the oil to the Soviets. But ten again they received a ton of fuel be the Lend-lease...THROUGH THE PORT OF ARCHANGEL! WHICH IS IN THE NORTH! AND CONNECTED BY A RAILWAY JUST OUTSIDE LENINGRAD. BUT WHO GIVES A FUCK LEND-LEASE DIDN'T MATTER ANYWAY AMIRITE?

>No they weren't
Yeah, they just received rations and fuel straight out of Britain...

>You see, Poland is on the other side of Germany
And of course, you can't invade Germany while the entire German army is busy raping Poland. That would be cheating.

>and has been an ally of France and Britain
So was Austria. Fuck them. So was Czechoslovakia. Fuck them. So was Denmark. fuck them. So was Poland. Fuck them.

OP's stupid question about a French tank could've been settled by the first few replies but this thread really had to turn into shitposting about the Red Army's strategy

Germany was converting oil from coal, an extremely valuable resource in it's own right. They desperately needed oil. Grabbing that oil was necessary to fuel their army. They had already just converted several mechanized divisions into regular infantry divisions because of a lack of fuel. The oil was the purpose of Barbarossa. That is what Germany desperately needed.

Moscow was worthless. How are you going to defeat the Soviet Union by taking a city? They were moving all of their manufacturing into the east. It's a worthless city because you're using all of your resources to capture it. What happens when you capture it and you run out of a fucking oil? Von Manstein in his memoirs said that Hitler told him that he had no strategic sense, which von Manstein used as reasoning for Hitler being a fool, but in fact it's Hitler telling him how stupid it is to put all of the resources into taking Moscow.

>What better way to kill a tank than with a better tank.
With a tank destroyer.

>They desperately needed oil
It was already explained that they would be unable to transport it from Baku to refine it.

>The oil was the purpose of Barbarossa
No, taking out the USSR was the purpose of Barbarossa.

>Moscow was worthless
It was already explained that you can't ignore Moscow because then AGS gets outflanked and encircled. It was already explained that Moscow was the key logistical hub of the USSR, and taking it would disrupt all the Soviet communications severely, which includes supplying of the evacuated industry with fuel, delivery of products from beyond Ural to the frontline and the lend-lease deliveries. Wehrmacht had very poor chances of taking Moscow, but they could not afford ignoring it.

How many times do you need that explained? Are you mentally challenged?

funny how they look really similar to american troops

>Why did the french only equip their tanks with post WW2 cannons in the late 30s?
Their battle plan was always surrender quickly.

Attached: hitlerfrance.jpg (353x483, 22K)

>It was already explained that they would be unable to transport it from Baku to refine it.
You literally just said the Germans were building railroads. What do you think they were going to do when they captured the oil fields? No, they can't immediately get the oil, but
>No, taking out the USSR was the purpose of Barbarossa.
And how will they do that WITHOUT OIL? Are you that dense? The Soviets have oil and have a much larger population. They also moved their factories to the east. Moscow may be a hub, but it is not strategic importance. Your tanks are running out of fuel.

The reason why the Germans attacked in the north and center was to push the Red Army East, then dig in and hold what was gained. Except they never got anywhere near their objectives because they didn't have enough resources to take what they wanted. Funny how you need oil to all that.
The French were rearmed by the Americans and British.

>You literally just said the Germans were building railroads
Enough to just barely support the armies. Nowhere nearly enough to transport vast amounts of fuel over huge distances while STILL USING THOSE SAME LOGISTICAL CAPABILITIES TO STILL SUPPORT THOSE ARMIES. And that's before we take guerillas plaguing Belarus and Ukraine into account. That's before we consider that Soviets would destroy the extraction facilities in retreat. Baku would take half a decade in peace time to become a reliable source of oil for Wehrmacht.

>And how will they do that WITHOUT OIL?
They HAD oil. They extracted it in Germany, Czechoslovakia and especially in Romania. It was just not enough, and Baku could not solve the issue.

>Moscow may be a hub, but it is not strategic importance
You were explained multiple times that:
1. Fuel from Baku does not matter for the Red army if it can't reach the Red army and facilities in the rear. It does so though Moscow.
2. Ignoring the Moscow direction ALLOWS RED ARMY TO OUTFLANK ARMY GROUP SOUTH FROM THE NORTH AND CUT IT FROM SUPPLY LINES IN BELARUS AND UKRAINE. Spell it with me: O U T F L A N K E D. E N C I R C L E D. That's WHAT HAPPENED EVENTUALLY, in a scenario where Wehrmacht did contribute the largest amount of forces towards the Moscow direction. If they put significantly less up there, the same thing happens but in early winter of 1941, and the entire Ostfront collapses before summer 1942.

>The reason why the Germans attacked in the north and center was to push the Red Army East
Yes. Because there IS NOT OTHER WAY TO ADVANCE EAST, INCLUDING SOUTHEAST. You literal braindead cretin.

> because they didn't have enough resources to take what they wanted
Lack of fuel was the least of their concerned among the lack of material, lack of manpower, lack of ammunition and lack of vehicles.

Attached: 1483580331569.jpg (567x561, 32K)

>except* WW1
It was central to their tactics in WW1 as well, right up until they had to shift to a defensive stance and dig in to avoid getting overrun. The germans learned the correct lesson this, which was the importance of ubiquitous radio communication to keep the various units coordinated in a fluid battlefield and prevent holes in the line from developing in the first place, and being effectively breached in the second. The french ... didn't.

Dat M1917

>Baku would take half a decade in peace time to become a reliable source of oil for Wehrmacht.
It wouldn't take that long to extract oil out for themselves. If they captured the Caucasus they could just as easily taken it out through the black sea. Maikop's oil fields were completely destroyed (it even took several years after the war for even the Soviets to start pumping oil there), but Grozney's was not. It was just too close to the front lines to gather up the oil and send it west.

It's also not just taking the oil, but denying the Soviets oil. The Soviets were already retreating west where there is little food and certainly no oil.

>They HAD oil. They extracted it in Germany, Czechoslovakia and especially in Romania. It was just not enough, and Baku could not solve the issue.
They had very little oil. As I said, they were converting coal into oil. That is a very expensive operation to get a low grade oil.

>1. Fuel from Baku does not matter for the Red army if it can't reach the Red army and facilities in the rear. It does so though Moscow.
The Soviets actually used the Volga to transport the oil. That was part of the reason the Germans wanted Stalingrad.
>2. Ignoring the Moscow direction ALLOWS RED ARMY TO OUTFLANK ARMY GROUP SOUTH FROM THE NORTH AND CUT IT FROM SUPPLY LINES IN BELARUS AND UKRAINE. Spell it with me: O U T F L A N K E D. E N C I R C L E
I never said they should ignore Moscow. I criticized the generals for putting all of their resources in taking Moscow instead of the oil fields, which is a far more strategic objective. And what happens if they take Moscow? Nothing would change. The memoirs of all these German generals kept talking about how they should have taken Moscow, but not a single one explains how that defeats the Soviet Union. It doesn't!

>Lack of fuel was the least of their concerned among the lack of material, lack of manpower, lack of ammunition and lack of vehicles.
They lacked ammunition, vehicles and manpower because they HAD NO FUEL.

Are you on the spectrum?