Was the united states lacking good artillery during the Vietnam war? I seen all the talk about the m14 and m16...

Pershings were too heavy to move around most of the time, yeah.

US arty in Vietnam performed fine. It's just not interesting to talk about.

Pershings had serious problems starting in the brutally cold winter. Their non-orbital gear transmission and heavy weight also made hill climbing a pain. These problems were only solved with the M46 Patton. In the meantime they could be kludged back into working order by half chewing tootsie rolls and sticking them to the cracked fuel and coolant lines. The M103 was at the same time, known for being a maintenance hog and a bit of a nightmare to keep running. Basically no one wanted the Pershing around ether because it was overkill for the battle to begin with on top of the part that it didn't start in the -50 degree weather which was something the M4 and M24 didn't seem to mind. The M103 would have been those issues taken up to 11.

Those are very dangerous words to speak around these parts.

Not only that, but they were refurbished and recovered from scrapheaps of the Pacific War. Tanks, Garands, Trucks, tires, and ammunition were all salvaged from a hundred different battlefields, shipped to Japan for overhaul, and then sent off to the battlefields of Korea in Operation Rollup.
I have no clue why the last ten seconds of this video didn't render correctly, but I've tried three separate times all with the same result. Source video is fine.

Attached: Citizen, Soldier, and Taxpayer Too - The Big Picture Part 1.webm (640x480, 14.94M)

Attached: Citizen, Soldier, and Taxpayer Too - The Big Picture Part 2.webm (640x480, 14.87M)

a lot of the redleg stuff you hear about from vietnam were actually, because of firebase locations and the nature of the enemy (guerilla/insurgency etc) in some places, are infantry-esque firefights where they were overrun
i.e. sammy davis and the like

Was this because they kept all the good shit, like the m103 for example, in Europe in case the Soviets decided to let their nuts hang

Is this some kind of advanced shitposting to fool soviet spies?

Attached: 1767036aadb64a227856837111d9ccb6f4d330b366ae852cb87ad60fa472c7df.jpg (521x516, 62.88K)

The video said in the beginning that the majority of the equipment was in Europe. And again, the M103 was not wanted or needed in Korea due to the lack of IS-3 tanks in that theater on top of its dubious maintenance needs. The M103 was in Europe because of the expected deployment of such IS-3 tanks but then it turned out it was nothing but a parade piece. The Army sold their M103s to the Marines who held onto them until the early 60s if only because they could just have new tanks for cheap if I remember correctly.

there were suspicions abound that Vietnam was a Soviet distraction for an offensive in Europe.

I didn't know about any of this, that's really cool.

Something about the presence of pigment and how it affects the springiness of the hair maybe?

Tendency towards curliness in humid environments, probably.

We would have loved to bring more shit over, but our logistical capabilities were in such shit shape due to Truman-era budget cuts that we were stretched thin just supplying the existing forces.

I wish that tank actually saw use.

It made me really sad that they scrapped all those Russian, German and Japanese vehicles.

Me too, same with the conqueror.

Water vapor condenses in the tiny cracks in human hair, making it stretch, thus triggering the mechanism the human hair is attached to.
No idea why blond hair is required, maybe it has more/less places for vapour to condense.
What is required though is that every hair is same length and one device contains hair from one individual so it can be individually calibrated.
I used shit called hygrometer in college to measure humidity

Are they still used with human hair today?

Most CHEMICAL weapons were legitimate herbicides and pesticides. Rather than starting a fire in a moist jungle, crop dusting seemed to be the next best thing…for just clearing canopy to see the ground. When it came to killing kids, we know what call was made.

CS (tear gas) was EXTENSIVELY used in Vietnam to deny areas and to plug the tunnels. It would piss off animals and sometimes rodents, and obviously stir a reaction that would essentially incapacitate a person.

Surprised no one has mentioned the use napalm and WP rounds….

It sounds like you are saying that rodents, irritated by the gas started incapacitating people?
That cant be right.

Gives a whole new meaning to tunnel rats.

There are still some old ones that do use human hair (we used the one with human hair to demonstrate the principal).
Although they are mostly replaced by modern ones that use synthetic materials or some sort of material that changes electric resistance depending on humidity level.

I remember watching some documentary where they used human hair as a croshair for bomber sights, so using human hair for its properties goes further than some measuring instrument

Polite Sage for offtopic

No
No
No
No

Attached: 2HH3DG1.png (767x332, 294.22K)

Don't forget the millions of rifles and all the ammo dumped into the Sea of Japan and the English Channel at the end of the war.

We didn't have nearly enough train cars strong enough to move even our M26s across the country to the ports in California. What makes you think we had the infrastructure to move them from Europe to Korea?
I have only heard nightmares about the electrical systems being a beast of a task to keep running. The vehicles incredibly short service life should tell you something about how much of a pleasure it was to have around because we dropped that thing the moment the IS-3 was found out to be a farce and we didn't even bother to give them to another country for free like how we did with the M24 Chaffee, M41 Walker Bulldog, and M47 Patton.
See the first point. These things were fucking heavy.
The entire point of the M103 was to outdo IS-3. All the IS-3's in the world were in Europe so on top of all the logistical problems like having to get everyone in Korea to stock M103 parts and 120mm shells, there was nothing in all of Asia that would require a 120mm buttfucking that a 75,76 and 90mm gun wouldn't neutralize.

Attached: 5e1.png (774x579, 875.89K)

...

They weren't any worse than the Pershings when it came to reliability or electronics. They would have made good breakthrough tanks to combat chink swarms. Their 120mm HE shells would've been good for breaking zerg rushes and providing good infantry fire support. They would;ve been a good morale booster for us and moral breaker for them.

Bringing firepower to bear on spots wasn't much an issue in this war

Not the main killer in Vietnam, or even in WW2 - in both the main killers were airpower

You DID use actual chemical weapons, and you shouldn't have.

You faggots still don't get the big picture. Everyone was expecting those IS-3s to come crashing through the Berlin wall at any moment and when that moment came we needed to make sure we had the tank specifically made to stop the IS-3 dead in its tracks to be there. We did not make a hell of a lot of M103s and all of them were in a place where they could not have easily made it to the Korean peninsula. Their big guns would have done the job, yes, but so did the four other kinds of lighter and easier to move tanks already in Korea and around the pacific theater in close reach of the peninsula. And along with moving the vehicles themselves though Germany and Turkey and then through the very politically hot Suez you would have to make sure they got all the spare parts and proprietary ammo they would need to keep functioning in that theater. It would be the definition of too much trouble for what its worth because for the effort to just move a single measly platoon of 4 M103s you could have landed maybe 100 or more M24s or M4s that were already on standby in Japan for the same cost. And that 75mm gun can spit HE out a lot quicker than the 120.

First off, you're fucking retarded, how would the M103 see service in a war 4 years before its service?
The M103 and Conqueror heavy tanks were made in response to the Soviet IS-3, yes. Thus they were only in existence to do that?
They could combat any Soviet heavy tank or mbt up to the T-72.
Speaking of soviet heavy tanks I'm sure its reliability rivals any of them.
The M103's weight is comparable to that of any modern day mbt despite being a 'heavy tank'

Attached: syhcRes.png (657x332, 494.28K)

Hey, I'm not the one advocating as to why they should use it before it was even made. I'm just saying besides that there's a whole lot more issues going on.
Yes, they were in fact only built to fight the IS-3. This is why there was no such thing as a unit of Conquerors. They mixed in one Conqueror per platoon of Centurions because its job was to murder the one thing the Centurion could not. And after the L7 105mm main gun was fitted to the Centurion and M48, there was suddenly zero point to having the 120 because the L7 could punch through everything the soviets had and those heavy tanks became redundant, slow, and expensive to move and maintain and were dropped.

Yes, the M103 and Conquerors were better than the IS-3, but that was only because the IS-3 was a total ruse and not even expected to fight. Those vehicles were total beasts to move strategically for the time and just because it would be easier today to move does not mean it would be a trivial task 60+ years ago. And every single book or personal account I have read points to these vehicle's electricals being extremely taxing to keep working, the Conqueror's shell ejector being one of the biggest issues that comes to mind as a massive piece of shit that never actually worked. The L7 gun then gave all of the lighter, quicker and less maintenance intensive MBTs comparable firepower. Making the M103 and Conqueror OBSOLETE.

Attached: Conqueror.png (628x420, 532.06K)

Except for the several times they did fight and did pretty well.

I'm going to need a citation on that. Because 24 total shells in the ammo stowage and no proper recoil system for the gun along with its laughably short service life points to it being nothing but a scary parade float that would be used to run over protestors at the worst of it. Again, all the books and historians Ive ever read or heard state it was just a bomber gap ploy to get the west to waste money.

...

🤷‍

Attached: IS-3M destroyed at Rafah, 1967..jpg (591x376, 36.86K)

Owned.

You think?
The fact that the IS-3 (with inbred retards manning them) were capable to fight M48 on equal ground is what is amazing.

Equal ground? They were wtfpwnd.

Did you get this from kikepedia?
Because I know for a fact in that engagement in question the Pattons there were in fact Magach 3's armed with the L7 105mm gun which was far superiour to the 122mm used by the IS-3M and more than capable of knocking any Soviet armour of the time.

Attached: M48-Patton-latrun-Magach-3.jpg (800x465, 90.52K)

Putain de putain, can you not read?

Russian tanks all had the same issues: While their overall design was advanced and scary as all hell, their build quality and more intricate things leave a lot to be desired.
Like not having proper sights, fire control, accurate gun, good ammo, enough interior space, i.e. all the finer things that actually make a tank work apart from a reliable engine, big enough gun, and good enough armor.
But to be fair, these things are ill understood by the 56%ers as well, even to this day, which is why they will always resort to muh "German tanks so bad, Sherman best tank, America numbah 1" when talking about old tanks.

Attached: questioning_moon_rabbit.jpg (436x336, 31.65K)

I think he's suggesting that the IS-3 was a piece of shit compared to the M48 exactly because everything on it was obsolete, and the thick armour couldn't save it, and that's why it's a wonder that they weren't just obliterated.

Ahh, ok. Then I have no issues with what the Frenchie said.
The IS-3 would have been a genuine threat all the way to the M47 since its tiny little cannon couldn't have done much against it.
After that, even the T-10 upgrade became useless against NATO and the ruskies eventually realized that.

Speaking of soviet armoured vehicles of the early Cold War, I love how they tried to figure out the secondary armament. E.g. the T-54 still had a frontal machine gun operated by the driver, even though he could only aim it by moving the entire vehicle. Then on some vehicles they just threw up their arms and put two 12.7mm or 14.5mm machine guns on it. And then there is the IS-7:
tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/is-7-object-260
And the original idea was even crazier with this little backward firing turret attached to the main turret.

Attached: IS-7_maket.jpg (5194x3463 63.23 KB, 2.61M)

Attached: bf7e2e14e34952106b8558ca65659d693cea206e640c7b0d30d41449a0d0e2cf.jpg (480x480, 40.15K)

You're still missing the fact that these tanks came out ages before in different conditions.
EQUALIZE THE CONDITIONS
EQUALIZE THE TIMEFRAME

Of course their build quality sucks:
1. Their factory owners got shot for being capitalist in the 1930-1935.
2. Their factories got moved around '35-'40 because planning "comittees" thought it would be more efficient
3. Their factories got continuously shelled and bombed 1940-1045 where T-34s rolled off the production line and began firing on German positions before even fully rolling out of the factory doors
4. Most of the tanks they're being compared to were made decades later

Like a T-34 is a 1934 design and I see it being compared to late model PzIVH and J (a ten years later design!) or even Panthers as if this is normal. Or Shermans which were designed from the ground up after seeing 5-6 years of combat data rolling in from Europe. You can't compare that build quality to something built in Germany or America.

The fact of the matter is that when people argue online, we ARE arguing designs and NOT local differences in quality, by the metric of "if T-34 was build by America/Germany, would it be better than tanks built by America/Germany before 1935". Which is a no brainer answer, and the reason why so many people get pissed at herpaderps saying otherwise.

Attached: (you).jpg (320x219, 16.29K)

And this is why the M-103 and Conqueror tanks were retired so quickly. Once everything had an L7 there was no need for an entirely different tank with different parts and different shells to be lugged around. But even then, I doubt the IS-3 would have done much damage even to tanks with 90mm guns that could avoid direct confrontation and exploit their bad optics and low ammo count.

But the Sherman had all the things you listed. Excellent crew comfort, periscope mounted low magnification unity sight for the gunner and gyroscopic stabilizer for superior hill fighting capability and ammo that fit in the breach and went bang.

I don't quite see it because the Panzer 4 was also a 1930s design made when tanks were literally illegal to make in Germany. And like the T-34 it had a lot of changes done to it over the course of the war to keep up to date.

I could never understand the design purpose of this. Was it supposed to be used during retreating?

The KV-2 and some other earlier designs had a similar thing. It was for protection against infantry most likely before they developed proper combined arms tactics.

But then you'd compare Panzer III/IV early variants to the T-34 itself right? Except that's not whats happening, every time the comparison comes up its shermans, late model panzer series and PANTHERS to early T-34.

As in? It got re-barreled in 57mm and 85mm which cut through all contemporary tanks like a plasma torpedo, but T-34 never gets mentioned with these guns. It's always the fucking 76mm pop gun. The Panzer series changed radically during its lifetime, changing dozens of guns and armor systems and radios and drive types…. meanwhile the T-34 only really had no serious changes in turret shape, hull shape, armor types, drive types, or manufacturing methods. When the pop gun expired they just put in a bigger gun that took up more crew space and reduced effectiveness.

If you compare early T-34 to early PZIII or PZIV it isn't even a contest.

The T-34 went through at least 5 different turrets that I can think of as it evolved. The Panzers were made with the bigger guns and heavier armor in mind, but they could not build them like that until later under the arms treaties they were put under.

And no, the panzer 3 with the long barreled 50mm gun was wiping the floor with T-34s at the opening stages of barbarosa due to it having superior optics and crew comfort that the Russians never thought to take into account.

If you want to learn autism-tier details on the T-34, Sherman, Panzers and Panthers then read this guy's blogposts. He goes against the whole soviet tanks reliable, german tanks unreliable meme and uses sources to prove it.
>chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/01/wwii-myths-weak-panzer-divisions-after.html
>chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2013/01/german-evaluation-of-captured-soviet.html
>chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html
>chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2013/04/recurring-problems-of-soviet-tank-design.html
>chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2013/01/more-on-t-34.html
>chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2013/12/australian-tankers-criticism-of-t-34.html
>chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2013/05/was-panther-heavy-tank.html
>chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2014/05/tanks-tanks-tanks.html
>chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2013/03/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-case-of.html

Attached: 0_d7046_b6b30cbf_orig.jpg (477x646, 56.27K)

Its often said that Soviets had 20,000 tanks at the start of Barbarossa. This number counts mostly retired tankettes and obsolete BT tanks, many of which weren't even in Europe at the time.

The truth is that ~900 T34s were the only medium tanks capable of holding back over 3000 comparable german medium tanks (PzIII/IV) until the introduction of a cannon to specifically kill the T34 itself. Of course a cannon introduced specifically to kill the T34 is going to kill the T34, but barbarossa would not have succeeded without the german ability to upgun to meet the threat.

T-34s that early in the war were garbage without radios. Visibility sucked due to lack of a cupola and decent periscopes. They could have 20,000 of them, half of them would get abandoned and the rest blown up anyway.

The leaf. Behind every shitpost, as usual.

Maybe when compared to an early war T-34

Your post made me lol irl. You burgers crack me up.

Attached: Life_is_Life.jpg (884x903 51.68 KB, 123.02K)

Attached: 1428953068821.png (1291x845, 718.22K)

The 75mm Sherman could penetrate the panzer 4 before the panzer could penetrate it. Its wide FOV roof mounted unity sight provided superior situational awareness against any German tank and its leather seats were very comfy. The 76mm Sherman could crack the front of any panzer aside from the non functional meme machines like the king tiger and served well through the korean war. The 90mm gun shermans also performed well in the 1967 jew war so it seems to have had more legs than even the panther. Enjoy having to pull the entire turret off to get to the transmission. I honestly don't understand why you are trying to argue against what the M4 did objectively right which was maintenance ease, crew comfort and fire control systems.

Attached: Battle of Arracourt.PNG (320x701, 160.72K)

But why in the rear?

Space concerns, probably. With the size of the gun you would have to have it heavily offset, if you could fit it at all. The Japanese had plenty of tanks with rear/side MGs also. The Stuart also had fixed hull MGs, which were pretty useless.

Attached: m3stuartmg.jpg (1280x960 124.86 KB, 311.18K)

Because if the enemy infantry gets behing the tank, then they don't have to rotate the whole turret to fire at them. Also, climbing up to the back of the hull is suicidal now. Today you don't see it, because the new standard is to have a remote weapon station on the top that can fire in any direction, including behind the turret.

In case they came from behind. It makes sense when you remember they were coming from designs with multiple turrets.

Sherman also had a partial gun stabiliser.

The KV has a coaxial and a rear mounted mg. Like some guys said it's for protecting the opposite side of which way the turret is pointing since it takes too long (according to the guys who built the tanks) to rotate the turret. Later tanks got rid of it since the benefits were minimal in actual combat I suppose. Was still a thing when they built the IS-2 (based on the KV).

Attached: IS-2.jpg (1722x1108, 338.41K)

In what universe was that shitposting?

Don't know if kike or just generic nationalistic idiot. Also, nice citations for your fantasies.

Attached: lol.jpg (328x1013, 137.39K)

Amusingly, those hull guns on the stuart were put in place because someone took to the notion of using tanks as Calvary too literally and thought they would charge into lines of men just waiting to be chopped up by some fixed machine guns. The most early models of M3 Lee and M4 Sherman had them too, but were later deleted because unless you were fighting japs, they were a waste of machinegun.

Imagine thinking this is some kind of ebin troll. Boomers are the retards that unironically buy into the M4 ronson deathtrap meme by the way.

Attached: M4 with fixed machine guns.jpg (504x417, 35.02K)

You probably aren't even aware of your own idiocy, hm?

militaryhistorynow.com/2017/09/12/tank-busting-blowing-up-the-myth-of-the-mighty-m4-sherman/

The ronson was a death-trap. Luckily, the usa could field 20 times the numbers of it compared to all German tanks ever made. And still lost 4000+ tanks with total air superiority fighting an outnumbered foe with no fuel and weak supply chain.

All that so jews could enslave the entire world.

ups, 5 times at least

Instead of reading the article, the comment by Hydro6104 is much better

chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html?m=1
This mostly has to do with how shit T34 was, but references the study showing high Sherman crew survival

knowledgeglue.com/dispelling-myths-surrounding-m4-sherman/
This one show Soviet penetration testing results

c-span.org/video/?433629-2/design-history-m4-sherman-tank-world-war-ii
Moran has plenty of sources about reliability and crew survivability. Tank was fine chill your Krautism

The US was using M3 Lees for a good portion of North Africa, and they sucked ass.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (983x768, 637.29K)

I really don't understand why didn't they just get rid of the turret. Although when they did for a prototype it was even worse, because they also got rid of the roof for some reason.

Attached: T40-4.jpg (650x386 24.46 KB, 25.33K)

Neither the Lee nor the Sherman sucked.
The reality is that the US army and especially the US leadership sucks at maneuver warfare.
It sucked balls during the whole war (despite fighting mostly German rear guards and depleted units), it sucked balls during the Korean war, it sucked balls during Vietnam, it even sucked balls against Iraq in 1991 (the republican guard outmaneuvered the US army and escaped destruction and encirclement quite easily despite being the US main target, look it up).

No. You should have used biological. War parrots. This is a shitpost.
In the Guadalcanal campaign, many Japanese soldiers would hear voices shouting "Hikouki, hikouki!"; thinking their lives were at stake, they would scramble and run for cover.
In the Four Pests Campaign, sparrows were proven to be very hard to kill. Most of them died from exhaustion. The Chinese had to shake trees all the time so the birds couldn't stay on the branches for too long. In one interesting case, a flock of sparrows sought diplomatic refuge in the Polish embassy, which refused to let the birds go, and was then surrounded by an angry Chinese mob that loudly played drums. Many of the sparrows died and the Poles released the survivors. Either your enemy will have to live with your parrots or he'll have to shoot them and shake trees and be loud in the jungle.
A parrot platoon could be composed of between 100 and 1000 trained parrots divided into two squads, one squad would be deployed near the front lines and its parrots would be trained specifically to spread misinformation, yelling "enemy to the front!" or "take cover" or other such things. The second squad would be deployed to the enemy's rear and should be trained to taunt, spy, follow etc the enemy. They would say things like "I'm watching you." etc. Psychological warfare, intelligence and counter-intelligence. War parrots.
The prospect of war parrots is greater today, now that we can hide cameras and other sensors in animals. Parrots are the most intelligent birds. They're far cheaper and easier to use than any micro or nano weapon or drone. To say nothing of their cost-effectiveness. A parrot platoon could be trained and maintained by a few veterinarian officers. If I were a staff officer of a jungle unit, I'd test this idea in an exercise, without letting any of my troops know it. I guess parrots are not necessary if you can make a small but potent enough loudspeaker that a bird can carry around its neck.
Or maybe drones are just cheaper.
I thought of making a thread about this but I don't the idea deserves it.

I meant company. A company with two platoons.

Retreating soldiers.

So what happens when they fight the Russians? Act like a bitch & go nuclear when they get their rears handed?

Boomers literally started the ronson meme as the lighter company didn't even have that slogan until well after the war dipshit. Everything you post are actual communist boomer memes you would only see parroted at boomer gunshows and cuckchan.

The Lee was an impressive tank just due to the fact that it went from the drawing board to the field of battle in less than a year and stacked up comparably to panzer 4s of the era while totally outmatching Italian and Jap tanks.

Some general REALLY liked the 37mm gun for its canister shot and demanded it be kept if memory serves on that call. And it was honestly the perfect gun for the pacific.
The T-40 was supposed to be a tank destroyer so the open top fighting compartment was for superior situational awareness and getting the first shot off on enemy armor.

I'm guessing that North Africa and Sicily conveniently didn't count anywhere in there? If Patton had his way and the dead weight known as Monty was dropped from the supply chain we would have been in Berlin by 1944 with energy to spare for crushing the USSR.
That was nothing but a minor setback in the grand scheme of things and pretty much the only time the Afrika corps had their day so its hyped up to high heaven by wheraboos everywhere.

It would be a slaughter like the Korean war, or 73 eastings. The USSR was receiving so many of their supplies from us through lend lease and were already so overtaxed on their supply lines and manpower due to their horrendous attrition rates that it would quickly turn into a long retreat situation that Germany faced.

Attached: 0de.gif (625x626, 104.13K)

...

America really is just the boomer nation at this point, isn't it.

Oh boy we are re-enacting WW2 in this thread.

...

Since when is simply stating what happened being proud?

Yup, he was certainly helpful. Monty was an egotistical blowhard who only wanted to kill "muh Germans" and find glory in killing as many as he could. He was a pain in everyone's ass as he begged for supplies to lead his pointless "unified front" campaign which did nothing but hand Berlin over the the Soviet rape hoard because he had the same brand of European pettiness that gave us the Dresden bombing and England not accepting peace terms from Hitler after the fall of France. You are the boomer, England.

Like I said, if that battle was such a "disaster" then why did it not even slow the capture of North Africa and Sicily?

Hey, feel free to believe whatever nonsense helps you sleep at night m8.

The greatest amount of rapes and also prostitution happened in the west, already after WW1. Damn the Frogs and Yanks to hell for bringing nigger hordes into Europe. Well, I know of course that both countries were already heavily kiked at that time, but still…

Because if you have enough industrial power, efficiency of weapons and generals can be ignored. Ex. Israel lost its entire armored force in a war and America airlifted in 1:1 replacements.

Fucks sake ever heard of negermischelange? Soviets didnt rape hardly any germans because they didnt really hardly capture any territory where germans lived. Allies took 4/5ths of Germany and the 1/5th Soviets took was populated by slavs (serbs/poles/cheques) as much as Germans. Half the stories of Russian raping Germans are absolute provable bullshit published by CIA during cold war to "maintain an ally".

If any Soviet rapes took place it was probably Ukrainians raping Poles or something similar, since Ukrainians were used for prison guard forces.

How can you have such WRONG conceptions about basic shit.

Yeah, Berlin is not Germany territory.

I think the Soviet apologism on this board is hitting critical mass.

So you're going to start screaming and crying about comfort girls now?

And yet Kassarine pass never happened ever again because we learned from the mistakes that were made.

The leaf. Do you also believe that the man waving the hammer and sickle on top of the Reichstag's roof didn't have an arm full of looted watches?

North Africa was over by the time the US intervened, the axis fighting a rear guard battle. And the only time the US had a major engagement was Kasserine pass. After that the UK systemically took on the brunt of ALL the western theater campaigns.
Sicily was largely undefended (due to a very successful British deception), most of the italians run away due to early OSS/Mafia shenanigans and the Germans withdrew safely and entirely (with the remaining Italian that hadn't turn-coat) from A FUCKING ISLAND despite allies having an overwhelming advantage in sea and air power.
Italy was a such a shit show Germans were still holding almost all of the industrialized parts of it by April of 1945.

Maneuver warfare is the art of inflicting a maximum of casualties by outmaneuvering your opponent usually by cutting his forces off and then promptly reducing the weakened pockets thus formed.
Something the US never managed to do once in WWII even if by some miracle (usually called Patton) a pocket formed said pockets were almost never properly weakened as they formed over a stupid amount of time allowing the trapped units to properly grab as much supplies as they could and dig deep defensive positions (hell you still had Germans pockets in France in May 1945, they conducted air and even submarine operations until they ran out, of their extensive stock, of fuel).

Patton (*kofkof* who was french cavalry trained *kofkof*) was literally the only US general that understood that. And was therefore belittled, only used as a last resort and all of his breakthrough efforts immediately pissed away by his peers.

And the only one the Germans deemed a threat.