/k/ - Weapons

Weapons, tactics, and more

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 12000

files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Total max file size: 50.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more

E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and posts)

Misc

Remember to follow the Rules

The backup domains are located at 8chan.se and 8chan.cc. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 3.0.

Uncommon Time Winter Stream

Interboard /christmas/ Event has Begun!
Come celebrate Christmas with us here


8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.


(113.41 KB 592x446 waffen-ss-soldier-with-svt-40.jpg)

(2.75 MB 960x720 virgin lee vs chad panther.mp4)

(270.71 KB 1600x1055 STG44.jpg)

WW2 General Strelok 06/08/2020 (Mon) 13:04:40 No. 4545
epic WW2 bread
>>4700 Indeed, can anyone give me a rational reason for Hitler to declare war on the USA to support Japan's insane baited attack on Hawaii? Especially after Japan failed in their main Axis commitment (attacking the USSR at the same time as Germany) and was still fighting in China? I can only conclude that by this point Hitler had completely lost his sanity.
>>4701 The only reasonable explanation is that he wanted to wage unlimited submarine warfare, and that would have lead to the US declaring war anyway, so he wanted to skip to the part where his submarines stop all shipping on the Atlantic. That didn't work, of course, but if it did then it would have been a logical move. The more I think about it, the more it looks like that German higher-ups were simply way too optimistic about every single thing, to the point of outright insanity. Just like how they thought that if bombing London didn't defeat Britain then some expensive fireworks in the form of the V-1 and V-2 will surely do the job, even though they already knew from their own experience that bombing population centres doesn't work, and they also woefully overestimated the potential of those weapons.
>>4702 A tragedy for humanity and life on earth. That said, if Hitler had not declared war on the USA (and Roosevelt was mostly forced to focus purely on Japan), would that have been enough to carve out some sort of victory in Europe?
>>4703 At that point every convoy through the Atlantic would have American merchantmen and US Navy ships mixed in, just waiting to be torpedo'd so that Roosevelt can declare war on them. Japan simply wasn't a big enough fish to keep the US busy for a whole world war, because most of their land forces were committed at China, and they had no hope of winning the naval war anyway. Even if we somehow still remove 'merica from the picture as an active participant, their industrial might would have been still enough to have a serious effects, and the strategic blunders the Germans made in the eastern front is an other can of worms. The only way for Germany to win is to fight a completely different war, i.e. play ball with Stalin until Britain is forced to sue for peace.
>>4704 >At that point every convoy through the Atlantic would have American merchantmen and US Navy ships mixed in, just waiting to be torpedo'd so that Roosevelt can declare war on them. Wasn't that the case even before? But the Germans went to the effort to avoid the WW1 mistake they made. I suppose what I'm saying is that would the extra year (or maybe 2) Japan would potentially buy for Germany enough to defeat the USSR before (likely) having to face the USA directly?
>>4705 >germany defeating the USSR The niggers couldn't run a train through a fucking desert, there would be bread riots before they got to moscow
>>4706 Maybe Germany should have just gone NK-mode and focused on propaganda, superweapons, and spycraft (surely staging coup d'etats in places like Norway and the Netherlands would have been more effective). Pride always comes before the fall.
>>4707 I mean, if Hitler had sided with Nat.China over Japan in 1936, the US probably would have remained amicable to them if not outright siding with them. It wasn't until that point that US general opinion began to shift away from Germany; and had that have happened, there was a slight (but extant) chance that Churchill would decide not to antagonize the Germans in his quest for a glorious war to revive Britain, instead choosing to go after the Soviets, whom he didn't like anyway. We could have seen a timeline where the Allied Powers were the Americans, Germans, and the British fighting the USSR; and instead of being nominally allied with the European-front's antagonized party, Japan would have been truly isolated facing these Allies since the chance of them putting aside their differences with the USSR was zero. But Mr. Mustache rolled the wrong dice.
>>4708 Hitler would not have sided with China ultimately. Germany had a handful of colonies in Asia that Japan snatched up during/after WWI, but the League of Nations soured Japan who was treated unfairly and so in return they treated their German colonies they had acquired with a lot of respect, and (retired or captured) German military command was treated with a lot of respect by Japan as tutors following the war. Hitler saw Japan as a rising superpower while he saw China as the same dying Empire it had been when the Germans had helped invade it thirty years prior.
>>4707 This is the sad reality of war: it is simply a means to an end, and preferably you should engineer such a situation that you don't even have to commit your forces for a real war, just roll in, do and take what you want, and then deal with the diplomatic consequences in such a fashion that everybody is cool with it. So basically what Hitler did in Czechoslovakia. Of course, it was more the Bri'ish and the frogs not wanting to fight a war that enabled Germany to do it so smoothly, and then everything went to hell for them when they changed their mind due to Poland.
>>4698 >i don´t think this will ever happen, WW2 is a foundational myth, the entirety of the Cold War and as a result, the modern Pax Judaea we live in, is the result of the Axis defeat in WW2 >this is only gonna get worse as the world gets more and more politicized and the modern world gets more and more out of control as the spiral of decay unravels faster and faster pretty much this. this whole mess we're in is a direct result of the liberalism/communism winning the two world wars, and monarchy/fascism going down in defeat. We're obviously living in a time of decadence, and I'm hoping the rotting structure of the postwar liberal order can be toppled sooner rather than later, so that it doesn't metastatize into something even more dystopian. speaking of Evola, a good quote from the Metaphysics of War: >With no significant political forces opposing the conversion of our world into a universal marketplace, the conflict of our time is the struggle to retain one’s humanity in an increasingly artificial world. That is the only battle that retains any genuine significance from a traditional perspective. >>4708 I'm thinking that the conventional wisdom is correct, and invading Russia and China were blunders for Germany and Japan, respectively. Of course, they would've had to come up with alternatives for resource grabs, but I'm sure there were alternatives to wasting their strength on projecting force into Asia.
>>4711 >they would've had to come up with alternatives for resource grabs You mean like having a functional economy instead of descending into socialism? >Evola Lol I've never read him is he always such a sore loser?
>>4711 I think that's a major oversimplification of ~80 years of history considering all the factions that go into it. I've heard more compelling arguments that the internet was the undoing of the world as was previously known because of how it decentralized and thus disharmonized human conscious experience. For fuck's sake America was going to forgive Japan and by proxy Germany for the shit they were doing until China opened their big mouths and had a shit fit. Gonna blame that one on da joos too, brah? That China and Saudi Arabia after WWII are the only reason the kikes are in control now is somehow also part of the Jews' plans?
>>4708 >I mean, if Hitler had sided with Nat.China over Japan in 1936, the US probably would have remained amicable to them if not outright siding with them. The USA didn't join the world wars because they had been attacked or because they cared about any of the atrocities going on, but simply because the US leadership saw the opportunity to remove the European and Asian Empires as the major powers of the world and install themselves as the worlds hegemon. There could have been a clean solution to WW1, with one side dominating the other and removing them from the game, but the USA prevented that with it's Leage of Nation bullshit, basically preventing the British and French to capitalize from their victory over Germany in any meaningful way. Equally Russia was allowed to not collapse and to morph into the Soviet Union. When Hiter managed to steamrole Europe to the surprise of everyone, he unmade decades of work the USA had done, by presenting the possibility of a German Hegemony over Europe and by that extent all the European colonies in the world. By the time Pearl Habor happened, it didn't matter if Hitler supported Japan or not, because the USA were already working hard to remove Germany as the leading country in Europe.
>>4713 yes, I was oversimplifying, but I wasn't wrong in broad strokes. >internet Decentralization of thought began with printing press & movable type, the precursor to internet 500+ years ago, which directly led to the Protestant Reformation. The information revolutions brought many good things, and are not necessarily responsible for the malaise we're living through. >Jews I don't really want to be anti-semitic, but there's no denying that they have a strong overlap with all the ills of Liberalism.
Why all British tanks start with a letter C ? Why Germans never put a 8,8 FLAK on one of their planes? Ein volk, ein reich, ein calliber. Why did Germany suck so much at technological colaboration? Wouldnt it be much better if Fiat was cranking out Panthers instead of L3 tankettes? Generally what the fuck was Italian command thinking ?
>>4716 >Why did Germany suck so much at technological colaboration? Wouldnt it be much better if Fiat was cranking out Panthers instead of L3 tankettes? When Hungary wanted to buy the license of the Panzer IV, they were only willing to give one for an early model with the short cannon, and only for a ridiculous price. They wanted vassals instead of allies, and so they wanted them to be reliant on German industry for everything.
(677.05 KB 500x2310 dcx6pn5m1e1z.png)

>>4716 >Why Germans never put a 8,8 FLAK on one of their planes? It was tried in fact, they attempted to install a modified 8,8 on a Ju 88.
>>4714 >The USA didn't join the world wars because they had been attacked or because they cared about any of the atrocities going on, but simply because the US leadership saw the opportunity to remove the European and Asian Empires as the major powers of the world and install themselves as the worlds hegemon. Not exactly. Woodrow Wilson really got the ball rolling in WW1 in late 1916. HOWEVER, he was in favor of peace. He wanted to stop WW1 as quickly and as peacefully as possible because he knew in WW1 world white supremacy was at stake. He wanted to use America as the vehicle for a new, explicit global white supremacy, one without the old divisions of the past, the national and feudal divisions. He sought global white unity. The "self determination" of Wilson's proto-NATO League of Nations was ironically intended to dissolve nationalism. This was preparatory work for an EU. America would then protect the old white homeland while ensuring global white supremacy in a way that the ancient European nations could not because of their archaic contradictions. Wilson was kind of like a national-socialist. He felt white America was united at the turn of the 20th century after the Civil War and that the failure of reconstruction was a good thing because in it whites recognized the foolishness of killing each other over the negros. Wilson's attacks on Constitutional Originalism are based on transferring all power over to the then still hegemonic white majority and removing from power the humanist universalism in the Constitution that allowed blacks to claim to be part of humanity. We see the same thing being used for the exact opposite purpose today. Wilson grounded all these attacks in his own brand of Hegelianism. He was an ardent admirer of Hegel and to that extent was a German sympathizer. Wilson was also of course a Southerner and that is where the white racial unity connection really comes from. All of this failed terribly and WW1 ended in the worst possible way. Wilson could not secure peace in late 1916 because of the effects of unrestricted submarine warfare that the Germans did NOT allow during Verdun and which cost them that battle. If Germany had won Verdun and closed in on Paris the war would have been won. They cranked the submarines up afterward out of frustration and played right into the warhawks' hands. Everything after becomes inevitable. WW2 is really very derivative. WW1 was the real war. >When Hiter managed to steamrole Europe to the surprise of everyone, he unmade decades of work the USA had done, by presenting the possibility of a German Hegemony over Europe and by that extent all the European colonies in the world. Kaiser Wilhelm and the German Empire was already trying to do this. He originally wanted peace with Britain and Russia, and saw in the first Balkan war an opportunity to drive Islam completely out of Europe and beyond. Germany ended up allying with the Turks for purely tactical reasons. French perfidy and craven British imperial jealousy was what really caused WW1. I suppose you could say Germany was always trying to do this throughout history. It really goes back to the Roman Empire and the German thwarting and then subversion of said empire. Historically Germany represents the white racial unity while the Romans represented mongrelism and corruption, Britain and France being proxies of Rome since they were former conquered territories. Wilson recognized this. He was a massive history buff. >there could have been a clean solution to WW1. France and Britain were utterly exhausted by the end of 1917 and were combat incapable. They were only able to limp along during 1917 and afterward because of the massive influence of Wallstreet and American commodities, all of which had been flowing since 1915. The arrival of fresh American troops in 1918 is the only reason the allies won. The only clean victory would have been in late 1916. But by WW2 Wilson's white dreams were long since subverted by Wallstreet, Jews, Communists, and homegrown American liberal scum, New Dealers, though the same framework of banning Constitutional Originalism was adopted precisely to attack white America and which we see fully flowering today. Back in the day the blacks needed the Constitution's univeralism to protect them from a white majority. Now we need it to protect us from an anti-white majority.
>>4719 I would also add to my second paragraph that Wilson's League/NATO is now used precisely to exterminate white Europe instead of saving it, for exactly the same reasons and the same dynamic as his attack on Constitutional Originalism. The entire Wilson script was flipped.
>>4719 Collectivism over morality always has a cost in the end, trouble is if taken to the extreme it can bring about a fate worse than death and temporary advantage enough to do unspeakable horror (as seen with those in power of the world). That's the thing with the ends justifying the means, you always end up losing just as much in the long run, its the way god made this world. The only way to succeed in this life is through personal suffering of wit and will, trying to cheat always backfires on a long enough time scale. Its something european nobility at least at one time had some sense of, what with their "archaic contradictions", and the United States knew even better. Making others suffer instead of suffering yourself should only be done in worst case scenario, that's the thing evil fails to understand, moral relativism is just the symptom of human ignorance, yet it is always evil to never at least TRY to be better even if no other option presents itself towards you.
>>4721 /thread.
>>4721 Ok but that isn't really what the thread is about.
>>4723 NTA. I would dispute that claim. In the contexts of Wilson/Jew War I->(Roosevelt/Stalin/et al)/Jew War II->Usurper-in-Chief/Current Year~>(???)/Jew War III, it's entirely apropos. >tl;dr The West is coming to an end. Rejecting the Founding Fathers was the beginning of that end.
>>4724 And thank God for that. In the coming cataclysm, the Islamic State will finally cleanse the world from all that is evil, purifying with fire... from West to East, all tribes (and races), every descendant of Adam will have the chance to redeem himself before God or be destroyed and condemned to eternal suffering and humiliation. I know, you people can't believe it, well, I won't argue, just wait and see...
>>4725 >I know, you people can't believe it, well, I won't argue, just wait and see... Ehh, I know the Ishmaelites will play their part till the end of the age, since God promised Abraham regarding his firstborn. But the promised son was Isaac, not Ishmael. The legitimate children of Abraham, the (geneologically-pure) Israelis are the focal point of human history, according to God's timetable. Both Russia and China also have their part in the end of this age, Islamists won't wipe them out. And apparently Yurope is going to be a part of it as well. Not so sure about the Americas though. You terrorists may in fact be able to wipe them off -- especially the Jewnited Snakes. Regardless, America made the choice to turn away from their heritage -- indeed from God Himself in the ultimate sense. Don't be too proud of your 'civilizations' accomplishments if He uses you temporarily as a tool of judgement. You too, with face your own in the end. And you can bet it won't be according to the will of Allah or the Prophet! :^)
Would it have been possible for Japan to soft-vassalize the Republic of China as a great, loyal ally in the struggle to free Asians from vile western encroachment and bring forth an era of Co-prosperity under the gentle guiding hand of the Japanese Emperor and his military-industrial aides by backing the KMT in the 1920s instead of budding benis in Manchussy? Could an Axis with Nationalist China as a military ally or at least a source of resources have won the war?
>>4727 The KMT had large respect for Japan as most of their officers were Japanese-trained, and even Chiang would have pointed out that it wouldn't have really been possible at the time of Japan's occupation of China.
(26.84 KB 500x500 1675379499503.png)

>>4727 >>4728 Why Hitler became no friendly with Chinese men no more while became friendly with Japan? Because they more white skin, smumairi, and homnoruable?
>>4729 Because China in the 1930s was an unstable shitshow in the middle of a civil land war in Asia, Chiang kai-Shek may have been sympathetic and well-intentioned to Hitler but Nationalist China was barely holding together whereas Japan was at least on a civilian scale internally stable, had the largest industry of any Asian polity at the time, a fleet able to seriously threaten the extant great naval powers in open battle, a highly educated populace and a goverment pursuing shared or at least similar geostrategic interests. 日清戦争は亜細亜の本当の大惨事なったかもしれん、支那事変がなくなったからノモンハン事件は戦争になったかもと米国は干渉する倫理由が少なくとも有りませんかも。 あの日々の極東ロシアは絶対に関東軍を勝つ事なかった、そうしてドイツ軍のバルバロッシャ攻撃が簡単に成ったでありました。 私の片言日本語を許してください、まだ勉強していますよ その日本式風の英言葉は目立つ、気を付けてください
>>4730 China was a good trading partner though were they not. Without the foresight of the army conceding to the navy and bitching out after Khaklin Gol I understand why Hitler would like an alliance since the state of the KMT was unstable but after Japan signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union what then. Two aesthetically and culturally agreeable countries with no actual support for each other or alliance, and it only damaged what peace offerings and enemies Hitler would have to deal with. If he thought Japan would've steamrolled China in their new war with them then without the foresight is understandable as the army and navy were in a passive-aggressive civil war. I think Japan was also baffled or offended by Hitler signing a non-aggression pact with the Soviets as well so they said fuck it and signed their own. Ties were close enough to China that even German officers were sent to train and educate the army and they also may have had the manpower so those two factors would've strengthened their position if Germany had believed in China. Also correct me if I'm wrong as well but the warlord era was practically over by the mid-30s with the communists being the only potential threat to the government. The whole betrayal seems it was done for emotional reasons with a heap of optimism that the two would shake hands in central Asia some years down the line. Your Japanese is also cute.
Was the Schnellbomber concept not as much of a meme as one might think? While its original iteration of "bomber too fast for interceptors" didn't survive beyond the BoB, the Ju-88, 188 and 288 are objectively among the most capable medium bombers of the war by virtue of speed and heavy fighter-esque agility if flight simulators are any indication. Even if it can't avoid interception a Ju 288 can still delay the arrival of enemy interceptors by accelerating in a shallow dive, and once an interceptor has reached it the plane can execute ACM with enough proficiency so as to not die right away like a fat fuck B-25 or the slow He-111. The Ju-88's many uses night fighters, reconnaissance planes and CAS craft as the war went on wouldn't have been possible with a conventional medium bomber airframe as its base after all. >tfw you will never live in a timeline where the germans had enough autism and materiel reserves to make the He-177 work as a naval recon/bomber, forcing the British to put disposable rocketplanes on cargo ships because lend-lease *cats don't have the climb rate for catching escaping He-177s at full throttle
bump
>>4732 Lets be real, what use is, say, single rear facing machinegun on Beafighter? How much weight can be saved by removing it, its operator and its slot, weight which can be used for fun stuff? On cas / torpedo / light bombers rear facing turrets are detriment if anything.
>>4734 >On cas / torpedo / light bombers rear facing turrets are detriment if anything. <What are Japanese fuel tanks You could sort of argue that for 7,92mm turrets but HMGs with 12mm+ greater API munitions are not to be underestimated, and even if the turret isn't the greatest defensive armament in direct combat having a guy in the back constantly scanning for threats is quite handy when your plane can't properly deal with fighters on its own. Also "light bombers" in WW2 occasionally were early war twin engine designs that couldn't hope to deal with monoplane fighters, removing turrets from those would've been even dumber. On a 1940s daytime fighter though their added weight has little to no purpose, hence the P-38 arguably being the best heavy fighter design of the war that could actually compete as a daytime fighter unlike the more specialized or non-daytime fighter Zerstörer fielded by everyone else.
>>4716 I know this post is nearly a year old but, the Brits split their tanks into two kinds. Infantry (infantry support) and cruiser (breakthrough tanks) all cruiser tanks started with the letter C (Crusader, Cromwell, Charioteer, Comet, the one exception being the Churchill). When they abandoned the infantry/cruiser divide after the war they just stuck with using C names to pay homage to the old tradition (Centurion, Challenger)


Forms
Delete
Report
Quick Reply