Could Hitler win WWII IF... he had divine foresight...

[Gauthier]

Again, why would God give insider tips to someone who's been known for dabbling in mysticism and the occult?

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Can we just agree that a part of the second line was temporarily broken?

If it ends this part of the debate!

Barely? Dude, the Soviets went on the offensive right after repulsing Nazis.

Right, because the reserves had been deployed at exactly the right time. Had they not been, it's possible they wouldn't have been able to push the Germans back at all, if the rest of the Panzer/infantry divisions followed the SS Panzer Army quickly enough.

Meaning Soviets had reserves. Meaning that there was an entire Front ready to repulse Nazis if necessary.

Just like how there were entire Fronts ready to repel the Nazis in June of '41?
Sheer numbers don't necessarily mean anything. The Russians were about at parity with the Germans here in terms of skill - which means that even a Front could have theoretically been turned back if the Germans had made a strong enough penetration, if the Luftwaffe came through, if the terrain was good, etc.
Don't treat the fact that there was another Front ready like that's the end of the ballgame right there, because it isn't. You're making the same mistake people make when they say Russia won via human-wave tactics.

If you read my posts in context, instead of chopping them up, you'd realize what I was talking about.

At least I don't cut whole pieces out of them and rearrange it to make it look like you were agreeing with me like *somebody* I could name. I'm not chopping them up (or even "snipping them" - heh, there's a blast from the past!)

Earlier I specified that it was done on a massive scale. I also realize that Yelnia happened before Kursk, but neither Gembloux nor Stonne nor Yelnia had a war-altering scale, although you can argue for the latter's morale push.

Maybe - it still applies to your specific point.

with relative ease.

So? Even Wikidorkia admits:
Allied casualties: Total: 2,260,000 casualties
Nazi casualties: Total: 163,650 casualties

That's...clearly not accurate. You really think the French had two million combat casualties in less than two months of fighting? Really? That'd be literally the biggest slice of carnage in the history of the world - bigger than Stalingrad, both actually and proportionately.
It's clearly counting all the French surrenders (ordered as part of the French surrender agreements and applied to many forces that never even saw combat). That's not a measure of German combat skill or French combat skill, that just shows what arses the French Government was. I'd say the real casualty levels are just about even.
And again, speaking of German TANK losses, not necessarily personnel losses, which, as I've just demonstrated, are deceptive.
Seriously, I'd wager something on the level of 2 million of those "casualties" are non-combat surrenders. A lot of them probably didn't even drop their guns; they just headed south to Vichy.

Pretty sure I won't be. Again, I said relative ease. You're welcome to break up my posts all day long, but I'm still going to point you to what I originally meant.

"Relative" ease doesn't mean anything here. You can go ahead and operate in the realm of your own definitions and relativities all you want, I'm trying to operate here on the level of actual provable numbers and statistics

Massive if the key word there chief. And since we're talking about WWII, I'm talking about massive by WWII standards.

Pretty massive Italo-German forces present
Of course, that won't fit your definition, but you've pretty clearly demonstrated you're not willing to admit any counterexamples anyway, so it doesn't matter much.

If you wouldn't break up posts, you'd know.

I'm not deleting anything, you know. It's still there. I'm reading everything you write. There's simply literally no other way to coherently respond to your points.
Seriously, I've seen people try to use other methods. They don't work.

Again, primary goal doesn't mean only goal.

Sorry for not understanding your terrible writing style, then.
You sure you actually understand how to write in anything aside from vague nuances that you can reinterpret at will? Im pretty sure English isn't your first language, so I understand.

I wouldn't, if I were you.

Except you basically stopped putting up opposition to that argument and didn't contest the points that I made there, in favor of cutting apart a quote to make it look like I agreed with you when anyone reading the original post could tell I didn't. Terrible debating tactic, by the way, very easy to figure out.
What exactly should I be assuming?[/quote]

Actually, what's going on, is that I'm seeing that you haven't read much, (possibly haven't read anything,) about the Battle of Kursk.

Really? That's really the takeaway you're getting from this? I fucking cited you a fucking page in a fucking book that I own and paid for with my own fucking money when I was FOURTEEN because I find this shit legitimately interesting, and THAT'S what you get out of it?
You want me to take a fucking picture of myself next to all the WW2 books and shit I own and have read, including the one I cited to you? I'll fucking do it, don't you even think I won't. It'll be a stack to the fucking ceiling.
Hell, I might just do it even if you say you don't want me to.
This is seriously the textbook definition of denial here that you've ensconced yourself within.

Somehow, I've managed, up to this point, to argue with you without resorting to pointless and baseless accusations of your personal ignorance, wild and flagrant goalpost-moving, and abject failure to address the point at hand (and if someone besides you points out that I haven't, I genuinely apologize, because that was honestly not my intent), and yet somehow that measure of basic fucking civility is totally beyond you. Instead of that, you pointlessly dragged this into the mud so you could call em ignorant based on absolutely nothing.

Why is that?
(also you still conceded the point there)

And yet, you're trying to vigorously debate it, based on some random wikidorkia knowledge.

The book citation flew completely over your fucking head, didn't it? Or you're just ignoring it, which is a pretty typical Shoofie move at this point from what I've seen of your record.
Can't pick that up off the wiki, I don't think, and if you can, I just wasted a lot of fucking time.
And right, I'm totally willing to debate this based on nothing but shit I picked up off of wikipedia a minute prior with no prior knowledge. Because somebody would totally do that just to fuck with you and not because they have a decade-long prior interest in the Second World War and feel kind of invested in their own objective understanding of it.
That's how people work, surely. That's the kind of thing you can fake and would definitely have the motivation to do so.

Except no. You would have to be a literal psychopath to do that.
Try to think about this logically, if you can, or if you care.

This from the guy I'm pretty sure scanned the Wiki for the Glanz stats about a page back.

You shouldn't be assuming anything. You should do your reading.

The irony!
You can't even fucking address my points anymore, and I'm the one who needs to do more reading?
I was right; you were wrong; and all you can do in response is move goalposts, ignore every source I've put in front of you, wildly assume and twist facts based on your own flagrantly biased and objectively inaccurate view of what you think history is, maliciously edit my quotes (not harmlessly cutting them so you can address then individually, oh no, you had to go ahead and edit them to make them look like I agreed with you for some fucking reason which anybody could see through), continually deny that a spade is a spade in favor of a bunch of nebulous twisty bullshit you can reinterpret whenever you get proved objectively wrong, and then proceed to insult me in a way I take pretty personally once it got down to the nitty-gritty and you realized you had been proven objectively wrong without a way for you to wriggle out of it through poor writing and vague language.
This is ridiculous. You seriously need to grow up if this is the best you can bring to the table.

[Gauthier]

hitler had generals who could have won, if they hadn't had hitler. but the whole mindset that drove what hitler was about, would have defeated itself, sooner or later, one way or another. even if it hadn't had the albitros of hitler himself.

He would need to get sane for a moment to realize that he sucks at warcraft. Stalin did it.

The same Stalin whose idea of Russian defense was "Zerg Rush kekekekekekeke"?

[The Tiger Kingdom]

He would need to get sane for a moment to realize that he sucks at warcraft. Stalin did it.

The same Stalin whose idea of Russian defense was "Zerg Rush kekekekekekeke"?

I don't really think you can honestly look at Stalingrad or Kursk and say that was at all what it came down to.
The Soviets executed a pretty masterful encirclement at Stalingrad, for one.

[Imperializt Russia]

If you change it to "Nothing defeats Russia defensively in an actual war", then it's correct. Except for the Mongols, who were Mongols and came at Russia the other way.

I guess it is. And the Mongols don't really count since people usually refer to Russia post-Great Peter.

There is a point in there somewhere though.
The Mongols are the only people who defeated Russia during a Russian winter.

i stand by my asertion that if napolean had a b-52 air wing, he would have won the war.

Wrong, 99% would crash because of piloting error, 1% because of running out of fuel.

I believe that's not too far off on the causes of many actual crashes.
Not seeing the relevance.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

There is a point in there somewhere though.
The Mongols are the only people who defeated Russia during a Russian winter.

They were a bit of an outlier in that they were Mongols, though. It's almost not fair to include them with everyone else.
Example A: they drank the blood of their own horses for warmth and to quench their thirst while out campaigning.
Bet you didn't see Napoleon's Old Guard or the Wehrmacht's infantry doing much of that.

[Imperializt Russia]

There is a point in there somewhere though.
The Mongols are the only people who defeated Russia during a Russian winter.

They were a bit of an outlier in that they were Mongols, though. It's almost not fair to include them with everyone else.
Example A: they drank the blood of their own horses for warmth and to quench their thirst while out campaigning.
Bet you didn't see Napoleon's Old Guard or the Wehrmacht's infantry doing much of that.

eh.

The Russians built their machine guns with water jacket holes to piss into to keep them cool when they ran out of water.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

They were a bit of an outlier in that they were Mongols, though. It's almost not fair to include them with everyone else.
Example A: they drank the blood of their own horses for warmth and to quench their thirst while out campaigning.
Bet you didn't see Napoleon's Old Guard or the Wehrmacht's infantry doing much of that.

eh.

The Russians built their machine guns with water jacket holes to piss into to keep them cool when they ran out of water.

DRINKING HORSE BLOOD. WHILE RIDING SAID HORSE. AND HOLDING (using?) A MASSIVE SWORD WITH THE OTHER HAND.
That's not war, that's a freaking Manowar song.

For me, guns with urine-coolant-holes built in aren't quite the same.

[DrakoLand]

eh.

The Russians built their machine guns with water jacket holes to piss into to keep them cool when they ran out of water.

DRINKING HORSE BLOOD. WHILE RIDING SAID HORSE. AND HOLDING (using?) A MASSIVE SWORD WITH THE OTHER HAND.
That's not war, that's a freaking Manowar song.

For me, guns with urine-coolant-holes built in aren't quite the same.

Well, we also have to take an account that Russia back then wasn't the huge nation it is now, it barely passed the Urals (if even reached them).

[Gauthier]

DRINKING HORSE BLOOD. WHILE RIDING SAID HORSE. AND HOLDING (using?) A MASSIVE SWORD WITH THE OTHER HAND.
That's not war, that's a freaking Manowar song.

For me, guns with urine-coolant-holes built in aren't quite the same.

Well, we also have to take an account that Russia back then wasn't the huge nation it is now, it barely passed the Urals (if even reached them).

And Mongolians laugh at Russian winter.

[DrakoLand]

Well, we also have to take an account that Russia back then wasn't the huge nation it is now, it barely passed the Urals (if even reached them).

And Mongolians laugh at Russian winter.

Well, they were living in Steppes...

[Shofercia]

Barely? Dude, the Soviets went on the offensive right after repulsing Nazis.

Right, because the reserves had been deployed at exactly the right time. Had they not been, it's possible they wouldn't have been able to push the Germans back at all, if the rest of the Panzer/infantry divisions followed the SS Panzer Army quickly enough.

Right into the Reserves! Which were fresh, because they haven't fought!

Meaning Soviets had reserves. Meaning that there was an entire Front ready to repulse Nazis if necessary.

Just like how there were entire Fronts ready to repel the Nazis in June of '41?
Sheer numbers don't necessarily mean anything. The Russians were about at parity with the Germans here in terms of skill - which means that even a Front could have theoretically been turned back if the Germans had made a strong enough penetration, if the Luftwaffe came through, if the terrain was good, etc.
Don't treat the fact that there was another Front ready like that's the end of the ballgame right there, because it isn't. You're making the same mistake people make when they say Russia won via human-wave tactics.

Never said that Russia used human wave tactics. Additionally, my point was that the penetration was too small, i.e. not able to handle an entire Front. Yes, if it was bigger, that would be different. But it actually wasn't bigger.

If you read my posts in context, instead of chopping them up, you'd realize what I was talking about.

At least I don't cut whole pieces out of them and rearrange it to make it look like you were agreeing with me like *somebody* I could name. I'm not chopping them up (or even "snipping them" - heh, there's a blast from the past!)

The post that I snipped was about you calling the Animal Hunter Gun, spectacular. Are you arguing that it was not spectacular?

Earlier I specified that it was done on a massive scale. I also realize that Yelnia happened before Kursk, but neither Gembloux nor Stonne nor Yelnia had a war-altering scale, although you can argue for the latter's morale push.

Maybe - it still applies to your specific point.

No, it doesn't. My specific point was made in the general context. You cannot respond to the point, without comprehending the context. Well, actually you can, you just wouldn't make sense sense. Which you didn't.

So? Even Wikidorkia admits:
Allied casualties: Total: 2,260,000 casualties
Nazi casualties: Total: 163,650 casualties

That's...clearly not accurate. You really think the French had two million combat casualties in less than two months of fighting? Really? That'd be literally the biggest slice of carnage in the history of the world - bigger than Stalingrad, both actually and proportionately.
It's clearly counting all the French surrenders (ordered as part of the French surrender agreements and applied to many forces that never even saw combat). That's not a measure of German combat skill or French combat skill, that just shows what arses the French Government was. I'd say the real casualty levels are just about even.
And again, speaking of German TANK losses, not necessarily personnel losses, which, as I've just demonstrated, are deceptive.
Seriously, I'd wager something on the level of 2 million of those "casualties" are non-combat surrenders. A lot of them probably didn't even drop their guns; they just headed south to Vichy.

Those who surrender are considered casualties. Additionally, if you lost less than 200,000 men and taken France, that means that you've taken France with relative ease. You can yell "TANK CASUALTIES, LOOK AT DEM TANKS!" but honestly, that just makes you sound like the French claiming some great victory because they took Hitler's summer estate. Yes, you can both have cookies. Anyways, if someone is captured or goes missing, they're still considered casualties. See here for an example: http://www.civilwar.org/education/civil ... lties.html

If you're going to act like a military historian, at least grasp the basics:

A "casualty" is a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment, capture, or through being missing in action. "Casualty" and "fatality" are not interchangeable terms--death is only one of the ways that a soldier can become a casualty. In practice, officers would usually be responsible for recording casualties that occured within their commands. If a soldier was unable to perform basic duties due to one of the above conditions, the soldier would be considered a casualty.

That includes those who surrendered. On top of that, I said relative ease. BBC implies just that: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/ ... e_01.shtml

The second act of the Battle of France began on 5 June, with the Germans striking southwards from the River Somme. Despite the fact that the French in many areas fought well, the Germans destroyed the Allied forces in the field in short order. The 51st Highland Division, which had not been grouped with the rest of the British army, was surrounded at St Valéry-en-Caux, and was forced to surrender on 12 June. The Germans launched a major offensive on Paris on 9 June, and on 13 June Paris was declared an open city, as the French government fled to Bordeaux. The first German troops entered the French capital on 14 June, little more than a month after the campaign began.

I'm not calling the Allied Soldiers "chickenshits", far from it, that's a statement that I'd disagree with. I am pointing out that Nazis took France with relative ease, losing less than 200,000 men in the process.

Pretty sure I won't be. Again, I said relative ease. You're welcome to break up my posts all day long, but I'm still going to point you to what I originally meant.

"Relative" ease doesn't mean anything here. You can go ahead and operate in the realm of your own definitions and relativities all you want, I'm trying to operate here on the level of actual provable numbers and statistics

Relative to the rest of WWII. That's the definition I'm using. You're the one who's completely clueless in terms of definitions here, if you don't even know what "casualties" means, while trying to "debate" military history.

Massive if the key word there chief. And since we're talking about WWII, I'm talking about massive by WWII standards.

Pretty massive Italo-German forces present
Of course, that won't fit your definition, but you've pretty clearly demonstrated you're not willing to admit any counterexamples anyway, so it doesn't matter much.

No, that's not "pretty massive" by WWII standards. You have 120,000 men for Italy-Germany. That's not massive by WWII standards. At Stalingrad, you had over a million. At Kursk, over 900,000. At Moscow, roughly a million. But I should've defined it clearer, my apologies, I didn't know I was debating someone who didn't know what the term "casualties" meant.

If you wouldn't break up posts, you'd know.

I'm not deleting anything, you know. It's still there. I'm reading everything you write. There's simply literally no other way to coherently respond to your points.

Sure there is. You quote paragraphs, instead of a few words, and respond in context. This is also known as debating.

Seriously, I've seen people try to use other methods. They don't work.

Are you saying that you're unable to debate, unless you quote others out of context?

Again, primary goal doesn't mean only goal.

Sorry for not understanding your terrible writing style, then.

My writing system works just fine, although I admit, I did make a couple of poor presumptions about you. I expected you to know military terms. You didn't. That presumption was my mistake, and it's why you misunderstood me.

You sure you actually understand how to write in anything aside from vague nuances that you can reinterpret at will? Im pretty sure English isn't your first language, so I understand.

The language I am using right now, is English. However, as mentioned before, I assumed that you knew the basics of military history, and military terminology, such as the term "casualties". That presumption was incorrect, and it's what led to the misunderstanding. Once again, I will no longer use basic military terms when responding to you, but rather, use really simple English words.

I wouldn't, if I were you.

Except you basically stopped putting up opposition to that argument and didn't contest the points that I made there, in favor of cutting apart a quote to make it look like I agreed with you when anyone reading the original post could tell I didn't. Terrible debating tactic, by the way, very easy to figure out.
What exactly should I be assuming?

See, this is the problem with you chopping up my posts. Once again, I have to explain that: The language I am using right now, is English. However, as mentioned before, I assumed that you knew the basics of military history, and military terminology, such as the term "casualties". That presumption was incorrect, and it's what led to the misunderstanding. Once again, I will no longer use basic military terms when responding to you, but rather, use really simple English words.

And again, you shouldn't be assuming anything. You should be learning, at least have a grasp on basic military terminology, such as the term "casualties", before attempting to debate a military topic.

Actually, what's going on, is that I'm seeing that you haven't read much, (possibly haven't read anything,) about the Battle of Kursk.

Really? That's really the takeaway you're getting from this?

That is correct.

I fucking cited you a fucking page in a fucking book that I own and paid for with my own fucking money when I was FOURTEEN because I find this shit legitimately interesting, and THAT'S what you get out of it?

Can you please cite and quote the passage where it states that Tigers that were used at Kursk are shit? Or that their armor was obsolete?

You want me to take a fucking picture of myself next to all the WW2 books and shit I own and have read, including the one I cited to you? I'll fucking do it, don't you even think I won't. It'll be a stack to the fucking ceiling.
Hell, I might just do it even if you say you don't want me to.

Just the passage I asked for. I don't exactly see how taking a picture with yourself would work, but if you want to write the passage in really big letters, go for it!

This is seriously the textbook definition of denial here that I've ensconced myself within.

Fixed for accuracy.

Somehow, I've managed, up to this point, to argue with you without resorting to pointless and baseless accusations of your personal ignorance, wild and flagrant goalpost-moving, and abject failure to address the point at hand (and if someone besides you points out that I haven't, I genuinely apologize, because that was honestly not my intent), and yet somehow that measure of basic fucking civility is totally beyond you. Instead of that, you pointlessly dragged this into the mud so you could call em ignorant based on absolutely nothing.

You made an absurd claim about the Battle of Kursk. When you went on your anti-Elephant Tank rant, I waited patiently, since there was a dose of accuracy there, albeit a very small one. But when you inform me that the Tigers used at the Battle of Kursk had obsolete armor, I have to presume that you're simply ignorant.

If you insist:

No way in hell. [Tigers] were nearly impossible to make, broke constantly, had obsolete armor, were incredibly slow, and near impossible to maintain.

While they were nearly impossible to make, and required heavy maintenance, their armor was anything but obsolete. One of the main reasons that Nazis had success against Katukov's First Tank Army, was that the T-34s couldn't destroy Tiger Armor, (which you mistakenly believe was obsolete,) unless they were at close range. The key at the Battle of Prokhorovka, was that Rotmistrov of the Fifth Tank Army timed his charge perfectly, to coincide with that of Nazis, and thus, the battle was won, because the Red Army outmaneuvered the Tigers, until they were within favorable range. From an online forum: http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php ... 5-tiger-i/

OP also needs to realize that the Tiger in it's day went up against tanks like the T-34 and M4 Sherman. In the game (which is not a reflection of historical combat), those tanks are two tiers lower than the Tiger. Those tanks are pretty easy for the Tiger to kill, and the Tiger is harder to kill from those tanks. Maybe not the same historically (since the Sherman's and T-34's original 75/76mm guns couldn't penetrate the 100mm front armor from further than a couple hundred meters), but it's still harder for those tanks to kill.

So don't come crying to me about how uncivil I'm being; you made a claim that Tiger armor was obsolete, which is horseshit. If Tiger armor was obsolete, why the fuck did Nazis keep on making them until 1944?

Why is that?
(also you still conceded the point there)

Because you don't know what you're talking about, and think that I'm conceding a point.

And yet, you're trying to vigorously debate it, based on some random wikidorkia knowledge.

The book citation flew completely over your fucking head, didn't it? Or you're just ignoring it, which is a pretty typical Shoofie move at this point from what I've seen of your record.
Can't pick that up off the wiki, I don't think, and if you can, I just wasted a lot of fucking time.
And right, I'm totally willing to debate this based on nothing but shit I picked up off of wikipedia a minute prior with no prior knowledge. Because somebody would totally do that just to fuck with you and not because they have a decade-long prior interest in the Second World War and feel kind of invested in their own objective understanding of it.
That's how people work, surely. That's the kind of thing you can fake and would definitely have the motivation to do so.

Except no. You would have to be a literal psychopath to do that.
Try to think about this logically, if you can, or if you care.

This from the guy I'm pretty sure scanned the Wiki for the Glanz stats about a page back.

It's Glantz, and I have all of his books. Thus far it seems that you don't know basic military terms, such as "casualties", think that the Tiger tank armor, (the one used at Kursk,) was obsolete, and have no idea where I get my information from, even though I provided the source in my post. Also, the problem with anything that anyone can edit, is that anyone can go there, make up random crap, and attribute it to some book. If you would've provided basic book citations, I wouldn't have an issue with it.

You shouldn't be assuming anything. You should do your reading.

The irony!

Not really. At least I know what "casualties" mean.

You can't even fucking address my points anymore, and I'm the one who needs to do more reading?

If you think that Tiger Tank's Armor, (the one used at Kursk,) was obsolete, you should most definitely do more reading. Much more reading. And learn what the term "casualties" means while you're at it.

I was right; you were wrong;

That's only in your mind.

and all you can do in response is move goalposts

If we're talking about whether the line was breached, actually defining the term "breach" is not moving goalposts.

ignore every source I've put in front of you

That's because there are no credible military history sources claiming that Tiger tanks, (the ones used at Kursk,) had obsolete armor, or use your stupid definition of the word "casualties".

wildly assume and twist facts based on your own flagrantly biased and objectively inaccurate view of what you think history is,

On the contrary, I'm providing facts, you're the one ranting.

maliciously edit my quotes (not harmlessly cutting them so you can address then individually, oh no, you had to go ahead and edit them to make them look like I agreed with you for some fucking reason which anybody could see through)

Do you disagree that the Animal Hunter was an good weapon for its time period?

continually deny that a spade is a spade in favor of a bunch of nebulous twisty bullshit you can reinterpret whenever you get proved objectively wrong,

Pointing out that the Animal Hunter was a good Assault Gun is not objectively wrong. It's objectively right: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/the-new-ge ... tigers.htm

From early 1943 to mid-1944, the main opponents of the Tiger on the Eastern Front were the assault guns based on T-34 and KV-1 chassis. When it was discovered that the existing SU-76 and SU-122 types could not penetrate the Tiger’s armor at any distance under 1,000 meters, the Soviets decided to create a new assault gun, the SU-85, armed with an adaptation of the 85mm anti-aircraft gun. Production of the SU-122 was stopped and the SU-85 was adopted in its place. It was later followed by the SU-100 medium assault gun. In mid 1943, SU-152 heavy assault gun entered service. It was based on KV-1 heavy tank and was armed 152mm howitzer.It was nicknamed Zveroboi (Animal Killer). At the end of 1943, a new assault gun, the ISU-152, based on IS-2 heavy tank was produced. It was armed with a very powerful 152mm howitzer. The shell of this gun could penetrate any part of the Tiger’s armor and even cut the turret from the hull. This assault gun was nicknamed "Animal Hunter". The weight of the AP shell was 48kg, while HE shell was 41kg.

and then proceed to insult me in a way I take pretty personally once it got down to the nitty-gritty

Actually, you've been repeatedly wrong when it comes to the nitty-gritty, so don't talk about stuff that you know very little about.

and you realized you had been proven objectively wrong without a way for you to wriggle out of it through poor writing and vague language.

Your long and immature rant is over. Yay!

This is ridiculous. You seriously need to grow up if this is the best you can bring to the table.

So, when I called you out for knowing very little about the Battle of Kursk based on your factually incorrect claim about the Tiger tank's obsolete armor, instead of responding maturely, and proving your knowledge and sources, you went on a very long and immature rant attacking me personally. You seriously need to grow up, if this is the best you can bring to the table. Oh, and learn the definition of the term "casualties" while you're at. The military version.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

All right Shoofie; instead of me doing the standard method of NS point-by-point replying and you getting even more hot under the collar for people daring to separate your claims out and not alter them in any way, let's go through this number style, because I'm sick of CPing names.

1. Meaningless in and of itself, because of the point I make below. Numerical superiority doesn't mean anything necessarily.

2. You'll note I never said that you said Russia used human-wave tactics. I said this is SIMILAR TO THE TRAIN OF LOGIC those people use. This is why I keep asking you if you're understanding me. This is written out clear as day directly before your eyes. I'm not reinterpreting vague language, this is literally exactly what I said.
The penetration was small, sure - but it was there, proving your point that the second line was never breached factually incorrect.

3. Are you admitting to quote editing? Seriously, that's pretty childish.

4. Yeah, it does make sense. You just keep moving goalposts.

5. You'll note I originally wrote COMBAT casualties, which you utterly ignored. Somebody never firing a shot in anger and then being told that they were to surrender by emissaries of their governments is not a casualty that's worth very much in terms of trying to prove one military's supremacy over the other - more useful as a measure of political backbone. Glantz shouldn't even count those, honestly, it makes no real sense to include them.
Looking at the pure casualty list obscures a great deal of actually useful information, like that after France and Poland a full half of the entire German tank army was literally crippled, or that the Luftwaffe's offensive power was strained to the limit in the West, which would be broken over Britain. The German losses there were a crucial (even, yes, vital) reason why Germany didn't have the resources to end the war with Russia in 1941.

Aaaaaaaaaand more insults. That's great. Very convincing. I'm very convinced by your persistent, unwarranted, needlessly snotty attitude.
You're not a very nice person to be around in RL, are you?

6. Wow, a whole five-sentence summary. That's a whole paragraph! How impressive!
That's an extraordinarily compressed and not extraordinarily accurate portrait of the events that occurred. If that's legitimately as deep as you're willing to go into the actual scholarship, you have no right to lecture anybody else about failing to learn their history.

7. Yeah, at massive equipment costs that in terms of the Luftwaffe were almost irreplaceable for years, and in the case of the panzer arm, weakened them to the point that it was still being felt when they invaded Russia.

8. Relative to the rest of WW2 is a bullshit definition because there's no objectivity at all to it, something you've repeatedly shown here. 120,000 people is a lot of people. End of story.
Aaaaaaaaaaaand another insult!

9. More insults! This doesn't substitute for an actual argument beyond pointless nitpicking and goalpost-moving, you know!

10. Nobody else on this whole fucking forum but you is as nitpicky about quote formats as you are. Nobody. Seeing as how you're literally the only one who has ever whined about that particular method of point-by-point rebuttal, I suggest that you're the one with the problem (and seeing as how long ago you bitched at me for the entirely insignificant offense of snipping your argument so I could cut my offensively-sized post size in half for some reason I still can't understand, I suggest that maybe you should focus your rhetorical efforts on something more significant than post formatting).
I'm very sorry I don't write according to your entirely vestigial and ridiculously inefficient standards that even you don't uphold.

11. I suggest you look up what "out of context" means, because I don't think it means what you think it does. Because you're not using it properly here.

12. No, I didn't misunderstand you. Because you were wrong, are unwilling to admit when you're wrong, and when you get boxed into a corner, you just conveniently redefine your terms and roll merrily along, pretending like it's the other guy's fault.

13. Yeah, but that doesn't mean you're fluent. This is a legit concern right here.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand more insults. Believe me, my feelings are cut to pieces and everyone here is ever so impressed with how badass you are.

14. No idea what the point of you writing that even was. You get a hard-on repeating yourself or something? You're still just as wrong as you were before.

15. That's a pretty nice bubble of denial you're living in.

16. That wasn't what was even in dispute when I quoted the book. Seriously, this is legitimately pathetic - I was talking about Hausser's attack at Kursk there.
I never claimed the Kursk Tigers were "shit" - I just said that they were very, very flawed. And their armor was obsolete because straight armor is markedly and objectively inferior to sloped armor. There's a reason the Tiger was basically the last tank to not have sloped armor.
You want a source on that? look it up yourself. There's no point citing anything to you anymore, you've proven that. You'll just ignore it.
If you really care, check Achtung Panzer for the assessments of the Tiger's armor, or just look up "sloped armor v. non-sloped armor". They're pretty respected, not that that means shit to you. It's scattered across a few different pages.

17. Addressed.

18. Classy!
No, but seriously, who the hell do you think you're fooling?

19. It was obsolete because it was massively inefficient and a design dead end. it may have "worked", for a little while, but at a vastly increased cost than was necessary and with a correspondingly negative effect on the tank as a whole that sloped armor didn't have. The early Panther at Kursk had many flaws, but that wasn't one of them - because it had sloped armor. Again, there's a reason the Tiger basically retired that entire system of armor. They were already making tanks with sloped armor in 1942, when the Tiger first rolled off the lines, with proportionately better deflection capabilities that reduced odds of a shelltrap, the T-34 amongst them.
So it's not inaccurate to say that the reason the Tiger was hard to down was because somebody dialed an obsolete armor system up to 11, with corresponding major sacrifices as to the rest of the tank's integrity and quality that didn't need to be made if a better system was put into place.

20. Because the Nazis' system of industrial production was fucked beyond belief. Read Overy's book for that too; the descriptions of how the Nazi industrial/production system worked are like something out of M.C. Esher. They kept the Stuka in production through the entire war (or near as makes no difference) because they'd frozen the design, it was all they had, and all the successor designs were failures, despite the fact it was obsolete basically by 1940.
Also, wow, quoting from a forum? And you gave me shit from quoting wikipedia? Jesus Christ!
Yeah, written by somebody playing War Thunder or whatever, that's the kind of objective source I care about!

21. Except you did on the wunderwaffe stuff. You just diverted it by insulting me.

22. Wow, missed a whole letter there. My bad.
And frankly, I don't think you have all his books. I think you're lying. I think you're just scanning wikidorkia and making it up as you go along. You don't really know anything on the topic, you're just cribbing.
Sound familiar? How do you like it?
"Anyone can make something up"? Yeah, unlike a forum post (oh wait, you'll accept those when YOU provide them, for some reason! I wonder why), or improperly interpreted Glantz stats copied directly off of the wiki, which is all copied from the same book anyways.

23. Already clarified, not that you care.
Maybe you should actually read what I write as opposed to just sort of grabbing words at random.

24. Already clarified beyond any sort of reasonable definition of the word.

25. I think I'm pretty justified in not believing you at this point, considering how dishonest you've been here.

26. I mean according to literally every fucking subdebate we've been talking about here. You've done it for all of them. Every single one, you've moved goalposts, both according to the term "breach" according to the term "wunderwaffe" according to the term "Tiger"...when in doubt, and whenever you're wrong, you completely and deliberately misinterpret shit or move the goalposts and pretend nobody saw you.

27. More insults! Yaay!
Also, I suggest you maybe actually look for some sources yourself, because I doubt you have. Straight armor was obsolete by 1942. It succeeded on the Tiger because there was an unreasonable shitload of it. If the Tiger had literally bolted wood sheeting to its frame to the point that it could deflect a 75 shell, that still doesn't mean wood is an inherently non-obsolete armor system in the days of steel and angled armor.
It just means they stuck to an obsolete system to the point where it sorta worked, but was inefficient to the point where it came around to impractical again.

28. Not...really?

29. Irrelevant. That comprised 10% of the fucking quote, the rest of which you excised.

30. Who gives a shit.

---

Seriously, Shoofie, I'm really, REALLY disappointed with you here. I used to think you were the kind of person who wouldn't pull this shit on NSG - someone who was basically reasonable in a debate, and was capable of arguing a point without childish, puerile, juvenile bullshit like editing my quotes or obviously moving goalposts, or insulting people who disagreed with you as ignorant based on nothing at all except for the fact that you were out of ideas and couldn't bear the thought for a second of just letting the matter drop. Clearly, I was entirely wrong, and in the end, you were the kind of person who would do something like that. I fatally misjudged you. Believe me, I won't make this mistake again.

I don't even care that much that we disagreed on any of these points. I don't take it personally that we didn't see eye to eye on Kursk or whatever the fuck the topic happened to be at any particular moment. I don't honestly think you were even that wrong when it came to the facts, and I tried to be as reasonable as I could. I enjoy debating this stuff, usually, because I enjoy talking about the subject - I just got twelve of the old '70s style WW2 Time-Life encyclopedias in the mail yesterday, for my personal usage, so you can bet I love talking about this shit with somebody else knowledgeable - even if they disagree with my opinions. I've had debates like this with other knowledgeable people that were thoroughly enjoyable and fun, even on NSG. I even had one via TG while I was debating you! It's not impossible! Even for a shitheel like me!

But you utterly ruined it.

Instead of it being something where we could share ideas honestly and try to learn from each other (because, and I'm not going to lie to you, even after all the shit you pulled, I'm not going to get down in the mud with you and be dishonest: I don't think you're ignorant when it comes to World War Two. I think you know quite a lot, and I think you're a reasonably intelligent person, just like me), you turned it into something akin to a no-retreat knife fight, where any single point conceded by anyone was both an abject defeat for the conceder as well as proof of their categorically inarguable ignorance and intractable intellectual inferiority that would immediately get publicly rubbed in their faces for the gratification of the other side. You turned something that could have been mutually interesting and beneficial (and even fun) into something that was insulting, stressful, annoying, pointlessly competitive, joyless, and frustrating, because evidently you thought it was worth dragging this whole thread into the muck to have a shot at "winning". When you ran out of steam, you started insulting me and smearing me for no reason than your own evident insecurity. And that's something I cannot forgive. That's a very personal thing, to me at least, and I don't feel like putting up with your shit any longer.

That really showed me the kind of dishonest, insecure, mean-spirited person you are, both on here, and - I suspect - in RL.

I'm leaving this thread alone from now on, and I'm blocking you with a light heart, Shoofie. I'm entirely content never seeing the likes of you again on these forums, ever. I trust that whoever reads this shit (if anyone does, the poor bastards) will see that I tried my honest, level best to make reasonable points and give Shofercia the benefit of the doubt whenever I could, and will see that he promptly threw it back in my face with his baseless insults, his shameless goalpost-moving and dishonesty, and his flagrant quote editing.

I tried to do an honest job here, I really did. I tried my best to put my arguments forward fairly and reasonably, in good faith. If someone besides Shoofie judges me and find that I failed in that, then I'm legitimately sorry. It was not my intention to let those debating goals down, and that's entirely my fault.

But apparently it was impossible for that attempt at civility to have been returned on the other side. I regret ever extending that civility in the first place, and I advise all of you who read this to keep this little demonstration in mind dealing with Shofercia in the future.

[The Genoese Cromanatum]

That's...clearly not accurate. You really think the French had two million combat casualties in less than two months of fighting? Really? That'd be literally the biggest slice of carnage in the history of the world - bigger than Stalingrad, both actually and proportionately.
It's clearly counting all the French surrenders (ordered as part of the French surrender agreements and applied to many forces that never even saw combat). That's not a measure of German combat skill or French combat skill, that just shows what arses the French Government was. I'd say the real casualty levels are just about even.
And again, speaking of German TANK losses, not necessarily personnel losses, which, as I've just demonstrated, are deceptive.
Seriously, I'd wager something on the level of 2 million of those "casualties" are non-combat surrenders. A lot of them probably didn't even drop their guns; they just headed south to Vichy.

I dont want to separate you and Shofercia from you're increasingly-massive argument, however I'm pretty sure the largest casualties taken in combat was during the Siege of Leningrad. The siege lasted for around two and a half years, the Nazi/Finnish Casualties being something like 150,000 compared to the one million soviet dead, and two and a half million soviet wounded, not counting the near one million dead in civilian losses as well. If I recall correctly, the bombings and scale of destruction had gotten so bad that all the soldiers could have gotten to eat was three slices of bread a day, and yet most people think Stalingrad was a much more casualty-intensive battle than this.

[Shofercia]

All right Shoofie; instead of me doing the standard method of NS point-by-point replying and you getting even more hot under the collar for people daring to separate your claims out and not alter them in any way, let's go through this number style, because I'm sick of CPing names.

1. Meaningless in and of itself, because of the point I make below. Numerical superiority doesn't mean anything necessarily.

2. You'll note I never said that you said Russia used human-wave tactics. I said this is SIMILAR TO THE TRAIN OF LOGIC those people use. This is why I keep asking you if you're understanding me. This is written out clear as day directly before your eyes. I'm not reinterpreting vague language, this is literally exactly what I said.
The penetration was small, sure - but it was there, proving your point that the second line was never breached factually incorrect.

3. Are you admitting to quote editing? Seriously, that's pretty childish.

4. Yeah, it does make sense. You just keep moving goalposts.

5. You'll note I originally wrote COMBAT casualties, which you utterly ignored. Somebody never firing a shot in anger and then being told that they were to surrender by emissaries of their governments is not a casualty that's worth very much in terms of trying to prove one military's supremacy over the other - more useful as a measure of political backbone. Glantz shouldn't even count those, honestly, it makes no real sense to include them.
Looking at the pure casualty list obscures a great deal of actually useful information, like that after France and Poland a full half of the entire German tank army was literally crippled, or that the Luftwaffe's offensive power was strained to the limit in the West, which would be broken over Britain. The German losses there were a crucial (even, yes, vital) reason why Germany didn't have the resources to end the war with Russia in 1941.

Aaaaaaaaaand more insults. That's great. Very convincing. I'm very convinced by your persistent, unwarranted, needlessly snotty attitude.
You're not a very nice person to be around in RL, are you?

6. Wow, a whole five-sentence summary. That's a whole paragraph! How impressive!
That's an extraordinarily compressed and not extraordinarily accurate portrait of the events that occurred. If that's legitimately as deep as you're willing to go into the actual scholarship, you have no right to lecture anybody else about failing to learn their history.

7. Yeah, at massive equipment costs that in terms of the Luftwaffe were almost irreplaceable for years, and in the case of the panzer arm, weakened them to the point that it was still being felt when they invaded Russia.

8. Relative to the rest of WW2 is a bullshit definition because there's no objectivity at all to it, something you've repeatedly shown here. 120,000 people is a lot of people. End of story.
Aaaaaaaaaaaand another insult!

9. More insults! This doesn't substitute for an actual argument beyond pointless nitpicking and goalpost-moving, you know!

10. Nobody else on this whole fucking forum but you is as nitpicky about quote formats as you are. Nobody. Seeing as how you're literally the only one who has ever whined about that particular method of point-by-point rebuttal, I suggest that you're the one with the problem (and seeing as how long ago you bitched at me for the entirely insignificant offense of snipping your argument so I could cut my offensively-sized post size in half for some reason I still can't understand, I suggest that maybe you should focus your rhetorical efforts on something more significant than post formatting).
I'm very sorry I don't write according to your entirely vestigial and ridiculously inefficient standards that even you don't uphold.

11. I suggest you look up what "out of context" means, because I don't think it means what you think it does. Because you're not using it properly here.

12. No, I didn't misunderstand you. Because you were wrong, are unwilling to admit when you're wrong, and when you get boxed into a corner, you just conveniently redefine your terms and roll merrily along, pretending like it's the other guy's fault.

13. Yeah, but that doesn't mean you're fluent. This is a legit concern right here.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand more insults. Believe me, my feelings are cut to pieces and everyone here is ever so impressed with how badass you are.

14. No idea what the point of you writing that even was. You get a hard-on repeating yourself or something? You're still just as wrong as you were before.

15. That's a pretty nice bubble of denial you're living in.

16. That wasn't what was even in dispute when I quoted the book. Seriously, this is legitimately pathetic - I was talking about Hausser's attack at Kursk there.
I never claimed the Kursk Tigers were "shit" - I just said that they were very, very flawed. And their armor was obsolete because straight armor is markedly and objectively inferior to sloped armor. There's a reason the Tiger was basically the last tank to not have sloped armor.
You want a source on that? look it up yourself. There's no point citing anything to you anymore, you've proven that. You'll just ignore it.
If you really care, check Achtung Panzer for the assessments of the Tiger's armor, or just look up "sloped armor v. non-sloped armor". They're pretty respected, not that that means shit to you. It's scattered across a few different pages.

17. Addressed.

18. Classy!
No, but seriously, who the hell do you think you're fooling?

19. It was obsolete because it was massively inefficient and a design dead end. it may have "worked", for a little while, but at a vastly increased cost than was necessary and with a correspondingly negative effect on the tank as a whole that sloped armor didn't have. The early Panther at Kursk had many flaws, but that wasn't one of them - because it had sloped armor. Again, there's a reason the Tiger basically retired that entire system of armor. They were already making tanks with sloped armor in 1942, when the Tiger first rolled off the lines, with proportionately better deflection capabilities that reduced odds of a shelltrap, the T-34 amongst them.
So it's not inaccurate to say that the reason the Tiger was hard to down was because somebody dialed an obsolete armor system up to 11, with corresponding major sacrifices as to the rest of the tank's integrity and quality that didn't need to be made if a better system was put into place.

20. Because the Nazis' system of industrial production was fucked beyond belief. Read Overy's book for that too; the descriptions of how the Nazi industrial/production system worked are like something out of M.C. Esher. They kept the Stuka in production through the entire war (or near as makes no difference) because they'd frozen the design, it was all they had, and all the successor designs were failures, despite the fact it was obsolete basically by 1940.
Also, wow, quoting from a forum? And you gave me shit from quoting wikipedia? Jesus Christ!
Yeah, written by somebody playing War Thunder or whatever, that's the kind of objective source I care about!

21. Except you did on the wunderwaffe stuff. You just diverted it by insulting me.

22. Wow, missed a whole letter there. My bad.
And frankly, I don't think you have all his books. I think you're lying. I think you're just scanning wikidorkia and making it up as you go along. You don't really know anything on the topic, you're just cribbing.
Sound familiar? How do you like it?
"Anyone can make something up"? Yeah, unlike a forum post (oh wait, you'll accept those when YOU provide them, for some reason! I wonder why), or improperly interpreted Glantz stats copied directly off of the wiki, which is all copied from the same book anyways.

23. Already clarified, not that you care.
Maybe you should actually read what I write as opposed to just sort of grabbing words at random.

24. Already clarified beyond any sort of reasonable definition of the word.

25. I think I'm pretty justified in not believing you at this point, considering how dishonest you've been here.

26. I mean according to literally every fucking subdebate we've been talking about here. You've done it for all of them. Every single one, you've moved goalposts, both according to the term "breach" according to the term "wunderwaffe" according to the term "Tiger"...when in doubt, and whenever you're wrong, you completely and deliberately misinterpret shit or move the goalposts and pretend nobody saw you.

27. More insults! Yaay!
Also, I suggest you maybe actually look for some sources yourself, because I doubt you have. Straight armor was obsolete by 1942. It succeeded on the Tiger because there was an unreasonable shitload of it. If the Tiger had literally bolted wood sheeting to its frame to the point that it could deflect a 75 shell, that still doesn't mean wood is an inherently non-obsolete armor system in the days of steel and angled armor.
It just means they stuck to an obsolete system to the point where it sorta worked, but was inefficient to the point where it came around to impractical again.

28. Not...really?

29. Irrelevant. That comprised 10% of the fucking quote, the rest of which you excised.

30. Who gives a shit.

---

Seriously, Shoofie, I'm really, REALLY disappointed with you here. I used to think you were the kind of person who wouldn't pull this shit on NSG - someone who was basically reasonable in a debate, and was capable of arguing a point without childish, puerile, juvenile bullshit like editing my quotes or obviously moving goalposts, or insulting people who disagreed with you as ignorant based on nothing at all except for the fact that you were out of ideas and couldn't bear the thought for a second of just letting the matter drop. Clearly, I was entirely wrong, and in the end, you were the kind of person who would do something like that. I fatally misjudged you. Believe me, I won't make this mistake again.

I don't even care that much that we disagreed on any of these points. I don't take it personally that we didn't see eye to eye on Kursk or whatever the fuck the topic happened to be at any particular moment. I don't honestly think you were even that wrong when it came to the facts, and I tried to be as reasonable as I could. I enjoy debating this stuff, usually, because I enjoy talking about the subject - I just got twelve of the old '70s style WW2 Time-Life encyclopedias in the mail yesterday, for my personal usage, so you can bet I love talking about this shit with somebody else knowledgeable - even if they disagree with my opinions. I've had debates like this with other knowledgeable people that were thoroughly enjoyable and fun, even on NSG. I even had one via TG while I was debating you! It's not impossible! Even for a shitheel like me!

But you utterly ruined it.

Instead of it being something where we could share ideas honestly and try to learn from each other (because, and I'm not going to lie to you, even after all the shit you pulled, I'm not going to get down in the mud with you and be dishonest: I don't think you're ignorant when it comes to World War Two. I think you know quite a lot, and I think you're a reasonably intelligent person, just like me), you turned it into something akin to a no-retreat knife fight, where any single point conceded by anyone was both an abject defeat for the conceder as well as proof of their categorically inarguable ignorance and intractable intellectual inferiority that would immediately get publicly rubbed in their faces for the gratification of the other side. You turned something that could have been mutually interesting and beneficial (and even fun) into something that was insulting, stressful, annoying, pointlessly competitive, joyless, and frustrating, because evidently you thought it was worth dragging this whole thread into the muck to have a shot at "winning". When you ran out of steam, you started insulting me and smearing me for no reason than your own evident insecurity. And that's something I cannot forgive. That's a very personal thing, to me at least, and I don't feel like putting up with your shit any longer.

That really showed me the kind of dishonest, insecure, mean-spirited person you are, both on here, and - I suspect - in RL.

I'm leaving this thread alone from now on, and I'm blocking you with a light heart, Shoofie. I'm entirely content never seeing the likes of you again on these forums, ever. I trust that whoever reads this shit (if anyone does, the poor bastards) will see that I tried my honest, level best to make reasonable points and give Shofercia the benefit of the doubt whenever I could, and will see that he promptly threw it back in my face with his baseless insults, his shameless goalpost-moving and dishonesty, and his flagrant quote editing.

I tried to do an honest job here, I really did. I tried my best to put my arguments forward fairly and reasonably, in good faith. If someone besides Shoofie judges me and find that I failed in that, then I'm legitimately sorry. It was not my intention to let those debating goals down, and that's entirely my fault.

But apparently it was impossible for that attempt at civility to have been returned on the other side. I regret ever extending that civility in the first place, and I advise all of you who read this to keep this little demonstration in mind dealing with Shofercia in the future.

Yes it does in the context that I was using it in. If you can get enough numbers to pin your enemy with suppressing fire, that really helps. And I've already clarified what I meant by breach of a line, i.e. all of it being breached, or a breach that's substantial enough to cause the line to fall back. That didn't happen, as the breach was sealed.

In terms of the quote editing, that was rather minor. I said that the Animal Hunter Assault Gun rocked. You wrote "spectacular" in a sarcastic way, and commented about something else. I simply edited out the sarcasm, since calling the Animal Hunter Assault Gun, "spectacular" is factually correct. You then proceeded to make a Federal Case out of it. And once again, defining the terms that make up a definition that we're arguing about is... NOT MOVING GOAL POSTS!

COMBAT casualties are casualties that result from COMBAT. Thus, if people get captured during COMBAT, or encircled and forced to surrender as a result of COMBAT, then they are COMBAT casualties. See how that works?

It's also hilarious to see you go on extraordinarily immature and childish rants, which are somewhat insulting, and then bitch about others insulting you. Doesn't say much about your character. You then, of course, demonstrate maturity by bitching about a five sentence summary.

The summary was written by BBC. I highly doubt that BBC is going to have an anti-British bias. You are, of course, welcome to bitch about it, because thus far, I'm not seeing much else from you. And again, quite a few things are relative. Right now, a city of 50,000 isn't massive. Back in the Roman Days, it was considered massive. When you have most of Europe engulfed in Total Warfare, 120,000 men aren't going to be massive by those standards.

And again you bitch and whine about insults, while tossing out quite a few of your own. Cookie?

Out of context is when I'm talking specifically about the Battle of Kursk, and you're taking that and using it as something that took place outside of the Battle of Kursk. That'd be out of context. And more claims that his opponent is wrong from the Tiger Kingdom. Proof? None. But he'll claim it. A lot. And then bitch about insults. Also, quite a bit.

In terms of the Tigers used at Kursk, your direct quote:

No way in hell. [Tigers] were nearly impossible to make, broke constantly, had obsolete armor, were incredibly slow, and near impossible to maintain.

Cornish was talking about an obsolete armor layout, because the armor was laid out in such a manner as to reduce the tank's maneuverability. That's not the same as claiming that the armor itself is obsolete. For instance, if you wear a tux on your upper body, and nothing on your lower body, you'd have an obsolete dress code. But that doesn't make the tux, obsolete. You claimed that the armor was obsolete, which was ignorant horseshit, so I called you out on it, and instead of correcting your mistake like a military historian should, you, The Tiger Kingdom, went into full on rant mode, tossing out a fuckton of petty insults, while bitching about me pointing that out and living in a bubble. Who do you think you're fooling. At least read the damn books that you're citing, and quote them accurately.

Additionally, a military forum is more accurate than Wikipedia. And you end your post with yet another immature and insulting rant, which sets the perfect background for you to bitch about insults. For instance: dishonest, insecure, mean-spirited person you are, both on here, and - I suspect - in RL.

In terms of civility, considering that you sent not one, but two, extremely childish rants in my direction, when all you had to do was to avoid insults and inquire why I called you out, and I've yet to write a rant of my own. I'm being rather civil here. I could easily go on a rant, talking about what a dishonest, insecure, mean-spirited person you are, but at least I'd have the courtesy not to bring IRL into it, so, now that I actually think about it, the Tiger Kingdom, no, I cannot match your non-civil conduct.

Talking about IRL stuff over an online forum debate is just below the belt. Just so you know, IRL, I'm enjoying my life. Also, I'm meaner online than IRL, as I'm sure, most people are. So that insult of yours, didn't actually hit me. But if someone was depressed IRL, you hitting them below the belt there, that's just not civil. At all. That's something I'd expect from a ten year old. Maybe nine. That's why, no matter what I do online, I don't talk about people IRL, unless it's a professional trolling forum, like Dramatica's, which NSG clearly is not. You're welcome to hate me, to bash me, to rant about it, but if you take one thing away from this thread, I sincerely hope it's going to be you stopping the IRL commentary. Because you still have some potential to be a good person, and if you keep on swinging like that, one day, you're going to regret it. And I won't be there to simply ignore it.

[Navorgska]

That's...clearly not accurate. You really think the French had two million combat casualties in less than two months of fighting? Really? That'd be literally the biggest slice of carnage in the history of the world - bigger than Stalingrad, both actually and proportionately.
It's clearly counting all the French surrenders (ordered as part of the French surrender agreements and applied to many forces that never even saw combat). That's not a measure of German combat skill or French combat skill, that just shows what arses the French Government was. I'd say the real casualty levels are just about even.
And again, speaking of German TANK losses, not necessarily personnel losses, which, as I've just demonstrated, are deceptive.
Seriously, I'd wager something on the level of 2 million of those "casualties" are non-combat surrenders. A lot of them probably didn't even drop their guns; they just headed south to Vichy.

I dont want to separate you and Shofercia from you're increasingly-massive argument, however I'm pretty sure the largest casualties taken in combat was during the Siege of Leningrad. The siege lasted for around two and a half years, the Nazi/Finnish Casualties being something like 150,000 compared to the one million soviet dead, and two and a half million soviet wounded, not counting the near one million dead in civilian losses as well. If I recall correctly, the bombings and scale of destruction had gotten so bad that all the soldiers could have gotten to eat was three slices of bread a day, and yet most people think Stalingrad was a much more casualty-intensive battle than this.

I didn't even expect to find you here, Nate.

EDIT: I should've expected to find you here on a threat with "Hitler" and "divine" in the same sentence.