'The training stays with you': the elite Mexican soldiers recruited by cartels

Guardian ^ | Sat 10 Feb 2018 03.01 EST | Falko Ernst

[SoCal Pubbie]

More confusing than enlightening because that video shows the Germans lost more troops than the allies in Europe so I’m not sure how that bolsters your contention.

[SoCal Pubbie]

More confusing than enlightening because that video shows the Germans lost more troops than the allies in Europe so I’m not sure how that bolsters your contention.

BTW I would agree that in 1939 the German army was the best in the world, but by 1942 that was no longer the case. They were still using mostly horse drawn artillery, had no strategic bombing capability, and by 1944 no real Air Force. The Soviet Union built more tanks in a single month than the Germans did all year. The myth of the Nazi ubermensch was just that.

[Gunslingr3]

More confusing than enlightening because that video shows the Germans lost more troops than the allies in Europe so I’m not sure how that bolsters your contention.

A = Americans lost on Western Front

B = British lost on Western Front

C = Germans lost on Western Front

You need to compare A+B to C.

I can only presume you're misreading the graph by comparing just A to C, and just B to C (or worse lumping in the Germans lost in early campaigns as well).

Let try to clear up your confusion on the graph:

Does that make is a little clearer?

Adding in the other German opponents really only pads their stats and increases the ratio. That they did it with the limitations you noted makes it all the more remarkable.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Before we go further, just to be clear, your contention that the German Army was the most effective of WWII is based on casualty rates between the opposing armies, and your source for this is the video you linked?

[Gunslingr3]

Before we go further, just to be clear, do you understand the graph now?

[SoCal Pubbie]

I understand that the graph in that video offers no hard numbers of allied losses,only a graphical comparison. Nor does it offer a source, at least during that part of the presentation. Perhaps it does at the end.

It also does not differentiate between British losses during the Battle of France and those after 1942. I noticed your initial post cherry picks those numbers, allowing the Germans the benefit of numbers racked up during that early blitzkrieg victory, against unprepared and in France’s case, unwilling opponents. But you don’t want to include the number of German casualties after 1944.

When I respond with actual hard numbers, which will include the enormous number of Germans surrendering en masse, the idea of an effective German armed forces that won perhaps a handful of battles after Kasserine Pass, will be statistically unsupportable.

[Gunslingr3]

I understand that the graph in that video offers no hard numbers of allied losses

It's unbecoming to dodge a simple question.

It's ok to admit you realize something you didn't at first.

only a graphical comparison.

Which is conveniently defined. Watch closely, FRiend.

Nor does it offer a source, at least during that part of the presentation. Perhaps it does at the end.

ADD? ;)

It also does not differentiate between British losses during the Battle of France and those after 1942.

You're correct that British losses are not thusly subdivided in the presentation, but you're incorrect in your conclusion. The graph shows the German losses and ALL other national losses from those earlier victorious campaigns, adding in the British losses to that point would actually increase the German kill ratio. But you knew that, and you were trying to help me, right? ;)

I noticed your initial post cherry picks those numbers, allowing the Germans the benefit of numbers racked up during that early blitzkrieg victory, against unprepared and in France’s case, unwilling opponents.

So do you contend that the unprepared armies were more effective? What exactly are you getting at here? Oh! More help for my argument about the most effective Army. Thanks, FRiend!

But you don’t want to include the number of German casualties after 1944.

What's to be learned exactly emphasizing the last four months of the Wehrmacht, when it was composed largely of Volksturm divisions minus equipment and staffed with boys and infirm men? Be honest with yourself.

That portion of the war drives home my original point in this thread, that without a population to sustain, a war against greater powers is doomed.

The repeated ability of the Wehrmacht to deliver more casualties than it suffered didn't matter once the political apparatus bit off more than it could chew.

I don't share the view that Putin is a Hitlerite menace bent on invading his neighbors.

I do believe he's a nationalist, but I'm not scared in the least of global Russian imperialism in the 21st century.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“It’s unbecoming to dodge a simple question.”

It wasn’t a dodge. There were no specifics.

“Which is conveniently defined. Watch closely, FRiend.”

Huh?

“ADD? ;)”

Nope too BUSY.

“The graph shows the German losses and ALL other national losses from those earlier victorious campaigns, adding in the British losses to that point would actually increase the German kill ratio. But you knew that, and you were trying to help me, right? ;)”

Those campaigns included numbers outside the European theater and excluded North Africa, didn’t they? German sources don’t include Italy in European losses either. But you knew that, and you were trying to help yourself, right?

“What exactly are you getting at here? “

That they were the most effective for two to three years. After they had prepared for war since 1933 while their foes tried to bury their heads in the sand. When they got incredibly lucky. Too bad the war lasted six years.

“The repeated ability of the Wehrmacht to deliver more casualties than it suffered didn’t matter once the political apparatus bit off more than it could chew.”

Except it didn’t. See the North Africa numbers coming in my next post.