Comments by "Simon Nonymous" (@Simon_Nonymous) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

  1. Thank you Jens for your contribution. Another good case of "did it work as intended?" vs "OMG it is OP/UP in WoT". The only factor I didn't see covered (but I am usually wrong) was that the 122mm gun was at first an interrupted screw breech artillery piece but eventually got a semi auto breech like most AT or tank guns. Please discuss and correct me as always, and keep safe everyone. Love from England!
    27
  2. Yes, the Archer served into the 50s, and perhaps shows a good example of how to get it right whilst this video shows how to get it wrong. The Archer weighed a ton less than the Valentine donor tank; it had a tried and tested propulsion, suspension and steering design made for a vehicle of its weight, and managed to keep its crew in an open topped but splinter/bullet proof superstructure; everything in it looks low down, so no centre of gravity issues either.
    26
  3. The closed turret systems of Cold War AAA were also due to the requirements for vehicles to be NBC capable I think? Good summary though CB!
    23
  4. Great video and as always a touch of the real. Do a quick mental breakdown of how an army fights in the front line in % terms - tanks, AFVs/APCs/IFVs then the soft targets. Even a tank with one track broken is a very expensive pillbox.
    21
  5.  @letoubib21  and an engine, please be fair 🙂
    12
  6. Quite right. There are good reasons why this wasn't followed up in the Cold War era, and wasn't emulated in WWII by the Allies.
    4
  7. I would like that too, mainly the Sexton as it's on the same chassis as the M7 I think?
    4
  8. A very praiseworthy video!
    3
  9. Thumbs up given, spade of salt taken. See you next time!
    3
  10.  @genericpersonx333  some very similar issues here to what the USAF faced in Vietnam re visual ID?
    2
  11. Thanks
    2
  12.  @MilitaryHistoryVisualized  no, thank you! Have a great 2022 and beyond.
    2
  13. Only the best on HoWaW!
    2
  14. Thank you from England :-)
    2
  15.  @Kevin-mx1vi  quite right
    2
  16. I quite agree. It is clearly not a Matilda I that Blomberg is known to have inspected, and the description fits the Mk V perfectly.
    2
  17. One day soon Neil, I'll be retired, and we plan to tour a lot of Europe in a camper van or with a caravan, and this is on the agenda!
    1
  18. I think the Belgrano was sunk for just that reason - it's guns would have been very effective against a fleet built for the 70s and 80s not the 40s?
    1
  19.  @forcea1454  very true - my suggestion was that her guns were not old or outdated and she would have been a significant threat.
    1
  20.  @DamianMaisano  that was my understanding also. She was a significant threat, despite her age.
    1
  21.  @forcea1454  apols I have just deleted a post... too many postings, and my fault. Yes, she would have been a priority target by what ever means the task force had, I was thinking more of why she was was felt to be such a threat, ie big guns, unarmoured modern warships, and use of ships like the QEII as troop ships.
    1
  22. A video that talks about tanks' track records... pure genius.
    1
  23. And when crews hang flammable kit bags, sleeping bags, TESCO shopping bags etc on the outside of their AFV it just adds to the flames and fun. Seen a few Russian AFVs recently that look like pack mules...
    1
  24. Final drive issues.... again.
    1
  25. I think this is a good question, even though my own answer would be that the differences that led to defeat or victory were not ideological ones. The Germans were determined to sweep the Allies back off the invasion beaches for instance if Meyer is quoted correctly. but perhaps the factors that made them lose in the west were not the same factors that lost them the war in the east. The only genuine factor I can think of is that surrender on the western front was thinkable, but trying to surrender on the eastern front ... I am not sure how much difference this made to outcomes but again, it's a good question.
    1
  26. @M. J. I do agree - all sides tried to do it. The interesting thing for me is how varied the results were, and I think it would be fair to say that Nazi attitudes towards the peoples in the east was somewhat different to attitudes and behaviours in the west (most of the time), and this showed in how their soldiers fought. But I don't think it won or lost Ger,any many battles.
    1
  27. Because in 1941 it was a fecking awful tank and did not really have the impact people think
    1
  28.  @sotros1  absolutely - and no needed to use gears when driving, just twist and go, one engine per track.
    1