Comments by "Not Today" (@nottoday3817) on ""But what about the Panzer II !?" Stalingrad Addendum 3" video.

  1. Basically whatever the gouvernment tells you it is. US assassinated an Iranian general in an Iraqi airport when he was in an official visit to Iraq, a country that US pretends to protect. Israel bombed Damascus while planes were landing on the airport. Those are seen as heroic deeds, because they are comitted by those following the 'true ideology of freedom and democracy'. If Russia were to snipe out a US general or anything, they would be a state sponsor of terrorism, because they follow the extremist ideology of imperialism and communisto-fascist radicals and whatever.
    1
  2. I think he also stated that the main combat that tanks would see was not tanks vs tanks, since the Germans tried to avoid these since the battle of France and early encounters with soviet T-34s and KV-s. The armaments is not really that important since both nations had tanks that could take each other out. The problem was the armour which gives breakthrough and holding capabilities. T-60s might have been able to snipe out some german tanks (altough highly unlikely), but they could not breach enemy positions because poor protection and they could not hold positions for the same reason.
    1
  3. Why you need to have one or another? Their country was invaded. Their fathers, brothers or husbands most likely died in horrific ways. Some of their girl friends might have been raped or executed (some accounts suggest even the reverse order was possible) or worse (some romanian historians talk about Axis soldiers betting on wether a woman was pregnant with a boy or a girl. You don't want to know how they would find out). Being a 'badass' is mostly a Hollywoodian myth, used mostly to justify mercenarism on foreign soil. People that lived throgh that war had one thing: 'PTSD'.
    1
  4. KV-2 does not fire HEAT. Not in WoT at least.
    1
  5. Regarding the fate of civillians at Stalingrad (and also for a similar case in Leningrad). I am no fan of the theory of 'They wanted to have the soviet soldiers with their backs against the civillians so they could fight better' I believe the main reason (for both cities) is a combination of two factors: 1. Usefulness. Both Stalingrad and Leningrad were industrial centers. And the Tractor plant in Stalingrad was producing T-34s, the workhorse of the Red Army. (there are stories of T-34s being straight to the frontline after exiting the factory). Even if not for pure production, but at least for maintainance. Not to mention the hospitals that should treat the wounded.All of these need civillians to be operated. And you could aks the civillians to build fortifications. You take the people out of the city, your own city becomes and obstacle in your way. Especially for such a large urban area as Stalingrad. 2. Impossibility to deal with them. Suppose you want to evacuate them. Where would you send them? Most of the habitable land is occupied by the germans. Especially the big cities that have the infrastructure to deal with the refugees. And what few cities are not taken over by the Germans are either in Siberia or at the frontline. Speaking of infrastructure. What infrastructure? Whatever vehicles the nation has are being used to transport military supplies to fight the germans. You cannot use them to move people around or the germans would break through another city, reach another major population center and force you to repeat the cycle, but now with an even heavier strain on your resources. And where exactly would you send those people? I mean, you might find a habitable area, but we are talking about millions of people. You don't have homes for millions of people in the places you want to send them. Those 2 factors combined are, in my humble opinion, what lead to those humanitarian disasters. The gouvernment tried to keep the cities alive for as long as possible to help the armed forces resist as long as possible, but, when the time came for an evacuation, it came much sooner than they expected and at this stage it was virtually impossible to accomplish (Leningrad was already surrouned and Stalingrad was already bombed and the bridges damaged and/or destroyed). During the fighting, attempts were made to rescue the civillians, in Stalingrad and not even going to mention the bloodbath in Leningrad. If the Soviets had concentrated their forces instead of sending attacks by piecemeal to relieve the siege, they might have had more success, but again, when your own kin is in danger, letting them suffer for later gain is perhaps the last thing that comes to your mind. (Talking about Leningrad here) Also, I have a tremendous respect for your military strategy videos (Battlestorm series, talking about logistics etc.) However, as much as I respect that side of your channel, I hate when you turn to politics/ideology and pseudo-economy. Please don't try to spin this into an economic-ideologic debate about how soviet economy was not efficient in this matter, like you did with some aspects in your previous videos of the series. This is not a matter of economics or ideology, but a matter of war. In a war, people need a leader, that's why Stalin took the central stage, pretty much like Churchill and Roosevelt did. Stalin was more vocal because he did not have a large body of water and a top-tier navy to put behind him and any possible invading forces. On the contrary, the invading forces were at his doorstep. And he lost quite a lot in that war himself. Soviet 'economy' did not 'struggle'. Soviet economy was gone the second the Germans reached Kharkov. This is no matter of 'economics', but a matter of national survival strategy. You use whatever you have to the best you can.
    1
  6. Errrm, I think you draw the wrong conclusions here. The higher ratio is due to the fact that most of the Panzer II's were not destroyed, while the rest of the tanks were destroyed. Because you have less tanks overall, the same number of Panzer II's of course is going to take a larger percentage.
    1