Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "Eastory" channel.

9:20 I disagree with your comment about the Russians "not realizing they could cross the river". It really understates what happened. They tried, several times, and were bloodily repulsed on each occasion. It wasn't until at least 2 BTGs were pretty much gutted that they stopped trying.
408
Of all the beaches, only the Utah landings occurred with little difficulty. Although Omaha had the highest casualties, the British and Canadian forces at Gold, Sword and Juno didn't have it that easy either.
114
@Dragonite43 To me it sounded more like they took one look at the river and decided to not even try crossing it.
34
@sitting_nut So, the Ukrainians painted Z's on their own vehicles (all left over from when they were part of the USSR), then shelled them. Next thing I know is you will tell me that wearing tin foil hats and sitting beneath a pyramid prevents aliens from probing your mind. I think the word "nut" in your moniker is well deserved.
26
I think Epic History has some rather good videos on the Napoleonic Wars. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvPXiKxH-eH9xq-80vpgmKQ
26
@sitting_nut Except there are. There are several things wrong with your point of view: 1) The Russians never claimed destroying an attempted river crossing by Ukraine. In fact, they didn't say a thing about a destroyed Ukrainian unit in that area at all. Funny thing that, 2) The photos are almost all taken from the top, and any Z's will be difficult or impossible to see. Add to that the mud churned up by the artillery and the vehicles themselves, and there is a problem, 3) Some of the vehicles do have Z's on them, you just have to look carefully, 4) why would the Ukrainians be trashing T-72s that have reactive armor packages mounted on them (making them superior to the ones they have), and 5) Why are there Russian rations and equipment in the vehicles? Sorry troll, you lose.
21
@PhillyPhanVinny There were three other reasons why two infantry divisions landed at Omaha. First, it had a long expanse of beach providing the frontage required to deploy two divisions abreast. Second, it formed the hinge of the Allied line, and at least one division was required to try to take and hold Carentan, the town along that contained bridges across the Douve River, which separated Utah and Omaha beaches from each other. Not capturing this objective would open up the possibility that the troops at Utah could be cut off and wiped out. Third, one of the artificial harbours was to be set up off Omaha beach, so the area had to be secured as quickly as possible, and the Germans driven back far enough that they couldn't interfere with the landing of troops and supplies.
17
Which may point to one of the reasons why the British and French troops to hold out as long as they did in 1940. If the Allies avoided the region, it must have defensible terrain. Which then suggests there were valid reasons for the halt order in 1940 as well.
16
@user-rj4gu5oh3k Since Ukraine is using equipment from the time it was part of the USSR, is that really all that surprising? Ukraine uses the same (but less upgraded) versions of BTRs, BMPs and a few T-72s. Russia has also fielded ALL versions of these weapon systems, so of course there is no way to tell at a distance (except when BMP-3s and advanced T-72s are present) if they are Ukrainian or not. The fact that Russia did not announce trouncing a huge force of Ukrainians crossing the Severodonets River, while the Ukrainians trumpeted this across the airwaves, proves that these are Russian vehicles. Rather like indirect proof that the US did land on the moon is the fact that Russia never disputed it.
7
One thing that you did not mention that helped the Ukrainian army immensely, and that is the Rasputitsa, aka the time of mud. The Russian army is mostly mechanized, with few purely infantry units. This meant they had to stick to paved roads to carry out their offensive. This in turn meant that the Ukrainians could focus blocking units on a limited number of attack axes. They could then send small units on foot or using ATVs around the flanks of the columns and hit their supply lines and small isolated units. Since the Rasputitsa usually lasts from March to May, this meant that the overwhelming Soviet firepower was trapped on the main roads, limiting the force that could be brought to bear on the Ukrainians. One reason the Russians were able to advance so quickly in the south is because the area is drier, and not as susceptible to the same Rasputitsa conditions that occur in Northern Ukraine. This would have enabled the Russians to move across country, rather than being limited to moving along major highways.
4
@IZn0g0uDatAll Well, they did die for their country in the Patton sense. If you don't know or recall the quote, Patton said, "No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country." And they did.
4
Interesting how the Allies could never quite get sufficient forces in their spearheads to encircle large German forces. Then again, the Germans had 3 years of experience in Russia getting surrounded, so by this time they were probably able to read the warning signs sooner, and were more able to escape the traps. Still, losing 20,000+ troops multiple times may not seem impressive, but over time it adds up. As history shows, Army Group G in southern France lost over 130,000 troops captured between June 6 and September 1, 1944, most of those in August.
3
@archdornan3068 I agree with the latter one, definitely. All I am saying is that the difficult terrain around Dunkirk was one reason among many for the halt order.
3
@chester5424 Ooh, I think I hit a troll nerve.
2
The war was won by the side that made the fewest strategic mistakes. On the whole, the German made more mistakes, and they were doozies: Assumption 1: the Russians will be unable to move troops to the frontier quick enough to launch an offensive. Oops. This mistake was only saved because the two Russian Armies didn't coordinate their attacks properly, so Ludendorff and Hindenburg were able to defeat each army in separately. But is was a near thing. Assumption 2: no one will care if we march through Belgium. Oops. Who cared? Almost the entire world, so the lost any sympathy they might have had for their cause. Plus, it got Britain to declare war on them. Assumption 3: Our losses won't be that great if we start attritional warfare. Oops. They were. Assumption 4: We can convince countries like Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire to fight for us. And the Austrians are a formidable fighting force as well. Oops. Turns out their alliances gave the German Army three boat anchors, two of which required substantial contributions of troops to keep them propped up. Assumption 5: Unrestricted submarine warfare won't get the US upset enough to declare war. Neither will having our man Zimmerman sending a telegram to Mexico City suggesting we offer Mexico US territory if they join our side. Oops. Not only did you tick off the Americans, but Mexico is wisely staying out of this one. Oops. Another bad call. Assumption 6: All we have to do is break through the Western Front and our offensive will win the war. Oops. Yes, breaking through the Allied Front lines is great, but it usually helps to know where you will be heading after you break through. Have to love the German spring offensives in 1918 - large scale attacks with no strategic objectives. Otherwise known as the attacks to nowhere. And here I thought the Germans were masters of planning battles. Assumption 7: It will be a short war. Oops. 'nuff said. Assumption 8: We have enough logistical support (food, munitions and soldiers) to win this war. Oops. Assumption 9: Sending Lenin back to Russia may lead to the deposing of the regime, cause the army to disintegrate and cause a civil war. Well, that worked, but it turns out that the aftermath of that decision was perhaps their greatest Ooops! If you engage in germ or ideological warfare, you should be prepared for the pathogen to bite you in the rear as well. Assumption 10: Leaving large numbers of troops in Russian after they have capitulated is a great idea since we want to grab as much food and other stuff from them while we can. Maybe we can take the place over. Oops. Guess what happens when you have to spread your troops throughout a large country to police it. No reserves. Guess what the Germans needed in the Balkans, Italy, Palestine and the Western Front in 1918. Reserves. Gee, I wonder why all four fronts virtually collapsed in August and September of 1918. I am also amazed how long it took for it to dawn on the Germans that at least four Allied armies (1 French, 1 Italian and 2 Serbian) were marching north through Serbia towards Austro-Hungary (more or less just Austria at this point) and there were NO ARMIES present in the area to stop them. In addition, it didn't help the German's cause that as they left French and Belgium territory they destroyed everything they couldn't take with them. And right up to the last week or two of the war, they kept trying to insist on keeping Belgium. And then they wondered why people were so ticked off with them at the negotiating table.
2
@necroparagon7226 I think conditions at Gold were like, but from what I read on Wikipedia and elsewhere, it was pretty much a repeat of the other British and Canadian landings. That is, some units were able to clear the beach within an hour or so, while others were stuck almost the whole day trying to reduce strongpoints. They were able to liberate Bayeux June 7th, but then they got stalled after the debacle at Villiers-Bocage.
2
@jeffburnham6611 I hate to correct you on a couple of points, but firstly, Utah beach had the lightest casualties of any of the beaches. Second, Montgomery was the ground forces commander in charge of ALL Allied forces at this time. So, I guess you are adding the slow pace of US forces off the beach as well?
2
@johnquintmatt1986 No, I am saying they were "easy" compared to Omaha Beach and Salerno. NO military operation is ever easy, certainly not to those who experience the terror, losing close friends, getting wounded, having to rapidly dig shell scrapes under enemy fire. Please don't misconstrue what I am saying, for as General Sherman said, "War is all hell".
2
I say old chap, your English isn't half bad, wot?
1
@YorkerEli The Ukrainians are using satellite imagery from US satellites and getting information from NATO aircraft tracking ground movements.
1
@YorkerEli From what I have seen, the Russians either seem to bail out of their vehicles and run, or continue what they were ordered to do, even if it means running into an ambush. Russian soldiers are not trained to think for themselves, only to obey orders.
1
@Aethelhald I am not arguing with any of your points. All I am saying is that the terrain played a part in the decision-making process. It was one, repeat one, of a myriad of reasons why the halt order was given.
1
@buckplug2423 Thing is, that is what mechanized infantry is for - providing cover for the tanks. But they aren't doing that. In fact, the Russian infantry seems to either run away or be completely absent when Russian tanks are being hit. The Russians had the men and equipment, but they weren't trained properly on how to coordinate them.
1
@YorkerEli Your response ignores a few things. First, Russia also mobilized at least 34,000 LPR and DPR soldiers, plus the Chechens and Wagner Group mercenaries. Second, Ukraine did not mobilize all 220k military personnel on day one (I also don't know how many of this figure may represent Ukrainian navy and air force personnel). Also, Ukraine had to cover multiple axes of attack AND cover their supply lines AND fight off Russian special forces units inserted into Kharkiv and Kyiv before the invasion (I discovered this latter fact by watching reports and videos made during the first week of the war). So Russia had a significant manpower and equipment advantage at all the points of attack.
1
@YorkerEli Exactly. Their biggest issue is they are TOO mechanized. They have way too many vehicles, and lack properly trained infantry to tackle ground targets, infiltrate around positions, conduct reconnaissance, fight off ambushes, etc. Many of the soldiers are poorly trained, and seem to lack a comprehension of basic section and squad tactics. This is a problem that is getting worse for them over time, as we have seen conscripts with less than a week's training showing up in the front lines.
1
@YorkerEli Although the most recent thing I have seen suggests the Ukrainians are mobilizing their troops in batches of 100K or so. I think they want to make sure that each batch of mobilized troops are fully trained before sending them to the front. And rotate troops out to rear areas for rest and refit. Unlike the Russians.
1
@YorkerEli I think you have it backwards. Plus I note you are not providing references for your claims. There are countless videos showing Ukrainian recruits and reservists being trained by western instructors in the first couple of months of the war, and conversely plenty of evidence that Russia is sending untrained conscripts into the lines. Now I know that this is not the case for everything, as the videos of the "Wild Geese" and the police detachment that held the airport near Mikolyaiv show, but these were groups that voluntarily picked up weapons to fight. They were not, repeat, not newly mobilized reservists who were ordered into the front lines. On the flip side of the coin, Russia IS throwing people with a few hours or a couple of days into combat - we already know of several cases where their troops were mobilized in Russia and within 10 days were killed on the front lines. The Russian lines are collapsing in the north and south, and Putin is panicking because he knows he is starting to lose support in Russia. If you are going to make claims, please back them up. Here is a video backing up what I am saying about the Russians: Jake Broe: Mobilized Soldiers are Already Surrendering in Ukraine [September 28, 2022] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OSroys7RWY Yahoo Nes: https://news.yahoo.com/platoon-taken-one-minute-russian-072438512.html CNN report: https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/22/europe/russia-mobilization-logistics-analysis-intl-hnk-ml
1
@johnquintmatt1986 Not necessarily true, as landings that went ashore virtually unscathed include Operation Baytown, Guadalcanal and Okinawa.
1
@johnquintmatt1986 Baytown was the invasion of the toe of Italy by the British Army. I think you might be able to add Dragoon to the list as well.
1
@ElonMuzska "The objective of the 3rd Division was to push across Sword Beach and pass through Ouistreham to capture Caen and the important Carpiquet airfield nearby." https://www.britannica.com/place/Sword-Beach . Thus, the British forces did not advance more than they should have, nor were their D-Day objectives reached. They did get close to Caen, but increasing German resistance and lack of armor support forced them to pull back towards the beach and consolidate their gains.
1