Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "The Problem of Coordinating Arms in WW2" video.

  1. I'll go out on a limb, which is easier for a lightweight who wafts gently to the ground from any height, than for this crowd, and suggest maybe extra resources in air superiority was the right idea. Maybe they would've been better served by fuel-efficient, high-clearance, rugged, easy-to-repair lorries to move their men around. Dig in with infantry and heavy guns on defense. But in good flying weather? Go where you want and destroy all comers if you have air superiority. Use those lorries or something beefier to pull the artillery pieces around. Save all the money you put into tanks and put it into 4- and 6-wheel drive vehicles. The whole tank warfare thing makes it a constant battle to keep infantry with tanks. And you don't want your tanks to be caught out against infantry without infantry support for the tanks. But what if you're just really good at moving men and heavy guns, and focus on that. You can dig in and make little fortresses for your guns in captured territory. Properly coordinated with the air forces, with air superiority over the enemy, you can advance your men and guns rapidly in good weather, and then force the enemy to attack YOU when you're on pause and digging in deeper every minute you're at the new location. Again, if you're properly coordinated, your air can clear the immediate vicinity forward of any tank forces that aren't hunkered down. You'd be on the defense by night and in poor visibility conditions. Those conditions that work against your air also work against their ground. Less than ideal attacking conditions. Anyway, it just seems to me that it might've been more efficient to forego use of tanks, entirely. You can stick a pretty big gun on a lorry, especially if you're building the lorry for military use. Standard gun mounts built into the decks of every one of them. And as screening forces/scouts, you could have a fleet of highly efficient motorcycle units. A good dirt bike is very practical in all kinds of terrain and only burns a thimbleful of gas, compared to tanks, halftracks and big trucks.
    1
  2.  @daniels_0399  I think you're both right. It just depends on the situation. I think the high command on both sides in World War I should've all been shot. That was totally uncalled for. No general should've been able to give the order over the top without leading the charge. They spent men's lives like pennies. That was my first thought from @McSmash's comment.
    1
  3.  @daniels_0399  It takes 100,000 casualties to get rid of a bad one.
    1
  4.  @milanstepanek4185  Fucking trolls.
    1