Comments by "" (@craigkdillon) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

  1. I really like Nicholas Moran's way of thinking - very practical, and he checks his facts. I like that.
    28
  2. IMO, Yamamoto is over-rated. His biggest mistake was not occupying Hawaii in the surprise attack. If Japan had occupied Hawaii and Pearl Harbor, all the ships at Pearl would have become their ships. They could have raised and re-commissioned most of the ships, like we did. The US Navy would have been thrown all the way back to the continent. Australia would have been effectively cut off. This would have added 1 or 2 years to the war. The US still would have had the swarm of Essex carriers coming in 1943. NOT taking Hawaii was their biggest mistake, I think.
    5
  3. Weird how the A-bomb was the humane choice.
    5
  4. Agreed.
    4
  5. I like your framework for analysis. The M4 Sherman was a much better tank than normally judged. It was very mass produced, reliable, and easily repaired. German tanks, though better when working, often were difficult to repair, and they broke down frequently. Worst of all, they were difficult, costly, and time consuming to produce. German total tank production was a mere fraction of US production, and dwarfed by total allied production.
    3
  6. Without knowledge of the portable Mulberry harbors, it was natural for the Germans to assume that the prime early objective of ANY assault would be to capture a port. Capturing Cherbourg and the Contentin peninsula would be a good assessment of Allied needs and probable objective. The Mulberries allowed the Allies to have a much more flexible strategy.
    3
  7. Also, the German army was weakened. But, you need to analyze Russia's condition. If Russia was also weaker by same ratio, then Germany could have succeeded I however, Russia was better able to make up losses than Germany, then you are right. I think that Russia was not able to make up it's losses by winter. So, Germany would have taken Moscow. By spring...it was too late. Taking Moscow, though, would not have meant victory, IMO. Napoleon took Moscow and still lost. I think Russia was too big for Germany, especially with UK and US fighting it.
    3
  8. Good info. Next time I go to war, I will keep all this in mind. Thank you.
    3
  9. The Allies would still have started the war with obsolete doctrine and force structure. I.E. UK and France still would not have had armored brigades. They still would primarily have used infantry tanks like Matilda and Char-B. They still would have lost in a Dunkirk type fashion. Moreover, if Germany had waited a year, AND transferred ship building resources from battleships like Bismarck to build even more subs, then Germany could have had 150+ subs, IMO. Considering how successful the U-boat operations were early in the war, I think 100+ subs could have strangled Britain. The biggest failing of Germany was their pathetic manufacturing. This would not have been corrected. Therefore, Germany could still not survive a long war. Germany still needed to defeat UK quickly.
    3
  10. Considering Europe alone, if Hitler had waited, it is possible that Germany would have fared better. Although, you have good arguments that a better outcome would still be difficult. However, Japan's attack on Pearl would still have happened, and the US would have gone to war with Japan. Even without a European war, the US would have gone into full war economy mode. If German had waited, the US would be much more powerful at the start of Germany's war. Moreover, being already at war, the US would have entered the European war more quickly and easily. ALSO -- people always talk about Germany's development of jets as if they were alone. Both, the US and UK had jet aircraft development going on in 1941. They were at par with Germany, IMO, and were WAY AHEAD in the ability to produce them in quantity.
    2
  11. Brilliant Brits. They had just installed their newly perfected top secret Plasma Shields on the Swordfish, which were reverse engineered from alien spacecraft donated by their extra-terrestrial allies. The Swordfish were made to look deceptively obsolete, but were, in reality, using 25th Century alien technology. Really quite simple when you know the truth. WARNING: Beware of stealth sarcasm and facetiousness. It could happen anywhere, anytime. You have been warned.
    2
  12. Sea Lion was bad idea -- True. HOWEVER, Britain could have been attacked differently, and should have been done prior to Barbarossa. Hitler should have focused on the Mediterranean === === Take Malta & Gibraltar. Triple the size of Afrika Corps. === Take Egypt & Suez canal, cutting Britain off from easy communication with India. === Take Iraq, Kuwait, and Palestine. Cutting UK off from mideast oil. === Get Turkey to be cooperative, maybe ally. === With Allies kicked out of the Mediterranean, build robust supply chain for Middle East oil. === Develop good relationship with Iran, get allies kicked out of Iran, === Occupy French North Africa === Now with oil secured, Germany is now in position to win a long war. === Develop fighters & dive bombers with 1,000 mile radius to bomb Scapa Flow and sink Royal Navy. === Focus heavily on increasing wartime production of planes, new planes, and U-boats. === Use air power in anti-shipping role, combined with U-boat predation, starve UK.
    2
  13. Yes, if you consider commands, declarations of superiority, and animal grunts as LOVE. Then, yes, you are right
    2
  14. I think the answer is simpler. 1 turret has 360 degree coverage. If more than 1 turret, then each get in the way of the other - so neither has 360 coverage. This is obviously less efficient, while increasing cost and crew. Another option, is to have a turret with an added fixed gun, usually larger. This was on the Grant tank, and on the French Char B. This creates tactical limitations, reducing effectiveness. On a ship, it is different. Due to the central superstructure, a turret on a battleship cannot have 360 degree coverage, so multiple turrets are required - at least one at the bow, and one at the stern.
    2
  15. For successful amphibious operations, I believe Air Supremacy, not Air Superiority, is required. The Luftwaffe NEVER had air supremacy. They never had Air Superiority, either. The short range of Nazi fighters meant that they could not give 24 hour air protection to their troops, if landed in Britain. Germany also had no way to land tanks on beaches. Sea Lion would have failed miserably if it had been tried.
    2
  16. It is now September 2020, and an update to this topic needs to be done. Since this video, US, India, Japan, and Australia have formed the Quad, and are in the process of decoupling from China to some degree. Manufacturers are moving their operations out of China at an accelerating rate. Moving most of it to other regional nations, including Vietnam and India. Japan is paying its companies to move out of China. As replacements for Chinese components are found or developed, this process will continue. This should result in a shrinkage or decrease in China's GDP. Unemployment should grow, as well. US Navy has visited Vietnam. How is that relationship growing?? India has sold Brahmos & Akash missiles to Vietnam and Philippines.. Japan has F-35 jets. India is getting P8 Poseidons. There are more developments, all of which change the strategic environment. Meanwhile, China has made more ships and planes since this video was created. So, what is the overall balance now??
    2
  17. Good analysis. Well reasoned. I disagree, however. The inability to capture Moscow was a very close run thing. If the German Army was not hampered by General Winter, the capture of Moscow was likely, IMO.
    1
  18. The American support of UK forces with satellite intelligence was also useful in Argentina's loss.
    1
  19. Excellent analysis. Your analysis explains why a German attack would seem reasonable, even obvious. Plus, Hitler needed the Caucusus oil for his war machine. I wonder if Hiter and general staff were aware of Stalin's purges of his generals? I would think so, making them have more contempt for Soviet forces. What I find astounding is the logistics failures - 1)no winter weight oils for engines, and 2) no winter clothing for troops. Once the mud froze and became solid again, the German army should have been able to attack during the winter. If it was able, it would have taken Moscow. Even if Stalin did not surrender, occupation of Moscow would have made logistics and maneuver for Stalin extremely difficult. German army logistics was normally excellent. I never read any account that explained this failure satisfactorally.
    1
  20. The concept of reactive armor is crazy. I wonder how it was first thought up, and then how superiors were convinced that it was a good idea?
    1
  21. What do you think of China's current ability to invade and conquer Taiwan??? Many people seem to think that the mere size advantage China has over Taiwan means that China is guaranteed success. I don't think so. 1. No air supremacy, maybe not even air superiority. 2. Taiwan has hundreds, maybe thousands of anti-ship missiles of their own construction. Seems to me that hundreds of China's boats would end up at the bottom of the sea. 3. Taiwan strait is 100+ miles wide -- much bigger than the English Channel. 4. Taiwan is smaller, so Taiwan knows all the possible landing sites, and will be well prepared for landings at any of them. 5 Taiwan has modern M1 Abrams tanks. 6. China has no stealth aircraft (J20 is not stealthy) SOOoo, China would have a hard time doing much suppression of air defences. 7. China has no experience in amphibious assault. By D-Day, the US had a lot of experience - Torch, Sicily, Anzio, and Pacific island assaults. Personally, I don't see how China could succeed. What do you think???
    1
  22. You mentioned that the horses were larger for the heavy cavalry. Were they larger breeds? or, were the horses just larger samples of the same breed used by the light cavalry? What were the breeds of horses used??
    1
  23. Seems to me, that if Barbarossa started 1 month earlier, then the German army would have suffered even more losses in tanks and men. When winter came, they would be in even worse shape.
    1
  24. Wow, after looking at all those factors, it seems amazing that any planes were hit at all.
    1
  25. Obviously, energy shields were put around the Swordfish by aliens to protect them from the powerful AA batteries of the Bismarck. FYI, Winston Churchill was an alien.
    1
  26. FYI echelon is pronounced in English as "esh-e-lon" with the "e" being a short "e" like the first "e"
    1
  27. Manstein.
    1
  28. You keep saying "air superiority" when describing requirements for amphibious assault. I recall that "air superiority" was NOT adequate, but that "air dominance" was required. Air superiority, I believe, allows the the enemy to still challenge, and even to achieve effectiveness occasionally.
    1
  29.  @youraveragescotsman7119  Disagree. If Hitler had taken the resources from Barbarossa, and put them into the Mediterranean, the British would have been easily expelled, IMO. 1, Capture Malta. 2. Put a German Army in Vichy Africa. 3. Put several German Armies in North Africa. 4. Put several hundred planes in Crete to get aerial supremacy in the area. 5. With 150,000+ army, Germany would have easily 6. Force H had only 2 carriers. The rest of its battleships and cruisers were of little use in WW2. The Germans could provide continuous air cover to convoys from Italy/Greece to Libya and Egypt. 7. Once Egypt is taken, Britain is no longer in the ME. It's presence in Palestine and Iraq would not be sustainable.
    1
  30.  @youraveragescotsman7119  If Hitler had not done Operation Barbarossa, I am sure he could have dealt with Malta.
    1
  31. I understand your arguments. I think the Japanese thought similarly. However, it was obvious that America was going to be its primary foe. Britain was already occupied with Germany, and could not supply or deal with its Asian colonies. Australia had no ability by itself to project force to challenge any Japanese moves. I agree with you that the Japanese Army would have been necessary for occupation. Critically, the Navy and Army did not get along well. The Pearl Harbor attack was seen as a purely navy operation, I think. I suspect that this is the real reason why Hawaii was not occupied. BTW - I don't think the Japanese gave civilian governing issues a second thought. "When in doubt, shoot them", that seems to have been their motto.
    1
  32. I think that the low price of oil and sanctions are taking their toll. Russia cannot make the vaunted Armata at rate needed to replace their tanks within 10 years. Also, the Su-57 will likely not be built now that India has decided not to buy it. I also would like to see verification that Russia is training pilots and military units adequately. Training takes money, and I don't think Russia has enough. The oil price collapse, I believe, has ruptured Putin's plans to field a world class military that can challenge the US, the EU, or NATO. Russia has been overtaken by China as the second largest military power, with India coming up fast. By 2030, Russia will have the 4th most powerful military in the world -- at best.
    1
  33. Its amazing that Germany & Japan did not develop a joint grand strategy. Either -- jointly attack Russia, or jointly attack the British Empire. The latter would mean NOT doing Barbarossa, but instead 1. Taking Gibraltar & Malta 2. Taking Egypt & the Suez canal. Now Germany and Japan could communicate by sea, and coordinate joint naval operations. Also, Britain would be separated from India, its main colony. 3 Taking Iraq & Kuwait, securing oil for Germany and Japan. UK would be thrust out of Africa.
    1
  34. I love your videos and how your mind works. Your points about doctrine and logistics are quite good.
    1
  35. echelon -- pronounced "esh-eh-lahn"
    1
  36. I suspect the reason the Flak 88 was not considered against tanks in 1935 is that tanks at that time were more lightly armored. Smaller caliber guns were used as anti-tank guns at that time, I believe.
    1
  37. For me, a bigger and more mystifying question is why the British developed so many different tanks -- all of them inferior to the situation they were used. WHY??? The US developed only a few tanks --- each successful. The Stuart was a competent scout tank. The Lee/Grant was a good stopgap - better than what the British had at the time. Then the Sherman, an excellent serviceable tank. Its extreme reliability makes it better than the German tanks, IMO. But, why did the British develop so many different tanks?? The list seems endless. Were there competing design bureaus, like in Japan?? Also, why were the British designs always behind the tank development curve?? Every British tank is always a year late. Did the British not have the mental capacity to extrapolate into future, and then leapfrog the Germans?? Obviously not. There must have been something in British procurement procedures that created this effect. I would like to know how that happened.
    1
  38. Interesting. Now compare that to the wholesale destruction of our torpedo attack planes at the Battle Of Midway. Would have better served if we had used British Swordfish torpedo bombers?? Were our Midway topedo bombers destroyed because they were fast and made of metal??
    1
  39. How about Best Military Organization?? I suggest Republican Rome, that produced effective generals year after year. Constant training of troops, even in peace, on the Campus Mars.
    1
  40. It seems to me that the USA is especially good at the business of war. I mean logistics, and all the ancillary resources and activities needed in supported actions in the field. That capability must come from our military educational system - West Point, Pensacola, and Naval War College. Can you analyze the effectiveness and impact of the American military educational institutions??? I believe West Point was established after the poor showing of our generals in the War of 1812. However, come the Civil War, and we still had a lot of crappy generals.
    1
  41. Regarding planes....after the start of the war, the US designed and built the following... Hellcat, Corsair, P-47, P-51, B-24, B-26, B-29, and thousands of C-47's. The P-38 was designed before the war started, but it was built in numbers, and then shot down Yamamoto. Remember the Liberty ships. And don't forget we supplied UK and Soviet Union with arms and transport units. The production capacity of America was prodigious.
    1
  42. Thank God for the A-bomb.
    1
  43. You missed a serious tank category - how used & deployed, or the organization and doctrine of tanks. During the Battle of France, the Germans had fewer and "inferior" tanks. However, German tank doctrine created success. Doctrine gave them two advantages - 1) tank units, separate from infantry, and 2) radios, for improved C&C. The Sherman Tank was one the best, IMO, because it was produced in huge numbers, and was very reliable, and was easily maintained in the field. Its firepower was adequate, and armor well sloped. It had good speed. There were too few Tiger Tanks to make any difference. Panzer V tanks were more common, but still too few to really matter.
    1
  44. Well done, as usual. You make a surprising and questionable claim. Then, you back it up with excellent analysis and explanation. I could disagree with you, but I would hate to have to defend my position against you in a debate.
    1
  45. I think you left out a critical aspect -- reliability. A tank that cannot fight is a BIG problem. The Sherman had a great reputation for reliability. Panzers, in general, did not, I believe. There must be some stats available -- average miles before breakdown Miles between needed major repair/overhaul, average time for field repair, etc. For instance, the interleaved road wheels of some Panzers made working on the suspension and tracks very time consuming, and difficult in the field, I believe. Reliability is an important battle factor in itself, just as is quantity built and field availability. For instance, according to Nick Moran, whenever a tanker got his tank destroyed, he and crew would just go get another tank. I don't think the Germans had that luxury. Overall, I like your analysis. Although your pronunciation is a bit Germanic for some reason.
    1
  46. I agree that the allies would have continued to prepare and build up for war. HOWEVER, they would have built up according to their pre-war doctrine. So, British and French tanks would have been more of the slow Char-B and Matilda tanks - all without radios. Secondly, if Germany had another 100 submarines at the start of the Battle of the Atlantic, they would likely have won that contest. On the other hand, Russia would have greatly recovered from Stalin's purges in 2 more years, so Barbarossa would have likely been less successful.
    1
  47. Also, Germany should not have attacked Russia. Germany should have attacked Egypt, and moved on to conquer Kuwait and Iraq. It would then have had the oil it needed, AND deprive Britain the of the oil it needed. Without being at war with Russia, Germany would have had more than enough resources to do this. After Britain's defeat, and having secured oil resources, Germany could have attacked Russia, AND be able to sustain a long war. Securing the Mediterranean and the Middle East would have made Germany a very difficult enemy for the US, when we finally would enter the war.
    1
  48. Considering everything, the A-bomb was the humane choice - fewer casualties for both America and Japan. More Japanese would have been killed in either blockade or invasion compared to the casualties of the A-bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    1
  49. Also, how good are the military educational institutions in other countries. Eton in UK (what else do they have?) What are the military educational institutions and systems in Russia? China? Japan? India? Germany? etc.
    1
  50.  @LaVictoireEstLaVie  Really? Well, maybe, just maybe, they will fight for themselves. The biggest users of the SCS are Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia. Do you think they might want to prevent China from controlling their maritime trade? Do you think they might want to continue fishing in seas they fished in for centuries??
    1