Comments by "" (@craigkdillon) on "Military History Visualized"
channel.
-
28
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1