Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "M4 Sherman - The Workhorse of D-Day" video.

@krypanzer3620 the USSR was part of the Allied Powers before the US (officially) was.
37
@Kekkeri59 yeah, because leftist content isn't basically universally demonitized. Sure buddy /s
10
@Britannic hayyomatt it's not just the availability of parts. It's designing for field maintenance and repairs which (on top of the often overtaxed mechanics of the heavier later-period German tanks) German tanks were notorious for neglecting. From the maintenance and repair to trying to fit them on railcarsb US tanks were designed thinking about logistics first. German tanks were designed thinking about tactics first (in the late war period, trying to chase the unachievable dream of a "breakthrough tank"). Logistics wins wars. British tanks were kinda a mixed bag on the logistics front, but British tank design was kinda its own thing (not even using the same categories of tanks as everyone else).
4
@Riceball01 off topic but late period European swords are much better against armor than a katana. From inverting to use the hilt as a bludgeon (via the "murder stroke") and grappling aid to the narrower point much better able to be used with half-swording to slip into armor gaps and burst appart (chain)mail rings. The katana is an A-tier cutter, but that's not the only way to use a sword, and (as you allude to) you're not cutting through plate.
4
@haroldfiedler6549 The USSR's non-aggression pact/alliance between Nazi Germany and cooperation in invading and dividing Poland between them is widely taught and acknowledged. What world do you live in? It is talked about and condemned everywhere from US history books to Mikhail Gorbachev. It's just not often in discussions because basically everyone agrees it happened so there's rarely any point bringing it up.
3
I mean...is it not effectively exactly what you described?
3
@okano.638 yeah. I don't play WoT because I find it harder and harder to get interested in game mechanics built around an HP bar as I get older (not that WoT doesn't have good features), but Gaijin lost me years ago too. Early ground forces were best ground forces and I only hear more and more people dropping the game due to changes that make the game sound even worse for me.
2
If you want to get technical, Panzer is short for Panzerkampfwagen (literally "Armored Fighting Vehicle"). In context though, it can be used to designate the 1-4 models (especially the 3 & 4 model medium tanks) which didn't get proper names from the model 5 Panther and the model 6 Tiger heavy tanks. If memory serves the Allies would refer to them as such, so I'll call it legit, even if the nomenclature is a bit odd technically speaking. (It's also really common to use the word in another language for a general type of weapon to refer to a specific sub-type of that weapon used by people who used that word in the general sense. You see this all the time with swords.)
2
@Britannic hayyomatt that is a big block of anti-historic drivvel you posted.
2
@drewschumann1 "pretended" only to lay down more lived than anyone else to fight the bloodiest front in the war and beat us to Berlin. Stalin was a POS but you've completely lost touch with reality (likely due to those fascists you sub to).
1
@j.f.fisher5318 imagine thinking you have a zinger in pointing out something I pointed out months ago as if I didn't know it.
1
@Sebastian-yl7nq not better or didn't have issues? Can't even pick a consistent position to argue against. Typical wehraboo "logic"
1
_then laugh because they had to be towed to the battlefield because they broke down 5 miles from the factory.
1
If you have the production, logistics, and reliable machinery to outgun your enemy armored vehicles 5-to-1, use it. If you don't and are fighting WW2, look around and ask yourself "are we the baddies?" https://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU
1