Comments by "Roger Smith" (@rogersmith7396) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

  1. I just rewatched the "Battle of the Bulge" last night. It was'nt as cartoonish as I remember. It did show what a massed tank attack did to lightly equiped infantry. In the movie they were shooting rifle grenades at them which surely was a joke. Very little light infantry can do to a tank other than run.
    13
  2. Chieftan states US tanker losses showed them to be the safest place on the battle field and infantry losses were far higher. B 17 crew losses were huge.
    11
  3. They liked the Sherman. Some are in Russian museums.
    6
  4. They have limited use if the other side has air superiority. Its like the battleship would have limited use today but still some use.
    5
  5. The Russians started the war with antique tanks which were quickly wiped out. The T 34 76 was far from invulnerable and the 85 did'nt really have better armor. The soviets were poorly trained and led. They spent the war sacrificing men and equipment trying to engage the Germans in a war of attrition. The problems on the German side are well known.
    2
  6.  @moritamikamikara3879  You just said it, aircraft.
    2
  7. Well as long as it makes a great big BOING when you pull the trigger. Its strikes fear into the heart of the average Nazi.
    1
  8. But what about the all important boiling vessel?
    1
  9. Yeah but the Brits wanted Shermans. Even they did'nt want their own poor tanks.
    1
  10. What about the guns mounted on half tracks?
    1
  11. How about T 62 vs. M 60?
    1
  12. You want to put your strong point against an enemies weak point. Kursk was ridiculous. Both sides lost. It could be argued that US bomber crews in europe were sacrificed to wear the Germans down.
    1
  13. And to muscle the guns.
    1
  14. Like all those young guys running across the border.? Every body likes war until it comes for them. Americans like Viet Nam until they ran out of poor people to draft and started taking the middle class. Of course some had "bone spurs".
    1
  15. I would send neutron bombs first and wait by the radio for the surrender.
    1
  16. I always heard you were supposed to lie down and use your leg muscles to cock it. The self cocking feature like a Fosbury would only work if you kept the device planted ridgidly. Cocking under fire is no good.
    1
  17. I had a spring loaded bazooka toy as a kid. It fired hard plastic shot. At close range it would hurt. Liked to shoot people in the ass with it.
    1
  18. If the Coyote fired it it would remain stationary and he would shoot off the back. Then hit a brick wall, then the shot would blow up in his face.
    1
  19. I watched a video of a Bazooka being fired. I assumed they were very inaccurate and who knows where it goes once it leaves the barrel. They were at least 100 yards from their target which was a 3 foot square of two inch steel. They fired it and it went straight as an arrow and hit the target. It punched a 2 or 3 inch diameter hole in the thick steel. I was impressed. Definitely not a toy.
    1
  20.  @Ben-mw9vz  So what are tactical nukes for?
    1
  21.  @Malino8835  Just the Fulda Gap.
    1
  22.  @loismylane  Its a long swim to China.
    1
  23.  @r.u.s.e3586  HIMARS.
    1
  24.  @candyjanusen7417  Helicopters and troops could.
    1
  25.  @candyjanusen7417  My point would be to never go against an enemies strength. Flank him or land in his rear and destroy his supplies. This is what calvalry did and it is what the tank was originally designed for. Their is no glory in mano a mano tank duels like Kursk. You just get a lot of death and ruined equipment.
    1
  26. The Russians had headlong attacks into heavy German defenses in taking Berlin. I know they lost 350,000 men taking it. I believe the US and UK said they could have it.
    1
  27.  @DD-qw4fz  Take it up with Chieftan smart ass. I'm just the messenger.
    1
  28.  @mikepette4422  Generally had different missions. British night flights were safer.
    1
  29. t had to use more gas which the Germans were short of.
    1