Youtube hearted comments of TheThirdMan (@thethirdman225).

+Military History Visualized In his book "Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of WWII", Steve Zaloga puts up some interesting data on this which also goes into the ranges at which tanks were most likely to be destroyed by gunfire. Inevitably people draw the wrong conclusions about this and start arguing over armour/range/penetration data. That has its place but the ranges at which these vehicles were destroyed were usually well within the theoretical radius of capability. One of his charts shows that only 0.5% of Soviet tanks were destroyed at ranges of 2,000 metres, making that a statistically insignificant part of the total. Indeed, it seems that the best range for the 75 mm was 400-600 metres and the best for the 88 mm was 600-800 metres. Rumours of Tigers destroying tanks at three kilometres need to be taken very much with a grain of salt. Zaloga also points out that at 500 metres, it took an average of five shells to knock out an enemy tank. At longer ranges up to two kilometres, the average could exceed forty rounds. So the important conclusion is that the success of an attack depended not the power of the gun but the methods employed by tank and anti-tank crews. It implies a high level of artillery discipline and not just a big gun. Probably also worth pointing out that tank warfare was almost never like the Gunfight at the OK Corral. It was usually made as lop-sided as possible. Highly concentrated tank forces going in or carefully planned and constructed ambushes. They weren't playing by Queensberry Rules.
140
As an aside, anyone who thinks this would be any better under the opposition, it wouldn’t. Most of these proceedings started under them.
73
One interesting point raised here was the opinion of Wolfram von Richthofen. The Stuka represented an increase in some close air support capability but not all. While it was designed to dive bomb, it could do other things and when the need for dive bombing waned, it was called upon to do more traditional CAS. But there was another aircraft which was in the frame from the 1930s which nobody ever talks about. This was the Henschel Hs-123, an open cockpit biplane that was arguably the best CAS aircraft of the war. In fact, in 1943 there were very few left and it was von Richthofen who requested that the type be put back into production. This was impossible because the jigs had been broken up in 1940. Sure it was slow. Sure it couldn't carry much load and sure, it was vulnerable to fighters. But as a ground attack aircraft, it was more capable, in many ways, than the Stuka.
10
Recognised it immediately. Those wide, tall, rear tyres and the front that looks like it came from a Lamborghini Espada… it could only be a Mangusta.
4
Do we know if Tarpenning and Eberhard would accept their nominations? I mean, it sounds like a good idea but only if they are willing to do it.
3
Subscribed. You got that for effort alone. I can’t image how much thought and preparation goes into these tests, not to mention out of pocket costs. But the tests are very informative anyway.
2
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Without experience of the MG-34 or -42, I couldn't make a meaningful comparison. From a personal perspective of the Bren, it was very well made and engineered and gave an excellent impression of sturdiness, reliability and, I suppose, a belief that it would be accurate. My experience on the range was that there was little point in firing more than three to five round bursts, which is what I was trained to do, because after that many rounds, the target usually became obscured by smoke (not much) and atmospheric disturbances anyway. For this reason I find the claims of "1,200 rounds per minute!" pretty pointless. On top of which, that's an awful lot of ammunition you have to carry to no great end. The other effect of such a high rate of fire is that it significantly shortens barrel life and time between changes. I found things like stripping and cleaning to be extremely easy and I could strip it in about 20 seconds. "Piston, barrel, butt, body, bipod!" Magazine changes were extremely easy because all that was required was to hit the catch with the base of your right hand and grab the magazine at the same time, so that it came off in one easy motion. Replacing it was almost as simple and if you got it right, it went on with a satisfying click. It was speedy and didn't - so we were told - expose the gunner to enemy fire. The magazine was supposed to hold 30 rounds but in practice this was reduced to 27 to prevent jams. I suppose everybody knows this. The charging lever could be folded but it was easy to use and within easy reach. The gas operation was very simple but I can't remember much about it or any of the "Immediate Actions" in the event of stoppages. It was the first weapon I ever used with aperture sights, which I found less intuitive than the U-notch and blade of my .303 service rifle (this was school cadets in the 1970s, though we were trained by army gunnery sergeants). By the time I used it, the Bren's reputation was extremely well-known and even I knew about it. Perhaps, as far as we Aussies were concerned, its most important contribution was in the jungles of New Guinea on the Kokoda Track and the Battle of Lae where it established a pretty formidable name. As you know, I'm not really interested in the minutiae of weapons; only their contribution. If I could offer one opinion on the Bren it is that its role was more clearly and better defined than either of the two German weapons. Sure, they were all LMGs and they all performed that role extremely effectively, as far as I can tell. In WWII, there seem to have been very few bad LMGs. The Japanese Nambu, the Italian Breda and the Soviet DPM all seem to have been very good. But the only force that possessed a decent medium machine gun in any significant numbers was the British and Commonwealth forces, who used the Vickers for sustained indirect fire. The best example I can think of for this was the lead up to the British and Commonwealth attack on the Italian forces at Nebeiwa in December 1940, when dozens of Vickers guns poured thousands of rounds into the Italian camp throughout the night at a range of about 4 kilometres, which made sure that 1) the Italians could not move around the camp effectively, 2) that they got very little sleep and 3) that they knew an attack was imminent. The Bren was never called upon to perform these duties and I very much doubt any of those other weapons could have sustained that kind of fire all night as the Vickers did (at about 300 rpm). I believe the gunners were from 11th Indian Brigade 4th Bn, 7 th Rajput Rifles under Maj Gen Noel Beresford-Pierce. The British and Commonwealth forces organised their units along those lines and had dedicated Vickers crews for just this purpose. The Bren was simply a squad LMG. I have little or no attachment to guns of any kind so what you're getting here is the first hand impressions of a teenage boy who had no romantic illusions about the Bren. But since it was the only machine gun I have ever used in my life, it left a singular impression on me. Hope this helps.
2
Oh Jack, you nailed it with this one. I’d probably rather have this than a Daytona, if I’m honest, thought I’d prefer the knock-on hub Borannis over the alloy wheels. Disappointing to hear that the steering is vague. Maybe that’s been magnified by an overly harsh rear end? I’d want to get that sorted but I suppose there’s only so much you can do with recirculating ball steering. You have to wonder why they chose it over rack and pinion. The Ghibli Spyder might be my all time favourite. Hard to say. Never been a huge fan of the coupe but the Spyder is simply gorgeous. Maseratis of that era were ne plus ultra for me.
2
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized “Belton Cooper’s book Death Traps”... I’m struggling to find anyone who has actually read it. I have no interest in it so I haven’t and I’m guessing you have. But the conversation never goes beyond the same factoids each time. “understanding is the key.” Absolutely. All the same, I haven’t found many people who will offer up book suggestions as a way of finding out history. I have found far more detailed and (usually) less sensational analysis of history from books than could ever be gleaned from most videos. And I’m not even talking about the books you recommend, though I usually go well beyond what might be called “popular history”. Those I regard as being next level in terms of quality and probably less accessible in some ways too. “This has nothing to do with the internet.” I’d have to respectfully disagree with you here. It’s almost human nature to want a simple answer when - as in the case of this video - a simple answer is just not possible. And the more the internet offers it seems, the less people tend to take advantage of it. Look at the popularity of Twitter. I suppose this would be the equivalent of just looking at newspaper headlines in the past but now the reader gets an input too so perhaps that cuts both ways. That’s why your channel is so important. You’re encouraging people to go above and beyond, which is what this is all about - an ongoing process, as one of you said once.
2
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Thanks for asking. TBH, not as much as I expected. I didn’t really have any great expectations of a sense of history or anything like that. I could imagine the shattering amount of noise they would have made during a raid. But honestly, they kind of didn’t do anything for me. I’m still glad I made the effort. I love my history but I felt distinctly ghoulish being there. It’s different for someone like you who is a professional historian. I’m just a visitor and I didn’t feel very comfortable taking pictures. I love Vienna. I’m from Australia and I think I’ve been here about 15 or 16 times. I walked more than 14 kilometres today and had a coffee at my favourite haunt in the world: Cafe Hawelka in Dorotheergasse. By the way, can you tell me if Hitler made a speech from that balcony on the front of the Hofburg, the curved bit, in 1937?
2
I had the same frustrations as you did. It seems to me that it was written by people with an interest only in equipment and no interest in tactics or the use of historical examples as a basis for the scene. It might even have been written by a bunch of gamers. I hated this movie. It was just silly. I’ve seen it once and felt ripped off.
2
I used to work on a site where there was a Jaguar XJR15 and a few of us commented that the tail lights looked identical to a Mazda 929. I wonder what they would have charged to replace a broken one. Have a look at a channel called ‘I Do Cars’. That guy tears down blown engines, including some quite exotic ones. On I saw was an Audi V10 that had blown due to lubrication failure in the bottom end. The big end bearings spun, a conrod came loose and the piston touched the top of the engine with predictably catastrophic results. We’re in the era of disposable luxury cars. None of them is a classic. Sure, they’re great cars but who is going to be showing one of those BMWs, Porsches or Bentleys in 20 years? Hyper cars are a different matter.
1
I learnt to drive in a Mini. I always wanted an Alfa 2000 Spyder.
1
This was never any kind of reality. It's fantasy. The Horten Go-229 never flew in combat because the only one was destroyed in pre-production testing. The notion that the Germans could have just snapped their fingers and produced a bomber to attack New York is so far removed from reality, it wasn't even a pipe dream. This is much more an American fantasy than a German one (yes, I know you're Australian but you don't need to stroke their egos for them).
1
Hey Jack, how about a 1970-ish Maserati Ghibli Spyder (not the coupe). It looks like the big brother of this one (which is a gorgeous car, BTW). I know there are a few in the UK, even though there are only 125 in existence. The other one I’d like to see is the Bora.
1
The Professionals!
1