Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "Military History Visualized"
channel.
-
71
-
38
-
27
-
@peterthepeter7523 "1.8 long spear. [...] Also this "spear" is butt heavy so you don't have to leave that much length behind your hands to balance the front. "
- Most of the weight is in the barrel, which makes this "spear" front heavy, not butt heavy. The actual range of a saber and a bayonet is similar, though the cavalryman can extend the saber and still be capable of quick defensive actions, while the infantryman can't do this. He has to keep his weapon closer to deflect anything.
One-on-one or in lose malee, there is no comparison. A lance is formidable, a saber simply better than the bayonet. Tightly packed deep formation is a different story, but is such case the infantry simply enjoys serious local numerical advantage. A saber might be a better weapon, but not better enough to fight against several bayonets (a lance still can do this, though).
Square formations were attacked on the corners, where this local superiority was not present. They were attacked in sequence, small units of cavalry attacking the same spot one row after the other. It could be done, but it could also be costly and since square formations were very slow it was rarely worth it. Why not wait a bit till supporting infantry can form a line and obliterate the square, or some cannons arrive?
22
-
@peterthepeter7523 "That's what makes me think that musket with bayonet had more reach than spear of same length."
- You are wrong. A spear of this length can be held by the end (one hand at the end, the other wherever), because it's light. But reach is only a part of it. A spear is going to be significantly quicker. No comparison. One spearman should be able to fight two bayonetts. And usually win.
"Spear cavalry was used but cavalry with sabers was far more popular. I wonder what problems spears had."
- They required more training and lances can't be worn. You have to carry them. But because Polish lancers were so effective, lances were reintroduced later on despite their drawbacks.
"attacking square formations with cavalry is extremely hard risky and almost suicidal"
- Of course it wasn't. The infantry can't do anything against cavalry in motion. Very few guns can be pointed toward the attackers and if we consider friendly fire risks, even fewer. Bayonets were an effective *deterrent*, but not particularly lethal weapon.
It was simply a waste of valuable resources. What's the point, if you can use either a cheaper weapon (infantry), or a weapon which could demolish the square with no risk to themselves (artillery)?
It rather makes sense to use cavalry in order to force the enemy into square formation, then use your own line infantry and artillery to weaken them, then eventually use cavalry again against an already weakened enemy.
"In Russian field tactics manual of 1862 the author even proposed that cavalry should mostly be used in battle being simply present and menacing the enemy. Therefore it will force enemy infantry to use tighter and slower formations which will make friendly artillery and infantry fire much more effective."
- Just what I wrote, isn't it?
18
-
18
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
10
-
@peterthepeter7523 "I can't think of any battle when infantry with bayonets would fight spearmen, it would show how these weapons compare."
- It was discussed in the sources at the time when musketeers supported by pike formations were encountering pure musketeers formations equipped with plug bayonets.
From memory, pike formations were considered much superior morale boosters to bayonets. The main deal was that when under threat of close combat musketeers supported by pikes keep on shooting and hold their cohesion much better. When they are on their own, there is much higher risk for them to rout under pressure.
"wall of bayonets and sheer mass of squares packed with people makes it hard."
- That's true, but separate squares can't give support to each other, while cavalry could attack one corner on one square over and over again, until it finally broke. One row attacks, moves to the side, another follows, then another and so on.
"officer who sent light cavalry to attack infantry that did not lose formation would be arrested."
- That's light and Prussian cavalry. Probably the worst there was at the time. A waste in any case.
Anyway, the balance of power between cavalry and infantry was discussed in at least one source. Some Yomini guy? I forgot. A Frenchmen hired by Tzar after the war wrote it.
Anyway, the most telling example I remember considered the failure of Dragoons. On paper Dragoons were perfect, because they could do infantry job on foot and cavalry job while mounted. The problem was, how would you train those people?
Well drilled infantry fight with the conviction they can hold up to the worst that cavalry can throw at them.
Well trained cavalry attacks with the conviction that no matter what, they can break through.
The Dragoons were required to believe in both of those mutually exclusive concepts, so they tended to fail at both jobs. Which leads us to believe, that the balance of power was more or less equal and better men tended to win.
What follows is, that infantry squares were not invulnerable to a determined attack, but they significantly increased the chances of mounting a successful defense.
"was stopped by groups of fracnc-tireur defending forrest patches or buildings."
- That's a much better way of totally canceling almost all advantages of cavalry. Hide behind fences, trees, building and so on. Use the terrain to your advantage.
Much better than squares in the open.
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
@alexbeau348 How many Russians lived in this "Russian territory"?
Do you know that "Polish robbers" resigned from some areas offered by the Soviets, like Minsk, for example? That's some sophisticated robbery, isn't it? They give you stuff, and you don't take it!
And why have the Soviets signed, then violated the peace treaty if they still wanted those places? Germany still wants parts of Poland, no peace treaty. Japan wants their islands, no peace treaty with Russia.
Soviet Union signs a peace treaty, even offers more than Poland takes and then suddenly decides otherwise and attacks "no one" (10 OOO casualties in this not-an-attack against nobody).
BTW - Do you know that recently Russia wanted to get rid of Ukraine with the help of Poland? We take Lviv, they "liberate" the rest. I'm sure they'd attack nobody and simply regain their lost territories, like always... (We know of it, because our foreign affair guy became offended and spitted it all out.)
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
@simplicius11 Obviously we mostly agree, but I take an issue with "Wehrmacht didn't have big fuel problems" statement.
Not a big issue, mind you. It depends on what you precisely wanted to say, but it can be read as "Wehrmacht had enough fuel", which I think wouldn't be true.
At this time most fuel in the world came from Venezuela, apparently. This trade was obviously blocked, so in order to conduct huge military operations, like the invasion of Europe or Soviet Union, Germany had to save fuel in advance. That slowed them down significantly.
But of course they could dig in and defend without as much fuel, so you are correct. I just thought I'll throw it out there, just in case.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"You said it correctly: 2% of the USA war effort. It was however the total Soviet GDP several times over."
The estimates start at 4% and end at 14%. I haven't seen anyone remotely sane claiming anything above 20% of Soviet GDP.
Which means, you don't count as a remotely sane person.
"It was during the crucial times of late 1941 and 1942 that lend-lease was at its most important."
Almost nothing has reached the destination at this time. 2% in 1941 and 14% in 1942.
So your claim is, that 2% of 2%, which is 0.04%, of the total war effort of the USA has won the war.
How is it in lala-land? The weather is splendid, I presume.
"The UK and US dropping by and going "Oh, that stuff at which you fail hard?"
In general Soviets didn't like Lend-Lease equipment very much. It didn't suit their doctrine, it wasn't metric, supply chains were stretched and so on.
When high amounts of good products, like Jeeps, Studebacker trucks or Aircobras, reached their lines, they liked them all right, so it's not like they were biased.
4 000 Shermans were meh. Not bad, but not good enough or plentiful enough to make much of a difference.
3
-
3
-
+Kirothe Avenger - My god, you really believe it! Okay. Throw into google "From the Vault: British Report on Captured Panther Tank" and you'll see how "great" the Panther was, and since you mentioned gearbox problems in T-34, please note that the Panther was tested to be very slow, and the 3rd gear was broken.
Inb4 "That's just one captured vehicle", throw into google "From the Vault: Post War British Report on Panther". That's 5 brand newly assembled AFVs. All of them terrible. Not bad, terrible!
And that's not even half of the problem. Any crappy vehicle can be dealt with by systematic effort to work around its inherent weaknesses. Not so in the case of Panther. They all differed . The parts were not interchangeable. Constant modifications made it into a logistical nightmare.
IOW - if there was such a thing as "the Panther tank", then it could be used, even though it was very bad. Extra care here, more spare parts in stock there, the lot. But there was no such thing. There was no "Panther tank", until post-war. (And even then it sucked...)
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@philgardocki5294 "In active service, the T-34 had a half life of 10 days. Not including combat losses."
What was the main failure mode and why didn't they fix it? I'm sure you have all the info to support your claim, don't you?
Aaanyway, I have found a declassified CIA report where they evaluate a captured T34. They think it's a good tank (by Korean war standards!). All parts in working order, unlikely to fail soon. Good quality of materials used (on par or even better than in American tanks), high quality of machining, despite very rough outside appearance, easy and uncomplicated maintenance, easy to fix, so on and so forth.
"ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF THE RUSSIAN T34/85 TANK"
Detailed examination revealed that most parts were in excellent condition, with no likelihood of early failure.
[They do list possible failures, caused mostly by inadequacy of the design, but the engine is not one of those.]
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Kirothe Avenger - I'm not saying T-34 was perfect, but when compared to Panther it very nearly was.
Just read post-war British Panther tests. Somebody already posted a link here, and I don't want to bother the host with personally approving another one, so either find it here or directly in Google. Panthers were not bad. They were terrible. On so many levels.
Regarding T-34 flaws you mention, poor road-trip performance is related to inefficient air filters. That would highly depend on road conditions, basically how dusty it was, and we need a comparison with other tanks to know how it, you know, *compared*. The engine itself was rather brilliant, and I think its direct descendants are still in use.
Not so in Panther. They burned through head gaskets, the connecting rods broke, the oil-pump shafts broke, the fuel pump was just legendary, the pistons overheated - the list can go on.
Poor T-34 gearbox - yeah, that's true. They just exchanged it more often. Although not bad when compared to Panther, which was lucky to survive 150 km between rebuilds in post-war Frech army...
2
-
2
-
+Kirothe Avenger - Oh, so early and late Panthers were junk, but the middle is the sweet spot now? Unfortunately, I gave you a test of a mid 1944 Panther with 500 miles on the clock. It was junk too!
Yes, it is possible that some Western or German tank could deal with weather conditions in Russia better than a Soviet design, but I'm inclined to believe it to be unlikely.
Anyway, there are American tests available online of T-34 and KV-1. (I argue against myself here!) I believe that your pitiful numbers for road-march performance of Soviet tanks can be traced to those tests. The thing is, those tests can only be considered as worst case scenarios.
For example, the early T-34 air filter when working in dusty conditions was scheduled to cleaning and oiling every 2-3 hours. The Americans never cleaned them or even oiled them. That the tank failed after 15-hour or so can be considered a success, not really a failure. Its filter was basically not working, and the tank still ran for that long.
There were other problems, but despite that the overall opinion seems very favorable. Even with the failures.
Not so with the Panther. It's great on paper, but junk in the real world. And that's because it was a paper tank pressed into service prematurely. As a result of that, it never matured.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ДмитрийТрудов-х7к "Italians, along with the Romanians, helped us a lot under Stalingrad in December of '42))"
Germans were short on men. Women did not work in German factories, so every big campaign required removing part of the important workforce and sending those guys East. That weakened German economy and allowed for the USSR to significantly outproduce them.
Italians and Romanians were badly equipped, so their fighting qualities were limited. But it could be changed. And even if not, they were still useful fighting force, suitable for many tasks.
"Japan remembered the Khalkhin goal.
"
Sure they did, and that's why they would attack if USA did not oppose them. Not because they wanted those lands so badly, but because they were afraid of USSR.
And if they won in the East, it would be really hard to kick them back out, simply because of logistics.
1
-
@ДмитрийТрудов-х7к "millions hijacked for forced labor from the ussr
"
Low skill workforce most of them, partially because Germans simply didn't trust them (rightfully so). My uncle was taken too, and he worked on a farm, not in a factory.
Female workforce of USSR or USA could be trusted to work in the industry, so young men were free to be drafted into the army. Germany couldn't do it. Their industry was severely hampered by every big military campaign due to shortage of men.
"distributing valuable weapons to low-skilled troops is inefficient.
"
You guys "distributed valuable weapons" to two of my uncles (who worked as slaves in USSR), when you created Polish army. They had no more skills than Italians, I'm sure of it. How come you guys decided it was worth it?
Actually it kinda wasn't, because they all defected to the British, but then the British did exactly what you have done and "distributed valuable weapons" to them once again. ;-)
"but in August '45, logistics didn’t stop defeating the Japanese in just over three weeks."
You guys could use your Transiberian Railway to ferry the troops into more civilized areas, which you still kept. If Japan attacked, there would be no place to unload them and create the whole offensive.
With that said, the invasion of Manchuria was a masterpiece. Highly underrated!
1
-
@ДмитрийТрудов-х7к "Well, the Anders army was "badly equipped" and what does this prove in the combat value"
They were not badly equipped. Soviets equipped them with Lend-Lease weapons, which fitted well with British supply chain, so they proved themselves exceedingly well in combat.
"being a slave in the USSR is ... yes ... how much better to be a pan in Poland ... "
Both of them were peasants and they ended up chopping trees while being starved to death in Siberia.
The "pans" were shot to death.
"what kind of "slaves"? "
Forced labor with starvation level food rations. People went blind because of malnutrition, so they held hands in the column, while those who could still see were leading them to the place they were supposed to go. Fun times...
"I would know Kaczynski, you see you would have survived"
I recently voted for people who heavily criticize Kaczyński for his anti-Russian bias. The guy is mad, because his twin brother ended up dead on Russian soil. Give him some slack, if you will.
Though, I will not! I will vote against him again and again. We have no business annoying Russians for no good reason.
"very conditional combat value."
Not true. Anders' army was kept in reserve just like all the other Western forces were, then they were sent into heavy combat, against German paratroopers in heavily reinforced position. And they won! At a heavy cost of blood (including one of my uncles), but they won where many others have failed before. Read on Monte Casino.
Then they participated in the whole Italian campaign and acquitted themselves very well. Everybody loved them, until the day of victory parade, when the British suddenly didn't need them anymore, and did not invite them to participate. Soviets recognized Polish blood contribution toward victory, just for comparison.
Sad story.
1
-
@ДмитрийТрудов-х7к "strange ... fasting above, they managed to survive and train in the Anders army"
Well, they were emaciated but still alive. Uncle Mieczysław mentioned some woman in Siberia with whom he stayed for a while and she fattened him up a little. Apparently she wanted him to stay, but he wanted to go back to Poland. He never did (apart from a few visits, when I've met him).
"and now they, who died of starvation, were also shot"
You think I'm joking, or what? Several thousands of Polish officers were shot to death by NKVD. That's only during WWII, but before WWII there was a huge anti-Polish NKVD purge, with a number of victims at least ten times higher. Up to 100K, people say. It's a recent discovery, so hard to tell.
"yes, the times are funny ... starved to death, shot and sent Anders into the army."
It's not my fault, that you were never told about all of that. USSR was almost as bad as the Reich. Them's the facts.
"yes, with Poland in general, the story is sad ... with Kiev, Vilnius, Teschin ... flirting with Adolf ... very sad ...
but also instructive"
Kiev? I guess you mean 1919, don't you? Poles did not take it to keep it, but to give it to the Ukrainians under Semen Petlura. I think it's okay to do it.
Vilnius was also fine. Sure enough, Lithuanians were annoyed, but there were all of 2000 of them in Wilno. Germans made a census earlier, so the numbers are more or less legit. Later confirmed too, but whatever. Wilno was a Polish town, despite being historically Lithuanian. When Polish civilians take arms and liberate the place, what were we supposed to do? Tell them to screw off and become Bolsheviks?
Teshin was a border dispute. The Czechs shafted us in 1920, when we could not respond and we paid them back in 1938. I think it was stupid, but not unwarranted. Tit for tat. Anyway, it's not like Czechs and Poles hate each other over it, is it? If we both don't care, why you guys do?
Finally, "flirting with Adolf"? What do you mean by that? There was no flirting with Adolf in Poland. No puppet government was ever created. While you guys on the other hand, did "flirt with Adolf". You've made a Ribbentrop-Molotov pact to partition Poland and you have supplied Germans when they were taking over Europe. Plenty of much needed oil and other stuff was being sent to Germany.
1
-
@ohmandamp " [Romania] could not Harbor a government hostile to another government and still claim neutrality"
Maybe, but since they didn't "harbor" any foreign governments, they could claim whatever they wanted. "Officially", since you are so hung up on legalese, the members of the Polish government were simply passing through.
In more practical terms, they were coordinating the evacuation of the Polish army, at least technically. Whether their presence helped or not, large portions of the Polish army escaped and reformed in France later that year.
German losses in October exceeded those in September. In part because defending very long border with Germany, Prussia and Czechoslovakia was an impossible task, which Polish strategy for defense recognized to some extend. The plan was to retreat behind Vistula and survive till the Allies attack.
But it were the Soviets who attacked instead. What to do, apart from organizing more or less orderly escape?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ohmandamp "fascist White armies"
Fascist? Read on who funded Bolsheviks. The revolution was created by German Reichsmarks. Astronomical sums! (In excess of 50 million gold marks.) Lenin was a German spy. Germans dictated Brest-Litovsk treaty. They could do it, because they were still paying and they could destroy Lenin by telling on him.
Lenin was a spy and a traitor of his own country.
Besides, fascism was a system which opposed democracy and proclaimed a one-party state. Dictatorship for life and so on. How many parties there were in USSR? One? Boo. Fascists idea. How about the term or service of rulers? Lifetime? Boo. Again, fascist idea. How about nationalization of property? Another fascist idea.
Sure, fascists opposed international communists, because they believed in nation states, but apart from that there are more similarities than differences.
Not so with the British and the French. Their ideologies of limiting the political power, free trade, free enterprise, freedom of speech and so on, were actually totally different from either fascist or communist ideologies.
1
-
1
-
@NuclearTreerat "Yes."
Yes what? You refer to a several years old post, buried under 200 comments and you provide no context?
"Manpower that was wasted"
Like they even had a choice... What do you do? Simply refuse to fight until Hitler waits long enough to better train your men?
Anyway, in Leningrad they were reduced to cannibalism on a massive scale. They still produced arms in the city and did not surrender. I'm sure they would have, if Germans would offer them some chance of survival, but they did not, so it was a fight to the bitter end.
"Without first Lend Lease"
Let me repeat my numbers. The official American numbers state that the value of Lend Lease was on the order of 10% of the total American war effort. Less than a quarter of that reached the USSR, and the vast majority of it late.
In light of that, claiming that Lend Lease was crucial for Soviet victory is not even sane! Do you understand? You guys claim that a 2%-ish token help thrown at the Eastern Front decided the war!
"you can't fight a war if you have no trucks"
Not true. You use railways and horses. Like the Germans did.
Sure, the lack of trucks will slow you down, but it won't immobilize your army. Besides, the Soviets had their own trucks. Not as good as the American ones, but still usable.
1