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