Comments by "Вячеслав Скопюк" (@user-yj8vj3sq6j) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. AFAIR, Israel recognizes Palestine. Yep, Israel have some occupied lands, as a winner
    1
  2.  @sergeontheloose  >PPSh-41 was not a common gun for the Soviets during Stalingrad. Only the squad commander would have it. really? Alexey Isaev once pointed curious incident, when division, prepared to go into Stalingrad, was equipped with all automatic weapons it required(about 4000 units) but didn't had enough rifles
    1
  3. >They had no choice about sides. what about Swedes?
    1
  4.  @lauriruukki5702  did they go to war?
    1
  5.  @davedrewett2196  looks like you don't familiar with geography. Let me enlighten you - Sweden is located on the Scandinavian Peninsula, next to Norway and Finland
    1
  6.  @davedrewett2196  >having been to Sweden and Finland I never would have guessed. apparently, yes. >So what is your point? Your examples with Republic of Ireland and Antarctica are irrelevant in that case. Unlike my example
    1
  7.  @mabussubam512  holy shit, man. It's been most part of the year and you still stand vigil in the comments section. That's what I call tenacity
    1
  8.  @davedrewett2196  > your whole conversation is irrelevant to the topic I addressed quite opposite >If you want to talk about Sweden I was talking about choice that the Swedes made while in a situation similar to the Finns
    1
  9. ​ @davedrewett2196  > no you didn’t. yes I did >All you did was pose the question “ what about Sweden “ that’s all you know perfectly well that this is not true. We talked about neutrality topic until you suddenly remembered Republic of Ireland > Like I said if you want to have your own narrative about Sweden you know perfectly well, that my narrative wasn't about Sweden specifically, but about the choice of staying neutral. The choice, which, as you say, Finland did not have
    1
  10. Simon Davidsson >why Finland didnt put everything they had into the continuation war maybe because Finns saw that war wasn't proceeding as good as they hoped?
    1
  11.  @pebo8306  from rifles. German machineguns used rifle ammo
    1
  12. Germans are the Protoss and Soviet are Terrans
    1
  13.  @yulusleonard985  >By contrast the soviet fail to provide every platoon with MG. every soviet platoon had DP-27
    1
  14.  @yulusleonard985  ROFL. Why then germans had SMG's in rifle platoons?
    1
  15.  @yulusleonard985  and people with SMG in soviet platoons were ammo carriers for DP
    1
  16.  @yulusleonard985  > Lol half of them? why not? > there are only two ammo carrier in German platoon and they were armed with Kar-98, not with SMG ;) So, again - why germans had SMG's in their platoons? > If that true then DP 27 is the worst mg ever since it need six men to run it properly. MG-34 need a whole squad to run it properly ;) You said that yourself
    1
  17.  @yulusleonard985  >because German ammo carrier is not a combat unit. They are armed with smg not combat rifle. German ammo carriers were combat units and were armed with Kar 98 > You can check Military History Visualized on German infantry tacti you can check MHV yourself. Ammo carriers were armed with Kar-98 and they were combat units > if they do carry rifle it means they run out of smg nope. It means they were armed with rifles from the start > Which is the reason why they can enjoy high kill ratio when compared to smg centric late war soviet infantry tactic, caused by their inability to equip every platoon with MG Every soviet platoon had one or two DP-27. Germans "enjoyed" high "kill ratio" because they starved millions prisoners of war to death. So it goes And, again, you failed to explain, why germans had SMG's in their platoons
    1
  18.  @yulusleonard985  >The only guy in combat platoon who have business carrying SMG are their ammo carrier obviously, you didn't checked MHV video on the structure of German SQUAD ;) Ammo carriers were armed with Kar 98 >If you see one carrying mp-40 they are not in rifle company tell me you made that up. Please. >And if they have at least one dp 27 for every platoon they don't have to do that stupid half smg half rifle setup. why? >Im pretty sure even Glantz wrote that they only have one mg per company he was talking about heavy MG
    1
  19.  @yulusleonard985  >The only person who have bussines to carry smg are the ammo carrier or CO/NCO. ammo carrier carries Kar 98. Check MHV video ;) >the soviet practice half rifle half mg exist to make up lack of MG in squad & platoon level. there were no half rifle/half smg in squad or platoon. Check MHV video ;)
    1
  20.  @yulusleonard985  > the German standard rifle, even the Squad leader, yet around 1941 he was issued a MP40 submachine gun with 6 magazines of 32 shots each. yep. Squad leader. Ammo carriers and squad leader were three different persons ;) >At that level they have dedicated ammo carrier. and they also were armed with Kar 98 ;) >He havent reach late war soviet army. i'll lend you a hand https://www.battleorder.org/ussr-rifle-co-1944 try and find "half rifle/half SMG" organization :D >they never reach one mg per squad in 1941, in 1945, even post war. Don't be ridiculous. You know nothing about Red Army except some information from youtube videos you failed to understand :D
    1
  21.  @yulusleonard985  >even within article you linked if you total the number of smg and rifle it will be about 50-50 you failed to notice that every section had 1 or 2 LMG ;) And that SMG's were concentrated in specialized unit. Which also had LMG :D >The British/German/American perform better with only one MG. how do you checked that? We already established that you know nothing about WW2 except some videos you failed to understand ;) >That diagram most likely the ideal figure not actual inventory so, where you got that "half rifle, half SMG", then? ;) >This article said at the end of the war the ratio for LMG is 1:22.2 I don't know, where you get that number. Because article states "If the rifle company in July 1941 till States has 6 machine guns, a year later - 12 hand, at 1943 year - 1 easel and 18 machine guns, and in December 44 of the year - 2 easel and 12 hand." >And after the war they have to build that redundant SKS because they still suffer from MG shortage. ROFL. You so funny. SKS were meant to replace Mosin rifles >Even if you try to spin it that ammo carrier carry rifle, the fact they use SMG as PDW stand Fact? You said yourself that ammo carriers were armed with Kar 98. What's wrong with your memory, pal? >And ammo carrier in organization list you linked actually only carry a pistol nope. He carried a rifle
    1
  22. ​ @yulusleonard985  > Im pretty sure if by the end of the war the ratio of 1 lmg for every 22 men they are bound to have smg-mosin 50-50 split. I'm pretty sure that your statement have zero logic > basically some platoon have two instead 6 and the unlucky ony have one. basically your statement have zero logic >You said that. YOU said that. Remember, "Initially all men besides the machine gunner and his assistant were equipped with the “Karabiner 98 kurz”, the German standard rifle, even the Squad leader, yet around 1941 he was issued a MP40 submachine gun with 6 magazines of 32 shots each"? "All men besides machine gunner and his assistant" includes ammo carriers :D >Also what the relevance about this question btw? I'm waiting for you to admit that you wrote bullshit when you claimed that only ammo carriers were armed with SMG's :D
    1
  23.  @yulusleonard985  > so I like reality why do you continue to contradict reality, then? >If someone say something like the ratio each platoon have 6 lmg next year 12 lmg, next year 1 hmg and so on its more like the ideal not the realization. it's more like realization. More machineguns made means more machineguns in rifle company. Dead simple >While his statement like in a regiment of 2398 people they have 108 lmg and 54 hmg is more like total average And? >And his statement like in Crimean operation in 1944 one hmg/lmg per 43 men is the reality. Per "human personnel". Not per "fighter" . Of course you aren't capable to realize that military units were not entirely comprised from rifle platoons, despite the links I provided :D >So from those three informations I can pull a conclusion that the average HMG/LMG in each platoon is one or two. You making a progress. Remember, you were talking about "the soviet fail to provide every platoon with MG". But you aren't capable to understand the words you reading, so you drawing the wrong conclusion >That would be super embarrassing. nope. See, you aren't capable to realize that war is more than one rifle platoon fighting another >Assistant machine gunner is ammo carrier. nope. Look at MHV site, the link you provided. >Never said that. I said SMG in German army are pdw, carried by anyone have no bussines with combat. " German ammo carrier is not a combat unit. They are armed with smg not combat rifle."(c) BOOM! HEADSHOT! Looks like you have troubles with long-term memory
    1
  24.  @yulusleonard985  >2398/108 I already done my calculator job, your turn. 42 >Yes, it even more embarrassing if you have tanks, altilery, air superiority etc even economically supported by American and yet still suffer disproportionate casualty. i don't see how number of combat vs non-combat troops in military unit connected to that. But I'm a generous guy and will continue to teach you history lessons. You see, USSR didn't had artillery or air superiority. It was quite opposite >My explanation is they only have 1-2 mg each platoon as written in the article so they always have hard time. but we already established that you know little about WW2, so your explanations are explanations of man little versed >I wonder what is this supposed to do with smg argument? It shows level of your knowledge about things you are trying to reason. Close to nonexistent > You ask me irrelevant question I answer it on the fly "On the fly" - that's a good characterization about all you comments :D >I wait you to finish your calculator job about counting 2398 divided by 108. I wait for you to admit that your statement that not every soviet rifle platoon had a machine gun was false
    1
  25.  @yulusleonard985  >Yikes that lower than my 22.2, one lmg for every 42 men? nope. Just 42. >Im pretty sure we are talking one year after Kursk when air superiority switch and lack of truck hamper German altillery superiority. it not surprising that you are wrong >Thats rich from someone who know nothing about casualty. you cannot rate my level of knowledge of casualty. Because, as we already established, you make all your comments "on the fly" :D >That depends from your counting skill of 2389/108. nope. That depends on your skill to to admit that you was wrong. Try it will be easy. You already admitted that soviet rifle platoons had at least one MG. Just write "I was wrong, I made it on the fly"
    1
  26.  @yulusleonard985  >I always said that from the beginning. " By contrast the soviet fail to provide every platoon with MG." Long-term memory problems, amirite?
    1
  27. concentration camps in East Karelia for ethnic russians were justified? Good, good
    1
  28. >I would say the normal situation was - "suppress and move" than "run close and rain bullets" you suppress with artillery and then move close and rain bullets
    1
  29.  @stinkypete891  nope. It's your universe. Cause you continue to raise the topic of Stalin ;)
    1
  30.  @stinkypete891  We agreed that Sweden saved all from Germany, aren't we?
    1
  31.  @stinkypete891  Sweden saved all from Germany. Ball bearings, remember?
    1
  32.  @stinkypete891  ball bearings beat lend-lease
    1
  33.  @stinkypete891  and ball bearings saved all
    1
  34. >Finland had 10 times more airfields than they had aircraft for. nope >Soviet territory exchange offer was so generous that refusal to accept it, could only mean that Finland has ambitious plans of their own regarding Soviet territories. that's bullshit
    1
  35.  @elchinpirbabayev5757  I don't need to convince you. It is YOU who should convince people that your bullshit stories have some connection with reality.
    1
  36. I think, people of Finland could blame "them" for wasting their lives for nothing >but they weren't the same as Germany or Japan. really? Germany had annexed parts too. How can you blame Germany then?
    1
  37. >Last point, one just can´t trust stalin, at all! Yes, that treacherous man withdrew Soviet troops from Hankoniemi before land lease agreement was ended
    1
  38. > where the safest line of defence would have been on the border established after Winter War > a stronger defense position to stop future oppressions from Soviet Russians any sane man would know, that no "defense position" could protect Finland in fight one to one with USSR
    1
  39.  @Leperzco  >Russian civilians in East Karelia were placed in internment camps not concentration camps can you spell the difference? >Finnish camps for Russian civilians were not extermination camps but for internment. of course it comforted the dead
    1
  40.  @Leperzco  >those troops did not participated to hostilities against Soviet Union before Continuation War who cares? That were the enemy troops, and Finland housed them.
    1
  41. >there wasn't even a drop of anti-semitism here why Lithuanians started killing Jews from first days of occupation, then? >many people turned against jewish people because of propaganda and just to get some bread https://ru.delfi.lt/news/live/professor-obyasnil-pochemu-v-litve-nacistam-ne-potrebovalis-gazovye-kamery.d?id=77102635 it's may be interesting to you
    1
  42.  @anttihuttunen3324  check your facts. There was a story with people, who lived in the region of Suommussalmi
    1
  43. >loosely associated power ROFLMAO. Finland military cooperation with Germany was better than with many Axis powers
    1
  44.  @jussim.konttinen4981  who 'they'? "Honest people of St Petersburg"? Live under Finnish rule? Cool story, bro
    1
  45.  @jussim.konttinen4981  >However, the St. Petersburg-Helsinki train carries about 480,000 passengers a year. what it has to do with "honest people in St Petersburg today, more than likely they would prefer to live under Finish rule"?
    1
  46.  @jussim.konttinen4981  what it has to do with "honest people in St Petersburg today, more than likely they would prefer to live under Finish rule"?
    1
  47.  @alexanderchenf1  >There was a reason why the Slavic countries in the old days prefer importing western rulers yes. They knew nothing and nobody and could easily be manipulated by local elites
    1