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

  1.  @moisuomi  only the Finns
    1
  2. they were effective when infantry, armed with SMG's rapidly closed with enemy. Riding on tanks, for example
    1
  3.  @pebo8306  > Why did the Russians loose 20 mil.men vs 5 mil. from the Wehrmacht! because most part of those 20 mil. were civilians
    1
  4.  @pebo8306  >your answer is BS nope. Just because you stupid enough to think, that all 20 millions of deaths were soldiers don't makes my answer a bullshit >why did the Wehrmacht inflict 5x casualties to the Red Army???? short answer - Wermacht did not inflicted 5x casualties on the Red Army >Maybe because most senior Red Army officers made extremly poor decisions maybe because you know shit about thing you trying to reason
    1
  5.  @apilolomi  you can see with what? Obviously you don't have eyes on your ass of a head
    1
  6.  @apilolomi  maybe you have eyes on your palms?
    1
  7.  @yulusleonard985  >each infantrymen only have 40 rounds infantry man will have as many rounds as he can carry >Those soldier will fight more effective with Mossin than SVT how do you measure the effectiveness of the soldier?
    1
  8.  @yulusleonard985  so, you didn't compared unit cost of MP-40 with Kar-98?
    1
  9. >the Finish were probably the most successful combatant of World War II yep. Lost some pre-war territory + tens of thousands of lives. That's definitely a success
    1
  10.  @deeremies2266  nope
    1
  11. ​ @deeremies2266  it tells us that Finland mobilized its army 3 months prior the war
    1
  12.  @deeremies2266  >Prior to the war Soviet Union started? yep >Dangerous to soviet union yep. 20 years before ships of the Royal Navy based in Koivisto attacked Kronstadt. Neutral country indeed
    1
  13.  @deeremies2266  roflmao. You took Royal Navy of the United Kingdom as refugees? How interesting
    1
  14.  @deeremies2266  *sigh* google "Operation Red Trek"
    1
  15.  @deeremies2266  it has nothing to do with refugees. It has all to do with attacks on Kronstadt from Koivisto
    1
  16.  @deeremies2266  > oh youre talking about the brits. Yep. Royal Navy >Yeah Finland had just gained independence and was a weak nation. we basically had to let the brits do their thing. Of course, lol. That could be applied to any period of Finland pre-WW2 history :D
    1
  17.  @andrebas1124  >why germans were reported to use 200 grenades per 10 soldiers with 2 supply guys carried 2 sacks of grenades to clean up the tranches? Soviets usually have 2 grenades per soldier I assure you, that soviet soldiers also used 200 or more grenades per 10 soldiers in same cases as germans
    1
  18. >Soviets own fault for attacking here and German troops stationed in Finland in preparation to attack Murmansk alongside Finnish troops when Barbarossa begins had nothing to do with it?
    1
  19. ​ @xKuukkelix  we are talking about Continuation war here, are we not?
    1
  20. great job
    1
  21.  @horatio8213  so, you are confirming that Finland wasn't neutral and was preparing to attack Soviet Union alongside Germany? Good
    1
  22.  @horatio8213  >I just claim that between 22nd-25th June finish goverment try to secure neutrality. t's a false claim, because you should know that before Barbarossa Finnish troops were prepared to attack Soviet Union alongside German troops
    1
  23.  @horatio8213  >Then what you call Swiss preparation to fight with Germans in case of german invasion are Swiss based Allied troops on their territory in preparation to fight German invasion? If not - how is that related to the German-Finnish preparations to attack Soviet Union?
    1
  24.  @horatio8213  >Yes, there were some allied soldiers . as part of the Poland army? Was Swiss prepared to go to war alongside Allies? > before 22 June 1941 III Reich and Soviet Union were in allince and Finland have no choice but give the rights both this countries for transit and bases. according to 'alliance' Germany wasn't allowed to post it troops at the Finland territory. But it has no relation to fact that Finland had plans to to attack Soviet Union before 22 June. Simple as that
    1
  25.  @raceris7309  >The thing is, 7.5% of 1930's Lithuania's population were Jews. which, incidentally, tells us nothing about anti-semitism level >so you saying that Lithuania were hateful against Jews is just plain wrong Nope. Fact that " first Lithuanian bicyclist had Jewish blood" only tells us that there were (probably) no state anti-semitism in Lithuania >not all Lithuanians participated in the Holocaust not all, that's true. But those, who participated... Man, they were so enthusiastic about that. AFAIR, mass-killings in Lithuania started from the first days of war. That's not a common thing
    1
  26.  @JohnHenryEden2277  > Don't you think that if Lithuanians truly were so antisemitic they would have expelled or exterminated their Jewish population during the two decades of independence? I don't think so. Such deeds take a lot of effort.
    1
  27.  @raceris7309  >The story explains it well why Baltics colaborated more with Germans than the Allies there is a collaboration and there is a collaboration >The point is, you're looking at lithuanians as serial killers and nothing else! nope >We do not glorify the ones who commited those crimes really? No glory for the Shuma veterans or guys from Lietuvos Aktyvistų Frontas? >And I have no clue where you got the information about the death of Jews before German occupation It's quite common knowledge. I got mine from Alexander Dyukov books and talks, you can start from article in Wikipedia about Holocaust in Lithuania and get the sources from there
    1
  28. > what the Stavka thought about the average grunt.. not a lot in Red Army SMG's were issued to specialized units. For example, for troops who accompanied tanks in attack, "panzergrenadiers" so to speak
    1
  29.  @yulusleonard985  >The most expensive part is the barel nope >So for the soviet its cheaper to produce ppsh 41 than any mosin nagant. in fact, at the end PPSh were slightly more expensive to make than Mosin rifle >For the germans its cheaper to produce luger than any mp 40. only because the MP-40 was so darn expensive to make. But MP-40 was more expensive than Kar-98
    1
  30.  @yulusleonard985  >PPSH mechanism are too simple to be expensive. it's not the complexity of mechanism that makes the gun expensive.. Look at the PPD, for example. No so complex, but his cost was on pair with DP-28 >Also the fact even today longer barel will cost more I think that you can buy truckload of Mosin rifles for the cost of one Colt M1911 >Any direct blowback are cheap to manufacture. All you have to do is to add spring for the action. ROFLMAO. You really don't know what you are talking about. Just google MP-40 unit cost vs Kar-98 unit cost
    1
  31. >Soviet lost 250000 killed and about 600000 wounded. LOLWUT?
    1
  32. So, german troops, stationed in Finland before Barbarossa, would go home unless bombings happened?
    1
  33.  @heikkisallinen9012  to made Finland to push them out of the country?
    1
  34.  @heikkisallinen9012  Molotov asked
    1
  35.  @heikkisallinen9012  perhaps. Or perhaps not
    1
  36.  @heikkisallinen9012  your compatriots in the comments think otherwise
    1
  37. nothing on pair with MG-34/MG-42
    1
  38.  @teppokuusisto144  >Lots of commies stayed active or worked underground and Soviet Embassy was their highest friend with Finland being actively anti-soviet (AFAIR, Molotov complained to Hitler about that)? How's that even possible?
    1
  39.  @w.1.-du9gs  lol. Check out what Lapua movement was
    1
  40. yes, revenge and some Karelia
    1
  41. Yep. It's like all suddenly forgotten the text of 'Barbarossa'
    1
  42.  @duhni4551  are there any great power that is capable of leaving it's(or someone's) neighbors alone?
    1
  43.  @popsey72  >Well the Soviet goals of the winter war was not just to move the border rather to conquer whole of Finland of course. Otherwise all those casualties of Finland look kinda pale >So if its ambition was to neutrlize Finland Ambition was to prevent other power from using Finland as foothold to attack USSR. They don't teach you in the schools about that, eh?
    1
  44.  @QuizmasterLaw  but there is no 'facts', there is only your fantasies. Like "Auschwitz methods were taken up from the Cheka"
    1
  45.  @QuizmasterLaw  lead me? To noting that you make things up
    1
  46. >It was simply to make the border as short and easy to defend as possible ROFL. So, instead of thousands of kilometers of border without any living human or road Finland wanted short border with a developed road network. So that misfortunes like what happened to the 44th division in 1939 do not happen to the Soviet troops, I guess?
    1
  47.  @sampohonkala4195  >If you compare on map the border after the winter war and then the border as far to the east as Finland went, you will see my point very clearly. if you remember how bad Red Army performed to the north of Ladoga during Winter War, you will see MY point very clearly >The depth of defence is vital IRL depth of defense didn't had any practical meaning in 1944
    1
  48. >There's no way you're getting 900 rounds per minute from ANY firearm, :D :D :D >To do so generates a LOT of heat and can potentially damage the weapon it depends on the cartridge. Obviously, pistol cartridges generate a lot less heat than rifle cartridges >Add in time to change magazines as well, and the much more likely rate of fire would be more like 100-150 rpm we are talking cyclic rate of fire, which is independent of changing magazines etc
    1
  49. >An assault meant to break the enemy can not be conducted by a 1:1 ratio. as a matter of fact it can
    1
  50.  @agris8859  >To say these Finnish men died for nothing is to say that you see Finland as nothing. I stayed on topic. And topic was "Continuation War". And I could repeat myself - people of Finland during Continuation War died for nothing, except ambitions of some of their leaders >And no, they did not care about taking any land outside of what they had owned previously because they had no means to achieve that goal?
    1