Comments by "Quizmaster China" (@QuizmasterLaw) on ""But what about the Panzer II !?" Stalingrad Addendum 3" video.

the German tank advantage wasn't mobility, armor, or gun. It was radios and optics. Better comms and can see and thus hit at greater ranges. Thisis true of all tank classes throughout the war.
60
Pz IIs in 1941 would be used for scouting and clean up. A Pz II is still superior to Russian infantry. The 2d "Light" divisions had lots of Pz IIs. The four "Light" divisions were converted to Panzer divisions after the Polish campaign. 1st Light had a good mix but 2d had lots of Pz IIs. 3d and 4th light division also had lots of Pz IIs. Only 1st light had a normal mix of Is, IIs, 38s. None of the light divisions appear to have had Pz IIIs let alone IVs prior to conversion. These divisions were intended to be particularly mobile, fast, not to be used to break through but in exploitation of a break through. The concept in Poland proved inadequate, unnecessary, and so rather than form entirely new panzer divisions they were used as the base for panzer divisions by adding two more tank battalions. see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Light_Division_(Wehrmacht)
13
@damyr overrun by nazis and communists? Probably. TIK! CALL FOR ARTILLERY FIRE ON YOUR OWN GRID COORDINATES! ITS OUR ONLY CHANCE!
10
T-26 and BT-7 were both better than Pz II imo.
7
and the greatest contribution of lend lease was radios and trucks. the US was glad to send radios since obviously if your enemy in the next war is literally using your radios... and trucks because you can't use trucks well as weapons (Diana mounting of ATGs on trucks might work in the desert but W.Europe isn't a desert).
6
@karimchaffai5922 I believe T-34 85 had a proper four man crew which is the minimum you need to operate effectively (gunner, loader, radio, spotter, driver, it's 5 tasks you need at least 4 men)
3
omg i think i made first comment!
3
Pz III was an early war medium tank which was obsolete by 1943 but its chassis was then used in lots of non-obsolete roles most notably the StuG which was a capable cost-effective AFV.
2
@derekbaker3279 unfortunately we cannot rely on a youtube video to use actual footage of the actual event. Even Mark Felton sometimes uses inaccurate footage but to his credit says so each and every time he does. I can well imagine IIIs with the 50l60 and skirts at Kursk, and that footage of Totenkopf panzers of that style exists, but that doesn't mean it's footage from the battles at or near Prokharovka.
2
TIK > MHV > WW2 w/Indy > Lindybeige
1
Nasim Aghdam that sucks; i in fact hope not. he doesn't seem to be stupid or handicapped; things like that happen. I hope you are joking.
1
Nasim Aghdam ouch well at least now i can understand Why he's eccentric :( Do you really think the man is going to tell you it was a horrible traumatic injury? Of course not. Just a scratch? Horses kill people all the time by kicking them to death. I never called him a coward or dishonest. I suggest you take his claimed non-injury with a grain of salt.
1
@enriqueouro9 yeah, i think it's only the BTs that were under-crewed. How many autoloaders existed in 1945 (zero). How many Elefants had hull machine gunners? (zero) OOPS.
1
@enriqueouro9 t-34 76 might have had only three crew i honestly don't know, it's clearly such a small turret it must be a two man turret, but one would hope there is then a driver, mg, readio operater and loader in the hull (stowed rounds in hull). I honestly don't know how many crew were in the t-34 76. Three would be two few but I can imagine the USSR being "penny wise and pound foolish" till bitter experience proves you need at least a four man crew.
1
faust!
1
@Raskolnikov70 by 1943 most Panzer IIs were used in rear area things like partisan suppression, airfield security etc.
1
@dongilleo9743 yes, there is lots of material about captured t-34s in German service but it's all in Russian.
1
I don't know, but suspect, that there were 50mm tungsten core (wolfram) rounds for it. does anyone know? with such round the 50l60 would be able to defeat the frontal armor of the T-34 at least at close ranges.
1
@Inquisitor6321 i agree with you the lack of radios is catastrophically bad, as can be seen from France 1940. ...you don't suppose stalin only issued lots of radios to those units he Knew were loyal to him? ) He did of course, which is why Zhukov performed so much better in Manchuria as compared to Timoshenko in Finland (1940)
1
other than the radio and optics though T-26 and BT-7 were better tanks than Pz II.
1
it was of course. keep the IIIs and IVs back and the IIs charge. They draw enemy fire which the IIIs and IVs then snipe at. With the IVf2 and on the T34 is no longer invisible at range. Also by employing the IIs forward you have a chance of getting them into close range and a side shot where their pea shooter can actually get an MBT kill.
1
TEXOCMOTP ^ tochno.
1
@enriqueouro9 main battle tank or mbt means aka medium tank. the t-34c was the Russians first line tank well into 1943 its only in 1944 that the t-34 85 emerged. Of course the preferred role of the Pz II was not in attack. I am speaking of a tactical exigence, not standard operating procedure.
1
they identify their "self" with their beliefs. So defending their beliefs is a matter of survival in their eyes. They are wrong of course but that's why it's called "maturity".
1