Comments by "Psiberzerker" (@Psiberzerker) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

  1. There are so many "Successful dead-ends" throughout the 20th century, because of the way Warfare evolved, over a Century. Rapidly, 2 World Wars went from single action revolvers to Nuclear Airstrikes, in 30 years. Japan went from the advent of threaded screws to aircraft carriers, in 100 years. So, anti-tank guns. All of the Antitank Rifles were successful dead-ends. Because Tank armor rapidly became too effective for a man portable rifle (And the Lahti, which is really pushing the limit of man portability) in 1 war. Likewise the Assault gun. The StüG III, and SU76M rapidly became Tank Destroyers, because they realized in the first generation. The same engineers that invented the Sturmgeshutz, and Samokhodnaya Ustanovka realized that you can use them as a tank destroyer immediately started making Tank Destroyers which can also be used as Assault Guns. Dive Bombers, Battle Rifles, Infantry Carbines, the FG42, anti-tank grenades, radar jamming, signal flags, observation balloons, derigibles, mechanical encryption machines, slide rules, and Aero-space planes. The SR-71 Blackbird flew for a mere 33 years, and today, there are no derivatives from that entire line of research. We're still flying U2s, and A10s today. So, I'm going to have to call the SR71 Blackbird the most successful dead-end in military history. So far...
    67
  2. 4:10 The Vision Slits... Vision is actually critical, before you even get to the Armament, you have to Find the enemy, often looking through holes in the tank armor. (Now with Prisms, but still) What good is having Mobility, and Firepower if you drive right past the enemy? Likewise Communication, where's the rest of the tanks, and other vehicles? The infantry, who's fox-hole did we just run over, and where's the enemy? From the Operational standpoint, a lot of decisions made in Tank design involve getting the tanks to the battle. You don't just hop in, and drive there, so they had to be narrow enough to get on a train car, or light enough to drive over a bridge, while having a big enough gun, and enough armor for crew protection. How do you repair the transmission? Okay, how do you repair it in the field? (Keep in mind we're talking about a transaxel that weighs more than a Volkswagen.) ??? These are all questions that have to be answered before you even deploy tanks toward a battlefield.
    15
  3. Because they were Nazis. In other news, duh. They did bad things, they declared war on humanity, and killed a lot of people, because they thought they looked funny. Regardless of how good their scientists, weapons, and soldiers were, they were fighting for evil. They allowed science to be conducted in secret with water hoses, and electrodes, on human beings. That's why, their means were good, but their ends were evil. The means do not justify their ends.
    4
  4. An interesting thing about the Kraka compared with other mechanical mules is that it folds up, and is capable of carrying another Kraka on it's cargo platform. With a driver in the driver's position, no problem really. I always thought that was awesome.
    4
  5.  @IrishCarney  Bullshit. You have to see where you're going, and you need to see enough of the ground to avoid Tank Tracks (Which are intentionally below the level of vision slits/Prisms) curbs, trenches, and so forth. People don't seem to realize how tanks turn, so a 4:curb can lock it into the same track it's alongside if it's too close. One of the reasons why Tanks are so useless-to-vulnerable in Urban Combat, specifically on roads designed for Cars, and Pedestrians.
    3
  6. Vision Slits were a stop-gap measure, until they developed better systems like Prisms, armored Viewports, Periscopes, and Cameras. That's why no modern Tanks have them, and they haven't for close to a Century. You also need to be able to see Infantry, before they mine your tank. Infantry beats tanks, in the right situation. (Most notably in Built-up areas, which were built up for People, not MBTs)
    3
  7. #TankLivesMatter.
    2
  8.  @MilitaryHistoryVisualized  Thanks! Love your content, BTW. Big fan.
    2
  9.  hognoxious  Nitpicky, are we? All right, you managed to find 1 number that was off, in all that. An entire century of 'successful dead-ends." Where shall I send the cookie?
    2
  10. It's basically a Schlepper. All of the Marders (Can't really call them a series) were Schleppers in both meanings of the word. Their only purpose was "We have a bunch of guns lying around, let's see what we can bolt them to!" and get guns into battle. They all fulfilled that role: Self Propelled Gun, very well. All they had to do was get the guns to the battlefield, because the plan was to mobilize the Entire army. Even the Infantry were supposed to ride in half-tracks. So, schleppen the ATGs around by hand just wasn't going to work. Towing them behind another vehicle just wasn't going to work, and they learned a lot about JagdPanzer design in the process. They practically invented the Assault Gun, and the Tank Hunter concept, again to get guns to the field, and keep up with the Infantry in Half-Tracks. Tiger was more of a failure than this, and KonigsTiger even more of a failure than that. Throughout the war, they needed more guns, and more fuel, to carry the guns. More guns to fight their way to Ukraine, and get the fuel, to schlepp more guns. (Ultimately, the Nazis lost because they had an impossible goal, and went about it in the least sustainable way. Blitzkreig worked, until the Allies learned from it, and the Axis burned up all their fuel.) One of the main reason why the Panzer arm failed was they spent too much time polishing the welds on Panthers to get them into battle (If they didn't break down on the way.)
    2
  11. Sloped armor actually reduces the weight geometrically as well, because it "Cuts Corners." The stepped armor of the Panzer III effectively had a front plate, and a top plate. Whether you do this in steps, or just one wall, and ceiling, the hypoteneuse of the triangle is effectively shorter than the sum of the rise over run. So, for the same weight, you could have much better thickness, with fewer joints, and less welding. This also simplified the Production of the T-34 Hulls. (At the expense of crew/comfort. Something the Soviets used basically as a dump-stat.)
    2
  12. Basically, a ramp is simpler than a set of stairs. It's also more effective, and lighter, but production was a major edge the Soviets had over the Germans at the time, and the truncated pyramid of the hull is a great example of this. Basically, it has better Structural Efficiency, as well as armor protection. (At the expense of the crew.) I believe this is where the "Russian Bias" in games like WoT, and War Thunder comes from. The crew are at best components, you can shoot. (In War Thunder.) They don't have to see out, spot targets, they don't have to sleep on the engine hatches, and they don't concuss themselves on the turret ring when the driver slams on the brakes without warning, or runs into a hedgerow. So, these weaknesses aren't reflected, just the armor, slope, gun, and mobility are.
    2
  13.  @gracefool  Yes but not for the TANK. Battlefield mobility isn't operational mobility. That would be the train, or plane's mobility. When you get them to the battlefield, THEN the Tank's mobility comes into play.
    2
  14. 1:17 "A lot of over reporting in Kills." Not to mention Double reporting, a tank explodes over there, in their line. We're all shooting over here, in our line, and every Tank commander wants to paint a pip on the side of his cupola. The same thing happened with Aces in the Dogfights, then the Fighters attacking Bomber formations going both ways. 1 Bomber goes down, and 3 Aces that just straffed them looks back to take credit for it, because the Aces are reporting the kills, AND competing for the prestige. Only in massed Tank battles, it's a lot harder to keep track. If you got a shot on it, even if you missed, you could often take credit for it being taken out, because who's to say otherwise? A lot of tanks just got stuck in rubble/craters, and you could take credit for that too.
    1
  15. LOL, "CSI Stalingrad!" Good one!
    1
  16. Keep in mind that the Stick Grenades (And bundles) had a 7-second fuse. More or less, there was room for discrepancy, but not more than a couple seconds.
    1
  17. Hitler was not the Nazis. He was largely a figurehead, and many of the crucial command decisions were taken away from him by his Generals. A lot of bad decisions accredited to him were actually made, and executed without his knowledge, I'm guessing because when someone says "Nazi," or "Fascist," that's the first face that pops into their head. Which isn't to say he was a great leader, or never made any mistakes, but these are compounded by being given credit for every single mistake that Germany made.
    1
  18. Case in Point: The command decision that really lost them the war was going for Ukraine for the petroleum reserves they desperately needed to fuel their war machines. In the first large scale mechanized war with Aircraft, and Armor working together, they made a play for those fuel reserves (Another "Mistake" armchair historians point to is "Attacking Russia") they stopped short of that, because the Generals took control, halted that goal, and marched on Moscov without refueling. (Wasting the fuel they used to fight in that direction in the first place, instead of going straight for Moskov.) Then, predictably, the Panzers ran out of gas. Kursk was basically a mop-up after that.
    1
  19. They also lacked the Fuel Reserves to buildup more armaments. If they hadn't moved to take more (In Poland, and Czechoslovakia) then they NEVER would have had the fuel to get rolling in the first place. Which probably would have been better for everyone involved.
    1
  20.  Lang Hansen  When the fuck did I say "Hitler had no power?" Funny how the most ludicrous thing you ever heard just happens to be an absurdity you put in my mouth. He had a lot of power, he just didn't have ABSOLUTE power. The generals took some of that, and used it to make poor decisions. Hitler made poor decisions too, but because he was "In power," people tend to lump them all on his shoulders, when he was not The Nazis, just the most prominent one. All of the Nazis are partially responsible for the atrocities, from Hitler on down to the lowest guard at Dachau.
    1
  21. Interesting. I would love your input on how Casemate destroyers, (And Assault Guns) were used against turreted tanks, since the most common AFV (And a personal favorite of mine) was the StuG III. They literally had almost twice as many of those as the Panzer hull mate, and the tactics had to be a lot different. For instance, in WoT, a common one is to roll sideways, with the turret traversed from behind a hill or building. A Casemate Destroyer like the StuG can't do this, because it's gun can't traverse 90°.  Hoever, they can use hilltops to roll into view, fire, then withdraw.  If there's a hill they can take the High Ground on.  This puts the frontal armor toward the enemy, as a product of pointing the gun at them, while a turreted tank can risk side armor by straffing, and presenting a broader moving target (Also, kind of exposes one of the Tracks.)
    1
  22. Another tradeoff of a Casemate is you can get a much bigger gun in the hull than a turret (Along with a commander, gunner, and loader) In the case of the Striszvagn 103, they even got a fully automated loading mechanism in the back, but they had to get real creative with the suspension to aim the entire tank with the fixed gun. (The tradeoff there was having an armor slope so steep that it was a roof. There basically is no frontal armor on the S tank, just top armor.)
    1
  23. Fast, and Führious I just shot tea out of my nose, and now I have to clean it up.
    1
  24. Air-to ground antitank kills, Accuracy will always be a problem. Especially in WWII, when you had piston prop planes doing their Attack runs with auto-cannons, and dive-bombs. For one thing, attack aircraft weren't a particularly stable platform for these attack runs, but the main problem is you're trying to hit an itty bitty Tank. I know from the ground, tanks look huge, but from the air, even a Maus, or Ferdinand is a tiny target. Then, you have to figure in attacking through the chaotic layers of air over a battlefield, with bullets, shells, and mortar rounds going everywhere, not to mention the shock waves of explosions going off, and the turbulence that causes. Also, that .50 cal on the commander's hatch on allied Tanks? Yeah, that was specifically mounted there to shoot at enemy aircraft.
    1
  25. Lack of direction, training, and clear communication was likely the most significant factor. From interviews, and memoires I've read, a lot of the Soviets had no idea what to do, so did nothing.
    1
  26. 12:02 Hinsight is 20/20, and you have to keep in mind that Nazi Doktorine was INSANE! They couldn't lose, failure wasn't an option, and they didn't shift gears to Defense until it was far too late. (Right around 1943) The Tigers, Panthers, and so forth were not Defensive weapons, at all, And they were most effective with Close Air Support/Air Superiority from the Luftwaffe. Which they didn't have, at that point in the war. Again, looking back now it seems pretty obvious that they could have mounted a much better static defense with 20x105mm cannon than 1 Tiger they didn't have the fuel to even get the engine running. Take off the engine, the armor, make more bigger guns, and let the enemy come for us, but their theme song wasn't defensive. It was offensive. "Deutscheland Über Alles." they couldn't conceive of the need to defend themselves against inferior armies, and by the time they did, all they had was desperation "Wonder" weapons (You have to wonder what they were thinking) like the Kommet, and Natter.
    1
  27. It's more to do with the Self Propelled than the Armor. Towing around, and setting up Howitzers, Mortars, and direct fire guns is a PITA. Once they put them on Tracks, it was quickly discovered that they could add some armor, to protect the crew against small arms fire, and frag. So, at that point, it was more like "Why not armor them?" Artillery teams are expensive to train, and replace. However, they're not Tanks, they're not protected up to the level of Tanks. (With the exception of first generation Assault guns, and Tank Destroyer like the StuGs, though as often as not, they were as lightly armored as the ZiS-30, and SU-76.)
    1
  28. Oh, no, wait. Who's going to refine the oil to make diesel? The tanks will have to keep some people around to take care of the fuel supply.
    1
  29.  @mryomando1  Who? Most of the comments, including Imperial Fists' were joking, as Straw-Democrats.
    1
  30. The First generation (World War 2) of Modern Tanks with multiple seats in the turret, radios, and a Commander. Their effectiveness is mostly measured by the Enemy. What kind of armor do they have? That's how much gun you need. How much gun do they have? That's how much Armor you need. And so forth, the arms race at the time, on 2-3 fronts when we're talking about Germany at this point (Fighting in occupied France, the Russians, And in North Africa) the upgrades on all sides were so fast that any tank was only effective until the enemy fielded a better one in sufficient numbers. So, at what point in the war? When the Tiger came out, it was badass. When the T-44 came out, it had some stiff competition. Regardless, the most "Effective" armored vehicle of the war was the StuG III, which wasn't even a tank, nor even a Tank Destroyer. It was designed as an Infantry Assault Cannon, for bunker busting, but they made so many of them, it basically didn't matter. They could overwhelm with shear numbers until they were outnumbered by the Soviets. (Who had much more resources, especially fuel reserves, to keep their tanks actually running, and supplied with parts/ammo at the front.) That's why they beat the Germans, they didn't have Better tanks, they had More of them, AND could keep them supplied. (Not to mention one of the best defensive positions in History, just ask Napoleon.)
    1
  31. Similar to the "Effectiveness" of the StugIII, "Quantity has a Quality all it's Own." The lowly little .22LR has killed more people, and animals, than any other round in history. Why? Because it's been around for centuries (okay, a couple) and it's Cheaper than Dirt. So, we shot a lot of them, for centuries. That's what "Effectiveness" means in historical terms. it doesn't matter how big, and bad your Tanks are, if they run out of gas/parts/ammo before you can get them to Moscow. TBPH, sie Germans were a little too focused on Quality, and sacrificed too much on Quantity to take on the Red Army on their home turf. They finally ended up fielding Horses, so they didn't have to waste fuel getting fuel to the Tanks on the Western (German) front. Honestly, the Tiger was one of the inefficient tanks that lost them the war.
    1
  32. They have to be pre-planned, because towed artillery aren't as mobile as the tanks they're supposed to be shooting. This changed with the advent of Tank Destroyers (And assault guns used in that role.) These were often more mobile than their turreted counterparts, but truck, and horse drawn cannons like these have to depend on Ambush. They can't PaK up everything, hitch it to the horse, or halftrack, and chase the tanks, then unhitch, set up, load and fire. They have to be Ready to Fire, (In Battery) preferably from a Concealed position when the tanks show up to stand a chance.
    1
  33.  @courseshk27  Okay, yes. I have a travel trailer, I can push around like that too, but that doesn't mean you can chase a car around the parking lot, with wheels, a motor. Let alone, a machinegun, and cannon to shoot back at you. If you read the actually doctrines, the way this guy does, on this channel. It "Has to be." According to the experts, that made these guns, the tanks, and put machinguns on them to shoot at Anti-Tank Gun crews on the move. It's standard doctrine.
    1
  34.  @courseshk27  It's literally one of the main reasons why Tanks had machineguns on them. That's what the coaxial was mounted in the mantlet for. In keeping with the theme of weapons, and counter weapons, that shield, on this gun is for the coax shooting back at you.
    1
  35.  @courseshk27  Right, exactly. They still had 37mm guns at that time. They were designed as Antitank guns, but they weren't being used that way. So, it's not a bad example, it's a distraction. I was talking about using Anti-tank guns vs Tanks. You're talking about how the M3 is surprisingly mobile, for a field piece, but it's still being compared to a Tank. With an engine, and a turret. Anything without an Engine doesn't really compare with the mobility of anything that can fire on the move. A tode, any tode, cannot be fired on the move. That's why they stopped using them as AT guns against modern mechanized infantry tactics. Even the Infantry was on halftracks. Sure, you can tow a gun behind the halftrack, but you can also just put an AT gun on it, which they did. Long before America got involved. However, this is an Interwar gun. I said that, first.
    1
  36.  @courseshk27  here's a good example, the Komsomolets T-20. They made several prototypes with field pieces mounted on the roof. For instance the ZiS-2 it towed around as a field piece. It also had a machingun in a ball-mount up front. Now, should that AT crew run into another AT crew, on the move. Regardless of whether it's towing the the ZiS 2, or if it's on the roof. They're going to shoot at them with the machingun, because that's what it's for, and it can be fired on the move. Another gun they mounted on the T-20 was the PaK36.
    1
  37.  @courseshk27  Wait, what? Sure, let's throw everything I didn't mention into one sentence!
    1
  38.  @courseshk27  Okay, "Quasi-Mobile" but you still have to stop. Set the trail in the ground, unfold the shield, get out the shells, load, and fire. Then, pack it all up, and pull the trail out of the dirt to move it again. All that time, you're not moving. Yes, it can be moved, but it's not being used, as an Anti-tank gun, while it's moving. I can move my bed too, but not while I'm sleeping in it. That still doesn't make it "Quasimobile." A mobile home is quasi-mobile, but it's not as mobile as a motorhome. That has a motor.
    1
  39. Self Propelled Gun. Gun: Motor Carriage. Samokhodnaya Ustanovka translates to Self Propelled Casemate. I'm sure you can see what these all have in common: They can move themselves. The fact that the gun crew can move a field piece has been the field in field artillery since before Napoleon. That still doesn't make a field piece Mobile Artillery. That's why we differentiate between field Artillery, and Mobile Artillery. This is standard doctrine. It always has been, and it always will be. This gun is not exception, just because it's relatively easy for the crew to move it.
    1
  40.  @courseshk27  How does them moving the guns after they shot them make the soldiers more, or less dead? They're already dead. The fact that they had to pak up the guns, and move them pretty much admits that they weren't able to move themselves. Just resorting to "Quasi-moto" is admitting that they're not truly mobile. As entertaining as this is, you've gotten to the point where you're inventing a whole new class of "Quasimobile" guns, just for this one field piece, and the M3. So, do go on, but with the knowledge that it's purely for my entertainment...
    1
  41.  @courseshk27  Okay, first you used the memory of dead British soldiers to try to prove the superiority of the German gun. (Also, the PaK 40 used in North Afrika was the heavier, long barreled version of this light little trench gun.) Now, you're talking about the fantasy of soldiers dying of old age, because wheeled field pieces with ARTILLERY TRACTORS to move them around are too slow? That's why we had Artillery Tractors. So the gunnery crews didn't have to wear themselves out, schlepping their guns through the mud, setting them up, loading, and firing them. Like the WC55 1 ton truck, until they mounted an M3 37mm Antitank gun on it, to make it more mobile. (That would be the M6 GMC. Or for the German equivalent, look up the RSO PaK 40.) Why? because Mobility proved to be better than quasi-mobility. Also, you know the Germans lost, in North Afrika, and everywhere else, right? In spite of their alleged superior Mobility, they got stuck in the mud before they got to Moskov. As well as everyone else who tried. So, I hate to say it, but you're rooting for the wrong side there. Spoiler Warning!
    1
  42. You're still ignoring the fact that that mount is set up for digging in to a static position, because it's an interwar gun, designed from lessons learned in World War 1. All of the examples you've given were World War II designs, with long enough barrels to actually be useful against World War II Tanks. In the Antitank role. They still used them but for Infantry Support, because they were useless in the Antitank Role. If they wanted to use "Mobility" to take out tanks, in close range, they would have used the Panserbüchse 38. Considering the fact that they designed it, specifically for that role. After the PaK36.
    1
  43. Oh yeah, and those PaK 36s you're talking about, in North Afrika? They were actually PaK 40s. You seemed to have missed that point, despite the fact that I pointed it out, several times.
    1
  44.  @courseshk27  Using those weapons like the nefarious Americans doing the same thing with the M3? You used both examples, mate. it still has a trail, and removable wheels, to be dug in, in both Artillery manuals. in German, and American. It's standard doctrine, for everyone using these weapons, on these mounts, in the Antitank Role. Regardless of how heavy they are.
    1
  45. Making them lighter makes it easier to get them to, and from the battlefield. When you get there, you still use them the same as any other Antitank gun, on that mount. If you want to use them as Mobile artillery, EVERYONE mounted them on something with a motor. That's why it's called a motor.
    1
  46.  @courseshk27  Yes, but the 5cm, and 7.5cm versions weren't as light and schleppable as this one. Surely you can see that. You still have to plant the spade, in the ground to fire it. That's why it has a spade in the trail. Look at it. It has a spade in the trail, for digging in. What did you think that was for?
    1
  47. The US fielded light turreted open top tank destroyers like the Hellcat, because they were more mobile than the Panzers.
    1
  48.  @courseshk27  It doesn't have to take forever. You still have to dig in to fire. It's a gun, you have to fire it. With that mount, you need a stable defensible position to fire it. Look at the mount, it's what it's designed for.
    1
  49. Again, we're not talking World War II. We're talking Interwar. This is an Interwar gun. I wasn't talking about "Always Stationary." I called it a Tode (That's army for towed.) a Field piece, and also mentioned artillery Tractors. They were indeed pushed around the battlefield, but that wasn't the standard doctrine. That was "Oh shit, the Panzer sees us!" diving for cover. They were towed around the field, by tractors, which is why they're called "Todes." I'm not denying that the ablity for the crew to schlepp it through the mud and sand is an advantage. But that's not an advantage the effective AT guns (Like the 5cm, and 7.5cm guns you mentioned) had. In World War II. That's something the Tank Destroyers had, because the crew could ride along with the AT gun, and more armor than that folding gun shield. That's why they replaced the interwar AT guns with Tank Destroyers. They were fast enough to keep up with the Panzers, and the infantry on halftracks.
    1
  50.  @courseshk27  Again, since you missed it before: The machineguns could fire on the move. Which is why WWII Tanks had machineguns.
    1