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

  1. What I love about Close Combat games (and others like them) is that you start with your entire battlegroup and then slowly lose them without being able to replenish during the battle. It's the opposite of what you get in a lot of RTS games where you build up a base and spam out units
    521
  2. More details please! I want to know where every battalion was at every moment in the campaign and need 3D animations ;) (I'm kidding)
    250
  3. Another great video MHV! Surprised to hear about the lack of German conveyor belts for panzer production
    227
  4. Nice one MHV. Absolutely agree - stay away from memoirs
    156
  5. Almost every defeat, last stand, or evacuation is seen as a victory for the British. Arnhem, Somaliland, Isandlwana/Rorke's Drift, retreating from Galipoli, and holding onto Tobruk (with Tobruk, losing most of the land beforehand but holding onto one town is somehow seen as a success).
    145
  6. In your opinion, what was more important to convincing the Japanese to surrender - the nuclear bomings on Japan, or the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria?
    104
  7. Sadly, historians tend to neglect what happened before El Alamein.
    93
  8. 100% agree. Facts and figures don't tell the whole story. Our job is to gather as much of the information as possible, then fill in the missing pieces and come to our own conclusions with what facts we have. This is why historians usually don't all agree on certain topics.
    93
  9. Fantastic guide, very helpful. The Niehorster Dialect is the better one. However, my issue with NATO counters is with the unit size indicators. Maybe it's just me, but when you look at a map with lots of NATO counters on them, it can be difficult to distinguish the unit sizes at a glance, even with the indicators present. This video's come at the perfect time as I'm currently in need of a better way of distinguishing unit sizes so that the average viewer can visually see the difference. You don't happen to have any suggestions?
    72
  10. How much do depleted fuel stocks also factor into this? German ground forces were constantly out of fuel during Barbarossa, and especially afterwards. I imagine it was the same with the Luftwaffe.
    60
  11. Good video as always MHV
    40
  12. I believe there's a historical debate around whether the invasion of Poland was a true "blitzkrieg" or not. What are your thoughts?
    38
  13. Prince of Orange Every round of ammunition!
    35
  14. In his four-book trilogy (technically five-book trilogy - and yes, "trilogy") Glantz suggests the possibility that Stalingrad was lost prior to the taking of the city. And the losses in 1941 would also suggest that the turning point of the war was Barbarrossa (or the end of or slightly after that operation) and not a later battle like Stalingrad. Great video btw :)
    32
  15. Good to see you playing Close Combat :) You did well! Here's a few tips... Most players play with a time limit due to the size of the maps and the campaign is balanced to work with one (or lots of truces). 15, 20 or 30 minutes are the standard times to pick. For PITF, I'd recommend either 20 or 30 minutes. You can turn the fog off in the options which I'd also recommend since it's just an image and doesn't roll with the screen or affect the game play. Plus then your viewers can see the game better. Do not Sneak. Move-Fast unless you know what you're doing. You can win most battles by using nothing else but Move-Fast and Defend. Sneak is way too slow, your guys don't fire back, they default to ambush/hide (which is not as effective as Defend) and they're not hidden from the enemy if they're crawling across open ground. You even mention at 5:20 that the beginning is boring... this is why! Move-Fast will solve that issue for you ;) the only exceptions for using Sneak are when you're moving troops around a short distance to set up an ambush (usually in multiplayer) or maybe is when artillery or mortars are landing on you. Move is used for clearing houses if you don't want your guys getting into hand-to-hand combat, or if you want your guys to shoot and move at the same time. Since that command doesn't make sense in most situations, just use Move Fast. At 9:00, it was on-map enemy mortars, not artillery. Artillery is off-site and is a lot more deadly. You realised later but thought I'd clarify. 14:45 - artillery on tanks is a waste unless you're absolutely desperate! The best it can do is immobilize. Airstrikes can take out tanks, but don't rely on it. 17:00 - units in ambush only open fire when the enemy is within 30 meters of the ambushing unit. This is close. VERY CLOSE. Close enough to throw their grenades. That is another reason not to use Sneak as after they've stopped sneaking they default to ambush. With Move or Move Fast, they default to Defend. A Panther's frontal armour is almost impervious to fire which is why it took a hell of a lot of shots and you almost ran out of ammo! Always outflank them. Preferably from multiple sides at the same time so they're distracted - like you did towards the end. You're really lucky the Panther couldn't see your tank at 18:00 onward otherwise it would have taken you out way before you took it out. In the end you didn't take it out! Hope this helps :)
    25
  16. Ville metsänmiettijä yeah... I really don't make things easy for myself, do I?
    24
  17. That's actually the plan! I'm working my way through all of the North African Campaign in order so I have a grasp of the generals and battles that came before El Alamein. So far in the North African Campaign, I've covered Operation Compass, Rommel's First Desert Offensive (technically it didn't have a name, but some call it Sunflower), Brevity, and Battleaxe. This way, I can put El Alamein, Rommel's situation, Montgomery, and everything else in context and really do a good job on it. And it'll also set me up to do the Tunisian Campaign, and eventually the Italian Campaign.
    18
  18. Htoo - yes, I will do eventually. I want to explore this idea that going for Moscow and ignoring a million Soviet soldiers on the southern flank was somehow a good idea.
    16
  19. This is an awesome video! And thank you very much for mentioning my channel at the end :) I hadn't considered the "mail front". Now I'll have to do additional research
    11
  20. Most sources on the North African Campaign (especially the early battles) barely even mention the Italians at all, other than to say they lost x amount of troops. The fighting in the historical narrative revolves around the British and the Germans. My impression is that most of the historians researching this topic are English or German speaking, and thus the Italian sources are not read and/or used. It's the same on the Eastern Front, where the Axis Allies (except the Finnish, who are deemed worthy) are neglected, or simply dismissed, even though they had important parts to play in the war.
    9
  21. stuart Nicklin That certainly played a massive part, and definitely shortened the war. But that came late in the Barbarrossa campaign. And US troops wouldn't get involved in fighting Germans until November 1942. Going off the numbers, it's possible that the turning point that lost the war for Germany had already happened as early as the end of 1941.
    8
  22. ***** except in Poland the tanks had to wait for the infantry. There were no strategic independent armoured formations like there would be in later campaigns... from what I've heard. I've not studied the Polish Campaign of 1939
    8
  23. Andres - what did you think of it? That's my oldest history documentary, so be nice! :) Slane - I am working towards more. They just take time to get them right.
    6
  24. Gallipoli was a disaster, but the "retreating from Gallipoli" bit went quite well and has been used as an example of a good way to withdraw. So well that General Urquhart used the same tactics to withdraw from Arnhem. "At the back of my mind was Gallipoli. As a young officer I had studied this classic withdrawal very thoroughly for a promotion examination. It all came back now: the extreme pains that were taken to thin out the forward positions held at Anzac and in front of the other beaches; the way that the British had contrived to keep up an appearance of opposition until the very last, and the elaborate care with which parites were organized for their move to the beaches. I called Charles Mackenzie over to help me with the evacuation plan. 'You know how they did it at Gallipoli, Charles? Well, we've got to do something like that.' " - Urquhart, R. "Arnhem." Cassel ltd, 1958.
    5
  25. Christian S. thanks DerBalu :) Close Combat is probably the one game I can confidently say I know inside and out
    4
  26. Ok, time to take things a little more seriously (only a little). Wouldn't want the fiery Barbarossa to call me an idiot afterall... Think a lot of you need to reread the original post carefully. Lord Cypher got it right. "seen as victory" does not equal victory. Rather that the British tend to put a good face on what was otherwise a defeat. jorelemes - I also made a documentary series on the North African Campaign, including the bit where Rommel annihilates the British 2nd Armoured Division, races off across Cyreniaca, captures three British Generals, and then surrounds and besieges Tobruk. The point is that the British lost a good chunk of land, but held onto one town (actually, the Australians did, with some British tank support) and yet that's seen as some sort of great British defiance. Again, victory from defeat. Just to point out, the 1941 siege was lifted during Operation Crusader. It was a victory for the British! And then Gazala happened... Somaliland wasn't a victory, it was a defeat. The British force fell back successfully and withdrew. Again, hailed as a successful withdrawal. Putting a good face on what was otherwise a bad outcome. Just like at Dunkirk. Barbarossa mentioned that the British beat the Zulu army at Rorke's Drift. No they didn't. The Zulu army was at Isandlwana. It was just the Zulu reserve force at Rorke's Drift. Again, major defeat at Isandlwana, so best lionize the defenders of Rorke's Drift to take the edge off the big bad main event. Frost's 2nd Para at Arnhem (note, I didn't say Market Garden) are again praised for their defiance against overwhelming odds... despite the fact they lost. Same with the rest of 1st Airborne at Oosterbeek. Rob Young - Please don't watch A Bridge Too Far. Not only is it inaccurate (John Frost, as he says in his memoirs, was there at production telling them that the events they were portraying didn't happen like that) but it also leads you to the wrong conclusions about why the whole operation was actually lost. Highly recommend Robin Neillands "The Battle for the Rhine: Arnhem and the Ardennes" for a more modern look at the battle. Although John Frost himself came to the same conclusion in his memoirs, as does Poulussen in his book. Also, just to point out, I am "British".
    4
  27. Yeah! I thought you'd just come to chat :)
    3
  28. Hey HappyandAtheist, I am "British" Stock Image Freeaboo, the original comment was "Almost every defeat, last stand, or evacuation is seen as a victory for the British." I never said they were victories. Instead, what was implied was that they were - like Dunkirk, and like mentioned in the video - portrayed as a victory for the British. To clarify, Dunkirk was a disaster. However, it's portrayed it as a win for the British because they were able to evacuate their army, which allowed them to keep fighting and thus win the war. Similarly, the examples I used originally were also shown in a similar light. E.g. the retreat from Gallipoli (not the entire battle, just the retreat) was later portrayed and studied as an example of a good way to retreat, so much so that, as I showed in an earlier comment, Urquhart used the lessons learnt from it when evacuating the 1st Airborne from the Oosterbeek/Arnhem area.
    3
  29. It's not an oversimplification to pinpoint only one factor. We know there's several factors involved and we're not dismissing any of them. But by choosing one and saying "this is the major factor" sparks a debate that in turn gets people interested in the topic. Among other reasons, it provides reason to go out there and analyse the battle to prove or disprove your argument and come up with their own arguments that others can discuss. History is a debate. Feel free to disagree with me :)
    3
  30. John, just to point out I'm still working on my documentary on Stalingrad. Hoping to have the first episode out in a couple weeks. In the mean time I have more on other WW2 battles if you check out my "Battlestorm" documentary series.
    2
  31. Yep. Me too. It's the best game in the series :)
    2
  32. Christian S. Same :) my dad eventually bought me the game because I played the demo so much
    2
  33. Stock Image Freeaboo - they weren't retreats that's why!
    2
  34. Military History Visualized oh wow, if Glantz is coming to wrong conclusions too then I guess the jury is out on this one. Wish I could read Wettstein's book, but I guess it's in German :(
    2
  35. Don't forget though, Rommel's tactic in the North African Campaign (as a result of lessons learned during Operation Brevity, and first applied during Operation Battleaxe) was to use his anti-tank guns to engage British tanks, weaken them, then use his Panzers to exploit. This wasn't always the case, and a lot of tank-on-tank engagements did happen, but this was the general idea at least.
    2
  36. For when you do a second pronounciation video - Auftragstaktik, Aufklärer, Schwerpunkt, Sturmabteilung?
    1
  37. Good video. I don't understand the decision to fight inside the city. And I don't understand the decision not to attempt a breakout when they had the chance. Who's to blame for this disaster, Paulus or Hitler?
    1
  38. So effectively the German divisions were somewhat depleted during their 1942 offensives. Makes sense after the winter of 1941. And I'm guessing the reason we don't have accurate figures is partly because the Soviet archives were only opened recently. This is why I haven't attempted videos on the Eastern Front. There's so many holes in the research that it would be impossible to make anything accurate. I'll see if I can find the article... or learn German :D
    1
  39. Negativity isn't a bad thing. It's constructive criticism for the benefit of everyone else to learn from. For history, it's all about learning from the mistakes of the past. You can't learn the important lessons if you're always seeing things in a positive light and ignoring the negative aspects. The Wehrmacht definitely wasn't perfect. They made plenty of mistakes and lost the war. And the Allies made mistakes, and so did the Soviets. No country, no army, no person is perfect. For the people complaining about it, you need to reconsider your perspective.
    1