Comments by "Big Blue" (@bigblue6917) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

As the tanks were delivered to the frontlines uncoated with Zimmerit this meant the tank had to spend two days being coated in the rear area before being released to the tank crews. Just what you need in the middle of a war.
43
Actually research shows that snipers deal with this much better then the ordinary soldier as there are less incidences of post traumatic stress disorder amongst snipers. This will be to do with assessing their mental balance.
13
I would have said that killing from a distance is more detached for the ordinary soldier. You shoot at someone in the distance during combat and that person falls down. Did you do it or did someone else?
9
@Karottenbrot1 Well if that doesn't make it shellproof I don't know what will.
8
They would not have built jets because they had no need to. Propeller driven aircraft was a technology that worked and there was no incentive to change. They may have turned to jets after war started in 1945 but they would still have been in the same place as they were in 1939. The same applies to the idea that by 1945 the Germans would have had Tiger and Panther tanks. Again these came about because of the war and there was no incentive to build them before the war. The T34, on the other hand, would have been a different matter. That came about through clashes with the Japanese in 1938. So the Soviet army would have had more of them by 1945. Would Hitler have been better served if he used diplomacy to deal with the West and Poland and then attacked Russia is a more interesting question. The West may well have been more open to the idea of Germany fighting Russia, especially as communism was causing such problems in their own countries. And as Poland had fought off an invasion from Russia in 1919-1920 they may well have been more open to having some sort of defence pact with Germany. The next part of this is if Hitler had gone into the Soviet Union as a liberator rather then an invader would he have been more successful. Many parts of the Soviet Union had suffered extremely badly under the communists and would have been glad to be rid of them. In fact many from the Soviet Union had joined the Germans in fighting the communists. So coming as a liberator would have made life for the German Army much easier.
8
The British did not deploy any horse cavalry unit to the fighting. All horse cavalry units were for ceremonial use only. In fact the British Army was the first fully mechanised army in the world and that was before WW2.
6
Lincoln Frost. As I mention elsewhere there is evidence that snipers are less prone to PTSD. I will qualify that by saying the research was based on British snipers. Now whether it is something with the selection and or training carried out by the British armed forces, or possibly because of mental conditioning or something specific to the British I do not know.
6
And Russia is still using armoured trains.
5
@artificialintelligence8328 Depends on how often you plan to throw grenades up hill.
4
So being on the Eastern Front in winter wasn't bad enough they cover the armour in ice.
4
Just helping dad with the crash testing he did not know he needed.
2
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but is pronounced bo'son not boatswain. Hope that helps.
1
Menelutorex. Most sniper shots at 300 to 400 metres or less.
1
Alexane Rose. Even snipers will see dead and wounded. And snipers will act in support of attacking troops to make the enemy keep their heads down while their own troops advance. That tends to be much closer. That tactic was first developed in WW 1 then attacks over no mans land could be as short as 50 or 60 yards. So the sniper could definitely see who they shot.
1
Thanks for this, it filled in a number of gaps in my knowledge of this attack. I knew about the problem of the speed of the aircraft flying below that to which the anti-aircraft could deal with, but, as always with these things, there is more to it then that. Some, such as the movement of the ship at sea, is an age old problem, which is why they used to fight so close to each other. Then when you bring in the weather and the aircraft's movement you do start to see why hitting a target could be so hard. I know there is this thing where an attacking aircraft should not make a second run because the gunners will have gotten their eye in, which is a good enough reason for the two which did not attack let discretion be the better part of valour.
1
I forgot to mention that a saw a swordfish some years ago when I worked for British Aerospace. I believe it was one of the Royal Navy Historic Flight Swordfish's. It was much bigger then I thought it would be.
1
@akrybion We've all been there at somepoint
1
That has got to be one of the biggest understatements in history.
1
@edi9892 Is this not a case of be careful what you wish for. Up until that point the Germans had claimed the were not fully committed to the war. Trying to make out that they were fighting with one hand behind their back and once they were fully committed they would win easily. Truth is it was all bluff and bluster.
1
Looks like something from the 1930s
1
@darklysm8345 That is not what I said. I said the Tiger and Panther were a result of combat experience against the Russians. The Panzer IV went into service in 1939 but it was not until later the the longer barrel 75 mm was fitted.
1
Actually it is known that the Japanese fleet did not keep radio silence as the ship which regularly travel between San Francisco and Honolulu had been picking up the radio signalt. When it arrived in Honolulu this information was passed on to the military authorities but was not acted up on. As for the midget submarines one did carry out an attack inside Pearl Harbour but with all else which was going on its presence was missed. The sub itself was lost so its success was not recorded at the time. I believe there is a photograph in existence showing a torpedo attack at Pearl which was not from an aircraft. As for Bringing America into the war the Japanese would have been better off leaving American territory alone entirely as there was no evidence America was joining the war any time soon. So deciding to attack any of US territory was a huge strategic error on the part of the Japanese. And the Japanese did plan to attack the fuel storage area but had left it to the second wave as they did not want the smoke from the burning fuel to obscure targets. In the assessment by the US after the attack it was said that the loss of this fuel would have kept the US out of the Pacific for 18 months and would have led to the fleet moving to the American west coast. The Japanese were so fixated with sinking the carriers they forgot that depriving them with fuels would have rendered them just as ineffective.
1
The lose of the oil tanks would have forced the US Navy to withdraw as they could not have supplied their ships. Interestingly having told us that attacking the oil tanks would have diverted a substantial amount of plane when there aim was to destroy US ships, you then say that this reduced the strategic disadvantage for the Americans was limited. So diverting aircraft to destroy the oil tanks would have been an advantage to the Japanese after all. Especially as America admitted this would have force the navy to withdraw. Your logic is faulty
1
As Ukraine is now equipped with both NLAW and Javelin they would suffer badly from an turret penetration.
1
They wargamed this back in the 70s I seem to remember, using British and German plans for the invasion if it had happened. The Germans were brought to a halt outside of London, touch of Moscow here. From then on it would have just been a case of grinding them down. Of course with so many men and so much material tied up here is would probably have put an end to Operation Barbarossa. Or at the very least postponed it for many years.
1