Comments by "Ember Fist" (@emberfist8347) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

  1.  @aaroncourchene4384  yeah it is overall an apples to oranges comparison like comparing the Sherman to the Tiger instead of the Panzer IV or the M113 to the BMP instead of the M2 Bradley.
    1
  2. Part of the reason is they had far more of a population than Germany did. Russia could have last 1 million men and barely put a dent in their menpower. Germany was another story. The human wave myth also mentioned in this story is another reason for this myth. As mentioned in the video, The Soviets did use human wave attacks to soften up their opponents and were more callous to casualties on the operational and strategic level, but they weren’t just throwing bodies at the ball until they began to stick.
    1
  3. We can’t say until the conflict is over.
    1
  4.  @rickglorie I prefer Panzerkampwagen for how it becomes a contraction of Panzer or Tank but means AFV.
    1
  5. The real reason I think Operation Barbarossa failed was the simple matter of logistics. Napoleon actually won most of his battles in Russia when he invaded but had to retreat because he didn’t have the logistics needed to continue the invasion. Same story with Germany
    1
  6. No they would need need GLONASS or a similar system too. GPS held win the tank battle as we knew where they were in real time but they couldn’t find us.
    1
  7.  @MrCampasaurus But of course TOW missiles is a different story.
    1
  8. I mean they made the name blitzkrieg.
    1
  9. That only applies to certain models. Early Aircraft carriers had weak flight decks that could be easily destroyed. Armored decks were mainly used by the British at the cost of aircraft capacity.
    1
  10. The US didn’t have systemic mass killings get your facts straight.
    1
  11. Well you also forget it was a generation behind the then-current Abrams and designed more for fighting the M60. Plus Saddam was using the even cheaper budget models the Soviets made that stripped the most advanced features.
    1
  12. They are only taking about HE shells. Not armor-piercing shells or fancy laser guided munitions. The issue is less accuracy and more the report is about hitting a moving target that would probably dodge your shots.
    1
  13. Except they didn’t lend-lease isn’t about profit there is no money involved it is a rental. Also the war necessary sunken cost.
    1
  14.  @wilinstonthompson1352  Mostly because of the abandonment of the gold standard and we didn’t care about being paid back.
    1
  15.  @patrickbateman312  And your proof? The Allies weren’t going to work with another fascist Franco wasn’t that popular. Exhibit A Casablanca states Rick supported the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War as foreshadowing for his anti-fascist leanings. This was released in 1942 shortly after Operation Torch.
    1
  16. Calling any tank a workhorse for the Germans (or British) is hinged on the idea they used it as their main for a particular length of tank. The issue is that Germans designed both the Panzer III and Panzer IV to fill different roles only for the Panzer IV to get the Panzer III’s anti-tank role when they reached the limit of that tank’s turret ring. Add in the Panther, and captured tanks, the German tank units were routinely swapping out designs and it was logistical nightmare.
    1
  17. Another detail about their manpower shortages. It wasn’t unknown at Stalingrad for Soviet engineers to hop into tanks as soon as they left the assembly line as it was quicker than training soldiers to pilot them.
    1
  18. Not viable under the Nazi’s regime. Just look at their only heavy bomber which was nicknamed the Luftwaffe Lighter for its engine fires. And consider they needed to join two engines on a single shaft to make an engine for that thing.
    1
  19. They did. Don’t go gobbling up half the continent was all they needed to do to avoid the “trap”.
    1
  20.  @betrayer1350  No the death of that Empire was the Suez Crisis after Churchill left office. And the USSR only got gooble up half of Europe because Hitler gave Stalin the provocation. It was inevitable only because the Nazis couldn't stand the USSR existing.
    1
  21. @ Stop you Nazi apologist. You got it all wrong. Germany didn’t need to expand. And the main reason Ost Batallions exist is because the Nazis conscripted them from the areas they occupied including the Baltic States. Romania joined because they agreed to hand Germany the keys to their economy and Hungary was a sore loser after World War I like Germany. Also the Winter War was fought with Finland you know the former client state of the Russian Empire. And they weren’t even asking for the whole nation. And why did France and Britain declare war? Oh yeah Germany invaded Poland to seize an internationally recognized free city aware that the Allies were not happy with Germany annexing multiple nations and how Hitler constantly lied such as annexing Czechoslovakia when the Munich Agreement said he could only have certain parts of it and claiming he was done with territorial expansion.
    1
  22. @ You can’t discard my facts which I outlined.
    1
  23. @ Because you have no counter argument:
    1