Comments by "Aleksa Žunjić" (@aleksazunjic9672) on "Rommel causes a British Command Crisis 1942! BATTLESTORM North Africa" video.

Actually, Churchill had no idea what would take to win the war except waiting for Soviets to win it for him.
4
Technologically, some of the Axis tanks were superior to British tanks, and some of their AT guns were superior to British AT guns, but this combined alongside better doctrine made a huge difference.
3
@matthiuskoenig3378 Russians did not get decimated anywhere . In fact, current Russian losses are max 200 tanks (probably not more than 100) , and few thousand troops including DPR and LPR. Russian thrust in the south succeeded , in the east they have pinned down largest Ukrainian force and now they are grinding them down successfully . In the north, drive on Kiev was a faint that tested Ukrainian willingness to fight, but also made them expose their forces to Russian air strikes and artillery. Only major Russian blunder so far was loss of cruiser Moskva, again this is a naval matter, not a responsibility of army. On the other hand, Ukrainians are now so desperate they are trying to send territorial defense directly to frontlines in Donbass. Overall, war has proven to Russia that their way of waging war is correct (rely on artillery above everything else)
3
@TheImperatorKnight Don't burn out in Stalingrad, now when you finally had forces in the open and moving again :D Honestly, this is most interesting part of that campaign.
2
Well, not really. British never attempted to really fortify their positions (let's say around Benghazi) and force Germans into battle of attrition.
2
At that point in time British armed forces were "old boys club" , with people being promoted based on connections rather than merit.
2
@sirridesalot6652 HE gun would need larger caliber, i.e. heavier tank, i.e. less mobility, then you need stronger armor because you are slow, which adds more weight and then you get Matilda :D
1
@sirridesalot6652 US industry surpassed British and engines show that . This goes especially for engines, i.e. Sherman had better engine (slightly more powerful and much more reliable) . Sherman was slightly slower but better armed and armored.
1
@thevillaaston7811 British industry was falling behind even before the war, and it was not under heavy bombing due to Germans having lack of fighter cover except in SE England. Soviets actually preferred M4 over T-34 (at least 76 mm variants) due to better crew comfort, ergonomics and radios. Of course, Sherman was no match for latter Germans AT guns, but no Allied medium tank was . Overall, M4 and T-34 were most produced Allied tanks and for a good reason.
1
@thevillaaston7811 British industry was falling behind US industry and that is a fact - after WW2 it was clear that Britain is no more top industrial power. Even devastated and divided Germans overtook them after a decade. I already said to to you that Germans could strike only factories in SE England and you confirmed that . And they could do it only in late summer , early autumn of 1940 - after that LW moved to USSR and North Africa. As for Sherman in USSR service check : Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza. Tankers usually preferred heavy tanks , but heavy tanks could not win the war and after WW2 they became obsolete concept.
1
@robertm7554 Large part of the east is occupied by forces from the West. In fact, heavy fighting is now occurring around fortifications that were built over last 8 years. Invading Galicia has no sense, Russians would actually prefer to return it to Poland, since that part of the Ukraine was never in Russian Empire. In fact, Austria-Hungary used it to create "Ukrainian nation" with their divide and conquer strategy.
1
@nickjung7394 USSR was not on German side at the start of the war, they merely liberated territories east of Curzon line that Polish occupied due to USSR weakness during civil war and Polish-Soviet war. British bombers did not decimate German targets (US bombers did) , British merely did nightly terror raids that did not have large effect on German industry. USSR mostly received aid from US , and of course paid for that in blood - without Soviets US & UK would have to sacrifice their own men in millions.
1
@nickjung7394 Nope. USSR actually called for a joint action against Germany after they threatened Czechoslovakia - Britain and Poland refused, British signed Munich agreement and Poland got their slice of Czech territory. USSR at the time was waging proxy war against Germany in Spain. Germany could not invade USSR before they dealt with Poland, and USSR captured western Ukraine and Belarus only when Polish army practically collapsed under German attack. Germany at the time (autumn 1939) still didn't have complete plan or material to invade USSR (autumn was coming) and British and French declared war . British were not a large concern, but French had large army so Germans had to deal with them first - thus they missed 1940 for invasion of USSR. When they did invade in 1942, Germans suffered appalling casualties (Soviet casualties were even higher) , and weather in Russia was always weather in Russia. Overall, German Wehrmacht bleed itself dry in USSR and thus lost the war.
1
@nickjung7394 Ever heard about Spanish Civil War ? :D Dude, you seriously lack education about European pre-war situation. Go read some history before you come here and spew crappy Western propaganda. For your information, WW2 practically started with occupation of Chezkoslovakia which Britain approved . Also about German nuclear program (they were far from the bomb) , and joint Soviet and British occupation of Iran.
1
@isengard1500 There were not enough prime movers for them. 8.8cm FlaK was incredibly cumbersome piece of equipment, very susceptible to artillery fire. German troops preferred 7.5cm PaK 40, although it had somewhat lower armor penetration.
1
@nickjung7394 Well, you have just confirmed that you are unable to think :P
1
@nickjung7394 You could be old as much you want, you lack basic information about pre war situation in Europe. For example, you didn't have a clue about Soviet-German proxy war in Spain until I told you so. You did not know that Britain and Poland refused to fight a war jointly with USSR against Germany in 1938. You did not that Poland proposed alliance to Germany against USSR etc ... Your knowledge is seriously limited.
1
@nickjung7394 No, I'm just pointing out that Germany and USSR were in fact ideological enemies, while Britain tried to stay in the middle for their own interests. Your idea of USSR and Germany being allies is just silly propaganda - if they were allies British influence in Europe would be non-existent. As for ordinary citizens, there would be a price to pay for ordinary Britons for their government meddling in Ukraine. It could be just economic hardship (like today) or complete destruction - we shall see.
1
@Arcangel77able You mean Operation Crusader ? Well, Axis forces were not that strong as during Crusader either, as mentioned in the video. They did not have full complement of tanks, and Italians were reluctant to commit infantry. Overall, Rommel did not have enough strength for a battle of attrition.
1
@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 Problem with British system was that none had the authority to sack "dead wood" . Some generals would eventually bow out like Godwin-Austen , but most would remain on their positions despite gross incompetence. Seniority and good connections were the key to success, and sometimes there was even no clear hierarchy, like in this case. Furthermore, this system favored generals who preferred to lead "from behind" , i.e. from some HQ far from the front. Overall, British had the good fortune of not being crucial for the war effort (like USSR and US) therefore their blunders did not cost that much.
1
@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 Cunningham was actually forced to resign because he wanted to stop Crusader and that was against group think of Auchinleck's clique , not because that was good or bad . Same goes with Godwin-Austen, neither of them were particularly talented but they were not sacked for incompetence. I'm not talking about brigadiers or even divisional commanders, I'm talking about army and corps commanders who were frequently far from front lines. In overall terms, British participation in the war was not decisive - without Barbarossa they would collapse in North Africa (Germans would have aerial superiority and Malta ) . Royal Navy is an organization on its own, but since we are talking about the army, overall assessment is that Germans would easily roll over them if the forces were at least partially equal. Simply, British were lucky that overall result of the war did not depend on their ground forces.
1
@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 It could be argued that Cunningham was at least partially right about Crusader, i.e. British lost much more tanks than Axis (especially Germans) an this showed in this quick counter-attack by Rommel. What is worse, defenses around Tobruk were dismantled ad it quickly fell next spring. On the other hand Godwin-Austen was completely sidelined and failed to assert authority on his subordinate Ritchie. Overall, British ground forces never completely "got their shit together" - Montgomery to his credit did manage to lure Germans into battle of attrition at El Alamein and won by pure numbers, but there was no brilliant action by the British throughout the war. Rommel was not afraid of British, he was afraid of US air power (and artillery) that carried the battle in Tunisia. Barbarossa did happen and it swallowed up majority of German power and that is that.
1