Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Imperial War Museums" channel.

Some old Russian junk costs too much trouble with training crews, repairing and logistics that it is not worth the trouble of having it. The benefits of extra firepower and protection would be minimal. Indeed I think I would be safer as an well equipped infantry man than sitting in a rusty chest waiting to be cooked by a NLAW or a Javelin. And as General I would rather field a well equipped infantry company than a logistically troublesome tank platoon that is crappy on the battlefield and gets slaughtered by any cheap anti-tank weapon made the last 50 years.
9
Britain could have survived the Blitz without the empire. The Germans did not have landing crafts to invade Britain in 1940. Me-109 fighters only had fuel for 10 minutes of fighting over London and this short range prevented German fighters to escort their bombers deep into British aerospace. Germany did also lack strategic bombers and its airforce was built for land warfare and not for destroying warships. 4 months of fighting was also too little time for Germany to prepare a landing and take over the country before autumn weather and winds would make a landing impossible. The royal navy was too large to sink in such a short period of time. And the royal airforce had many upsides compared to the German Luftwaffe. It had the radar and it could focus all its production of building fighters while Luftwaffe needed both fighters and bombers to win the air war. And if a German plane was shot down then its pilots would have jump out in a parachute over England and then become prisoners of war. But if a British plane was shot down over England then its pilots wouldn't be lost for the rest of the war. Instead could the British pilots just get another plane and continue to fight in the skies the same day. I simply fail to see how Germany could won the war with Britain in such a short time.
8
Bin Ladin is dead. He can never hijack planes and kill innocent Americans again. Revenge has been taken out for World trade center, pentagon and the hijacked planes. So it was not for nothing.
5
Germany let it happen. I don't blame the Poles for not doing enough. The Brits murdered Heydrich, liberated Belsen and could realisticly not do much to stop the holocaust. 80% of the jews died in 1942-43 and they died in Eastern Europe - far away from the reach of British bombers. The only ones who had a realistic chance of stopping this tragedy from reaching epic proportions were the Russians. But I find it hard to blame the Russian people for not doing enough sacrifices to stop nazi tyrrany. 20 million Russians died in their war with Hitler, so how much more can one demand of them?
5
Britain was the only European country who stubbornly stood against Germany for the entire war. The battle for Britain, the Atlantic and North Africa was not much decisive. But Britains long commitment to the war did significantly wear down the German military over time.
4
Jagdpanther was more than 6 decimeters taller than Stridsvagn-103, Hetzer, StuGIII and Jagdpanzer IV. So it was not as sneaky as the typical ambush tank sitting in a bush trying to get the first shot. Jagdpanther was very large. It was impressive in many ways with good armor, firepower, and mobility. The only disadvatages was the lack of a turret, the high siluette and the reliability problem with panther chassi. Otherwise was this machine a beast. The allies probably made a wise choice in prioritizing the bombing of the parts of the economy that built this machine, because had the Germans had many more of these machines then would the conquest of Europe have been slow, difficult and costly. I think the Stridsvagn-103 is more of a cleaver engineering than the jagdpanther. The S-tank got many more special features and it could be driver by only 1-2 men if needed. Its easier to hide. And it is a smarter tank overall. While Jagdpanther was not a revolutionary tank like the S-tank. It was more the result of evolution. The Germans picked the best parts of other tanks and put it on this tank destroyer. It got the best tank gun from the King Tiger and Nashorn. It got the excellent panther chassi with good mobility, low ground pressure and stabilization. And it got the excellent armor protection from the German cats, and the sloping of its armor reminds of that on TigerII, Panther, SU85 and Jpz4. And with all those best things got combined, then Germany got the best German tank of the war. A tank with mobility of a panther and the fire power and armor better than a Tiger I.
3
Well Britain had to give up some areas to Japan. But isn't that what happens in all wars? If you do not have enough troops to defend all of your country then you will have to sacrifice some provinces to the enemy and hopefully take them back later. The Swedish empire did certainly not like to lose Finland to Russia in 1713. But if the Swedish homeland was under a threat from a Danish-Norwegian invasion, and Swedish Pommeriania was attacked by Saxon, Hanoverian and Prussian troops and Swedens Baltic provinces was occupied by Poland. Then of course did Sweden not have enough troops to defend all areas of its empire... so it had to leave its poorest parts (Finland) over to the enemy to be burned and plundered.
3
You have not followed the news. If you had you would clearly see that the donations from western countries have been small and usually included older vehicles that are at the end of their life cycle. Had those Paladins, Gepards, M113, Humvees, PV1110, and all Soviet junk from Czechia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Macedonia been sent to Ukraine would that equipment have been scrapped anyways very soon as it is becoming so old that its not worth keeping. Why do you think Sweden got rid of their Pansarbandvagn 501 (Swedens version of BMP-1)? - It is because it is old garbage. As soon as Sweden bought Combat Vehicle 90 it sold their old Soviet junk off to the Czech Republic, and the Czechs have now given away all those vehicles to Ukraine. There is no point for Sweden to maintain that expensive crappy Soviet garbage. Combat vehicle is a much better vehicle, despite all upgrades Sweden had done to their old BMP-1. So no Nato is not depleting its resources. Even Swedens tiny military have been a large donor to Ukraine. But despite that has Swedens military spending just been a few billions in aid to Ukraine - which is an extremely small sum of money to Ukraine. Only about 0.5% of our GDP this year. So we can afford to give much more help to Ukraine if we are wanting to. USA + EU got a 40 times larger economy than Russia. So guess which side will run out of resources first? - I think it is obvious that Russia will deplete its resources first. And it is already suffering severe shortages now, despite the west have not yet even starting to flex its military muscles even a little bit. The Russian military have proven itself to be not just a paper bear. But also incompetent and completly useless. The help to Ukraine have been minimal compared to what it could have been. And yet are Russia losing so hard against the poorest country in Europe. A country that mostly uses Soviet military junk that is even older than that used by Russia. Pathetic.
2
Their best tank (T90M) was knocked out by an AT-4 - the cheapest and weakest anti-tank weapon in the Swedish army😁 I think that this well can summerize the western technological advantage over old Soviet junk.
2
APC is valuable. Comrade Sergey not so much.
2
Making an amphibious landing is one of the difficult things one can do, and this is of course the reason why it was difficult to get the British army back on the European continent. Otherwise could the British military accomplish things. It did defeat the numerically superior Italians in North Africa and it did crush the equally strong Italian mediterranean fleet. I did also fight battles in the atlantic and the pacific and in the skies over Germany but still had enough weapons to send help to Russia. The country was the last bastion of hope and freedom in Europe for a time. Resistance fighters listened to BBC while their governments were in exile in London. And Britain dropped the agents who killed one of the worst monsters who ever lived - Reinhard Heydrich. Britain had done a few raids along the German atlantic coast. And the lessons learned at Dieppe made the British empire troops much more effective at D-day compared to the American troops and their heavy losses at Omaha. Indian troops fought in North Africa and Italy and Canadian troops played an important role in Italy and Normandy. England had began to run low on manpower during the battle of Caen in 1944. So the Commonwealth played an important role to provide manpower. Britain also provided many inventions which helped the allied war effort and cracked the enigma code. Without Britain in the war would it have been harder for the axis to win. The Americans found in England not just a good airfield and springboard to invade Europe but also a country with a massive empire and a huge navy.
1
Japan had 80% of its infrastructure destroyed but happily fought on until it was nuked - so strategic bombing was worthless at bringing the country to peace. And it was rather uboats and the sinking of Japans merchant fleet that harmed Japans economy by denying it food, fuel, copper, cotton, aluminium, coal rubber and so on. Only a noob who totally lacks any knowledge about military history still believes strategic bombing have ever played any important role. And Germanys industrial production rose throughout the entire war. And it was not until allied land forces occupied the iron mines in the west and the romanian oil fields in the east that the German war production started to decline. So the air force failed. It was the army in the end that brought Germany to its knees. British historians tend not to like the truth. They cling on to even the smallest straws trying to find an area where Britain played an important role in WW2. And things do get pathetic when they try to hype up the Battle of El-Alamein and strategic bombing... or saying that not driving towards India was Hitlers worst geostrategic mistake. And there is always this silly emphasis on constantly portrait a moral victory with every failure. And the alcoholic mass murderer Winston Churchill is heralded like one of the wisest men who have ever lived. It is all hogwash. Desperate attempts for Britons to trying desperatly to make up some reason for their self-importance somehow. But fact remains that this war was won by Russian meatwave attacks and American industrial might. Britain was not unimportant in this war. Its navy played a crucial role in all theathers, and as the only country in war against Germany from the start til the end did the country play an important role over time. It was still a big and mighty empire even during the darkest hours when Hitler stood at the height of his power. Stating those things I said is uncontroversial. However silly attempts of making a hen out of a feather, and all this silly hype of bombers and the north african campaign is just ridiculous and needs to stop.
1
@nickdanger3802 UK had a higher debt to GDP ratio after the war so its sacrifices was larger. USA was a larger country so of course it built more stuff even if its war mobilization was more half-hearted. Furthermore was it never bombed and it was the richest country on the planet and had oil and huge natural resources that helped it outproduce other countries in weapons manufacturing.
1
This plane have no chance against a F35. The winner in air combar is decided by the plane which can see the enemy plane first and fire. And the F35 is a stealth fighter while this plane stand no chance against a 5th generation fighter with the most powerful fighter engine that has ever been produced. The Spitfire could never sneak into Irainian air space undetected and destroy targets like Israeli F35 jets can. F35 got a kill ratio of 1 to 78 - which is far better than almost any other plane including Spitfire. Buying a Spitfire would be more expensive than a F35 since losses of Spitfires would be very high, and so much money would be lost on building planes that gets shot down, while F35 is cheaper in the long run. Spitfire is a cheap junk propeller plane while F35 is a modern spy plane with an advanced helmet sight for its pilots. A plane capable of vertical take offs. 5th generation fighters have made other planes obsolete.
1
@nightjarflying "Absurd comparison written by a clown." I only see insults but no arguments at all. "For your next one why not compare Cutty Sark versus HMM Algeciras?" why do you try to go off-topic?
1
@doomedt-62 It saddens me when people try to make silly comparisons to destroy serious discussions. We are talking about military planes here and not boats.
1
So what you are saying is that Poland was a colony of the British empire
1
A tank is better than no tank. We should send m3 Lee to Ukraine.
1
@Boppy-B-B Britain felt like it stood alone in 1940. And that is what matters. The colonies was too far away to help the motherland which had just retreated from Europe while country after country had fallen like dominos. Now Britain was the only country left to stand against Hitlers invincible armies. And to make matters worse was Italy joining the Axis. And Spain and Vichy France didn't seem unlikely to join the fascist team soon. It felt like a dark time. Hitlers regime was not a freedom loving one. And now he no longer just had an invincible army but could also tap all the resources of Europe... So of course is this how many Brits would have felt during the Blitz. However, today we can look back in hindsight and laugh. Germany was never suffiecently prepared for operation sea lion in 1940 so the fears of the British population was not justified by the factual situation. Germany lacked transports, warships, and enough with time to finish Britain off in the summer. It is also understandable that people felt blackpilled in may 1942. The Axis had won victories at all fronts. Japan had won many victories and its empire now stretched over a gigantic sea and landmass. And if Japan would continue to beat bigger armies and expand at this rate then would soon Australia, India and then California fall into japanese hands. The Axis had been through a few setbacks in Europe. But most of Europe was now controlled by the Axis and the world under Axis control was now roughly the same size as the allied world in terms of economic GDP. German armies stood outside Moscow. German bombers had wrecked London. There was German submarines lurking outside the American coast and causing havoc. It seemed like the Axis armies was unstoppable. France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Poland and Yugoslavia had failed to stop the German take over of Europe. And in the pacific was Japan rolling forward and beating forces from USA, the Philippines, the Netherlands, the British empire, and Portugal. So of course did it for many people feel like it was just a matter of time before it was taken over by the axis. Today we can laugh at this idea when we know how hopeless the Axis situation was. But people back then could not know how much outnumbered and overextended the axis were. And few could probably have guessed that things would turn around so soon at Midway, Stalingrad, El-Alamein and in the Atlantic. Before the battle of Midway do I think that even the biggest supporter of the allieds war would have felt uneasy.
1
Soon I bet. According to this musuem are there no bad tanks. A tank is always better than no tank at all. And there exist no bad tanks - only bad ways of using them. We must not be racist towards non-western countries here, and always come up with excuses for them. Even for evil regimes that starts one war of aggression after another, commits a genocide, deliberatly bombs hospitals and schools and which threatens the free democratic world with nuclear bombs. Remember, if you kill your enemies, they win.
1
Jagdtiger and ISU152 was the most powerful :P No but seriously, I think the Jagdpanther had the best gun. Jagdtigers gun was powerful, but its gun barrel was so long and heavy that the pipe started to bend, which resulted in bad accuracy, so it was not a liked tank gun. Big guns also takes time to reload with big heavy shots. And you cannot carry many rounds of ammunition inside a tank if you gonna have a big gun. And it will also be a costly overkill to use a big round against weak target. Therefore do I think Jagdpanther got the best gun. Its powerful enough to reliably take out any allied tank at any distance with the first hit. The same 88mmL71 gun was used on the King Tiger and Nashorn, and there are many examples of those machines killing enemies at 3000-3500 meters - which I think says a lot how good the optics and precision of the guns was. It also did not take super long time to reload the gun and you could stack large amounts of ammo inside the tank. So good precision, good penetration, good reload time, good punch and the gun could be used against infantry. M36 jackson was good. It was like an American Tiger tank in firepower and armor. But it was slow. Jagdpanther on the other hand had the mobility of a panther medium tank and the fire power and frontal armor equal to a heavy tank like King Tiger. And unlike the panther and King Tiger so was this machine cheaper to build and took less time to produce thanks to its lack of a turret. The only disadvantages of this tank was probably its lack of a turret and its tall profile.
1
The Brits murdered Heydrich which was a very good thing. And the airwar over Germany did exhaust the Luftwaffe so it lost air superiority on the Eastern front, and that in turn got extra hard effects on the Germans who had relative weak artillery compared to other armies but had been able to compensate this weakness the early war years with good access to air support. Now Germany lost control over the skies and their ground forces now became the victim of allied air attacks instead. Britain did also do the main job of sinking the big German and Italian warships under the war. And the British commonwealth played a big role during the D-Day landings. Without the four years of planning, the air bases in England, the lessons learned at Dieppe, the hobbarts funnies, and the contribution of British and Canadian troops then this landing would not have been succesful.
1
Nope. Germanys industrial production increased throughout the war. And Japan did not have any oil because american submarines sunk all ships carrying it from Dutch Indonesia. And all industrial imputs like coal, copper, aluminium, iron ore and such also get sunk by american warships. So strategic bombings contribution to victory was tiny and irrelevant. Just a poor use of allied resources. It contributed to warcrimes against civilians and the unnecessary death of allied airmen.
1
@wisewarnanazara317 Having a few Toyota pickup trucks will be a faster way of moving soldiers. There will be more spareparts for them as they are still in production around the world, and you do not need any specially trained mechanics as you can use ordinary car mechanics to fix those trucks. Your logistical organization will be much easier to handle with a Toyota truck instead. And you will free up manpower for more useful tasks. You do not need specialized mechanics to work on old T-62 tank garbage and trying to improvise repairs as there are no spareparts. You do instead save up valuable time and manpower. Resources that are better used elsewhere. Even spending money on real modern infantry weapons for your foot soldiers is a better use of money, than wasting money on old junk that only costs more and more money to repair and upkeep. Sure a J-35 Draken that was first flown in 1955, could still perhaps be a powerful plane even today if you upgrade it a lot.. But would it still be worth keeping that plane in service in an airforce today? - I guess your answer is "yes". But personally I disagree. Sure was many hundreds of them built, so they could be a large reserve of planes that one could use if a war broke out. But to me it just seem wasteful to keep all those planes. As they cost money to constantly maintain, and pilots needs to fly them a few times now and then so they are not unprepared for using those planes if a war starts. But the problem is of course that the airframe gets damaged for every flight you make. And after 70 years one can assume that the equipment have been used very intensivly and are reaching the end of their lifespan. The plane will break down more often and need more and more repairs. Just like an old human body that often gets sicker and sicker the older it gets, and is getting weaker and suffer from a long life of wear and tear. When Draken entered service it was a typical combat plane in many ways. Like other planes of its day it needed 50 hours of maintance on the ground for every 1 hour it was flying up in the skies. Now I would guess a Draken would need even more than that because of its high age. Now you can compare that to Swedens newest fighter jet Gripen that only needs 5 hours of maintance on the ground for every 1 hour it flies up in the sky. So for the same maintance work as 1 Draken you can fly 10 Gripen. So I do not think that Draken can motivate its existence in the Swedish defence budget anymore for almost only that reason alone. It costs too much money to upkeep such an old plane. Its better then to use that money to buy a modern plane instead. In a war I do not want hangar Queens. And the same goes for tanks. Sure do they have strong thich metal planets that are not perhaps as fragile as an airframe on a plane. But tanks do also take a beating from metal fatigue and wear and tear. The armor more easily cracks as it gets older. And having a tank that is sitting in the repair shop 50% of the time like a world war 2 Panther tank was not really what Germany needed when its own tanks was already heavily outnumbered, and needed as many tanks in the frontline as it possibly could get.
1
I think strategic bombing was a bad use of allied resources - all manpower and industrial production should have been better put to use into other types of weapons instead. Germanys industrial production increased throughout the entire war despite all bombings - and only the direct physical occupation by the iron mines and oil fields by allied armies did force German industrial production down. So the air forces efforts was a dissapointment. The allied commanders saw how worthless their "precision strikes" were and gave up the idea, and instead they tried to bomb cities and kill all factory workers when they could not hit the factories with their bombs because they were a much smaller target than a city. This new strategy was nothing else than a warcrime. Deliberatly killing women and children by burning them to death in 2000 degrees hot flames was barbaric and unnecessary. German soldiers who were unhappy about the war and skeptical of Hitler, now just got angry on the allies and lusted for revenge and strongly joined up with the nazi war effort. Young men were willing to die in battle - to protect their hometown and families from allied arsonists. Hans von Luck describes in his biography how men became more eager than ever to return to the frontline as quickly as possible to win the war and to minimize the risk of loved ones getting killed by air raids. So strategic bombing was just counter-productive as it just angered the Germans and made them more determined to fight back.
1
B24 was an important plane in that sense that it closed the gap in the atlantic ocean where the german subs previously could act indisturbed. It was an important milestone in the battle of the atlantic
1
Bf109 is better than the F35
1
As a kid i liked B24... but today I don't. Its box shaped for mass production. It has a big fat underbelly and huge ugly landing gears. Its like a fat elephant. And its tail rudders are unaerodynamic. B24 is basically just a plane industrialists and the airforce likes while pilots and crews would probably like it less than the B17. Its higher wingloading also makes it more vulnerable to enemy fire and harder to turn and steer. And the focus on mass production seems to have outweight the concern for crew safety. This is of course understandable if you fight a world war against two evil empires in an existential conflict. So I will say that B24 is an impressive plane despite its flaws. But its impressive features are rather find in other things - like that it was able to be mass produced on a huge scale and become the most produced bomber in history despite being big and having 4 engines - and the Germans would of course come nowhere near to compete. It was a plane capable of crossing the atlantic, fly fast and carry big bombloads - so it was a good machine for its time.
1
@Boppy-B-B Prussia and Germany had conscription too despite not having elected governments. They were conscripts and not slave soldiers
1
They will take home the price as the most militarily useless country in the northern hemisphere for sure.
1
"we should make a strong and united Europe, which wouldn’t have to rely on the unreliable US again, so that all of Europe would be safe from war" And now Germany is ruling Europe again. A country with a never ending tradition of fascism. And a country far more unreliable and hypocritical than USA. A country which signs up to Nato and never paid its fair share for more than 40 years. She betrayed USA. And then she betrayed Eastern EU by rather siding with Russia on the issue of sanctions. Germany rather side with Turkey than with France that wanted to stand up against Erdogan. Germany demands other countries to make sacrificies for her (like taking in refugees or letting tax payers in other countries lose money to save German banks from going bankrupt). But she would never make the tinyest sacrifice for other countries. She is an ungrateful country. She is not acting like a friend. She is the enemy of my country. She did prove that last year when she stole hospital equipment from Sweden and Italy. That German egoism killed thousands of people in Italy. And put hundreds of Swedish lives at risk. With friends like Germany you do not need any enemies.
1
BMP-1 cannot stand and fight either. Its rate of fire with its tiny gun is horribly slow. The vehicle is cramped and filled with fuel and ammunition to quickly kill everyone inside if it gets hit. Its armor protection is crap and made out of crappy soviet steel - and it is even more crap now because of its old age, rust, and 40 years of wear and tear that exhaust the armor quality of tanks, planes and other vehicles alike. I rather try to swim in a M113 than I do with a BMP-1 that is filled with holes because of low production standards that can allow water to come in and sink the vehicle and let the troops inside drown in the river. And I rather risk getting a hit inside a well maintained M113 than a crampy rusty BMP-1.
1
Nice video footage. And its good that museums actualize historical topics and make small documentaries and have speakers making presentations. Its apprechiated, especially now in Corona times when visiting museums can be difficult.
1
The M113 have the same ground pressure (and even slightly lower than BMP.1) so they should be able to handle the mud equally well. Given that the quality of western machines are generally better and given that the maintance is not being neglected in western countries like it is in rotten Soviet Russia... would I guess that M113 would be much less prone to breakdowns than the rusty Soviet junk used in this war.
1
Nigel is a German.
1
The Ukrainian army is still a post-Soviet army just like Russia. It does not have enough western kit so it therefore have to put this junk into use. This choice stands between this crap or no weapons at all.
1
I do not like woke history either. Public museums should show respect to visitors that aren't interested in political propaganda.
1
Of course its armor will not stop that. But on the other hand do I think that it shouldn't be too much to ask that not everyone inside should be burned alive because the vehicle have a stupid design that instantly cooks off its ammunition and fuel, and is so crampy that it is impossible for everyone inside the vehicle to get out once it catches fire.
1
@henriht1147 "If an armored vehicles hull gets penetrated with anything then most of the crew is destined to die either way." Nonsense. If an American M4 Sherman or a German Panther got destroyed in battle, then did on average 80% of the crew survive the hit. Compare that to Russian tanks. When a T-34 got destroyed, there was a 80% chance that a crewman would die. So there is obviously a big difference in crew safety from vehicle to vehicle. Are there many safety hatches that the crew can reach? Is the vehicle cramped inside, or is it easy to get out of it if a fire starts inside? How is the ammunition stored inside, is it safely stored like in M1 Abrams or is it stored like inside a T-72 where all the ammunition cooks off and throw the tank turret 75meters up in the air and kill everyone inside the tank in a gigantic explosion? Soviet vehicles have never prioritized crew safety as much as their western counterparts. They rather want to keep production costs down for making a vehicle. And sure have Russia been succesful in selling cheap armor vehicles to poor countries that cannot afford much else. But the drawback have always been bad crew safety. And for that reason am I not a big fan of Russian vehicles. A good tank crew is very valuable in my opinion. More valuable than a tank. I think Israels obsession about crew safety in their design of the Merkava tank have some merit. While Russias design philosophy from WW2 that views human lives as easily replaceable junk, while equipment is more valuable is coming to an end. Good crews takes years to make. A tank can be destroyed, but new ones can be built. But a new human soldier takes 20 years to make and needs lots of expensive training. And his willingness to fight will be low if you treat him like a wasteable resources. While a soldier in a democratic society that values soldiers lives will have a stronger willingness to fight. Russia can no longer behave like it did in the past. It can no longer afford human waves attacks and lose mountains of dead Russian soldiers for every war they win. Those days are gone. Russias birthrate is going down. And fewer soldiers are therefore available. Russia must now transition away from quantity to quality. But the problem is that Soviet weapons lack quality and only got quantity in mind. It is junk compared to its western counterparts. And even the better weapons in the Soviet arsenal have aged and is no longer up to date with the best stuff from the west. Russia better starts mass producing their T14 Armata and SU57 soon, because will everything they have be outclassed by everything that the west got. Indeed even if Russia gets the SU57 project finalized... it seems like Russia is in a hopeless situation by now. They have not yet finished their first own 5th generation jet, while USA, Japan, Sweden, UK, Germany and France are already on their way building their own 6th generation planes. I don't think a technologically backwards, boycotted country, with an economy as large as Spain's can compete with the west anymore in developing advanced weapons systems.
1
B24 closed the gap in the atlantic ocean
1