Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Military History Visualized"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia economy is badly battered and ammunition production is likely to fall off a cliff next year. Already today is Ukraine firing more artillery shells than russia. And with ATACMS arriving and the last years horrible russian losses in artillery and MLRS will make the future even worse for russia. And North Korean artillery shells sent to russia is like putting a plaster on a guy who just had his entire leg chopped off. Its low quality junk in too small numbers to make any difference.
The next year is likely getting horrible for russia. Its economy is going down, its artillery is disapearing, its missiles are going away, its helicopters are held far away by ATACMS, its black sea fleet cannot stay in Crimea, the country is running out of tanks.
And now it is using 90 year old military trucks (GAZ AA), 70 year old tanks (T-55), 130 year old rifles (Mosin Nagant), and 70 year old armored personnel carriers (BTR-50).
And I don't think russia would be using such old equipment and needlessly put their own soldiers lives at risk if better more modern equipment was available. And to me this is a sign that russia have suffered extremely heavy unsubstainable losses.
And if russias professional army equipped with T-90 tanks couldn't defeat ukrainians back when russia had enormous superior in tanks and artillery that could fire 63.000 shots per day - then I don't think russia can win this war when it have fewer tanks than ukraine and firing less shots per day than Ukraine, and having artillery that is of a lower quality.
And russias professional army is also dead. Its counter-battery radars are gone. And now are only badly equipped, poorly trained, and badly motivated troops all that russia is having left.
So I likely think russia is heading towards a loss. And I think that even a Trump election win would be too little too late to save Putin from a loss. He have already lost too much men and equipment by then to turn the tables and win the war. And even without american artillery shells would the rest of the free world be able to provide enough shells for Ukraine to keep it fighting and making the final push needed to drive home victory against a totally exhausted enemy that have no tanks or artillery left, and only got lots of useless meat - men that gets blown up by ukrainian artillery before they get the chance to even fire upon any ukrainian infantry.
And without artillery and tanks you cannot make any succesful offensive tanks. And russia lacks both, and its infantry lacks both training and weapons - so its combat value sucks, and especially so in offensive operations.
This Avdiika offensive might be the last major offensive russia could pull off in this war. And it should be noted that this offensive is done with with BTR-50 and the last modern tanks russia got. And even unit in the russian army - VDV looklike complete rookies unsure how to act on a battlefield. So things do not look good for russia.
The Ukrainian army might not be well trained professional soldiers according to western standards. Indeed they are far from it, and especially after all losses they have suffered. But Ukraine do on the other hand have lots of good kit, and artillery superiority both in quality and quantity and that is worth a lot.
1
-
Firstly, Germany did not have enough ships for sea lion. Secondly I don't think the German air force would be able to destroy the royal air force, and then the royal navy, and then being able to pull off support for a land invasion of Britain in the short span of just a few months.
And even if Britain have had a weaker government that signed a peace treaty with the Germans, I still don't think it would dramatically change the situation on the Eastern Front.
Sure, Germany could have won in the east even if Hitler was with the western powers. His killratio was exhausting the Russians faster than the Germans until 1944, and Hitlers Southern offensive in 1942 could have been devestating for Russia.
But nevertheless, so was the odds against Germany. And 3 German Divisions in North Africa, the Italian army, and some German Garrison troops in the west was still not enough men to secure a victory on the Eastern front.
Odds would still be against Germany.
And even if 1940 had been a period of peace after the fall of France, that would have made food imports from South America possible for Germany. But Germany would still probably be dependent on oil from Russia. Unless it could import from oil from Persia and Indonesia.
But the war on Russia was not just a resource matter. Hitler wanted the land for his people, and he wanted to exterminate the slavs. Nothing would probably have stopped Hitler from attacking Russia, even if it clearly was against the best interest of his own country.
Germany would lose a friendship. It would lose a great trade partner. And its armies would suffer horrific losses that would weaken Germany immensly.
1
-
You confuse skill with luck. The Germans were just lucky that they could destroy the largest air force in the world the first day of Barbarossa with a surprse attack on Russian airfields. And without air support the German army would have suffered huge losses in 1941, because the German artillery was 12 times weaker than the Russian artillery in 1941, and 20 times weaker in 1944.
Furthermore did the Russians posses tanks in better quality and quantatity than any military in the world in 1941. And no other country even came close to match them. So had Stalin not forbidden retreats and incentivised stupid decisionmaking, then the Germans would not have won the great victories they had in 1941.
And the German Army lost 3000 men per day during Barbarossa. So no one could fool me into believing 3 Afrika Korps divisions of 45.000 men would have made any difference on the Eastern Front. 45.000 men would just had been eaten up in only 15 days.
Only the battle for Moscow alone killed more German solidiers than the losses it took during all the invasions of western Europe combined (Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, France).
The German military was exhausted by october and should have taken a rest instead of pushing onwards. Its logistics was strained. More than half of the tanks were no longer operational because of all wear and tear and fighting, huge manpower losses needed to be replaced, Stuka pilots were being by all the bombing missions and the Luftwaffe didn't have enough bombs or planes to deal with even half of all the targets that were on the list to bomb.
So an attack on Moscow in 1941 was simply overly ambitious, and a stupid waste of resources. And even if they had sacrificed all and gotten into the city, its doubtful that they could have taken it. Probably it would just have been lots of bloody streetfighting.
And neighter woul the conquest of Moscow have ended the war. The Swedes took Moscow in 1612, and that didn't mean the conquest of Russia, and neighter did Napoleons conquest of the city 200 years later end differently.
Probably would the Germans just be too weak to both hold the city and protect their own flanks, so the option was to retreat and leave the city or getting encirled and trapped as they were in Stalingrad.
And Germany was once again lucky that they didn't lose the war already in the winter 1941-42 when Stalin launched his massive counteroffensive that pushed the Germans back 300km and nearly crushed the German defensive line in the central Russia.
Hitler refused to listen to his Generals, and his policy of forbidding retreats had saved the German Wehrmacht from total destruction. And Stalins massive offensive turned into a costly disaster for the Russians since they were easily cut off and destroyed when they had pushed forward so fast that supplies couldn't keep up..
The winter offensive was a disaster for the Red Army. And without this disaster it would have been impossible for Hitler to start an offensive in Russia in 1942. Furthermore had Germany also lost enormous amounts of planes, heavy artillery and machines during their winter retreat. And manpower losses to cold and fighting was huge despite they won a victory.
----------------
So would I say that Germany would be the likely victor in war against Russia? No.
They had a small chance. But odds were not in their favour.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First of all did the loss of the 6th Army and 4th panzer corps cause a huge gap in the southern part of the Russian front, and the Germans were lucky that they didn't lose the other half of the Army Group. But if that would have happened the South would have collapsed, and Germany would be forced to try to plug the hole with what they had - and they didn't have anything suffiecent to compensate such a huge loss. And moving troops from Army Group North and Middle, would just strech those army groups thin as well.... and then the Russians could just smash those army groups as well, and the entire Eastern front would be left unprotected for the steamrolling red army.
And not trying to plug the southern hole was not an option either. Germany needed rare earth metals, it needed the Ukrainian coal mines, and losing the airbases on Crimea would threaten the Turkish shipments of chrome to Germany........And worst of all, having a million men on the southern flank of Army group mittel would be a disaster for the Germans. And of top of all those things - I guess a political crisis would be ensured. Stalingrad was bad enough, and many countries were starting to make diplomatical moves towards peace and leaving the Axis. And had the Southern front totally collapsed and Ukraine quickly fallen to the Russians, and Romania and Hungary had become next to fall.... then I guess that the Axis-alliance would fall to pieces pretty fast.
And the only thing stopping the red army then, would be bad weather and logistical constraints rather than fierce enemy opposition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-stanis777
Det här kriget går inte bra för ryssland. Ni har inte längre någon chans att vinna det. Vore jag en ryss skulle jag vilja ha fred så snart som möjligt för att spara så många ryska soldaters liv som möjligt, och för att hindra att ryska tanks och kanoner sprängs i bitar till ingen nytta alls.
Kriget är också en tragedi för Ukraina med all sin förödelse.
Det kommer att ta tid för Ryssland för att återhämta sig. Relationerna till andra länder har skadats allvarligt. Pengar som kunnat användas till att bygga nya broar, köpa in bättre apparater till sjukhus och stödja ryska företag har slösats bort i detta krig.
Rysslands rykte som militär stormakt har skadats av detta dåligt skötta krig, och länder i arabien och indien lär vara tveksamma i framtiden till att köpa ryska vapen.
Rysslands folkmängd kommer att fortsätta att sjunka som en sten i vattnet. Det var ett stort problem innan kriget. Nu kommer problemet bli ännu värre med alla unga män som dör och skadas och tillbringar år i den ukrainska leran istället för att stanna hemma och dela kärlek med en vacker kvinna.
Ryssland har förstört sitt rykte för årtionden framöver. Eran aggressiva hotfulla utrikespolitik har förstört allt hopp om ett mäktigt ryssland ni hoppats bygga.
Finland, Ukraina, Georgien, Polen, Litauen, Estland, Lettland, Tjeckien, Slovakien, Rumänien... folk i alla dessa länder hatar er.
Vi svenskar ogillar också ryssar, men i dessa länder så känner man ett starkt hat.
Det beror förstås på allt förtryck, krigande, mördande och hård ockupation Sovjetunionen och Ryssland gjort i dessa länder.
Det är därför folk i dessa länder känner så stark sympati med Ukraina. De vet vilket lidande Ukraina står inför. Och de hjälper Ukraina med hela sitt hjärta, på samma vis som de hoppas att andra länder och Ukraina ska hjälpa dom i fall dom blev invaderade av Ryssland.
Vill ni vara den stora ledande stormakten i östeuropa, då föreslår jag att ni prövar att bygga vänskapsband med era grannar istället för att hota dom.
Små länder skulle då vända sig till er för att få stöd istället. Så eran makt och inflytande skulle vara mycket större. Små länder skulle se det som ett välkommet alternativ till USA, EU, och Tyskland.
Men allt sånt hopp har blåst bort med den idiotiska ryska utrikespolitiken de senaste 30 åren 🙄
Naturligtvis lär du ge fan i allt vad jag har att säga. Jag är trots allt en oviktig person som bor i sveriges ödemark.
Men lägg gärna mina ord på minnet. Skulle du i framtiden känna ånger så kan du tipsa din barn och framtida generationer av ryssar om de råd jag har gett.
Kom ihåg att barn, fyllon och fiender är ärliga. Jag är brutalt ärlig med dig om hur jag ser på ryssland. Det är en jobbig sanning du antagligen inte vill höra.
Men saker går inte bra för ryssland.
Ni kan göra en omvändning som jag föreslår.
Men ni kan förstås fortsätta på den inslagna vägen. Men sen tar det stopp. Ni får slut på vapen, pengar och soldater.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@qk-tb2df "the REAL thing to worry about would be the economic collapse if there isn't a good enough of a transition period for oil"
First we humans used timber as source of energy, then we switched over whale oil, then we used coal, and today we oil and fossile fuels.
During all those steps we went from one energy source over to another energy source that was more powerful. But with oil its different. We have nothing more powerful to replace it with.
It costs energy to produce energy. When drive a drill into the ground you use up energy. When you pump up oil from the ground you use up energy.
And likewise does it also cost energy to produce ethanol fuel for cars. You waste energy when you pump water to grow wheat. You waste energy when make fertilizer. You waste energy when you drive a tractor. You waste energy when you fly a plane to spray pesticides. You waste energy when you use radiators to dry your harvest and so on.
And the most interesting thing about energy is the ratio we get - Energy produced vs. energy consumed. If you can pump 30 barrels of oil up from the ground for every barrel of oil you spend to get that oil, then you get an EROEI value of 30 (EROEI = Energy returned on energy invested).
A good energy source should give you a high EROEI. Oil in the 1800s could give you an EROEI of 100, since oil was everyware and you didn't even have to go down deep to get it. You only had to stick a hole into the ground and a black fontain came up.
But today have the average EROEI value of oil began to sink worldwide, because we have used up all the oil that was easy to get, and now we have to pump up dirty oil from the ground with much sand in it that costs more energy to extract and turn pure.
And even if oil today only have an EROEI of say 30, it is still a superior form of energy compared EROEI from solar, wind, nuclear, and biofuels.
Brazilian ethanol fuel only have an EROEI of 15. Swedish timber have an EROEI of 5. Ethanol from maize and grain even have an EROEI of 0.5 - which means that you even lose energy by using oil to produce ethanol!
So as you see. There is nothing we can replace oil with. The EROEI of other forms of energy is too low to replace oil. And would it even be possible to maintain an industrial society if EROEI falls down to such a low number as 5?
And that is just the beginning of all the problems. Where should you grow all biofuels to produce the large amounts you will need? I mean we humans also needs somewhere to live and we also need something to eat ourselves and not just our cars. And same goes for solar and windfarms. Nuclear power also have a shitty EROEI of about 5 (if I remember correctly what Nicole Foss said). And if we would to replace all oil, coal and natural gas with nuclear then we would need to build enormous amounts of new nuclear plants. And we would get a new problem - How would we be able to find enough fuel for so many new nuclear plants? There is only a limited amount of uranium on this planet. And if we would use it all to replace oil, then the global uranium reserves would be used up in only a few years.
So no, replacing oil cannot be done. Even the nazi scientists couldn't solve Germany's oil dependency problem. Nor could the Brazilian military dictatorship which during the 1970s oil shocks started to run so huge trade deficits when oil became expensive that they felt forced to get off their oil dependency by fueling cars with ethanol from sugarcane. But even 40 yers later are Brazil still consuming enormous amounts of oil.
So many American presidents have promised to get off oil dependency that this statement have just become a joke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNfZeh6oK-c
Our world have been dependent on fossile fuels for 200 years now since the start of the industrial revolution. And it would take decades if not even a century to transform society away from that.
Even if we would tomorrow get the space aliens to hand us over a blueprint of the perfect engine for renewable energy it would still take time to change society. We must produce lots of things before we can replace our old machines that relies on a combustion engine - cars, trucks, ships, aircrafts, chain saws, lawn movers, motorcycles, snowmobiles, leafblowers, diesel locomotives, jetskies, helicopters, air compressors and what have you?
1
-
@qk-tb2df Sure you can power all kinds of tools with electric power. But do you have the resources?
As I said there are many types of machines. And there are millions of them. And there is not even enough Litium and other rare materials on the planet to make enough electric car batteries to replace 1% of the cars used worldwide.
And the next problem down the line is how you should expand the energy grid. And then you need to somehow get enough power to all those machines. Building 10.000 nuclear plants would take decades before they are finished, and would only work until you run out of uranium after some years.
Nuclear power does also do nothing to help us solve the problems we have here and now.
How would it help us get the oil the resources we need to build all the electric machines you talk about?
Today we need enormous amounts of oil for everything we make. Your computer probably consumed oil about 10x its own weight during its manufacturing process.
A car consume tonnes of oil to make, since half of all a car consumes during its life time happens during the production process. Only making a single tire takes 26 litres of oil.
And then we need to find ways of replacing oil for all kinds of things: plastics, toothpaste, medicines, colours, pesticides, asphalt, food coloring and food flavourings, cosmetics, synthetic fabrics, rubber and the list is endless.
Only such a thing as kerosene would be hopeless to find a replacement for, because it is a kind of fuel with unique and extreme requirements:
Energy content per unit volume, energy content per unit weight, freezing point, boiling point, flash point, etc. And not the least must the fuel be possible to produce in sufficient quantities.
Todays aviation fuel is ideal since it works even when it is 55 degrees cold at 11.000 metres.
Todays biofuels for airliners would have to expand unrealisticly much to replace aviation fuel from fossile fuels. Ross Walker, who works as a developer of alternative fuels for Airbus says you would need to grow sunflowers on an area the size of France to provide the French airline industry with all the biofuel it needs. And growing algae on a plot of land of the size of Belgium would be able to provide enough fuel for the entire worlds aviation industry.
This sounds like an unreasonable solution to me. Especially considering that we also need land for other uses. We would need 2 million square kilometers of forrest only to provide fuel for all cars and trucks on EUs roads. We would timber fuel to heat our homes. We would need land to grow food and feed cattle. We need land for roads, shopping malls and mining.
My own country Sweden is blessed with having lots of forrests and not lots of people which needs to be supported unlike more densly populated countries. But Sweden would still not be able to replace all its oil imports with biomass. We import 118 barrels of oil each year, while 96 million square metres of forrest grows each year - which is rougly equal to the energy of 81 million barrels of oil. So even if we burn down all our forrest growth for an entire year would we be able to replace our oil imports.
But of course cannot even countries like Russia, Canada or Sweden burn down all their trees. We need forrests to provide us with paper, and timber for furniture and buildings and things to export.
And trees needs 20-30 years to grow so you cannot just cut down all trees at once. So cutting down 3-5% of the trees each year would be a more realistic goal. And that means that not much biomass can be used to replace fossile fuels can be replaced by fossile fuels.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. Good question. I guess that the intent was to give the tank a limited ability to defend itself against other tanks. A short fat gun is good for dealing with soft targets of flesh and blood, while a long gun barrel is good for dealing with enemy tanks. This is because a fat gun fires large grenades that contains large amounts of explosives and therefore kill lots of men where the shot lands. And a long gun barrel gives a higher muzzle velocity, so a gun shot will hit an enemy tank with much more power and speed - and that will make it more likely that the shot will pierce the armour of an enemy tank and kill the men inside.
In the 1930s tanks were still a new thing and people were unsure about its role of the future battlefield. And the tankdesign was not that developed, so engines were weak, the suspension was not that sophisticated, the tracks was not that wide and thus unable to deal with the heavy weight of a tank that well.
And tanks were not broad and could not therefore have a huge gun turret, and the tanks were too weak to carry a heavy gun that was both long and fat and thus capable of both killing tanks and infantry.
2. Germany was forbidden to have any tanks after world war 1, so when Hitler decided do ignore this restriction he had to build whatever tanks Germany could get their hands on. So he started building Panzer1 and Panzer2 tanks....and he hoped that he one day would be able to replace them with better panzerIII and PanzerIV tanks that were better able to fight both enemy infantry and tanks since they atleast had some real guns.
And in 1942 it was decided that the Panther tank that would be able to do all jobs would replace all earlier tanks. It took it barely a year to get the tank from the drawingboard to the battlefield, so of course did the tank have many design flaws that had to be corrected at the beginning.
There was of course other firms that was designing other tanks that competed with the Panther for the contracts, when in 1942 it was realized that the PanzerIII was inferior to the KV1 and even the upgraded panzerIV would perhaps soon become inferior to the next generation of allied tanks.
And some E-series projects were alternatives to the Panther. While other monster tanks, were heavy "supertanks" thought of as "breaktrough tanks" that was able to smash any heavy enemy resisitance.
And the Tiger and the King Tiger was such machines. And they were never intented for massproduction or playing multiple roles on the battlefield. But irony meant that Germany could never use the Tiger for the offensive war it planned for. Instead it fought without air support and had to fight defensive actions instead.
3. I think that all countries had good and bad commanders. But German NCOs had more freedom to do what they wanted without having to ask for permission from their high ranked officers. Indeed, panzer commanders were even encouraged to take their own iniatives on the battlefield and act the way they seemed fit.
A General sitting long behind the front could not know all the circumstances at every place at the battlefield and give rational detailed orders to everyone what to do. So instead the Germans decided that their NCOs should get an order or goal from above, and then they themselves should decide the best way to fullfill that goal.
And usally this tactic worked well. The Germans could use tactical opportunities on the battlefield that a slower clumbsier organization couldn't. And they were masters of speedy improvised warfare.
Their auftragstaktik and their kampfgruppen combined with their good skill level gave them superiority on the battlefield. They could take all men and machines that was available in an area and form an improvised battlegroup to solve a problem that had shown up on the battlefield.
This tactic gave the Germans, and the Israelis the upper hand in their wars. But sometimes it also resulted in disproportionally high losses of NCOs in the fighting.
So the tactic was good. But the higher leadership in Germany was just as incompetent as the worst allied leaders - which shown itself in the great offensives Germany made in terrain totally unsuitable for German tanks such as the ardennes, the marshes in Hungary, the offensive in Normandy.... and the allies also thought that breaktroughs could easily be done in unsuitable terrain, which resulted in the costly failures at Normandy, Caen, Metz and Market Garden.
1
-
1
-
@romankovalev7894
Russia have lost so many vehicles that they cannot be replaced. If Russia had lots of modern vehicles - as you pretend they do, then I bet that they would use them in Ukraine by the thousands to more effectivly destroy Ukrainian resistence and to save their own soldiers lives.
But instead have Russia began to use more and more junk weapons. T62 tanks that are easy prey even relativly old and weak anti-tank weapons. And as a result have Russian losses in human lives gone up each month.
And it is not just tanks... but also more and more old and crappy military trucks have been pushed into service. Garbage from the 1960s such as scooby doo vans are now used, along with WW2 helmets and WW2 rifles.
Much of those garbage weapons will be slaughtered by Ukraine even before they get within firing range to their enemy. HIMARS, and BONUS, excalibur and such artillery rounds are slaughtering the enemies from distance.
And even if Russia have more tanks and vehicles it doesn't matter. Ukraine have so many anti-tank missiles that Russian tanks are safe nowhere. There are Stugna, Panzerfaust-3, NLAWs, Javelins, AT4, RPG7, Carl-Gustaf, Matador, MILAN, TOW, Pansarvärnspjäs 1110 and much more hiding everywhere in Ukraine.
So it is no wonder why Russian armor losses have been gigantic despite Ukraines armor forces are lower in numbers than their foe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1