Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Military History Visualized"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
Discussing machineguns feels irrelevant. Partly because it is debatable if it was the best weapon of its role (just ask Lindybeige). But even more so because we are talking about how well equiped the Armies was overall. And the Americans and the British there had an enormous advantage.
Their solidiers were well fed. They had lots of trucks and fire support. While the Germans didn't.
On average did an US Army Division consume 800 tonnes of supplies per day, while a German Division only consumed 400 tonnes.
Germany was badly equiped overall. With little oil, ammo, food spare parts. Their truck cabins was made out of wood to save metal. Their jet engines only lasted for a week due to shortages of rare materials. The steel quality in their tanks deteriorated when they ran out of rare materials for the production process of high quality steel. Germany also ran out of chemicals to cammo paint their tanks at the late war.
So Germany couldn't provide for its troops.
They lacked everything. And instead of building real tanks they had to resort to using old czech tank chassis and using captured Russian guns to build tank destroyers such as Marder. Only because they didn't have enough real tanks. So shit equipment like marder was what Germany usally had to use in combat because real tanks was so rare and could almost never be seen.
And the first half of world war 2 when Germany conquered Europe, it did so without any big Tiger tanks or Panthers. In fact, Germany had worse tanks than their enemies. And France also had twice as many tanks as the Germans in 1940.
And to make matters worse, so was tankproduction painfully slow in 1940. So almost all of Germanys tanks were older tanks, while just a tiny tiny portion was the more modern panzer III and Panzer IV.
And when Germany invaded Russia in 1941, Germany still used mostly old bad Panzer II and pz38t tanks. While Russia had tanks of equal quality such as T-26 and and BT-7, and tanks of clearly superior quality such as t-34 and KV-1. So Germany didn't have the best tanks in the world.
In 1940 it was the french, and in 1941 it was the Russians. And it is debatable if Germany even had best tanks in 1944-45 since the Russians also had monsters such as IS2, ISU152, SU152, SU100 etc.
So I cannot see any clear evidence that Germany was best equiped overall.
1
-
The resources you have at your disposal do determine what kind of objectives you should have in a war, and what way you should go to reach your goals.
Germany should have taken a strategy of a fast victory due to their limited resources. And they should have tried to knock one country out of the war before attacking the next. Because Germanys resources were limited, and winning a 5 front war (in the atlantic, in the air, in Africa/italy, Russia and the west) was hopeless.
And the allies knew that they had more resources at their hand and planned their war effort accordingly, unlike Germany who made a missmatch between their strategy and resources.
The Allies could also have tried to build over-engineered weapons like the Germans and not mobilized their women for their industries. But they choosed another path.
And they choosed to force Hitler to fight a war on multiple fronts so their resources would be thinned out. And the japanease had their supply routes cut off, so the japanease island garrisons didn't have be fought down, but could instead just be starved to death as no supply ships provided them with food.
And in Russia, did the Soviets launch offensives on a broad front simultaniously. And Germany was always facing a dilemma where it would put its resources to stop to stop the Russian forward thrusts - North, Center or South?. Germany simply didn't have enough manpower to fight everyware at the sametime. So they were facing attrition and was losing the iniative on the Eastern front.
So the Allies played their game right, while the Axis played foolishly and opened up multiple fronts and didn't make sure that the war got short.
1
-
if the so called better grand strategy of the allies is a product of the military genius or the inherent strategical situation?
They used common sense in military matters. While Japan and Germany made foolish strategic decisions.
Japan never had the resources to defeat USA. Nor the SU. And not even China.
And Germany as I sees it only had one way of winning the war. And that would be to postpone Operation Barbarossa to 1942 or 1943. And meanwhile should Germany take control over North Africa and mediterranean, and build up their industrial capacity, train new regiments, stockpile supplies such as small arms ammunition and artillery shells, and then luftwaffe should get resources to replace losses from the battle of Britain.
So when Germany invades Russia they can go in with full force before Russia gets time to mobilize all their resources and before lend-lease could effectivly supply them.
And instead of fighting a costly battle for Moscow should Germany instead target Southern Russia directly, which would be a terrible loss to Russia even in the short run.
And with Southern Russias resources in German hands Germany would get stronger by the day while Russia is starving to death. And USA would of course not be provoced into war until Russia has fallen and the conquest has been consolidated.
if the allies hadnt had the industrial capacity of the SU or the USA, the allied strategy would have been therefore fundamentally flawed.
I don't think you can separate strategy from economics since they are linked. And if the allies did not have the industrial capacity they had, then I think that they also would have had another type of strategy of war.
Building liberty ships faster than they could be sunked would for example probably be replaced by another naval strategy.
The allies had during the entire war an strategical freedom the axis could only dream of, even the best axis strategy would be by default be bad considering the odds simply because the strategical situation dictated it.
I don't think Germany played foreign policy rational. No one forced them to attack USA, and no one forced to attack the Soviet union when they did. And they had a choice what their factories should have produced - strategic bombers, tanks, uboats, tactical bombers, offensive weapons, defensive weapons. They could have taken Malta, but they didn't. They could have supported Arabian uprisings in the middle east. They could tried not to make themselves enemies of the slavs. If the Kriegsmarine had joined forces with the Italian navy and the Vichy fleet, then the battles at sea could have become interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One cannot just assemble a million men at the German border and punch through it within a week. But atleast France did a try, and had they been succesful they would probably have expanded their offensive into Germany while most of the German army was fighting in Poland.
But the French got stuck and didn't seem to have much faith in the ability to break trough well prepared defenses. And all this was contradicting all the military wisdom that existed back then which said that a huge tank force could always punch through any defences. Just like the bombers would always breaktrough into enemy territory and terrorbomb a country into submission. And the Allies also did several bomb raids on Germany in 1939, and to their own surprise did they not have any effect at all on their enemy.
So what one can conclude is that Fuller's "breaktrough doctrine" was just as faulty as the fashionable Dohuets theory about bombers as a war winning weapon.
Fact is that tanks usally don't do well against a well prepared enemy or in unsuitable terrain. Tanks and airplanes are not wonder weapons. Just as fortifications is not just some medieval nonsense. Great military thinkers like Erich von Manstein was one of the proponents of building fortifactions in pre-war Germany, even if those projects competed with funds and steel with other defensive strategies.
And the Westwall was an improved copy of French Maginot line, but it had somewhat shittier guns than the french version. Nonetheless was it a formidable defensive position.
And defensive lines came to play an important role in the war, such as the Gustav line which the allies couldn't breakthrough for 6 months despite their superior numbers. And even old shitty defensive lines could prove to be hard nuts to crack. The Mannerheim line was not as well equiped as the continental defensive lines, since Finland was the poorest country in Europe and its population was tiny, but still their defences proved difficult for the Russians, who got utterly humiliated by the finns both in the winter war and in the continuation war.
And then we have the case of Metz, with old forts from the 1870s guarded by a dozen understrength Divisions mosly consisting of troops dubious quality - militia and such . But nevertheless could it hold back some of the best units in the American army, when they held back the well equiped Pattons 3rd Army for over 3 months.
So no, I certainly do not consider fortifications to be a joke like you do. And I think tanks are more suited to flanking operations and attacks on open ground than attacking fortifications. And considering the hell of the first world war, I would say that attacking a well entrenched enemy with barbed wire and minefields ahead of him is indeed a very costly operation.
The Siegfried line was no joke, and it existed for real. And it would have been a tough nut to crack.
1
-
1
-
You don't need that expensive weapons to shot down a helicopter. A gunshot or a RPG are usally enough.
Helicopters during the Vietnam era only needed a bullet into their hydralic system for them to crash. Furthermore did they lack any warning systems that told them that they were taking hits from enemy fire and needed to take cover, so it was often only after other helicopters in the unit saw gunfire that anyone could react.
Todays helicopters are much better in so far that the pilots are more likely to survive a crash.
However, the limitations are still much the same. They can only carry a limited amount of weight, and therefore they cannot carry much armour. They cost much money and they got limitations on range, how much weight they can carry, and they cannot take much damage, and most helicopters in Vietnam couldn't take survive long in the harsh climate since the rotorblades got destroyed by wood and rocks it threw up, and Iraq 2003 British Helicopters also suffered from a short lifespan to all sandydust it threw up.
And helicopters in Vietnam was also limited in their capabilities to operate at night and in bad weather.
So helicopter warfare got its limitations. With a limited number of positions on the map suitable for helicopter transports of men, it was easy for the Vietcong to make ambushes on American helicopters.
So protect the transport helicopters, some helicopters was starting to carry rockets and machine guns. And those huey gunships would later lead to the UH-1 Cobra, the worlds first attack helcopter.
So do I think attack helicopters are obsolete? Not yet. They got much firepower and can take out enemy tanks. And they can provide protection for other helicopters. But on the other hand are they weak, and would probably get replaced by drones in the future.
Few armies got the luxury to move large numbers of troops by helicopter, so I think the transport helicopter will mostly be valuable as an ambulance.
And the Air Cavalry Division in Vietnam had limited firepower since everything had to be transportable by helicopter. And the troops were vulnerable to ambushes when they landed or lifted. And also resupplying the troops by helicopter could be dangerous under enemy fire. And just one single bullet could be enough to down an expensive helicopter with all onboard. Later on would troops be dropped by rope by helicopter so they could clear a landing zone with chainsaws. Or Planes could drop mega bombs in the middle of the djungle, so helicopters could land in the crater.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think Germany had some scientific advantage over their opponents, but it could not in itself help bring Germany to victory.
Those who (unlike me) love to speculate about "what if" scenarios could of course argue if Germany maybe could have a realistic chance to win the war if Germany somehow had killed the Normandy landing, avoided the Bagration disaster, and been able to use all panzers lost at Falaise, the Ardennes, Arracourt and other places in the west and thrown them into the east instead to retake the Romanian oil fields, and to inflict heavy manpower losses on the heavily exhausted red army.
Germany had a good education system ever since Frederick the Great and his system was later on copied by countries all over the world. And the heavy investments done by the German Kaiser helped to create many high tech industries in electricity, chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Germany had the best educated people in the world. And Hitler would later on inherit this
fantastic science base.
And the rest of the world could not even catch up with Germany, even after the Versaille treaty had forced the country to share its secrets in the chemical industry with the Americans.
It is no surprise that Germany invested so heavily into creating new super weapons that would change the outcome of the war.
In both World wars were Germany fighting a war against enemies with much larger resources, and Germany could simply not win a war of atrittion. Germany needed a fast victory so it tried all kinds of methods to get a speedy victory even if it sometimes
meant using methods that would upset the global world opinion.
During WW1 did the Germans try to break the stalemate with poison gas, flame throwers, and unrestricted submarine warfare.
And in world war 2 was Germany also forced to gamble on new technologies since it did not have manpower or industrial production capacity to compete with the allies on equal terms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Truth has been sacrificed for the sake of simplicity and in the cause of healing some wounds. In war movies are there often stereotypical caracters like the good German (Thomas Kretschmann, von Stauffenberg etc) and the bad German (ie Hauptmann Haller).
Not all Germans were bad was the message, and clean Wehrmacht myth and the myth of the South only wanting "a little more freedom and the fight had nothing to with slavery"... are maybe a bit of an attempts to heal the wounds and hatred between USA and Germany, and the North and the South.
But reality was however more complicated. The Wehrmacht was mostly clean, but there was also elements who committed crimes against humanity. And even if the SS, the police and gestapo deserve 95% of all the blame for the genocide, would I still say that it is bad enough if only 3% could be blamed on the German army for their cooperation and assistance with bullets and trucks to kill people. Looking the other way and say nothing when millions of innocents die is incredibly weak by an organization that managed to conquer Europe.
I do however not think that the German army otherwise did much I can complain about. A few war crimes happened like in any other army, captured American paratroops in Italy got tied to trees and then got a bucket of gasoline on them and being set on fire, but as one paratrooper said did the Americans do equally horrible things in the fighting there. Overall was the war in North Africa seen as civilized and both sides even had secret radio contact to help each other to save men who had been lost in the middle of the desert. And soldiers who had raped a woman in France got severely punished.
When it comes to the South and the lost cause is this story incredibly silly. The South was the bad guys, and the purpose of the war was the preservation of slavery... and all other factors for the war were of little importance by comparison. CSA also committed treason so there is really no need to romanticize the South.
If I would present the South in a good light I would not do so by lying, but rather by saying that abolitionist activist caused dangerous riots in the south - which was both an undemocratic method of doing things, and a thing very provocative towards the south... and it radicalized the issue of slavery and made it difficult to compromise a stepwise solution towards abolition. The war was a tragedy that could have been avoided, and it did end up costing more lives than any other more in US history.
The war was unnecessary and it created bad blood between the North and the South for decades to come... indeed some even see conflicts between GOP and the democrats to follow this line of conflict. The protectionist policies that made imports of British machinery more expensive for southern farmers were also an unfair provocation to the south. Northern cities benefited by southerners being forced to buy their overpriced products and helping them to industrialize, but the South did not get any compensation for this.
And the burning of cities in the South did put salt into the wounds in the relation between north and south.
"Nazi iconography is banned in Germany, many hate groups over there have taken to using the Confederate battle flag in its stead."
The best thing would be to forcing them to wear ugly Picasso painting logos instead of good looking symbols :P
Jokes aside.. I do think that hate groups will use whatever that is available to them. So banning the nazi flag is pointless. The neo-nazis in Germany then only use the old black-white-red Bismarck tricolour with an iron cross
instead - which have in turn made a historical German non-nazi symbol associated with far right extremism.
Which I do think is idiotic.
To a foreigner it is a bit strange that the stars and bars are still used as much as it is in state flags, given its historical use in the racist oppressive Confederate states.
But on the other hand could you see this flag being used also here in Europe by groups with no ties to KKK... such as rockabilly fans, motorcycle drivers and people who drives American cars fromt the 1950s and 1960s. So it have become a strange cultural icon.
"Winners do not always write history- only those dedicated to writing history write history."
True. So if one person repeat a lie. Then will I repeat the truth over and over and over again until it sticks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On the other hand would better planes result in more military victories which in turn would result in more resources.
Maybe jet fighters and SAMs would be able to prevent some american bombers from destroying factories so more planes could be built. And with more jet fighters it would be possible to protect mines, and prevent railways transports from being bombed - which would lead to more resources to Germany.
And maybe a few jets could make a difference to cling on to important strategic locations a little longer so Germany could get rare earths from Norway and Ukraine, metal from France and oil from Romania.
The problem for Germany would rather be to produce victories in the long run. USA had hundreds of thousands of planes and airmen ready to fight. While Germany didn't have huge amounts of aluminium and high quality oil like USA.
The technological development was speedy during this time period. Only 13 years after the war ended did F4 Phantom and F105 Thunderchief enter service. F4 is a plane capable of flying mach 2, and landing on aircraft carriers, and with upgrades this plane could still be a worthy opponent in air combats of today.
And F105 was almost a stealth bomber built in 1958, and despite it only had a single engine it could fly twice the speed of sound and carry a bombload twice as big as of a B17.
And in 1955, only 10 years after world war 2 did Sweden also develop Draken which was a fighter which also was capable of flying mach2 and it would remain in service with several nordic air forces until the late 1990s, and Austria kept their last Drakens in service until 2005.
All of those three planes would be able to outclass any early war allied or axis aircraft. And not only that. Every plane in service in 1945 would be slaughtered in an air combat against F4, F105 or Draken.
Compare that to today, when upgraded versions of old planes (like F16 Viper, Gripen NG, Eurofighter) still are deadly opponents to even the most advanced fighter jets in service - like F22 which is usally considered the best plane in the world. We are talking about planes which are 40 years old.
1