Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Military History not Visualized" channel.

  1. 405
  2. 64
  3. 58
  4. 49
  5. 49
  6. Europe never really conquered the world until the 1800s, so obviously could Asia and the middle east compete with the west for a long while while the native Americans and Australians quickly got crushed at first contact. I think western military edge was much technological and organizational plus the benifits of having domesticated animals and resistance to diseases that had come with having livestock. The Aztacs did not have any horses or even invented the wheel. So solidiers had to carry all their supplies on themselves, so if they only had rations that lasted for 12 days to the frontline and then 12 days to get back... that would limit their ability to cencentrate forces. And their lack of written langauge made it difficult to transfer orders. And their total lack of experience with siege warfare gave Europeans another great advantage. But in the end would it be diseases that brougth down the native American empires. Europe would not succesfully conquer Africa until the 1800s because of all diseases that made it risky to go into the djungle and trying to colonize the land. But Europe would change their minds in the 1800s and take over the continent and drain swamps and eradicate malaria mosquitos (as in french North Africa) and turn around the demographic trends in the area with their arrival. And the population in North Africa started to increase again for the first time since the bubonic plague had hit the area. India was the richest part of the world in the 1700s. Richer that Europe and China. Its iron industry was in many aspects the most advanced in the world and in the 1600s did the Mughal empire fight battles with war elephants and a hundred thousand musketeers. So the continent could probably have beaten back the Europeans if they wanted to. But India was divided into many countries that fought each other, and the great Mughal empire was a rotten, corrupt, injust society that no one felt much love or loyalty for. And Britain would ally themselves with some states against others, and win wars and gain more and more power for themselves. And Indian troops would be recruited on the spot to fight for the British against other Indian troops. And Japan and China was never conquered by western powers. Both countries were however forced to accept free trade after gunboats from western countries had bombared their harbours and threatened to take over their entire nations. But before the 1800s did both countries stack up well against western countries. Standard of living was atleast as high as in Europe (if not even higher in terms of GDP per capita, access to clean water, and japanese lived in stone houses resistant to earth quakes while Europe lived in home made of wood). And in the 1600s did more fire arms exist in Japan than in the entire Europe combined. But with the industrial revolution did the technological gap between Europe and Asia become wider and Asia could not keep up. Asia was also beginning to become overpopulated in the 1800s, while Europe had solved its overpopulation problem by sending people to America and get them to grow food on an entirly new continent (America) with access to a broad variaty of new crops.
    38
  7. 36
  8. 31
  9. 28
  10.  @alexnderrrthewoke4479  Well production of Armata was supposed to start at the beginning of this year, but because of all sanctions have all production of that tank been cancelled, and only older Russian tanks are being produced right now, and then only in very small numbers. Without high tech machinery from the west will it be difficult if not impossible to produce high tech weapons for Russia. You can of course use cheaper low quality components for your tank and plunder dishwashers, refridgerators and washing machines for semi-conductors and such. But then you will end up with an inferior product of course.. It will also take years before Russia can recover from all losses of armored vehicles. Some moderate guesses says that 2-3 years of production have been lost in Ukraine. But personally I think that is just an understatement in how bad things are for Russia. 1500 tanks and 2000 APC/IFVs and 2000 trucks will take years to replace. And cost a lot of money to replace. Maybe you are lucky and get high oil prices to pay for it... but it will still be years of hardship for the Russian people where you have to rebuild your army and cannot afford government spending on anything else. And you will not be able to export any tanks to other countries and get money from that exports. You will need all tanks you make for yourself for years to come... And to make matters worse, Russian tanks vulnerabilities and junk reputation after this war will probably hurt sales. And so will long delivery times - as customers have to wait years to get a tank. And when they get one tank, its not just an old outdated "Monkey version" of an already bad tank. The tank will also now be even crappier because of the sanctions. T14 Armata was supposed to start being built in 2015 - 7 years ago, and nothing much have happened since and few have been built because of lack of funds. And now with Russias economic problems I only expect things to be more complicated for Russia. Maybe you cannot afford as many as you wanted and have to rely on old Soviet junk for more decades 😂 Perhaps. Regardless, the fears in Nato of this tank are gone. Leopard2A7 And M1A2 can deal with it. And since it lacks turret armor It wouldn't be hard to take out with javelins and NLAWs either. And like all other tanks its also vulnerable at the sides and rear. It do rely on sensor and cameras for everything unlike other tanks. That is an interesting concept. However this also makes this tank vulnerable. Machine gun bursts and a hit with a high explosive round can render this tank blind by destroying all sensors and cameras and thus making this tank completly useless on the battlefield even if the tank itself has not been knocked out. And the lack of turret armor also make you able to shot and destroy the main gun on that tank and thereby disarming the tank. So yeah I think this tank is overly hyped. In my own personal subjective opinion are western tanks better. This tank is a bit more expensive than the other Russian tanks and I doubt Russia can afford to replace its bronze age tank fleet with this newer machine.
    25
  11. 24
  12. 23
  13. 23
  14. 23
  15. 20
  16. 20
  17. The German panzer IV were so few that they were irrelevant in 1940. Panzer III vs S35 would have been a better comparison. But once again, panzerIII was also quite rare eventhough its numbers where much higher than just a little more than 20 vehicles. I would say that the french overall had the better tanks since most the panzers the germans had were really non-tanks like panzerI, Panzer II, Panzer 35 and panzer38t. France had more tanks and they had tanks with better armour (S-35 had angeled armour and was immune to all German tank guns) and the french guns had the highest penetration values for its day. So if anything, did the Germans not win because they had better tanks and not because the French had wasted too much resources on building the Maginot line so that they did not have any resources to build tanks - as clowns like Liddell Hart claims. Panzer III had not yet been upgraded to an impressive machine as it would become later in the war. So in 1940 it was still a mediocre tank and even inferior to british and french tanks. It might have a radio and more comfy turret. But so what? What would that help if your gun cannot penetrate the armour of the enemy tanks? Its engine was underpowered which made the tank sluggish. Its gun was too weak. And its armour was unangled and thin on the early variants. And worst of all for Germany was that this was the best tank they had in 1940 and even this pile of junk couldn't be produced in numbers compareable to those of allied tanks. The tiny tank production in 1940 barely was enough to cover the losses Germany had made in Poland the year before. And Germany did not start the war with much tanks either. They had to press foreign czech tanks into service because tank numbers were insuffiecent even after all panzer1 and panzer2 tanks had been included.
    19
  18. 19
  19. Airwar: Strategic bombing - attacking factories, cities, railway hubs, bridges Tactical bombing - Supporting your own ground troops by attacking tanks, infantry, bunkers and such. Land war: Tactical level - Units of a minor size (less than say 5.000 men) fighting battles of very limited importance to the outcome of the war. And the study of tactics involves much around co-ordination between tanks, air support, artillery and infantry... and what tanks attack formation should look like, and how trenches, machine guns and land mines are best put to use, and how helicopters best can cooperate during a helicopter landing so that losses can be kept low by careful planning and cooperation between attack helicopters, recon helicopters, transports and attack aircraft. Strategic level - Are about seeing the war from a bigger picture and ignore the minor details (such as what type of tanks and machine guns that being used by each side). A Strategic General is much more interested in the logistic situation since supplying and feeding big armies of 200.000 men are much more of challange than to someone who is just leading a battallion of 750 men. Getting supplies forward to your own troops and cutting off the supplies for the armies of your enemies are much more important than worrying about how many men who died in a small battle with 50 men of each side. For a strategist terrain does matter, mountains, trenches and minefields are excellent defensive positions. While bridges, railway hubs, oil fields, industrial centres, powerplants and such are valuable key areas to take. And encirleing enemy armies can destroy them more cheaply and effectivly than winning a 100 small tactical battles. Then there are of course not always so easy to put things into the right box. Its not always black and white. There are sometimes greyzones between tactical and strategic level combat. Fighting about a single building in a town is usally just an unimportant tactical level operation - but in Stalingrad did thousands of men die over the control over builds such as Pavlovs house. And it was not uncommon that small German and Finlandic units could fight off entire soviet armies during world war 2, So should battles with 2 Finnish regiments fighting against multiple Russian divisions be classed as tactical or a strategic battle? I think it is often hard to tell. Small battles can sometimes impact the larger strategic situation. And while losing 50 tanks might not be a big deal for the allies, but losing 50 panthers in the battle at Korsun can have much negative consequences also for the eastern front as a whole.
    18
  20. 17
  21. 17
  22. 16
  23. 16
  24. 14
  25. 14
  26. 14
  27. 14
  28. 13
  29. 13
  30.  @lavrentivs9891  Because the Swedish army have scaled down its military and see no point in keeping museum pieces unlike russia which never throws away anything. It all reminds me of people with hoarding behaviour problems that keeps all kinds of junk and never throws anything away no matter how useless. Stridsvagn 103 was not replaced because it was bad. It was replaced because better tanks were available. The bolsheviks on the other hand have not built any modern tank as good as Leopard2 or M1 Abrams that is a good replacement for their old junk. Their military have been in a chronic lack of funds to modernize their military so they have been forced to keep old weapons in use. For the sake of argument, If the choice is between an upgraded Stridsvagn-103D or a Leopard 1 or a T62 - then I definatly prefer to sit in a Stridsvagn 103. It was taken out of service 25 years ago, but if the Swedes for some reason wanted to cling on to this tank for a strange reason, then I expect it to have a 120mm gun attached to it, extra armor + ERA, plus barracuda camouflage net that would make it a sneaky sniper with more survivability in this war. It would probably still be unwise to use it in frontal attacks. But it would be a good ambush tool, and it could offer much needed infantry support with its gun and high rate of fire - as it would do like most other tanks are doing in ukraine stay away from the frontline and fire some shots from over 1000 meters away from the enemy. In a way would it be used more than a StuG than as a tank. But on the other hand have this war not seen much succesful tank action. There are no big open areas without minefields and trenches that could be used for manouver warfare where tanks comes to their own right. The S-tank would come more to its own right in offensive warfare in such terrain, and probably even more so the Leopard-1.
    12
  31. 12
  32. 12
  33. "American forces never stalled out. The British forces were an Auxiliary who had the easier job" When we talk about the breakout from Normandy this was not the case. 8 infantry and 6 panzer divisions were blocking the British/Canadian advance. While 9 infantry divisions and 2 panzer divisions were blocking the American advance. "British forces also failed to capture Antwerp or the Netherlands despite being up against wimps while the Americans faced off against the advanced German forces on the main line." Pattons 3rd army was stalled for weeks (between august and november) in the fighting around the town Metz. The Americans outnumbered the defenders - which consisted of the shittiest low quality troops in the German army which were totally unsuitable for any other duty than being a garrison of the 70 year old fortress near the town. Volksgrenadier-Division 462 was garbage but it could nevertheless keep the Americans back for weeks. And the Americans once again believed that air power could compensate for anything - including the lack of heavy artillery, engineers and trained infantry. The Americans was superior in both quantatity and quality, but the American 3rd army still needed weeks before it could crush a dozen German junk divisions. So I very much doubt that the Americans would have been able to get a foothold in Europe in 1942 or 1943. And even in 1944 was the Americans dangerously close to failing with the D-day landings. So the idea of making a landing on the western front (France-Belgium-Netherlands-Germany-Denmark) early in the war was a bit overly ambitious in my opinion.
    12
  34. 11
  35. 11
  36.  @Klovaneer  russian WW2 tanks are known for their engines that falls apart after a short service life. They were not built to last long like British or American tanks... or like top quality German tanks that was ridicilously over-engineered to last for centuries (which was a reason why they lost the war). In a way will I say that the crappy durability of Soviet tanks is a great testimony to the skill of Soviet tank designers. They managed to cut down production time and production costs for their tanks to a minimum and thus allowed them to outproduce the much more industrially developed Germany. Sure was Soviet tanks crappier, their armor was more brittle and 80% of the tank crew died when the tank caught fire compared to 20% for German, British and American tanks. But that was a necessary trade off for a poor 3rd world country. Russia did not have the luxury to both produce high quality tanks and produce many tanks. It had to pick one of the two, and it picked the latter since it could never win over Germany in terms of quality and precision work. So from an industrial standpoint do I think Soviet tanks are the most impressive ones in world war 2 togheter with American ones. Britain - the country who produced the worlds first tank - produced outdated crap like TOG2 and Churchill during the war. And their tank production never reached gigantic numbers of USA and USSR despite Britain back then was an empire and an industrial gigant and had a good headstart in industrialization thanks to being first with having an industrial revolution. Germany over-engineered their tanks. Russia on the other hand built some tanks that were truely feared by the Germans. And while their engines were crap and the tanks were cramped and dangerous for the crew even in peace time for a loader on a T-34 tank that could get knocked out by the recoil from the gun if he was not careful... would I on the other hand say that russians had an another view on reliability than in the west. Russian tanks could often easily be fixed in the primitive conditions out on the field and have their tracks easily and quickly repaired. While such things could be more complicated on a big German cat animal tank.
    10
  37. 10
  38. 10
  39. 10
  40. 10
  41. 10
  42. 9
  43. 9
  44. France had a larger population than England, and while America was friendly to England during the world war, it was not so friendly during the Napoleonic wars. And the British dominance at sea was total in World war II. Germany was forced to dismantle her entire Navy with the peace treaty at Versaille, and after that she was prohibited from building a new one. And building a new powerful navy would have taken decades even under a militaristic dictator like Hitler, so Hitler never started the war with a Navy powerful enough to challange the British home fleet, and much less so when it was combined with the enormous fleets Britain also had in Asia and mediterranean. And the loss of Graf Spee and the costly Norway invasion left Hitlers navy in even less shape to invade England, and nor was there any suffiecent amount of transport ships for an invasion. And plundering food and living off the lands could work for an army of the 1300s, 1500s, 1600s, 1700 and even early 1800s.... but a modern army doesn't work that way - it need tonnes of petroleum, and tonnes of ammunition. The 6th Army at Stalingrad consumed 13 railway cars of small arms ammo each day. And then we havn't even included artillery that consumes even more ammo than that. So I would Guess that Napoleon had a better chance. France had a naval tradition as well as her allied countries, while Germany never really been a naval power. England didn't have much timber of her own to build ships, and her population needed food imports. German uboats was quite close to starving England, but they were never any threat to Englands dominance at sea, and Germany would never outnumber England at sea as Spain and France did at Trafalgar.
    9
  45. I think the German assumptions on where the allied D-day landings would go were reasonable - after all it would be dumb to make a landing outside air cover, and having long distances for ship to transport, and not taking a harbour so that the invasion force can get supplies and reinforcements. Making an attack directly into Prussia would give the Germans all the advantages of having short supply lines, knowing the terrain, having men more determined than ever to defend their homeland (instead of just a outpost in France). And meanwhile would it the allied ability to use their massive air power be very limited as no planes had the range and no paratroops could capture bridges and protect the flanks of the amphibious landing. So a landing in Germany looks foolish to me. And same goes for an invasion of Denmark since the land is close to Germany and far away from Britain, and Germany could easily gather troops in Germany and by land just walk into the country. And German air fields would be perfectly in range of reaching any invasion force, while the allied planes would not be able to reach the area. Norway is a country with excellent defensive positions. The country is basicly just mountains and forrests, and it was not this rich oil nation back then as it is today, so the bad infrastructure would probably also become a huge allied invasion force. And the climate is not so friendly either. So it is a country which is suitable for defensive warfare. And the allied advantage of air power and large numbers of tanks would not come to its right in this terrain. It would simply be more wise to use them elseware. The Balkans were a more credible threat to the Germans. It could potentially outflank the German eastern front in the south, and its proximity to the Romanian oil fields were probably also worrysome. Even having allied bombers in airfields in Greece that close would be problematic enough. But on the other hand did the balkans and Greece have many mountains that offered good defensive terrain - as Mussoline learnt the hard way. And Germany could use airpower and send reinforcements to the area by land. So an allied landing here could very easily just have ended in one deadlock after another just like the campaign in Italy. Taking Greece could probably be done since most of the country laid in good range for naval bombardment, and bombers in North Africa and Italy could reach it. But then breaking out further from there would be hard and would require so much troops to get through the bad terrain that one could once again start to wonder if it would be worth it? France and the Benelux countries offered bigger rewards, and they allowed the allies to use air power and not overstretching their maritime supply lines unnecessarily much.
    9
  46. 9
  47. 9
  48. 8
  49. 8
  50. 8