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

  1. I share your view. It is dumb to see this discussion from a mainstream narrative as debate between alternative A or C, and pretend that there is no alternative B in between those options. As the only choice is a proffessional army or conscripts. There are in fact a compromise as you say. But I guess the discussion is stupid. Because we live in a stupid age without nuance. You are either pro immigration or against it. There is nothing in between. And by this logic, you can only be for taxes or against it. Either you have 100% tax or 0%. Simple as that. But of course this is the way stupid people are reasoning, because you can have a tax rate somewhere in between and tax and spend on certain things, and not on others. The real discussion should be more about what the optimal combination would be, and what is most suitable to face the military threats in a forsee able future. And I also think that having a large army is necessary to deter a Russian aggression, and for a small country that cannot afford a large proffessional army there is only really one real option to this problem - and that is to have conscription. And nor is it easy to have your own weapons industry if you only order weapons in small numbers instead of massproducing stuff with a low unit cost. And if you are going to import stuff, then you are selling out your neutrality and you can get in a tough situation if all your imports of ammunition and weapons are cut off in the middle of a war (Turkey had their battleships they bought from England stolen during the first world war to take an example). So abandoning conscription means the same thing as licking ass of large countries - which means that you will have to be a faithful ally and make wars of aggression against Iraq when someone asks you to.
    2
  2. Doesn't matter where I go in Eastern Europe, nobody seems to like Russia or missing those days of Soviet opression 🙄
    2
  3. It didn't go well for the VDV at the battle for Hostomel airport. The Russian elite troops were defeated by some fecking Ukrainian reservist unit
    2
  4. It is so admirable that you Russia fanboys care so much about the western arms supplies and that we do not spend our stocks of ammunition. I wish to return this favor and say that russians should also be careful not waste up all their ammunition in Ukraine in case they need it in a war with China or some other country that might wanna go to war with Russia. We also need to think of the Russian tax payers and do not use up too much weapons in Ukraine. And much Russian weapons are lost due to corruption, so it is important that we do not throw away money on the Russian military which is both corrupt and incompetent.
    2
  5. T-72 have its flaws. But I still think the main problem have been bad leadership, bad doctrine, lack of support from infantry and such. And yes lack of reverse speed and gun depressions are flaws so great that they deserve a mention. The jack in the box effect is no big deal for the tank itself as other tanks probably could probably not survive the same catastrophic hits. However when the ammunition cooks off I think that the crew survivability in that tank is 0% - and that should be considered an extremely serious flaw in a country values the lives of experienced tank crews. But on the other hand to russias defence could one argue that crew safety was best guaranteed back in that day when this tank was built with a mobile tank that was hard to hit, and a low siluette, and a small turret that allowed for thicker armor and armour that was very sloped. So the tank crew would be very well protected like few other tanks of its day. And everything is fine and well until the tank gets penetrated and the ammunition cooks off - because then there will be a 100% crew fatality. I think that T-72 have got a bit overly bad reputation as a tank. Neither the russian or iraqi armies did show it off in its best light.
    2
  6.  @jkl9984  Measures will be met by counter measures. One tank will shot down a drone. And even if the enemy sends in another one that isn't jammed or shot down by the tank itself, then it can be shot down by another neighbouring tank. Or perhaps by a specialized air defence vehicle like CV 9040 TriAD.
    2
  7. I think Jared Diamonds book show in all clarity that military innovation was only possible thanks to a more modern society with workers specialized in different tasks. And that in turn was only possible thanks to Europes ability to produce a larger food surplus so that more men could do other things than just producing food. We could therefore have eperienced blacksmiths, buraucrats with ability to write and read so the government apparatus could work smoothly, and we could set aside food for an economically useless warrior class that practiced horse riding and firing arrows. And when the economy falls apart, then you will no longer have any specialists like skilled blacksmiths when there are no market for their products, and then all the technological progress will be lost. The fall of the Roman empire is a perfect example of this. Europe could produce a large food surplus and could therefore feed a class of specialists that helped technological progrress. While other civilizations failed to do this
    2
  8.  @SporeMurph  He said exactly what I said. And you need to read his book again since you have missed one of his biggest and most obvious points. The Euro-Asian continent was a term he used because it was a large single landmass where technologies could travel from east to west, and from west to east. And there was also similarities in the climate in this continent - which made technologies transferable from one area to another. North America, Central America and South America was also a big landmass. But it was landmass from north to south instead of east to west. And the result became that it was not much practical to transfer technologies from one area to another. If the eskimoes would invent winter shoes it would not be of much interest to the mayan people who were living in a tropical climate. And same goes other technologies. Domesticated food crops suitable for one climate would not be suitable for another. And it was for this reason why Arabia and China could enjoy much of the same advantages as western Europe of technological exchange and stay competative for so long in the game of world domination.
    2
  9. Ukraine will not be overrun. And I don't mind sending weapons to Ukraine at a loss. Every Putin lackey that get killed in battle is one less Putin lackey which will threaten my country.
    2
  10. Copper was a valuable metal in the 1600s and Sweden was one of the largest producers in the world. And it was used for both cannons, coinage and other things. It is a strong metal unlike say silver and gold, so that is the reason why gold coins like the Kruger rand contains copper, because otherwise this coin would be easy to bend or break if it was made purely from gold.
    2
  11. Sweden and Russia was also large iron producers and made more than 90% of all iron in Europe in the 1700s. 80% of all export revenues for Sweden came from iron around the 1790s, so when England invented new ways of massproducing cheap steel with the industrial revolution Sweden took a heavy economic blow. Before railroads and the industrial revolution, you made iron near the iron mines due to the high transportation costs. And coal also had to come from a local source because of the high transportation costs. The Swedish government made laws that forbade farmers from cutting down trees, so that there would be no shortage of wood to make coal. And with low prices of wood, you could have low prices of coal, which in turn could make Swedish iron and steel cheap and competative on the world markets. But England invented new ways of using coal dug up from the ground instead to make their iron, and the good waterways and railroads made it possible to transport their iron and coal at low costs long distances... and that in turn made it possible for England to begin large scale steel production in huge industrial facilities. Sweden didn't have that luxury. It rivers were frozen by ice half the year, and sawmills could not be used since they used water to power them - and the water was frozen. And Sweden was a poor country with a small population so it was not profitable for private entreprenours to build any railroads. So transportation had to be done by horses or by foot - which was expensive - and that prevented the transportation of large amounts of iron and coal needed to build the same large steel making plants like in England. So even if Sweden, Finland and Russia were all covered by trees and had plenty of iron, those resources were useless until someone invented an idea on how to transport all those resources out to the coast at cheap cost, so that they could be loaded onto ships and sold to other countries. Sweden had 4x times more forrest land than Norway in the early 1800s, but Norway exported 4 times more timber than Sweden back then because they didn't have any frozen seas like Sweden. And Finland had almost as much forrest as Sweden, but it could not export any timber at all because all of its forrests were sitting too far away from the coast. So Sweden only became a rich country in 1870s, when the Swedish government decided to build the railroads. And that brought down the transportation costs so it became profitable to start exporting timber, and coal and iron could now be transported to huge steelworks, so huge amounts of steel could be mass produced at a low cost. And when the sawmills began using steam engines instead of waterwheels, then frozen rivers would no longer halt production during the winter months. So Sweden could now massproduce timber on a scale never seen before. And the newly invented Martin-process made it for the first time possible to use iron ore containing phosphorus - so that the huge iron mine in Kiruna could be opened and start producing all the high quality iron that Hitler and others wanted for their tanks and guns.
    2
  12.  @TheRandCrews  I think it would be used the same way as T-62 and T-55 and just be used as artillery one or two kilometers behind the frontline where it is less vulnerable to drones, anti-tank weapons and such. The S-tank would probably be useful in that role just like T-62 or Leopard1. And its high rate of fire would perhaps be a plus allowing it to spam an enemy position with enemy fire and then drive away to avoid enemy artillery.
    2
  13. Well Hitlers Generals mislead him how bad the supply situation was in Stalingrad, so in this case I actully think that the military actully deserves most of the blame. Perhaps Hitler would have ordered a breakout if he knew that his Army needed atleast 5 times more supply than the official estimate? Perhaps some more sober and realistic words from Göring about the propects of this air supply project would have forced Hitler to rethink his decision.
    2
  14.  @kamilszadkowski8864  All russian tanks sucked at long ranges due to their bad optics on their guns with much dust and blur. And their guns were also less accurate than their german counterparts. So for that reason did the German tanks have the upper hand in long range combat. The russian tanks could simply not hit their targets from far away. And even if they got a lucky hit, its unlikely that a T34/85 would penetrate the armor of a German cat. But for the germans there was no problem with knocking out any russian tank at long ranges because russian steel quality was pretty bad and the German guns were a bit overpowered. And to make matters worse was there only a 20% chance for a russian crewman to survive when his T-34 tank was destroyed, while the same number on average laid on 80% for British, German and American tankers. And I much doubt other Soviet vehicles were any better, as crew comfort and crew survivability have always been extremely lowly prioritized in russia. And this tank was built for mass production. And sure could this tank smash bunkers with its gun. But the calibers choosen for late war russian tanks were 85mm and 122mm because they were the guns known to being able to penetrate the armor of Tiger I. So this gun was not only choosen for its ability to destroy bunkers. It was also choosen for its tank duel ability - and for that purpose it was inferior to its German counterparts for the mentioned reasons in my original post.
    2
  15. They are not fighting Russia. They just approve the export of Czech vehicles. Why would that be wrong? Ukraine is not in a war or anything according to countries like Russia. So then what's the problem?
    2
  16. Your logic would only hold true if we were fighting a gigantic world war with the west vs Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Nicauragua. But since WW2 we never had such wars. We had "limited wars". And here do you no longer have sacrifice quality for qantity. It is instead more important to keep losses down. And losses are kept lower by having high quality weapons. We no longer see any country building tanks without turrets for that reason. Because there is no need to cut down production time by doing without a turret on a tank. And even if making a tank without a turret will make it cheaper and easier to build have no country, not even russia choosen to continue to go down the SU-100, ISU-152 path. Nato is now relying on small numbers of powerful quality tanks rather than mass produced low quality junk that have aged badly. And the Russian junk have not done well on the battlefields. Israel with western tanks humiliated the much stronger Arab forces with Soviet tanks in 1967 and in 1973. The Iraq war in 1991 and in 2003 once again ended in a one-sided slaughter with nearly no losses on western tanks and a gigantic slaughter of Soviet Russian tanks. And Chechenya and Ukraine have once again seen huge tank losses on the Russian side.
    2
  17. Yes and they could have closed the pocket. But then the Orjol offensive would have begun and the Germans themselves would then run the risk of having their mighty northern pincher at Kursk encircled by the enemy. So giving up the encirlement and retreat would be the only realistic option. So in a best case scenario would the Kursk pocket probably only be partially destroyed after they encirled it. Then they would have to retreat and fight off 3 large autumn offensives by the red army. And shortly after the first wave had been beaten down, then the next big wave of Russian offensives on a broad front would occur. The losses of manpower for the Russian side would have been even more terrible and unsubstainable than they were in real history. But on the other hand was the objective of the red army to get more territory in exchange for blood, in the autumn of 1943 and spring 1944.
    2
  18. I guess both sides were wrong. Tanks are limited by the speed that people can walk, since supply trucks needed to have their flanks protected by the infantry that followed in the footsteps of the attacking armor. The German panzer divisions did also contain too many tanks for what was being optimal. In 1941 had the German army learned lots of lessons from the many wars it had fought in Europe, and the number of tanks in each panzer division was cut in half, and instead did the German army double the number of panzer divisions instead. And given the lack of infrastructure in Russia I also think it would have been very impractical to mass so many tanks in a single unit, since the logistical ability to supply such a large number of tanks in one area with just a few shitty roads would have been difficult. And traffic jams and bottlenecks would also further limit the mobility of the panzer units, and thereby reduced their efficiency.
    2
  19.  @TheReaper569  GGS is a good book. But I think the author take his conclusions too far. Maybe because he wants his book to seem more sensationalist, or perhaps it is because of his liberal leftwing bias to make non-white people to look good... anyways, I think this thing of him sadly undermines some of the credibily of his book. Most of his conclusions are valid however. But I would be less deterministic than he is. I think that great genius minds also can have an impact on history and that not everything is determined by the factor of the land and its resources. A great general could perhaps have defeated western powers. Perhaps could China have taken another course and undergone and industrial revolution under the Song dynasty and colonized America before Europe, if their leadership had decided another direction for their country. Jared Diamonds conclusion that Europe and Asia had a good head start before the rest of the world is a reasonable conclusion. But I still think there was good chance that Asia or the Arabs could have dominated the world instead of Europe. And even if the odds were stacked against America and Africa I would not consider their situation as completly hopeless.
    2
  20. USA did not have the ships to wreck Japan until late 1943. So should USA have just been idle until then and let Hitler take over Europe before USA could beat Japan and then focus on Germany?
    2
  21. Russia gets angry when other countries donate weapons to Ukraine. But the biggest weapons donor to Ukraine is Russia herself. Typical Russian hypocrisy.
    2
  22. Governments can use the priniting press and pay for anything so running out of money is never a problem for a government - but only a problem for persons, companies, banks and such. If energy consumed per unit produced would be the best unit of measurment in my opinion - but no such data exist so its pointless to try compare in this way. So I think workhours per tank built is the best measurement when stuying world war 2 and seeing the production capacity and effiency between different countries. But this measurement is of course not perfect if you would compare China and USA tank production in world war 3. USA would use industrial robots to make their tanks and send all the men they could to the frontline. While China got so much manpower that they can waste 30 men on building a part to a tank instead of getting an expensive machine. Chinas problems would rather be to get raw materials like steel, copper, coal and rare earth metals than worrying about manpower shortages for their industry and military.
    2
  23. The problem is two-fold. Firstly the NCOs are few and they do not have any power to do anything useful. They know the situation on the frontline better than the Generals many miles behind the front, but they have to follow orders anyways - that is how things work in the Russian army. The 2nd problem is that Russian Generals have to do all the work by themselves. Not only do they have to be Generals. They also have to do the job of NCOs, and travel to the frontline and give orders on the spot because otherwise will things not get done. So when a General work as a NCO he will get less time over to do a good job as a General. And since he also have to work as a General he will not have to time to do a good job as a NCO either. So he will probably suck at both jobs. And on top of all that do he take the risk of getting killed by the enemy when he gets close to the frontline. So the Russian system is ineffiecent and idiotic.
    2
  24. I think the tall guys would be used for other things. I think artillery likes tall guys with much muscles to carry big heavy projectiles.
    2
  25. I think of the Swedish Gladiator Roger Zapfe who is also an uboat captain despite being 2 meters tall. Not really what I would expect. I thought that uboats and tanks could be pretty claustrophobic
    2
  26. The point of the Maginot line was get Britain on the same side as France against Germany, and create a low cost way of fighting Germany in the next war. (low cost in terms of lives lost to hold the terrain). And one can say that the line worked. Germany was forced to invade Belgium just as the purpose of the line was. But in 1939 it wasnt necessary. It didn't take a German declaration of war against Belgium to get Britain into the war against Germany the second time Germany started a world war.
    2
  27. Brandenburg is still German, while Silesia now belongs to Poland and East Prussia belongs to Russia
    2
  28. You only forgot that it was russia that started this unprovoced, unjustified illegal war.
    2
  29. I don't think that robots will come as far as to replace humans the coming decades, but I guess that the infantry will rely more and more on sensors, drones and such. But I still also think that old weapons will continue to be useful in some areas of the frontline / or against low tech enemies. And I also think that IT-security is a pretty safe bet, if I would buy stocks in area of the economy which I think will grow in the future. If you fail on cyber security, then your best weapons can be copied by the enemy, all your battleplans could be stolen, and your electronic weapons can stop functioning. Furthermore can the banking system stop working, the electric grid can be knocked out, and the transportation and healtcare sector will be hard hit as well. So the importance of better IT-security cannot be understated in a world which is starting to doing everything digital nowadays.. everything from self-driving cars to shopping at the grocery store, and not to mention all the internet shopping. On a more general level, I think that the ideal would be to let the country become self-suffiecent in food, energy and do some manufacturing before going to war. And then I think that information and co-ordination among infantry, attack helicopters, tanks, artillery, recon and other types of troops will become increasingly more important. And the individual solidier will get more and more firepower in his hands. Some say that teams of snipers is the future, while the historical trend the last 200 years have rather been the opposite; and more about putting up as much lead in the air as possible to win battles. And ammunition consumtion and the cost of killing an enemy solidier have risen. And I would say that I am impressed by weapons like TOS-1 Buratino, and I think they could be very handy in a world war when keeping losses low is having a low priority compared to victory. But the old conventional wars seems rare nowadays so there might be better ways of dealing with junk armies of the middle east than having a rocket artillery piece capable of flattening an entire town. Drones is the western solution since it can deliever firepower without any risk to the lives of our own solidiers. But there is of course a risk that they can be hacked, and used against us. And having the police using them to fight terrorism, could lead to a slippery slope where they then are used to fight violant crime, and then minor crimes... and the police force becomes less interested in negotating and de-escalating situations and become trigger happy instead. And then will personal integrity be totally destroyed by drones, mass surveillance and data gathering. And we can get a 1984 society, like China today with their internet scorepoint system. And this time around there would be no succesful escape attempts from the Gulags, since now there would be drones with heat seeking cameras to seak up fleeing prisoners. And there would be nowhere to escape, since every train ticket and purchase of food will be done electronically and could be traced. And passports contains biometric data and RFID-tags so that the government can track you with a radar.
    2
  30. Logistics is about transporting fuel, ammunition, food, medicines, spareparts for vehicles, cigarettes, winter clothes and other things to the troops sitting in the frontline so they can keep on fighting. If your troops cannot get those things then their ability to fight will fall. Lack of food can make your troops starve to death or easily fall victim to diseases when they are undernourished. Lack of winter clothes can lead to solidiers freezing to death or men having to amputate frozen legs. Lack of spareparts will make tanks useless if they cannot move when there are no tracks or parts to fix their engines, or when their gun is not working. Lack of medicines can increase mortality rates and human suffering. Lack of ammunition can turn even the most powerful tank and the best machine gun into useless pieces of junk. And the lack of fuel will make tanks into useless bunkers, and without fuel to your supply trucks you cannot transport food and ammunition and other things so that your combat effiecency will fall. So as you see are logistics important things that needs to work if you are going to lead millions of men into war. Even the best solidier or tank are useless without food, ammunition and fuel. And if you can cut off your enemies ability to provide those things to his troops, then victory can become relativly easy and not so costly in human lives. This is why encirclements can be so catastrophic for armies. When all supplies are cut off, then hunger and ammunition shortages fastly appears. Because modern amries needs gigantic amounts of supplies. An American Division in World War II needed 800 tonnes of supplies per day. And a German division on average used 400 tonnes. So if you have an American army of 20 Divisions then you would need 8000 tonnes of supplies per day. Think about the gigantic amounts of supplies that is. When the German 6th Army was fighting at Stalingrad it needed 13 railway wagons of ammunition per day for all for machine guns, pistols, rifles and other sall arms. And on top of that you needed to also give that army food and fuel and other supplies - including ammunition for mortars, howitzers and cannons of all kinds of sizes. Modern war needs gigantic amounts of planning and coordination to get all things at the right place, at the right amunt and at the right time.
    2
  31.  @bjorntorlarsson  It did occur in 1941. And in the most desperate phase of the battle of Stalingrad it did occur. And it was especially common tactic used by the Russian army in WW1, as the Russian industry could not produce enough weapons and ammunition for all its troops. So cry more, rusbot. Truth hurts to you. But I don't care. Facts do not care about your feelings.
    1
  32. Read Kicking away the ladder by Ha Joon Chang
    1
  33. There are some value to that. And when you produce weapons you of course need to find a balance between economic cost and effiency on the battlefield. Atleast as long as you live in the real world and doesn't have unlimited amounts of money and can equip all your army with 100.000 King Tiger tanks like in the world of computer games. The Tiger is my favourite tank of world war II. But I also realize that Germany would probably been better off by building more StuGIII instead. Logitically it would have made more sense to have fewer tank models. And Germanys biggest problem was the lack of vehicles in numbers. They were always fighting heavily outnumbered, so if they had 2 or 3 times more tanks then they would have a better odds of winning. Panzer III/StuG was a reliable tank that didn't need special bridges or three trucks to move it out from a battlefield when it needed to be repaired, as the Tiger did. And nor did it just sit in the repair shop 50% of the time and being useless to the troops that desperatly need tank support.
    1
  34.  @RussianThunderrr "King Tiger is not a very good tank" It was an excellent tank but it was too damn costly to build. You didn't as much bang for the buck. StuGIII gave much more value for your money, since it was a cheap machine that also did a lot of useful things on the battlefield unlike the King Tiger that was rarely ever seen on the battlefield thanks to its many mechanical failures. "As for Stug... Well heve you heard of VK 30.02(DB)?" Yes I have heard of it. But as I sees it, I would rather keep the Stugs and Ignore the VK project. Germany needed to shut down production lines instead of open new, and thus create an even larger logistics burden. If they did that, then it would be easier to start building tanks in large numbers. Tanks without a turret are cheaper to build, they are less complex, they take less manhours to build, and when you save weight by not having a turret you can build a tank with more armour and a bigger gun instead. So I rather pick StuG than VK, because you more easily can make StuGs in large numbers. And numbers is Germany's biggest problem at the moment. StuG also got a reliable good chassi with excellent traverse speed, and it got optics superior to any German tank (except the panther). And you don't have to deal with costs related to opening a new production line and research, and kinderkrankheit problems that leaves German troops without tank support. The VK is after all at best just an average tank with a good gun, and the allies can easily outproduce VK30D with their T-34/85, Comets and M4E8s. And when the allies come with their T-44, Centurions and Pershings then the VK will start becoming obsolete and the Germans needs to invent another tank to replace it with and have to start building Panther tanks anyways. So I think it is better than to the chassis of old production lines and make them into StuGs or Jagdpanzer IV with the same powerful 75mm/L70 as the Panther tank - which is capable of knocking out any allied tank at very long distances. And should the allies come with tanks too hard to kill even for the high-velocity panther gun, then the Germans could just start using Nashorn tank destroyers as a stop gap measure until they have found a good replacement for the old PanzerIV tank. The nashorn gun was capable of turning any big allied tank into a burning wreck from 3000 meters away, and it was also a cheap vehicle to make. And when the German panzerIII and PanzerIV tanks and TDs would become outdated, then their chassis could simply just be converted into artillery pieces, Whirbelwinds, flammpanzers, and so on. And then the war would hopefully have ended. The allies would probably have won even if Germany had played the cards on their hand in a better way. But it is also maybe possible that the D-day landing could have failed and that the Russians would run out of manpower and the war goes into a stalemate and peace would be signed on much more fabourable terms for the Germans than just unconditional surrender. Maybe they for example could have kept East Prussia, Austria, Bohemia and German speaking areas in France and Denmark.. while giving up everything else they had conquered.
    1
  35.  @ChristianThePagan  "The production effort of 300.000 man hours for a single Tiger is .... ummm (that number is a gospel in certain circles) ... suspect to say the least." It says 200.000 manhours to build a Tiger I in a German tank manual provided by Henchel. And no I don't think this number is strange at all. First of all are you comparing apples with oranges. The Tiger was a heavy tank 20 tonnes heavier than M4 and T-34. And secondly did the Germans not use standardized parts. They never went with division of labour - which is an increadibly powerful force, believe me. And they were not much interested in Taylorism ideas that eliminated unnecessary time consuming tasks. And they never went with Fordist principles of conveyor belts and specialized tools for workers so they could make a component to a tank at a fast rate eventhough they had no previous skills at all as industrial workers. And the Germans never tried to save time and resources by using low quality components to their tanks as the Russians did - and the Russian philosophy is smart, I mean what it the point in building a good tank engine that lasts for 15 years if the tank itself is likely to be destroyed after only 6 months service? Wouldn't it then be better to build a tank that lasts for only about 1 year and not more, if that could make it easier and cheaper to build a tank? "the Nazis stood no chance of winning a war against the Soviets and the US simultaneously" The nazis could have won depending on how you define "victory", I here define victory as Germany keeping all her land from the borders of 1938, so we are not talking about any great scheme of German world domination here. Anyways, I think the likelyhood of such a German victory was very slim. Especially after the defeat at Stalingrad. Germany's best hope would have been a war of attrition where the Soviets bleed to death and run out of manpower. While the Germans should have tried to avoid stupid mistakes like losing 400.000 men in operation bagration and not have lost the battle of Normandie. And on top of that could the Germans have built more StuGs, jets and SAMs.
    1
  36.  @RussianThunderrr "There are few of different factors affected Tiger II reliability" You know, all tanks got their flaws. I know that Russians never admits tis to be true about their own tanks, but it is true. TigerII had its flaws like any other tank does. But fact remains that Tiger II was one of the most powerful tanks in world war 2 in terms of firepower and armour, and a 100.000 Tiger II tanks could have had a significant impact on the war. "But going by just a battle performance, a lots of times" But the point still remains that most tanks were not able of penetrating its frontal armour and the Tiger II could kill other tanks on longer ranges than vice versa. "King Tiger performance was operation "Spring Awakening" the force of 600 tanks 45 of which was King Tigers, and no less then 200 Panther tanks attack bridgehead at Lake Balaton in Hungary" Even the best tanks are shit when your leadership decides to attack with them in unsuitable terrain. Just as the offensives in Ardennes say very little about German tanks, does the battle of Caen, Market Garden, Seelow say little about allied tanks. With your way of reasoning one can then just as well say that IS2 was a terrible tank because it failed to take Romania in early 1944 despite crushing numerical superiority. https://youtu.be/7Clz27nghIg?t=2791 Furthermore was most Tiger II tanks lost to fuel shortages and the inability to recover damaged tanks before the allies took control over an area - which once again are things that should be blamed on the German army and not the tank itself. Had Germany still had control over the skies and provided their Tiger II tanks with good and infantry artillery support they would have done pretty well. "VK30(DB) would have the same turret as Panther" If you just want a new tank with panther turret then why build an entirely new tank as well? Why not just build a panzer IV with angeled armour and give it the L70 panther gun? Then you don't have to create a logistical burden of having yet another tank model in the German army. Instead you could gain from synergies like commonality among parts, when you use the same wheels, engines and chassis for all panzer IV variant - hummel, whirbelwind, nashorn, jpz4, pz4, pz4 ausf. k and so on.
    1
  37. Could Germany have won if they had started serie production of haunebu II?
    1
  38. all those tanks was scrapped decades ago aside from a tiny number that exist in museums
    1
  39. It took on average 600.000 rounds of ammunition per killed enemy in Vietnam (according to "Forward into battle" by Paddy Griffith).´So the trends is rather upwards when it comes to ammunition consumption. Why do you think armies use assault rifles instead of old classic bolt action rifles that was used in world war 2 which were made for one-shot, one kill at longer ranges? I think the answer is because combat distances have become shorter, and when the enemy is spraying lead towards you do you not have the time to carefully aim your gun for a one shot kill - and if you try that you will get killed sooner or later. The Vietnamese were good at hugging their enemy so he could not use his superior artillery to destroy his enemy and when the enemy was spraying fire at close ranges you did not have the time to aim carefully and shoot to kill. Often could you not even see your enemy when he caught you in an ambush. So supressing fire is important. And yes teams of snipers can be deadly. But for most infantry is the most important the ability to put much lead up in the air fast in order to win fire fights
    1
  40. As Artur Szulc wrote in "In the shadow of Auschwitz" would the aerial bombings to stop the railway transports would probably have been meaningless. Its not easy to get to a target far away in the other end of Europe. And hitting the railways with crappy bombsights is probably not that easy either I guess. And even if a railway track was hit, then it would at best only take 2 weeks to repair. And meanwhile would other tracks and roads have to be used for the little time being. The trains going to the camps were also low tier shit trains, while the Germans used their best most powerful trains for the war effort instead. And those bad trains were used when the schedule was light and the demand from the front was low. So allied bombings or sabotage by polish partisan units would have been pretty meaningless. All this also suggest that the Germans also had some spare capacity in their system, with extra trains to call upon.
    1
  41. Russia shed Russian blood. Russia started this war that no one else wanted, so it only got itself to blame. If you unprovokedly punch someone in the face, then you should not be wondering why you get punched back or why other people side with the person you have attacked.
    1
  42.  @BillencsH1933  Well talk to the Russian government then if you don't want Russian soldiers to die. Personally I want to see as many Russian soldiers as possible to die when they commit warcrimes and start wars of aggression. I am proud that my Swedish weapons are helping Ukrainians defend their own homeland.
    1
  43.  @BillencsH1933  Well go home to Russia then. Take all Russian troops with you. It is really simple as that.
    1
  44. This pocket was just stupid to keep. 80% of the Soviet army was positioned in front of army group middle, so a capture of Moscow would simply be totally unrealistic. The campaign in the south to capture Stalingrad could only go as far as it did because the Germans faced very little resistance when the Russians had concentrated all their forces in the centre instead, and thus leaving the south nearly unprotected. And the catastrophic battle of Kharkov in may 1942 led to the total destruction of the entire red army in Southern Russia - so for an entire month was the road towards Stalingrad completly undefended and open for the Germans. But the Germans could of course not know how great their victory was so they could not capitalize fully from their victory at Kharkov. But even if Germany made much progress and nearly captured Stalingrad, I do consider it to have been totally unrealistic to think that Germany would have been strong enough to launch an offensive against Moscow in 1943. There was simply too many Russian divisions there. And too many trenches, barricades, minefields, tank ditches and obstacles had been put in place since the Germans tried to capture the city in 1941 for Moscow to ever become a realistic target. The German army had been severly weakened by all losses in 1941. And in 1942 it gambled to capture Stalingrad and southern Russia with the strong divisions that it had left. So after two bloody campaigns launching a big one against a strong well prepared, well dug in enemy and capture Moscow would simply be unrealistic. The Germans could not even capture Kursk, and it had to deal with several big counter-offensives in the end of the battle (like the one at Orjol). So the best thing Germany could have done would be to empty the pocket as soon as possible and create a flat defensive line, dug in and create minefields and barbed wire so that big areas of land could be defended by small numbers of troops. And then Germany could send away some men in army group middle to fight in the south to help with the capture of Stalingrad. And once Stalingrad and caucausus was in German hands, then Germany would just make a defensive war against Russia. And hope that superior German firepower could compensate for the lack of manpower.
    1
  45. When Russia gets even more powerful and have even more monopoly over the energy will it use it for even more energy blackmail and jack up prices even more so Russia can make itself richer on your expense. Russia will get richer while you get poorer. But if Ukraine wins, and a marshall plan kickstart the Ukrainian economy, then the opposite will happen. Competition between Ukrainian and Russian gas, coal and gas will mean lower prices for you the consumer, so that you get more money over to buy other stuff and improve your own quality of life. And as people can afford to buy more tables, microwaves and movie tickets will also new jobs be created in western countries and unemployment will go down and GDP will go up along with tax revenues for governments. This will be a win-win for everyone. Life will be better for us, and it will be better for Ukrainians as money is flowing into their country by foreigners buying their natural gas. And the only losers will be Russia which will be forced to sell their energy at a lower price and make less money from it. Being economically dependent on the small democratic country Ukraine is also a safer option than being dependent on a large warmongering gangster state like Russia. Ukraine lay close to Europe, which means lower transportation costs for all the food, nuclear power, coal, iron, natural gas and other things it has to offer Europe. And with cheaper raw materials for European industry is it possible to lower production costs for European products, so that the EU could get it easier to compete with Asia on world markets. While the opposite of course will be true if we let Russian terrorists win.
    1
  46. Nobody wants to pay for that garbage ;-) Its Russian after all. Why do you think the Swedes did regret their purchase and got rid of the crap?
    1
  47.  @blackpowderriflehunter7573  I more guess russian bots that tries to demoralize westerners and throw sh*t on every piece on western equipment and uphold any piece of russian junk as a masterpiece of engineering
    1
  48.  @SamtheIrishexan  Ukraine lacks Leopard2, M1 Abrams, F22, B2, Rafale, Atacams, Gotlands class submarines, combat vehicle 90, Meteor missiles etc. So no I would not say they rank among the most advanced militaries in the world.
    1
  49. Oh no, how can we believe that Ukraine is winning? We should just ignore all that is happening in the real world. Ignore the Russian retreat from Kyiv. The retreat from Sumy. The retreat from snake island. The Russian fleets retreat from the western black sea to Crimea. The Russian militarys retreat from Charkiv and tonnes of ammunition and tanks that fell into Ukrainian hands. We should ignore the Russian retreat from Khersun - the 2nd largest city in Ukraine. And we should ignore all humiliating losses such as the loss of the cruiser Moskba, and failed river crossings that did cost hundreds of russian soldiers their lives. We should ignore the fact that Russia has been forced to mobilize its reserves because its current forces have not been able to beat Ukraine the last 10 months. The russians are living in a fantasy world thinking that they are still about to win 😂
    1
  50. They use artillery and drones instead of course
    1