Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Military History not Visualized"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@warrenokuma7264 But money is not relevant as it can be created in unlimited amounts. What is more relevant is the price in terms of workers and workhours needed to build one tank, or how much raw materials was used to build it.
The problem with averages is that they often does not reflect reality, or what is normal.
Say that you have 4 girls that all weight 50 kilos each, and then you have a fat guy that weights 400 kilos. So if you add up the total weight of them all you get a total of 600 kilos, and then you divide those with 5 persons, and then you get an average weight per person that is 120 kilos.
So is the normal weight in this group 120 kilos? or should 50 kilos more represent the typical normal value?
So if you add up production from different tank factories you could get very different values of productivity. Some use unskilled labour and even slave labour, while others have specialized tools and trained workers.
And then you could not just say that you can scale up production of a certain tank without the productivity going up or down. Maybe productivity will go up as economies of scale now makes it possible to transition to massproduction technologies and factories now can now be use at its full capacity?
Or maybe productivity will just fall, as there are not enough skilled workers to build all extra Panther tanks, so slave labour, immigrants, women and children has to be used instead - which leads to much lower effiency of production.
And production might as well also become more hampered by bottlenecks when you scale up production - like what should you do when there are not enough copper to start building 3000 Ferdinand panzers?
It is an interesting subject Bernhard comes up with here. And I don't think mainstream economic theory have solved this problem. My opinion might be unpopular, but I don't care.
I agree with Bernhard. Technology does not work like in video games, you don't know the price of a new technology, how good it will be, how long it will take to research and what spin-off effects you get.
And when it comes to producing tanks, you cannot just expect everything to happen just over a day. New production technologies and ways of organizing work takes time to learn. Learning workers how to make a new tank model takes time. And tanks gets more powerful on the battlefield and cheaper to produce, when constructors sees new ways of making those tanks, and remove the cheek on the panther turret that act as a shot-trap, or fix the hatch on the Tiger tank so that tank crews don't have to get the hatch landing on their heads.
Useless components are removed, and the production time to make a tank could be cut down to a minimum.
So the tank gets its performance peak the years down the line.
But it is hard to say how good a tank will be then. Maybe it could be as succesful as the old work horse Panzer IV and be a good tank throughout world war II. But it cold also just be like the Panzer III that never really gut upgunned and became the great tank it was until 1942, and by then it was started to get outdated.. so this tank never really reached its full potential during its time of service.
Looking at snapshots of averages in a single year I think misses the bigger picture of things. Since industrial effiency takes many years to create.
Even if spies from Moçambique succesfully manage to steal blueprints from BMW on how to build the latest car model in exact detail. They would still not be able to start massproduce cars in any time soon since they lack organizational skills, trained workers, engineers and experts that know how to apply all solutions in the blueprint and so on.
And making a new car plant and supply it with energy and living quarters for workers, financiers, suppliers and so fourth will also be another effort in itself.
1
-
@warrenokuma7264 A country that can print its own money can never run out of money. Greece can run out of money, because it cannot make its own money, because only the European central bank can make Euros and not the Greek government. USA however can never run out of dollars because it can create as much dollars as it wants to. The only limit to how much money a country can create is inflation.
And a government got two tools to fight inflation in peace time. It can increase taxes so that money that have been pumped out to the economy by the government now gets taken back by it. And it can increase the amount of stuff produced in the country - because prices double when twice as much money chases the same limited amount of stuff, but if you double the amount of stuff, then you have no price increases.
In a wartime economy it is difficult to increase civilian production. But prices can be kept under controls by taxes, price controls and rationing. When people cannot buy unlimited amounts of beer and cigarettes because of rationing, then they are forced to save their money because there is nothing they can consume.
So all newly created money becomes savings for the people.
One persons debt becomes another persons asset. The government goes into debt to buy tanks, planes and uboats while the people sees their assets increase.
And the national debt is never a problem since it is just owned by its own citizens, and should never and can never be paid off anyways. All paying off the national debt means is that the government takes money from the people by taxes and gives the money back to the same people.
And then the money gets destroyed. Since money is the same thing as debt (for a further explanation you can see this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nBPN-MKefA ).
So the government can create unlimited amounts of money. And inflation is never a problem. The ideal way to rule a country in peace time would be print as much money as possible and use the money for productive investments in better infrastructure, energy grids and spending on science and research and create jobs so that unemployment goes down to zero.
Then your economy runs on full capacity, and it would be pointless to print any more money, because all extra amounts of money you print will not result in extra amounts of stuff produced so prices will only go up and inflation will only rise as a result.
But as long as you have unused resources you can print up as much money you want. And other countries will have no problem with loaning money to you, since your economy is growing so fast that paying off old debts gets easier and easier when your country gets richer. Australia the last decades is a perfect example of this, since they have borrowed more and more money the last decades but the debt as a share of GDP have still been falling because the economy has been growing so fast.
So borrowing money is not dangerous. Especially not from your own people, since your country neighter gets richer and poorer by doing so. The only interesting question when it comes to borrowing money from other countries is if that money is used for INVESTMENTS in building factories and improving infrastructure and the economy.... or if that money is used on CONSUMPTION of useless shit like flatscreen TVs, military weapons and other useless shit that does not improve the economy in the long run.
And if you waste money on useless shit and don't repay debts, then foreigners will lose trust in you and would rather do buisness with other countries - and that will decrease the demand for your country's currency and it will fall in value, and importing stuff from other countries will get more expensive and you start get to see price inflation on all the oil and bananas you import from abroad.
1
-
Well buying tanks and blowing up bombs is not good for the longterm economic development like spending money on building hydroelectric powerplants, roads, bridges, education, research and such.
So of course you get inflation. So in a sense you are right that budgets matter. But they do not matter as much as people think, and nor is inflation as bad as people think. And nor does an increase in money supply automatically result in high prices.
So of all the constraints a country have in war, money is probably the least of them. And keeping inflation low is not seen as the most important thing if a country fight for its life in a war about life and death. Would you whine about inflation, if ISIS would try to take over your neighbourhood? I don't think so.
A country would print as much money as it needs to win the war.
Anyways the money supply increased much more than the rate of inflation in the Kaisers Germany in world war 1, and in Soviet Russia during ww2, thanks to those countries effective systems of rationing and price controls. Which show that money printing does not lead to an equal amount of inflation.
The financial crisis in America is another example, since president Bush spent more money than all other presidents in US history did combined and yet the country didn't get any hyperinflation. And then president Obama did the same thing and also spent more money than all presidents in America 200 year old history, including George W Bush. But still no hyperinflation happened despite 13 trillion dollars had been pumped into the US banking system from the US government. As a comparison one could say that the inflationadjusted cost for World war 2 was 4.6 trillion dollars.. (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yREOUxo6Qdc ) just so you get a grip on how much money we are talking about. A trillion dollars is a HUGE sum of money. If you spend one dollar per second since the day Jesus was born until today, you would still not have spend enough money to come up to a trillion dollars.
Anyways let's go on, in the case of America you mentioned, did the inflation wipe out much of the national debt occured during the new deal and World War II.
The Great depression had wiped out all peoples savings, so the war and all the rationing forced people to save money when they couldn't buy stuff. And 12 million men served in uniform, and the other Americans worked to produce that uniforms and all else the war effort needed, and the country basicly had reached 0% unemployment. So everyone had a wage, and everyone had been forced to save money during the war. And inflation had wiped out much of the old debts.
So the country was ready for a post-war economic boom.
And when the war was over and people were tired of rationing and not being allowed to consume what they wanted, so they all rushed to the stores to buy stuff. And all the civilian demand for goods that had been kept down during the war could now go up.
So when the war ended was the US economy in great shape.
Despite the country had mobilized 12 million men, and built more military aircrafts than the rest of the world combined and created the mightyiest navy in history.
Creating money is as we concluded not the same thing as inflation. If I create a billion Swedish SEK and put them in a bag and dig a hole in the ground and throw the bag into the hole and cover it in mud, will inflation then occur? Of course not.
Only money that is in circulation in society pushes up prices when people compete with each other for the limited amounts of stuff sitting on the shelves of stores.
If the government prints trillions of money and people only put their money on their savings account on their bank instead of spending it on buying stuff, then you will not see any higher prices.
And if people use their money to pay off old bankloans you will even see deflation happen, since as I said earlier, money is debt - and when you pay of your debt, you will destroy the debt and in the same time also destroy the money.
So you get deflation.
Other reasons why prices don't go up have I already mentioned. Taxes takes money out of circulation from the economy, so when you take more money out of the economy by taxes than you print money and put into, then you will get deflation. And deflation is very bad for the economy, and companies can not sell their goods at a full price and debts gets harder to pay off.
While you get inflation when you do the opposite and create more money than you take back in taxes - and that is a good thing for the private sector, since people now can get more money without Peter having to rob Paul of his money as the only way of getting richer himself. But instead could people now get richer without anyone else having to get poorer.
And finally does also economic growth prevent money printing from pushing up prices. Because if the amount of money chasing the same amount stuff both double, then you will not see much inflation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think they are not as excellent as their propaganda claims. But they are good. Strong motivation, creativity, experience and superior command structure gives them large advantages over their enemy. They are also of course doing well because the Russians suck - their army is corrupt, badly motivated, badly diciplined, its badly equipped, their command structure suck, they suck at combined arms warfare, they are using unencrypted communication, their tactics were depevoloped for outdated weapon systems that easily gets eaten up by cheap modern western weapons such as manpads.
Furthermore have conscriptions added further advantages to the Ukrainians. An army that takes out 80% of the best men out of a countrys male population will have an advantage over a country that takes out 20% of the worst.
A professional army usually gets men from areas with high unemployment where men cannot find another job and go to the military - not because they want to, but because they cannot get an income any other way. So in that way you get men who join the army for the wrong reasons. They are not there for any higher cause like patriotism, defending the free world or such. Nope. They are there only to get paid. Desperate men who often are ethinic minorities that cannot even speak the language of the country they serve - like the Spanish speakers in the US army.
The Ukrainian military consists of software engineers, film directors, teachers and ordinary people in general. Men who are there to defend their homeland. Smart men who bring their unique civilian skills and add them to their military. For the propaganda war, for flying drones or for doing the cyber warfare against the Russians.
The Russian military by contrast consists largely of prison convicts, village idiots who literarly do not even know how to tie their shoes, ethnic minorities, homeless Moscowites, kidnapped migrant guestworkers, forcefully conscripted Ukrainians in Donbass and Luhansk who are forced to fight against their countrymen or getting killed on the spot by the Russian occupants.
The Russian soldiers do not wanna be there.
And even the small spoils that remains of Putin's contractors and more trained experienced soldiers are not that great soldiers either..
The Russian military training largely consists of bullying by officers and comrades, and beatings. Soldiers are often raped by their "comrades". And corruption is widespread and the officers steals equipment which they sell and put the profits in their own pockets.
So the soldiers do of course as a consequence not care about their comrades that much. The years of misery have brutalized the men... so when a war happens they easily starts to commit warcrimes.
Soldiers that are raping and looting and abusing civilians and spend time to find food to steal are not effective soldiers as they spend less time at the frontline dealing with the enemy. And if half the men are drunk or away to gangrape some women, then of course will the half of the men be missing in the frontline and the combat effectivness of the unit will be hampered.
So the Russian military does not really have a professional army.
Its more like an undiciplined horde of raiding rapers and looters which are ill-diciplined, and all men are fighting for themselves and not as much as a team.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Russian junk lost the wars in 1967, and in Iraq in 1991.
Personally I have more respect for Saddam Husseins military in 1991 than the military of the Russian federation in 2022. Saddam had advanced SAM systems, and not just from Russia, but also from western countries as well. His military was large. And his T-72 tanks were less outdated back then, than what they are today 30 years later.
Saddams army did furthermore have much combat experience. And the Americans were fighting an enemy on the other side of the planet.
The Russian army on the other hand cannot even fight inside a neighbouring country without their logistical system falling apart the first month of the war 🙄
So no I do not have any respect for the Russia military. Why should I? Their performance have been piss poor and embarrassing - with other words, well in line with Russias historical tradition of enormous losses and a slow tempo of advance.
Soon a year has passed, and Russia have lost twice as much men as USA did in 20 years of fighting in Vietnam.
And more Russian tanks have been lost than what Britain, France and Germany have in their arsenals combined.
This war has put the final nail in the coffin of the myth of Russias enormous invincible military strength.
Their historical trackrecord says otherwise with all defeats, catastrophic disproportionally higher losses than their enemies and humiliations since year 1900 - russo-japanese war, first world war, polish-bolshevik war, the winter war, the continuation war in 1944, the war with nazi-germany, afghanistan, the first chechen war.
Russia have a garbage military. And its economy is smaller than Spains. I think it is clear that this is not a super power we are talking about. Rather a 3rd world country with nukes, like Pakistan or North Korea.
1
-
@gerfand It was a strong military on paper. An army of hundreds of thousands. Large number of tanks that was consider relativly modern and a large air force and air defence with both western and east bloc weapons.
It was generally speaking considered at not just one of the strongest militarys in arabia, but also in the world back then.
And its troops had also been battlehardened after a decade long war with Iran.
It was however a badly motivated and badly organized foe that could do little against western weapons and better training and organisation of the west.
And the same is true for the crappy Russian army.
Russia failed to conquer the poorest country in europe, and ended up getting humiliated by Finland in the winter war in 1939.
And now in 2022 Russia invades Ukraine and ends up being humiliated and losing to the poorest country in Europe again.
The Russians suck at war. And have done so for centuries. It should try to stick to another hobby they are better at. I don't know.. maybe playing hockey, making "funny" vodka videos for youtube and such.
To me Russia just look to me like its botox leader Putin - a dwarf with just a phasad.
And if the T-72 tank was outdated in 1991, then it must be considered even more outdated now when Russia uses it in 2022.
The russian military lacks nightvision and bullet proof vests. It now even uses world war 2 rifles and helmets, T-62 tanks in Ukraine. And it is forced to import tanks from Belarus and ammunition from North Korea... countries which aren't exactly known for quality weapons so to say 😂😂
But you still claim the Russian military to be great compared to Nato? 😂😂
I say that all aircrafts in the Russian airforce are crap compared to Rafale, Gripen E, Eurofighter, F22, and F35. Heck even old F15 Silent Eagle, F16 Viper are considerably better than the best Russian planes.
Especially considering that the Russian pilots only have about 200 hours of flight training per year - which is not even enough to be good at take of and landing... so no wonder Russian jets constantly crash into Russian apartment buildings 😂😂
And the war on the economic front will be disasterous for Russia as it relies heavily on western components. From everything from smart bombs to high precision components for its tanks.
And without high precision industrial robots with 5 arms that can cut metal into a fractions of a millimeters precision can no Russian advanced weapons be made.
https://youtu.be/RnIvhlKT7SY
No wonder that Russian tank production have runned into problems... and Armata production has been cancelled. And T-80 and T-72 production had been lowered as well. And instead have Russia decided to ramp up production of the old low-texh T-62 tank instead 😂😂
Medvedev even took a trip visiting a tank factory to motivate the factory workers by threatening them with jail time unless they worked hard 😂😂
I think things cannot become more typically Russian than that - ruthless, opressive, barbaric, dictatorial,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheLumberjack1987
Russia got oil, gas, coal, uranium, gold, titanium, fertilizer, and food stuffs. So it will always have things to sell to other countries and get foreign currency in exchange for the stuff they give away. So they will always have foreign currency reserves. However, being blocked from western capital markets and having difficulties with importing western components will severly handicap Russias ability to compete with the west - both on the battlefield and competition with western companies on world markets.
One day will their government no longer be able to pumping up the value of their currency artificially by using its own currency reserves. One day will they run out of all their dollars and Euros they had stored up from before the war.
And when that happens will they no longer be able to use dollars and Euros to buy Russian rubles and thus artificially pumping up the value of their own currency. And when that happens will the ruble lose its value against all other currencies. And foreign imports will become more expensive.
And if a hyperinflation will happen, then I think it will not because of money printing. Rather do I think it will be more because the worldwide demand for rubles will fall because of all the sanctions (people no longer makes any trading with Russia and therefore they don't need any rubles), and then will the law of "supply and demand" put down the value of the ruble.
Another classical defintion of inflation is "when too much money chases too few goods". So if industrial production falls because of western sanctions, then will there be very little goods left to chase for all that ruskie money.
'
So if hyperinflation happens, then I think it would be for those two reasons - falling global demand for rubles, and decline in Russian output of stuff produced.
And that could trigger a general loss of confidence in their currency, which could make that currency to fall in value even more like a rock in water. And then can no longer a suitcase of rubles buy a loaf of bread.
I feel like it is unlikely that things would go that far, but I can of course be wrong.
The Russian leaderships stupidity throughout this war made me think that it would not be beyond them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1