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

  1. Remember that a low weight can also potentially help with ground pressure, something that may be usefull in muddy conditions...
    5
  2. The problem with this video is that it is biased towards the point of view of the warmongers and pro-war factions and assumes that armies ever win a war... They don't really. WW2 for instance wasn't won by armies, they only contributed together with several other factors. It was won by a complex situation involving trade and logistics of each of the sides, the political will of each nation involved (part of why Hitler was able to stay in power was due to not going all out war economy for as long as possible), and just in general the geopolitical situation. Likewise the army would never have been able to actually win in Vietnam in my opinion. The war could perhaps have been won, but not by the army alone. A slogan used in later wars is "winning hearts and minds". And quite frankly that would have been more important for winning there. If south Vietnam was democratic or just in general had enough legitimacy to convince the population to support them instead of Viet Cong, and also if Viet Congs motivation to fight could be reduced, for instance proper representation in a parliament. Then that together with sufficient deployment of troops (that foxhole ratio you mentioned) could perhaps have won the war. That said, they should probably have stricter rules of engagement then what they actually had. Too many civilians where harmed. And to win you'd need civilians to feel that it's better if you stay then if you leave. There really wasn't any objectives in the north that could be taken anyway that would have ended the war. Even if the US held all of the country the war would probably have continued. Essentially war and military objectives are just one extra tool in the toolbox of leaders of people but they don't do much on their own unless they support a non-military plan for how to reach the goal that the armed conflict is meant to achieve.
    5
  3. Another factor is that appeasement had already been proven to work with the Americans earlier. Britain was losing relative economic, political and military power vs other major powers like the Americans. Britain agreed to unfavorable trade agreements with the Americans in order to maintain peace (both the americans and brits had plans in case of a war between the two powers). Anyway, the brits managed to avoid a war with the americans, and after WW1 the idea of a new war was extremely unpalatable both for the goverment and the people. So yeah, appeasement of Germany was a thing, and not without reason. Quite the countrary, they had good ones.
    3
  4. +Laertes L There was a ton of nations that he could have featured in the video as that period was a great time for several nations. I don't think he really had any particular reason to mention Spain in particular. I do wish he'd mentioned the Danish-Norwegian fleets use of oar powered boats armed with cannons though as we had them in use as late as 1814, not just in the Baltic but of the coast of Norway and Denmark. (Norway had over 50 of them in 1814) I wouldn't have expected any details, but it would have been nice if he'd said "Russia and Denmark-Norway)" instead of just "Russia" when mentioning late use of oar powered ships. Honestly Norway is pretty much perfect for a case study of the strengths and weaknesses of oar powered ships. The Hanseatic League defeated us in a major naval engagement outside of Bergen in 1429 because we where essentially still using the viking ships with oars and sails that just wheren't tall enough to effectivly engage the ships of the Hanseatic League, that put a end to our use of leidang as the basis of our naval power. And after the Brits stole our fleet after the second battle of Caupenhagen in 1807 we had to rebuild our fleet in a hurry and small oar powered boats where just quicker and cheaper to build and as it turned out they where also quite effective in our waters leading to extensive use of them of the coast of both Denmark and Norway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_War They where actually quite effective still at that point with several British ships being defeated by them.
    3
  5. + @eriknelson4186  Perhaps, however this is not the Baltics. The coast of western Denmark and the Norwegian coast is most definitivly outside the Baltics yet gun boats where used to great success there.
    2
  6. Goose is used as a insult over there too? It's somewhat archaic, but is used in Norway too.
    2
  7. How did it perform in operation Barbarossa?
    1
  8. +MUH Geschichte First of all, look up the difference between "pure" and "poor". Secondly, the galleys wheren't ever really outdated. Denmark-Norway still used them up to 1814 as you can see in my links elsewhere on this page.
    1
  9. +MUH Geschichte No, they wheren't outdated. They just like non-nuclear submarines today have their use. Sure they're useless for external power projection. But for defence of your own shores they're actually superior to the sailing ships in many ways. You can row up against the wind. You can row when there's no wind. Both giving you advantages when fighting among islands and skerries. You can row with a gun facing forwards while sailing ships need that spot for their sails to be efficient. You can make smaller ships that's still capable of fielding large guns since the gun can be placed alongside the length of the ship facing forwards. They're cheaper. They can operate in wathers with less depth then sailing ships capable of combat. Some of them are small enough that you can lift them over land if you need to for strategic or tactical reasons. And they're a smaller target. They had their own developments to keep them competitive vs sailing ships so the oar powered ships of the 1800s where not the same as the ones in previous centuries. Do they have drawbacks? Yes, of course they do. Are there situations where they're at a severe dissadvantage? Yes, of course there are. But likewise there's situations where they're at a significant advantage. And the Danish-Norwegian fleet made use of many of those advantages.
    1
  10. +MUH Geschichte It's not just about the nukes for the nuclear subs. Some of them are designed to hunt other subs and ships and not to launch rockets. The advantage of nuclear subs is that you can use them for power projection far from your own coast, aka what the US needs the most given that they're trying to intervene *everywhere*... And like you mentioned modern non-nuclear subs with sterling engines are even more stealthy. As for the oar powered ships, they did have significant evolution too. And they where not outdated. Sure, there was individual roles for which they where outdated, but they where still very much competitive or even superior in certain conditions. The Baltic sea and the Norwegian coast was one of those cases because of all the islands and skerries. There they where actually superior to sailing ships in many situations. A "muzzleloader" is inferior to a semi-automatic rifle in every single situation there is. These oar powered ships where not inferior to the sailing ships just *different*.
    1
  11. +TheAdamk12 Heh, when I meet native speakers that talk about "speaking correctly" I intentionally try to enhance my accent. English doesn't belong to native speakers anymore and given that he's easily understandable I really don't think anyone has any right to complain about him having an accent that quite frankly is much milder then what many dialects of both American and British English actually have naturally.
    1
  12. Interesting, but I'm not really seeing any major advantage over a Swedish CV90 here? It's not much smaller, and unlike this vehicle a CV90 also brings infantery giving you more options in that regard. Both have ATGMs, the CV90 can have a larger calibre gun. Both have a high rate of fire. The CV90 has the of programming the rounds with some of the calibres you can choose between. Being a IFV you have room for extra ammunition if needed. Both can engage air targets (I believe). Is there anyone who has experience with these vehnicles that have trained together with CV90s that can compare them?
    1
  13. +Anders Hoegild They wheren't just used in Danish waters, but also in Norwegian waters. Norway has a lot of skerries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skerry) so depending on the wind conditions the sailing ships could be at a severe dissadvantage when sailing among those as they don't have the freedom of movement to fully take advantage of the wind. The gun boats (galleys) could therefore use that to their advantage to force the sailing ships into a dissadvantagous position for instance. The gun boats could also more easily take advantage of the cover that the various islands provided to hide and ambush sailing ships.
    1
  14. +Anders Hoegild Yeah, a port was essential. However they could fight a frigate when there was wind, just not in open water. They needed terrain to make use of to level the playingfield. For instance when tacking in a sailing ship there's a limit to how high up against the wind you can go while someone rowing can go straight up against the wind. If you're able to force a sailing ship to make manuvers that make them lose some of their "altitude" (in the lack of a better word) or lose "ground" against the wind you can get them down to a location where they don't have enough room to efficiently tack up against the wind and they might run ashore or be forced to drop anchor to avoid doing so. Once it's stationary it's a relatively easy target for the gun boats as they can choose the time and place of engagement potentially manuvering themselves in from a direction the frigate can't fire at.
    1
  15. +stop posting Yes and no. They wheren't quited used for the hit and run approach of the torpedo boats. There where no torpedoes you could fire and forget and then retreat out of harms way. They had to row relatively close to fire their cannons. If the English ships could manuver in such a way that they could fire back they'd out gun the gun boats quite significantly. And with some wind the English ships where faster then the gun boats as long as the wind was favorable. So just in general the sailing ships had a lot of advantages, both in bad weather, and in a engagement that suited them (nothing in the way stopping them from manuvering and bring their superior weaponry on the target) But yes, they'd be used to quickly dart out from behind cover and ambush English frigats etc close to the coast. You can read more about this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_War
    1
  16. 4:48 Norway had 51 boats in 1814 armed with cannons and powered by oars. Usually a 24 pound cannon although some also used one or more howitzer or even a mortar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alv%C3%B8en
    1
  17. +Augen Rule Denmark-Norway! ;-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_War
    1
  18. One thing you're forgetting is that the fleets available to the French directly where not the only ones on the continent. Part of the reason why Britain attacked Denmark-Norway for instance was concern about our fleet falling into Napoleons hands. And ours wheren't the only one. Also, military ships isn't everything. Enough merchant fleet ships pressed into troop transport services could potentially have transported enough men over to allow Napoleon to afford losing some.
    1