Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

  1. When you're the gunner of a tiger tank, looking at your targets through the optics. Are you then watching them all with the eeeeeeeeye of the tiger?
    910
  2. So ironically, if you went for realistic tank formations for a movie, you could easily get away with just using 1-2 real tanks, and just use CGI to add some blurry outlines of tanks in the distance for every shot? That could certainly trim down a movie budget by a lot 😄
    781
  3. The most badass looking helmet of WWII.
    644
  4. A fighting chance with the risk of death is always preferable to certain death.
    616
  5. Erwin Rommel. Taking the term "balls deep" to a whole new level.
    293
  6. Essentially, kamikaze attacks gave the japanese something akin to self-guided cruise missiles. Something that hadn't been invented yet. So naturally that would grant them an edge.
    282
  7. Remember to play "Battery" by Metallica when setting up your battery position.
    231
  8.  @samsonsoturian6013  Yes. There were hundreds of extras wearing "okay" costumes, with a couple of dozen wearing higher quality costumes for close up shots. And for pulled back shots they would digitally clone masses of extras and copy/paste them into the shot.
    113
  9. German engineers to Tiger transmission: "Bite the pillow honey, Papa's gonna switch holes"
    109
  10. Original Tower Defense! B-)
    104
  11. The preference for T-72's over Leopards are a given. Too much of a logistical burden for the Ukrainians to field Leopard 2's compared to T-72's, along with difficulties in familiarizing tank crews with Leopards as opposed to T-72's. Better to have companies or slightly reduced performance tanks with crews that are very familiar with them, than higher performing tanks with crews unfamiliar with them.
    104
  12. Who needs high defensive walls, when your cities and factories are surrounded by huge stretches of muddy land for an invasion force to exhaust themselves on the road to their objectives? All you need to do is set up artillery and keep the QRF on stand-by.
    81
  13.  transylvanian : What a load of crap. The soviets even worked their own citizens to death in gulags. Why on earth would they treat enemy troops any better?
    78
  14. "Vienna - the only city the soviets left voluntarily" XD
    73
  15. And sometimes, a madman is just what the situation calls for.
    64
  16. @John Fulghieri Yes, because it looks like a kitchen utensil rather than a soldiers helmet.
    57
  17. The part about continually waging war on external enemies to prevent your own army from disuniting. Isn't that the lesson that George Orwell tried to teach in 1984? One part of the book describes how the Big Brother state was possibly in collusion with the enemy states in the effort of perpetuating an eternal war which served the purpose of keeping all of the populations "united" (in a very brutal and oppressive way) against their "enemies". It was also the mechanism behind Ozymandias plan in Alan Moore's and Dave Gibbons graphic novel Watchmen. He staged a completely bogus alien invasion of Earth to prevent World War 3 from erupting between Nato and the USSR by leading both sides to believe that they were both faced with a common, extra-terrestial enemy. Looking back at human history in the past, the strongest uniting factor between different people's and countries seems to be the belief in having a common external enemy.
    52
  18.  transylvanian : Sounds to me like you're thw victim of pro-soviet propaganda. It's obvious youre pining back for the days of "the glory of the soviet union" more than anything. A pinko commie in other words.
    47
  19.  @ignacejespers8201 : I would argue that capturing and securing the Caucasus oil fields was not only NOT pointless, but absolutely necessary for the german war effort to continue the war. So saying that all of Operation Barbarossa was meaningless isn't entirely true. That said, too much emphasis was placed by Hitler and the german high command on capturing strategically irrelevant cities like Stalingrad. All that manpower and resources would've been better used in capturing the oil fields and get them running to serve the german war effort rather than the soviet war effort.
    43
  20.  transylvanian  In western penal labour systems, convicts were not purposefully worked to death or put through starvation on purpose like the barbaric soviets did. People also weren't sent to penal labour for the mere act of disagreeing with the ruling communist party, like the vile, disugsting soviets did. What's next? Are you gonna tell me that the Holodomor was just "an accident"?
    39
  21.  transylvanian : Ever heard about the Katyn Massacre? The victims in that were not nazi germans, but polish officers and soldiers. Are you gonna claim that poles would defend or buy into a nazi narrative just because they hate the soviet union?
    35
  22. I never had a good throwing arm. So I always liked the design of stick grenades since it's so much easier to throw.
    32
  23. Well both tanks and infantry move and fight across land, so it kind of makes sense that they operate according to roughly the same principles.
    28
  24. Haven't tanks been deemed "obsolete" by the "experts" since WW1? 🤣
    22
  25. "Violence, naked force has settled more disputes in human history than has any other factor!" Robert A. Heinlein (My favourite quote to bring up when people start arguing that we have to "stop the drone strikes" against terrorists, or how they will just stop being terrorists if we start being "nice" to them)
    20
  26. Aye. But like Napoleon, Hitler seemed to believe that taking an enemy capital was somehow important. But unless the capital is also a main producer of oil, tanks and planes, taking it is meaningless.
    20
  27. Another self propelled gun that comes to mind that does MRSI: The Swedish "Archer". I think it can do 5 simultaneous impacts if I remember correctly.
    20
  28. Damn... If the brass solves the problem of you getting slaughtered by removing the fire simulation equipment, then I can see why we get so many american and british servicemen travelling to our bigger airsoft games saying that it's excellent practice for the real thing. I mean how are you supposed to learn what you're doing right, and what you're doing wrong unless hits are registered and there's some kind of penalty for it? :S I've breached alot of buildings just playing airsoft. It's fucking hard just doing that when all you got to worry about is losing a game and maybe experiencing some sharp pain when some asshole fires a full auto burst to your face at close range (happens a lot more often indoors than firefights in the woods). It's damn good fun though. Especially when people are using pyrotechic grenades and smoke grenades, since there are so many tactical uses for it in built up areas. Although opposing teams tend to think we're overdoing it when we throw pyrotechnic frag grenades into pretty much every room before entering (no civilians to worry about, so why not sprinkle frags everywhere you can right? ;) )
    19
  29. Aren't there some modest authors of memoirs though? Reading memoir sections of books of scientists in natural science, they've often come across as quite humble and they often make a point of stressing the contributions from colleagues, predecessors and science team members. The quote: "If I can see far it's because i'm standing on thw shoulders of giants" come to mind here. Then again, in military culture, assertiveness and pro-active dispositions seem to be favored among high ranking officers. So maybe it's difficult to find a modest officer, let alone one who wrote memoirs.
    19
  30.  @uwu_senpai : That's not a realistic representation of the U.S and also an intellectually dishonest position.
    18
  31. Bean counters - the unsung heroes of war
    16
  32. Grand1Admiral: I think he means is that it is sad, because it's an evident sign of the media abandoning their role and purpose on society. Instead of presenting news as objectively and fair as possible, they have all turned to becoming political propaganda platforms.
    15
  33. Most RTS games don't really contain much strategy at all, but concern themselves purely with tactics. RTT would be a more descriptive term for them. Especially games like Starcraft.
    15
  34. To me, the Versailles treaty seems like a big mistake. Not only because it could be circumvented. But also because of the heavy blow it lead to german industries in general. One can only imagine the poverty and unemployment that the german people had to suffer through as a result of it, and both resentment of the way they were treated as well as desperation made people flock to Hitlers cause.
    15
  35. Well.. You don't want your gunners getting mowed down by stray bullets now do you? Artillery is useless without a crew.
    15
  36. "NÖ" XD
    13
  37. They promote someone just to shoot him. It's communism we're talking about here. It doesn't have to make sense.
    13
  38. I'd say that the issue wasn't going to war too early. I think the bigger mistake was Hitler trying to bite off more than he could chew. If he started out with Poland and then consolidated his position there for a few years, he would probably have been more successful. Britain and France might've rattled their sabers but I doubt they would have made any serious commitment in trying to liberate Poland from German occupation. The success in Poland just seems to have made the Nazis overconfident.
    13
  39. To be fair... War is murder porn.
    13
  40. This puts General Mattis in a very positive light. If his ambitions and philosophies really add up to what has been described, then he is an exceptionally competent commander of armed forces. However, my natural skeptic side finds it a little bit "too good",and makes me want to question your sources a little. Can we be certain that the authors of your sources aren't biased in some way and have some sort of self-interest in portraying General Mattis in an extremely favorable light? Do take note that i'm focusing more on the sources now rather than you personally, because you concluded your video with a high degree of integrity and intellectual honesty by admitting that you primarily made this video to present your own personal interpretation and impression of the information that you've gathered from the source material so far. And i'm not going to flat out say that the sources are wrong or misrepresentative in any way (I haven't read them, so I couldn"t possibly know). My instinct just make my "too good to be true"-radar flash if you get my meaning? Although I certainly hope he is just as competent and inspiring as your sources and this video presents him to be. All soldiers who put their lives on the line in service to their country deserve competent commanders. Even if their civilian national leaders don'r always have noble goals with their military actions.
    12
  41. A friend of mine served in the armed forces, and he was assigned as close protection to the command staff of a tank brigade. He told me EVERYTHING about where you pee and shit when inside a tank Some of that stuff will make you wish you were an infantryman who could simply dig a hole and do your business wherever you please.
    12
  42. Even if the intakes are protected from having accelerants going inside the engine, an engine still needs oxygen to function. If the entire fuselage is on fire, the flames will consume the oxygen outside, preventing the intakes from taking in air. Won't that pose a danger of the engine stalling if the fire can't be put out?
    12
  43.  @redbaron2829 : At that time it was pointless. Railway hubs and supply lines are only really useful if you've got something to transport. If the germans had first captured and held the oil fields, the clock would be ticking for the Soviets because they would be faced with a prospect of severe fuel shortage, while the germans in turn would've secured a fuel source for themselves. It would've been logical to capture the caucasus oil fields first and THEN go after railway hubs and port cities slong the volga river.
    12
  44. Naughty Caulifla: Europe didn't become the center of civilization by "taking it chill". Every battle fought required Europeans to come up with new weapons, inventions and defenses to beat their opponents. The warlike behaviour is what pushed technological progress further than any other cultures did.
    11
  45.  @day2148  All armies rely on logistics at the end of the day. But my reflection was more about bullying an enemy into submission by bringing weapon systems to the field which they have nothing to counter it with. "Shock and awe" basically.
    11
  46. To answer the question: Not at all. In real life, bullets do not bounce off car doors or corrugated sheet metal. Cars do not "explode" by being hit by gunfire either.
    11
  47. @John Fulghieri: Holes weaken a structure. I'd rather have a helmet that gives me hearing problems than a helmet that doesn't protect the side of my head properly. Battlefields are pretty noisy anyway. And orders are usually bellowed at eardrum splitting sound volume.
    11
  48.  @ssm445  You'd think so. But Swedish engineers are well versed in the difficulties of rough and snow covered terrain. They could've made a tracked vehicle but opted not to.
    11
  49. The Juice: "If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off? Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an axe. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him...but to make him do what you want to do. Not killing...but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how—or why—he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people—'older and wiser heads,' as they say—supply the control. Which is as it should be." -Starship Troopers (Robert A Heinlein)
    10
  50. I'm curious about an issue regarding amphibious assaults in WWII. Is there a reason why smoke wasn't deployed to cover the advance of troops unloading unto beaches during battles like the d-day assault on the beaches of Normandy? Of course, maybe smoke was used but popular depictions of it in movies and games show masses of soldies storming headlong into the jaws of bunkers and pillboxes firing back at them with machine guns and such. I'm thinking: what if the battleships fired massive smoke shells designed to blanket the beaches in thick billowing clouds of smoke to cover the advancing troops? Wouldn't that have reduced the effectiveness of german machine gun emplacements due to not being able to pick out any individual targets until allied infantry got close enough to throw grenades into the bunkers and neutralize their occupants?
    10
  51. The Juice: Uh, yeah they knew. But what choice did they have? The wehrmacht was the german military at the time. It's not the soldiers place to question why or where they fight. That would break the chain of command completely. You need to read more Heinlein my friend. The Wehrmacht are "clean" in the sense that they weren't tasked with the more genocidal affairs of nazi germany. That job fell on the SS primarily.
    9
  52. LtKharn: They could. And in so doing, fostered even more resentment. Or they could've done what the americans did after having defeated the Japanese. Accept their surrender but then help rebuild their country, industries and economy. The Versailles Treaty was an idiotic move and pretty much ensured Hitlers rise to power. A demagouge like Hitler would not have nearly as many supporters if the germans had been treated with some dignity after the end of WWI. You may also note that Germans did not start the first world war. But they ended up being the biggest losers because of it.
    9
  53. The soviets be like: "STUKA BLYAT!"
    8
  54. Za Rodina: England isn't Britain. England is one country in Britain. Just as Ireland is. Therefore, calling an Irishman "British" is not inaccurate at all. Calling an Irishman "English" on the other hand would be.
    8
  55. I don't think an army of archers on horseback would have many problems with sieges to be honest. Cavalry is basically a quick reaction force. If you surround an enemy castle with cavalry forces then you can easily starve the occupants of the castle out entirely since you will easily be able to intercept any attempts of delivering food and supplies to the besieged castle occupants. The foodstores of a castle, fortified town or whatever always have their upper limit. And once the enemy on the inside surrenders or die to starvation, you will have captured a defensible structure intact without the need to damage it's protective walls and battlements.
    8
  56. Gotta hand it to the Japanese. They certainly know to adopt new technologies. They did the same thing with early firearms. More "Teppo"-matchlocks were made in Japan than contemporary firearms in all of Europe at the time if I remember correctly.
    8
  57. AKlover: No, we don't want mexicans either.
    7
  58. So "Topf" isn't so far removed from "Kopf"? 🤔 Curious.
    7
  59. Bo's'n Bruce: Can't say I think the military is full or contradictions. And the irrational behaviour that you point out is hardly the norm within the armed forces. They wouldn't be able to achieve their results or function effectively if they were all clowns. The contradictions rather stem from the culture shock between what men in the armed forces were taught and brought up with in civilian society and how those values completely contrast with the necessary values needed in war for soldiers to function. In civil society, men were brought up with very "soft" values. Be nice to other people. Hurting other people is wrong. Killing is absolutely verboten. In the military they have to have those values beaten out of them and be repurposed and taught that being "nice" is not good. You need to demand that your peers perform and punish them if they are found wanting, and that killing is right when you're killing the enemy. More ancient societies didn't have the same problems because they usually contained a warrior class and warfare and skirmishes between different societies was more commonplace. Being a competent fighter and a known slayer of enemies didn't earn you scorn or social stigma, it earned you praise and celebration. I think it probably helped people of that time to maintain a more balanced view between civilian life and military life. Especially among the rank and file (like with vikings for example where many men who wnt out to raid in other countries had completely civilian jobs at home, unless they were exceptionally competent raiders who could sustain their livelyhoods on raiding alone). But in modern times, soldiers are basically forced to hold two completely opposite ideals in their heads at the same time. So it undoubtedly will have some strange and unpredictable effects on their minds.
    7
  60. Sven Ruecker: There is no single record of german soldiers who "confessed" without getting tortured by the allies first either...
    6
  61. Foxhound R336: Well, you can't own guns so, you are pretty much a slave nation. :) I would have no problem saying it right to your face either, Steve Irwing. But the trip is kind of long so i'm sure you understand "mate".
    6
  62. The Japanese basically employed modern american warfare... Before americans thought of it.
    6
  63. What kind of protection does a Wiesel offer? It's so small so I have to ask. Will it protect the crew against HMG ammunition like .50 BMG or similar? If so, then I'd imagine it's quickness and small size would make it very useful.
    6
  64.  @LionofCaliban  You could only do those things if you were lucky. But they had week long exercises of fighting in NBC-situations. Which means: no one leaves the inside of the tank under any circumstances. They had this... "device" for taking a dump in, which basically looked like something you might see in a gynecologists office, that spread your butt cheeks so that you could take a crap inside of a bag. And you have to do this less than a meter away from the other members of the crew in the tank or the IFV that you were stationed in. That said, being in armored gave them quite a few luxuries which the infantry envied. For starters: the never even bothered pitching any tents when it was time to sleep. They just slept inside the tanks and the IFVs, which were heated on account of the engines, while the infantry froze their asses off out in the below zero temperatures during the winter. The vehicles also had water heaters so hot coffee and hot chocolate was available at an instant. XD
    6
  65. I kind of feel like there should be a video of tiger tanks in action with the song playing in the background. ;)
    6
  66. Perfect example of how socialism destroys everything.
    6
  67. ManilaJohn01: I disagree. Capturing and holding oil fields is a more simple task than capturing and holding an entire city. The germans were actually in the process of capturing them during Operation Edelweiß (so they had already arrived in the region, in opposite to your conclusion that the germans didn't have the strength to get there). But the effort had to be abandoned since the soviet Operation Little Saturn threatened to cut the german forces off from the rest of their forces. So we have here two situations of germans getting or risking getting cut off and surrounded: Stalingrad and the Caucasus. One of the objectives would've denied soviets of oil, which they desperately needed while also supplying the german war effort with much needed oil. The other objective would, at best, serve as a railway and transport hub. One was significantly easier to capture and hold (since the germans had already made an initial success in the region). The other was far too difficult to capture and hold, and also lead to the german forces getting surrounded and cut off. If the germans had instead allocated the resources and logistics that were sent to capture Stalingrad to fortify the Caucasus oil fields (both the fields themselves, and the supply routes in and out of the region) the germans would probably have been in a much more favorable position than they would have trying and failing to capture a city of much lesser strategic importance at that point in time compared to the oil fields.
    6
  68. This video reminds me, but I seem to have forgotten the details. I think I once saw a replica of a WWII-era machinegun. Fairly certain it was an mg-34 or mg-42 but i'm not sure, where the wooden stock could actually rotated a quarter so the stock became horisontal rather than vertical. The reasoning behind it was to ease hip-firing since rather than bracing the vertical stock against your shoulder during shoulder firing, you could brace the machine gun against your bicep using the horisontal position instead. Does this invention sound familiar to anyone? I've really forgotten a lot of the details here so it would be nice to be reminded of what weapon it was. :)
    6
  69. AKlover: Europe does not need migrant "workers" from Mexico or anywhere else. If a country has high unemployment, as most European countries do, importing migrant workers doesn't make sense. Unless you belong to the small elite who only wish to reduce salaries and worsen the terms for employment for others that is. Fix involuntary unemployment first. When there are no natives going without jobs and there are still vacancies, we can start thinning of accepting foreigners for those jobs. But before then, not a single soul should be let in.
    5
  70. Jim Fortune: And the guy to talk to when the stress of combat is starting to wear on you.
    5
  71. Hey, if you ever find the time, could you make a similarly "german", visualized instructional video in how to pick up women? Thumbs up if you would like to see it. :)
    5
  72. Pierre Dudoret: And how many of those 767,000 newborns do you think were ethnic frenchmen compared to the amount of newborns to immigrant, muslim couples?
    5
  73. From this day forwards, whenever someone says "The L-word" I wil always think of Logistics.
    5
  74. Hermann Steinrucks: My tip to germans: you as a people seriously need to stop being so trusting in your government. Even with world war 2 in hindsight, germans are still culturally way too trusting in government and regulations. It had disastrous results for you last time, and it's not looking good now either. The government isn't always right. In fact most governments across the world are highly inefficient and rarely make decisions with the best interests of their people in mind.
    5
  75.  @101jir  The problem is that some laymen assume that just because a weapon system can be destroyed by another weapon system it somehow makes the former weapon system obsolete. Which is a silly notion. If you know a thing or two about warfare, you know that in order to judge the effectiveness of a weapon system you have to look at the costs and the means of deployment and movement of it. A cruiser can smite any tank using it's long range artillery weaponry. But how much does a tank cost compared to a cruiser? And where can the cruiser be deployed as opposed to where the tank can be deployed? These are the critical questions to ask.
    5
  76. Insurgents, guerilla fighters, call them whatever you like, rely on support from a civilian population and civilian production. They can keep going as long as there are farmers plying their trade in the land. The farmers doesn't necessarily have to be friendly towards the insurgents, since the insurgents can always just take crops from farmers to help the insurgent war effort. I think a necessary aspect to combating insurgent threat is to compel farmers to relocated and either secure or destroy their farmland. Strategically speaking, there has to be a budget for compensating farmers for their losses in a campaign against insurgents. Either just by buying them out of their land, or at least guarantee that their property rights will be restored after the war is over. Insurgents rarely ever farm themselves. So even just getting farmers to leave their farms and not growing crops would damage the war effort for the insurgents.
    5
  77. CorsetGrace: Nope. Trump was elected.
    5
  78. Jeez... At 55.8 metric tons, it would be just 7 metric tons short of a Leopard 2 wouldn't it? It's almost a main battle tank.
    5
  79. Watch a movie called "The Pentagon Wars", which deals somewhat accurately with the development of the Bradley and it will quickly dawn on you why it's such a deathtrap. :P
    4
  80. SteveOwnsMC: Dude, if you believe that "german made" = good, then clearly you haven't studied engineering or dealt much with german machinery. Yes, they are filled with technical finesse... But when it breaks down... You"re in for a shitstorm.
    4
  81. Foxhound R336: I'd rather live in a paranoid nation, than a cucked slave nation like australia. Free men don't need to ask their governments permission to own firearms. Slaves do.
    4
  82. germanvisitor2: And your explanation of "well war and civilian deaths!" doesn't cut it, as I've proven. Your conclusion is one based on ignorance. You haven't studied the philosophies and mindset of the terrorist. They are not staging terrorist attacks because of war and civilian deaths. Civilan deaths are the least of their concerns. They stage terrorist attacka because they hate us on an ideological level. They hate us for whar we stand for. For being profane against their religion. You can even read all of this in the Dabiq magazine (an actual magazine published and distributed by ISIS)
    4
  83. germanvisitor2: Sargon of Akkad made an illuminating video about the subject where he quotes directly from an article in Dabiq magazine, aptly named "Why we hate you!" And as you can see for yourself, the war and civilian deaths are of the lowest priority. Why should an ISIS terrorist care about any civilian deaths in the middle east? They fully accept slaughtering innocent civilians, not just in Europe and the U.S but even in middle eastern countries (the terrorist home countries) They don't give a shit about civilians dying. They'll kill anyone bevause the believe thay they are on an missiom from God to purge the planet of "infidels". And they've learned all of this from the Quran. https://youtu.be/8WiCG7oRze0
    4
  84. BoarhideGaming: Politicians doesn't control everything. Look at Piratebay. They've tried shutting it down for almost a decade now, politicians and private corporations alike. Yet still it persists and you can still download torrents over there. And it wasn't started by a financial, corporate powerhouse like youtube or google either, but by three regular dudes in Sweden on a shoestring budget as a private project. So there really is no excuse for youtube and google to concede and join the enemy like this.
    4
  85. So seeing as how you're into heavy metal as well. Tell me, what is your opinion of Rammstein?
    4
  86. Military History Visualized: Thank you for the reply! I don't really speak much german, but I've read lyric translations and I can agree that their lyrics are a bit "tame" by metal standards, although they are more subtle too, relying much on euphemism and even poetry a bit more than many other metal bands. Now since Sweden was brought up, are you any familiar with a Swedish metal band called Raubtier? I have to say I like them more than Rammstein, even though Raubtier is very inspired by Rammstein. Raubtiers lyrics are a bit more direct and "darker". They even have a couple of songs in tribute of tanks (like Achtung Panzer and Pansarmarsch). I guess if I was to describe their theme and sound, they're like a combination of Sabaton and Rammstein. Check them out if you get the opportunity! :)
    4
  87. Any chances for an upcoming video that goes into detail of how these fire control computers of heavy AA guns worked? I for one would find it very interesting since whatever electronics that existed during WWII was must've been rather primitive and frankly I have no idea if the firing control was primarily mechanical or electronic in operation.
    4
  88.  @jmbpaz  Tell me, how much of their private property and "comparative advantage" were the kulaks entitled to in the Soviet Union? ;)
    4
  89. I'm here thinking: what if you could make a design where the 360 traverse is achieved by the gunner being able to assume control of the tracks on the vehicle? Self-propelled artillery isn't intended to fire during movement anyway. The intent is to be able to keep up with armored units, and also relocate quickly after firing one or several shots. So if you had a system where the gunner and loader assume control over the tracks for traverse purposes, while the driver has the ability to override it during the case of an emergency, you could've saved a lot of construction that goes into the turret so the gun only requires elevation control.
    4
  90. But then again, slavs are usually pretty short in stature. So that wouldn't have been a problem with the T-34.
    4
  91.  @ultrametric9317  When you're attacked on all fronts by pretty much the entire western AND eastern world at the same time... I'd like to see you do better. XD
    4
  92. Srbistanik 01: Bravery does not win wars. In fact, it barely even wins battles anymore. War has always been about beating the enemy into submission and make them cry uncle. The only reason bravery was a necessity before was because they didn't have the technology to win wars without it. If they had such technology they would've preferred it over bravery.
    4
  93. Have you considered making an in-depth video about the Battle of Wizna? Also theatrically referred to as "The Polish Battle of Thermopylae"? I think your meticulous attention to facts and detail on this specific battle would result in a very interesting video about the effects and end results of that battle in particular.
    4
  94. Huh... Sounds like battleships were kind of obsolete even during WWII.
    4
  95. jm killer: I think it might've had something to do with his desire to create a title that showed off his supremacy over french colonies in parts of the world outside of france as well.
    4
  96. Regarding the misconception about combat medics amd corpsmen not carrying a weapon, I think it have to do with the hippocratic oaths. But as far as I know, combat medics aren't obliged to take those oaths. It's usually something that doctors in medicine have to take.
    4
  97. HAHA! I love how you stick to the "visualized" medium even for mundane topics like letting the viewers know what's going on behind the scenes. XD Don't worry so much about output per month. I'm certain that the majority of your viewers and patreons will appreciate fewer videos with more quality and research behind them rather than more videos that end up getting rushed. I'm subscribed and I'll be watching regardless of how many videos come out per month.
    3
  98. Foxhound R336: Because it's not considered sensitive material, since civilians can find this shit out from any number of sources anyway.
    3
  99. That part about Netherlands audiences just stating reminds me of the Australian stand-up comedian Steve Hughes. Under one of his performances he said the following: "Then there's the dutch, which are quite hard to perform for. I mean you can make them laugh, I've done it before. But if you don't, they will STARE at you until you fucking cry. There's no heckling, no "oh, get of your shit" just... INTENSIVE STARE IN COMPLETE SILENCE "
    3
  100. "But neither are Bethesda games" XD Funnily enough, several recent Bethesda games actually featured a lot of nearly empty super markets (Fallout 3 and onwards)
    3
  101. "Büllshit"... You get a thumbs up just for that spelling! XD
    3
  102. germanvisitor2: Omg, you really should excuse yourself from this discussion since you are completely ignorant of the military conflicts in the middle east and who "started" things.
    3
  103. germanvisitor2: That's right. Run with your tail between your legs into that bubble of ignorance that you live in.
    3
  104. Pierre Dudoret: The supposed "threat" of an aging population is not really an issue at all. Japan also has an aging population. And hardly any allowed immigration to speak of. Yet Japan is doing fine. Their economy is booming.
    3
  105. Pierre Dudoret: Islam is not a french religion. You should've voted for Le Pen while you had the chance. Now all you can look forward to is the future Caliphate of France. :)
    3
  106. Military History Visualized: Youtube is under attack yes. But youtube is also conceding to the attack rather than fighting. (by giving in to advertisers and the EU's heinous demands) So we mighr actually have to end up fighting youtube and google, since they're joining the enemy side.
    3
  107. Hey I actually have that game sitting on my shelf! Can't say I played it too much though. Could never find a decent tutorial back then of how to... Well Pilot planes. It seems that as a simulator game it really took simulation to the extreme and I got the feeling that you had to be an actual pilot to be able to play the game (or at least familiar with pilot navigation) so I gave up (bear in mind that I was in my early teens during 2001)
    3
  108. I will watch the corrected video and hit the like button for it.
    3
  109.  @jmbpaz  Imagine thinkig free trade can ever be a reality in a society where private property is banned...
    3
  110. Moorbote: Yes there is. There's the Dinosaur-media sensing it's impending death and then use underhanded means to attack it's evolutionary superior replacements. And there's the new media. Dinosaur media is also for the most part leaning to the left of the political spectrum.
    3
  111. Gibbons3457: The problem is that "moderate" left-wing politics doesn't work either because their ideology is still based on and influenced by the flawed, dysfunctional economical model that all communism is derived from. What usually happens when "moderate leftists" are voted into power is they act like spendthrifts with public money and national savings (usually funds that have been accuulated for years by right wing parties), so prosperity seems good in the beginning of a mandate period of moderate leftists. But then evidence shows that their policies are ineffective at taking economic realities i to account, and they're usually extremely bad at investing public funds into projects that actually pays society back with a surplus. By then, all public welfare institutions starts to crack since the leftist governments spends more money and take more loans than they can afford. As drastic emergency measures they make surprise raises in taxes for larger corporation, which scares them away and make them set up shop in other countries, taking the jobs with them and thus creating even more people dependant on social welfare that the government can't afford and so on. If your politics are influenced by "Das Kapital", you're never gonna be able to make a functional, stable society overtime. And before you start arguing, I should let you know that I live in a country where these exact things have happened over and over as left wingers got voted into power and I've seen it happen in practice, not just once but several times over.
    3
  112.  @Emanresuadeen  Yes, the nazis executed civilians... But they still had badass helmets and uniforms and guns. If you're gonna commit genocides, might as well do it in style. ;)
    3
  113. Age of Empires (the first game in the series) will quickly teach you why the mongol army was so successful. If you build a large enough force of horse archers and manage their movement properly, nothing in the game can really stand against them.
    3
  114. Diseased wang? I thought Florida was a state dedicated by the Federal Government to be the national retirement home. :D
    3
  115. Is there any information to be found regarding costs? How many reichsmark went into the production of Panzerfausts compared to how many rubels went into a destroyed tank on the eastern front? From a strategic perspective, the only way to measure the usefulness of a weapon is to determine how much money you destroy for the enemy compared to how much money you spent on destroying it.
    3
  116. The Dirty Harry of Germany.
    3
  117. Mistah Susan: There is no such thing as "cheating" in war.
    3
  118. Srbistanik 01: The U.S completed all of their mission objectives in the Vietnam war you know. So talking about a "stalemate" or even a loss is historically incorrect.
    3
  119. Rommel did nothing wrong! His superiors just used him in the wrong way. ;)
    3
  120.  @thedave8097 : Interesting. At other times it seemed that Hitler often overruled the military high command and their decisions, but not this time.
    3
  121. From what I've read, the plan was necessary but still foolish. It's incredibly difficult to capture and subjugate russia. The land and terrain alone pose a gigantic defensive factor for the russians. When the few invaders left after having frozen to death during the winter are stuck in the large mud fields that russia is composed of, they're easy pickings for artillery.
    3
  122. Military History Visualized: Very true. Narrative sells. I guess that's probably why i'm a bit of a Rommel-fanboy as well. :P
    3
  123. But the t-34 and sherman was more modern than the japanese tanks at that time.
    3
  124.  @samarkand1585  No of course not. But it's not unheard of that enemy infantry might sneak up on artillery positions to kill the gunners crewing the artillery pieces. So if your crew is protected from small arms, then all you need to worry about is anti-tank weaponry and aircraft.
    3
  125. Refraining from hyperbole and speculation is commendable of you. However, hyperbole and speculation can be a bit entertaining for the viewer. I wouldn't hold it against you if you made a video or two where you indulged in some speculation and "what if?"-scenarios, purely for entertainment purposes. I'm sure you'd include ample disclaimers letting the viewer know that such a video was made for entertainment purposes and not as a pursuit of facts alone.
    3
  126.  @markfryer9880  Thank you! I do my best. :)
    3
  127. "Carried away".... Hurr, hurr, hurr :P
    2
  128. Hitler really seemed to have an obsession with "super weapons" (in the sense that "super" means exceedingly expensive and usually extrwmely large). Schwerer Gustav, V-2 rockets, the Maus and proposed Ratte tanks etc. I know full well that these weapons were more of a strategic detriment to the Germans rather than a benefit. But I can't help but have a soft spot for them. :) There's simply something so visionary with building the largest tank or artillery cannon in the world. Charming in it's absursity. I just love mega tanks and super weapons in general. Effective, and proven weapons are nice, but in terms of craftsmanship amd ingenuity they tend to be quite bland and repetitive.
    2
  129. TheLivingMachine03: Journalists "work" is worthless. They deserve no money at all. Especially not since they busy themselves with mostly acting like propaganda platforms and nothing else. Journalists need to go the same way other dinosauric, obsolete species go: to extiniction.
    2
  130. Tanks are the sexiest thing on this earth!
    2
  131. I guess the problem in english stems from the fact that "army" is somtimes being used interchangeably with the word "military". If someone is refering to the entire armed forces of Germany, then "German military" would be a more proper use of words than "German Army", since Army (Heer) basically only denotes the land based fighting forces. Although I guess "German Military" might also be misrepresemtative for "Wehrmacht", since the term "Military" could also include the Schutzstaffel (SS) since they were a "military" (or rather para-military) branch of the German government at the time, and a completely separate entity from the Wehrmacht, right?
    2
  132. Yes, the Ratte would be useless. But complete garbage... I don't know. A giant machine rolling across the landscape spitting death at the same strength of a naval vessel. It would be epic! I don't care how ineffective it would be from a strategic perspective. It would still be epic! :P
    2
  133. I am not german. "Muttersprachler" means mothers tounge, or native tounge, right?
    2
  134. Damn, despite the fact that I'm in no way involved in marketing (layman at best) I've pretty much been thinking the exact same thing as what you've outlined in your post here. :O I must've picked the wrong career.
    2
  135. viniz200: Actually, you're wrong. If we count the instsnces of invention and technological progress throughout human history, there's actually more inventions being made per day during times of war than during times of peace. And it makes sense if you look at the underlying factors of it. During times of peace, what do you risk losing unless you're more innovative than your rivals? Money? Market shares? Sure, it hurts but it's not the end of the world. In war however, you risk losing your very life and society if you're not smarter and better armed than your rivals. War is the greatest spur in human technological advancement than any other factor. So it's factually and historically incorrect to just view war as some sort of purely destructive factor, when the technological products of war invariably end up being used in civilian applications when the wars end.
    2
  136. Joseph Ahner: You cannot "create" a terrorist. Either a person is of a terrorist persuasion from the start (that is: civilian taking it upon themselves to use unlawful violence against others in order to get what they want) or they're not.
    2
  137. Joseph Ahner: Then why didn't we see this massive surge in terrorism in Europe following WW2? The civilian casualties were far greater than anything in the middle east in present day.
    2
  138. germanvisitor2: But there were during the war. Following your flawed logic, the many civilian deaths should've created a bumch of terrorists, but it didn't.
    2
  139. Pierre Dudoret: Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world if you hadn't noticed. :)
    2
  140.  @MilitaryHistoryVisualized  Thanks for the reply! I must admit I'd feel a little skittish about driving one if a burst of HMG fire might take me out inside it. 😄 While dedicated anti-tank weaponry is of course a risk, HMG's tend to be more prevalent on vehicles in modern warfare.
    2
  141.  @spaceman081447  Only guided in the sense that you could launch it to strike pre-programmed coordinates. You couldn't get it to lock-on to a moving target.
    2
  142.  @canuck_gamer3359  Sustaining the regime has always been the purpose of any state run military.
    2
  143. RANDOM .GAMING.VLOGGAR uh, yeah totally Swedish! :P
    2
  144.  @uwu_senpai : Never talked about a cavalry charge but about horsearchers. They don't charge formations, they ride around them and wither them away with arrows. You clearly didn't read my post correctly.
    2
  145.  Mid ary : The mongols obviously weren't just raiding. You don't build empires by raiding and returning home. And like the previous speaker said: the mongols carried their economy and infrastructure with them, so logistics did not pose the same problems for them as they did for more geofixed states. As a siege army they didn't need "relief" from outside supply trains and stuff like that, while the besieged cities and castles did. Making it easy to starve them out.
    2
  146. Maybe a more scarred post-war soviet union would've been preferable. The Cold War might've been avoided that way.
    2
  147. Now I know where the Space Marine Vindicator Tank got it's inspiration from https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Vindicator
    2
  148. I wonder how the film Das Boot passed the censor-board in Germany. Seeing as how it portrays Wehrmacht soldiers in a sympathetic light.
    2
  149. Sean Kennedy: He didn't lose Africa because he couldn't follow orders. And you may note that some orders he ignored regarded the treatment of prisoners of war and other "undesireables". He was a brilliant tactician, and in the end he chose suicide rather than let his family risk being disgraced and executed. A great soldier who simply had the misfortune of fighting for a morally corrupt side. But as any soldier knows: it's not their place to question elected officials. Their job is to be loyal to the state and supply violence wherever the state wills it in times of war.
    2
  150.  @jmbpaz  If communism could actually succeed, why would they be concerned with an embargo? Why is the "anti-capitalist" and "anti-free trade" dependant on commerce and trade with other nations?
    2
  151.  @jmbpaz  Yes I do. And I also understand that Marx predictions of how societies would develop were utterly wrong. Yet idiot commies like you still take his word as gospel. While pathetically dismissing every example of practical communism (leading to mass deaths, starvation, suppression of civil liberties etc.) with "But that wasn't REAL communism".
    2
  152.  @MilitaryHistoryVisualized  Ah, I jumped the gun a bit there. Thank you for the correction!
    2
  153. Gibbons3457: Look at every single socialist/communist state in human history. They have always devolved into totalitarian regimes with centralized power. If you believe that "left wing" ideals are about decentralization of power, then you need a history lesson or two, chap.
    2
  154. Gibbons3457: All communists in history has argued the exact same thing. That they're "fighting for the little guy",the "labourers", the "disenfranchised", the "proletariat" against the evil capital owners. So yes, all left wing parties are inherently based on and influenced by communism. Trying to deny this just proves your lack of education in political history.
    2
  155. Florian Schönbächler: Any ideology becomes dangerous when radicalized.
    2
  156.  @Emanresuadeen  Not just those necessarily. The officers uniforms were quite dashing too. I'd buy one myself if I had the money for it. But it's kind of hard to justify the expenditure of a good reproduction of a german officer uniform from the time period. They also made really good looking leather coats and jackets.
    2
  157. Isn't halon toxic to humans though? Even if you're putting out a fire inside a hermetically sealed tank, won't the spray of halon pose a danger to the crew on it's own?
    2
  158.  @Ikit1Claw  Yes I know. But to my knowledge, Halon is mostly used in automated systems and where there's no danger of exposing personel to it. Like with blast doors and ventilation. The inside of a hermetically sealed tank is not that well ventilated. So what happens when you use a halon extinguisher in such a cramped and sealed compartment?
    2
  159. Odysseus Smith: It's simple. Americans don't have the guts to stage kamikaze attacks. The Japanese did. And here american descendants are, making excuses for their ancestors cowardice. Like I said: American determination = being a chickenshit
    2
  160. But if you look at the strategic objectives that the U.S had before entering Vietnam you'll see that they achieved each and every one of them.
    2
  161. Doubt you would've been so glad if it was you who got nuked...
    2
  162. In what way did the U.S "lose" the war in Vietnam? Take a look at the objectives that U.S troops had initially and how many of them were achieved. Were any of the significant objectives unsuccessful? It's kind of a misleading notion that the U.S "lost" the war kn Vietnam.
    2
  163. Red Ice: I don't believe it would've mattered much. German rule over the soviet union was unlikely from the start. It'd kind of like proposing the idea of invading the U.S. Even if the U.S had a much weaker military than it has, you still have a an almost entirely armed population numbering in the hundreds of millions to deal with. Not to mention the communications and logistics difficulties to be taken into account in pacifying such large swathes of land. You're not going to be able to properly subjugate and pacify something like that from a relatively small country like germany.
    2
  164. Makes me think: is there a reason why they didn't employ water cooled machine guns on their tanks?
    2
  165. Htoo Doh: I think he means "average joes". The types of people that usually end up being soldiers: labourers, middle managers, average students and such, Scientists are usually more geeky and are handled better using logic and reasoing. But if you walk into a pub filled with low- to middle class guys, logic and reasoning will not put you in the top of that food chain. Assertiveness and dominance will. A person with ambitions of becoming a high ranking officer is not likely to reach his goal if he isn't an assertive and dominant man that can get larger groups of other men to do what he wants them to do. Some times non-assertive and submissive men end up with command, but in most cases their careers are quite lackluster because of it.
    2
  166. Htoo Doh: I didn't mean to imply that theres an inverse relationship between being logical and being assertive and dominant. The two are definitely not mutually exclusive. That said, I'd still argue that you can make your way to the top of the food chain in an enviroment of average joes being assertive and dominant alone (something you couldn't in a scientific enviroment). But it is of course prefarable to be able to combine the two in order to be a competent and successful leader. The combination however, or at the very least a perfect combination is pretty rare in humans. It's either one or the other, or too little of one trait and too much of the other.
    2
  167. mPky1: All lands conquered needs to be occupied for quite a long time afterwards. There's no real way around it, since you turn the population of a conquered land your enemy as soon as you declare and wage war on them in the first place. It's not like you can conquer a nation by not killing anyone or destroying someones property, so it's next to impossible to do it while maintaining popular support among the population of the enemy country. So there's always a period of "cracking heads and restoring order" after the enemy government and armed forces have been forced to surrender. Which is why I point out the problem with Hitler being overly ambitious and not respecting the necessary timeframe needed to pacify a newly conquered population. He believed that since they achieved a swift military victory in Poland, he should just keep going, dedicating most resources and manpower towards invading the next country on his hitlist. Not only did it leave newly conquered territories vulnerable to local insurgency, but the speed of his conquests also instilled a greater sense of alarm and urgency in other foreign enemies like France, Britain and Russia. The trick is to slowly conquering your neighbours while projecting a complete lack of ambition towards conquest to the people watching you. Basically: drop the frog in boiling water and it will jump out immediately. But drop the frog in cold water and then slowly increase the heat, and the frog will allow itself to be boiled alive without any intervention. Classic deception, all according to the principles of Sun Tzu.
    2
  168. Rocket Power!
    2
  169. Hehe, the lack of PAPER just shows that communism is the ideological variant of a virus. So utterly destructive on it's host body (or in this case: society) that it even starves and destroys the host to the point where it can't even spread itself further. XD All communists and socialists are idiots.
    2
  170. Радован Кубурић: The Americans Nuked two major metropolitan centers in Japan. That ended the war immediately between japan and the u.s. So total annihilation most certainly work.
    1
  171. Cedric Collongues: Are you saying that the SS acted as recruiters of troops for the Whermacht? I don't think they did, but i'm not entirely sure though. Waffen-SS taking orders from the Whermacht on the battlefield is a given for tactical reasons. It would be awkward and cumbersome trying to fight a battle where you have several troops who don't follow the same chain of command as everybody else. And since the Waffen-SS weren't "real" soldiers but merely a para-military organization of genocidal maniacs, I doubt the Wehrmacht would've had anything to do with them unless the Wehrmacht got to call the shots.
    1
  172. So basically Blitzkrieg wasn't as much of a formulated doctrine but more of an unforseen consequence of employing large numbers of mechanized troops and tanks for the first time in history? (I might be wrong but if memory doesn't fail me I believe the german offensive was one of the first large scale fielding of mechanized infantry and tanks during a military offensive, even if the majority of german infantry wasn't mechanized) This leads me to think more and more that one of Hitlers biggest mistakes was the overly aggressive land grabs he tried to achieve in a as short time as possible. My impression of the german offensive is that it seems to be a lot of attacks and sweeping advances, but very little consolidation, securing and fortifying the land they did take. And the more advances the germans made, the less secure each square mile of land became, compromising supply lines and logistics more and more. It kind of makes you wonder what would've happened if Hitler had been more cautious. Like invading Poland but sitting on it for a few years, spending the time and resources to fortify it, before moving on to another target.
    1
  173. I say "Hitler" rather than the "German High Command" because it's no secret that Hitler ignored much of the sage advice from more experienced generals.
    1
  174. Feldgendarmerie Commando: They really had to learn burst firing. I seem to recall that the MG42 fire rate was considered way too high for the purpose. However it is kind of cool to have the gun that needs to be "downgraded" in fire rate because it's simply too monstrous compared to the others. :P
    1
  175. Regarding labeling the "War of Annihilation" a "blunder". While it might sound flippant calling it as such, maybe the intent is to illustrate the mismanagement of already hard pressed resources? I mean, aside from the ethical and moral aspects, diverting manpower and material resources to the task of basically murdering as many civilians as possible while there's still a full war going on, isn't just morally reprehensible but plain dumb from a strategic viewpoint. Every bullet used to execute an unarmed civilian in an effort to exterminate the entire people in the soviet union was a bullet wasted and would've served a greater strategic purpose for the german offensive by being used against the armed enemy forces of the Red Army. Of course, leaving more unarmed civilians alive opens up it's own set of problems, like creating a hiding spot for enemy spies and civilians forming armed militia uprisings. However, I doubt these risks would've outweighed the benefits of simply sparing the civilians and focusing on the armed enemies first and foremost. Not that it would save Operation Barbarossa though, since the plan was so flawed to begin with. But I'm just trying to guess the intent behind labelling the war of annihilation-aspects as a blunder.
    1
  176. Well German media are a bunch of cultural marxist, refugee-coddlers so naturally they would be "upset" with tighter border control.
    1
  177. Probably not. But I damn sure would've wanted to see a V-2 slinging Landkreuzer rolling across a field made a reality. So badass! :D
    1
  178. Jack Decker: Technically no, demonitization is not anti-freedom of speech. But in principle, it's sort of an underhanded attack against individuals means to express themselves. Youtube appropriates some role of a sole arbiter of who gets to say what, yet youtube wouldn't exist without it's content creators. It's basically cashing in on the brand names and audiences of content creators, while at the same time attacking a few of them through demonitization on some of their videos. If you truly supported freedom of speech, you wouldn't try to inhibit people's livelyhoods because they have opinions that you don't agree with. This is a big mistake on Youtube's part.
    1
  179. Jack Decker: Wrong. Private corporations can most certainly attack freedom of speech. And sorry, this whole "it's a private corporation, they can do what they like" isn't a very valid excuse, becausr platforms like youtube, google, facebook etc. have monopolies and cooperation with governments. These are very specific criteria that eliminates any excuse from using the "private company can do whatever they like"-logic, because this assumes that the private companies have competition/rivals which consumers are supposed to be able to turn to if the private company in question behaves in a manner that doesn't sit well with the consumers.
    1
  180. Jack Decker: The platform would be worthless without the content creators, and the owners of youtube wouldn''t have two pennies to rub together.
    1
  181. Mick Mickymick: I don't have a problem understanding his english in the videos. And English is a second language to me and not a first language.
    1
  182. Hyperion: When I hear germans pronounce it, the W in the beginning almost sounds like a soft "f" rather than a "w". But maybe it's a particular dialect and not widespread across Germany?
    1
  183. From what I've been taught, Heavy Machine Gun is a designation for heavy calibre guns (like .50 and above), while calibres below (like 7,62 and 5,56) are considered Light Machine Guns. But maybe this wasn't the case during WW2.
    1
  184. Bryan Olson: Which means the rockets were wasted, since you don't hurt the enemys war effort by slaughtering civilians for no reason. Winning wars is about neutralizing enemy troops and weapons, by killing/injuring/capturing soldiers and destroying tanks, planes, ships amd the means of which the enemy has to produce these. If you waste ammunition and divert resources purely to destroy civilian targets, then you're not damaging the enemy's war effort, only your own.
    1
  185. Interesting video. I feel that the resources spent on armored trains would've been better spent elsewhere though. It doesn't really matter how much armor or how many guns you bolt on to a train, since there's no real need of attacking the train itself when all you have to do is sabotage the tracks to make the train virtually useless. With a sufficiently timed attack, you could even derail it instead or merely hindering it's progress.
    1
  186. "Reichsbook" XD
    1
  187. I would agree with those three convictions. Except maybe the first one in modern times. WW1-WW2 tanks were still relatively "new" and thus scary. Today tanks aren't really employed as anti-morale weapons in the same manner. But at a certain close range from the tank, you would be safer than being further away from it. Co-axial machine guns have a hard time targeting people within touching distance of a tank, just like a machine gun mounted at the top hatch will. The scary areas of a tank to be as infantry is where the tank can aim at you. And in modern times with thermal imaging optics, you can't easily hide from the tank either Now the problem with dealing with tanks at close range however, is the fact that only an idiot commander would employ tanks without infantry support. If you're that close to a tank, then there's definitely infantry close by as well that you have to go through first to get at the tank in question.
    1
  188. Mostlyharmless1985: No, everyone is not born with rights. Your only rights are the ones that any given government recognize and actually reinforce. There is no such thing as "universal rights" or "human rights". Anyone whi believes this is a naive idiot. The U.S has no "national heritage of equality". And I have no reason to be scared of Aussies, since they are a nation of slaves who can't own firearms and who still grovel to a monarch no less.
    1
  189. If you assign the cherry as the rifleman, who is also on point, what if the cherry/least experienced guy is also the least perceptive guy? I'm just saying' knowing what to look for when in hostile territory requires being perceptive. But perception is only partly based on senses. A lot of perception bottles down to experience, or knowing what to look for. Is it really the best idea giving the new guy that responsibility when he's the least experienced?
    1
  190. Riceball01: Well, looking at the terrain and the advantage of the defenders, it's arguable that clear visibility along the beaches favours the defenders more than it favors the attackers. The infantry storming the beaches were sitting ducks out in the open and had little chance at actually shooting back at the machine gunners in their concrete bunkers and pillboxes. It was only really when the attackers got close enough to employ explosives, grenades, sub-machine guns and flamethrowers behind the wall of defenses that they actually managed to neutralize their targets. As for visibility regarding naval artillery, this isn"t really an issue. Most allied forces were knowledgeable in night time operations, even with artillery and airforce (meaning: they don't use naked eyes while firing but maps, clocks and radio communication). It stands to reason they could've employed similar tactics as they would've used if the attack took place at night. I would also argue that the advance up the beaches would've gone a lot quicker and the mg-emplacements would've been neutralized sooner if smoke screens had been used, which would've reduced the necessity for sustained naval artillery barrages during the assault.
    1
  191. Pierre Dudoret: You can't hold ground by surrendering.
    1
  192. hedgehog3180: If only the nazis had won. We would probably have panzer mechs today. :D
    1
  193. BoarhideGaming: Yes they can just "switch the IP" and be done with it. Escaping legislation and sanctions through IP-switching, URL-mirroring and using shell companies overseas is a simple affair. You're just making excuses, probably because you're a google-fanboy.
    1
  194. @borregoayudando1481 Old post but, today it seems the era of the missile has passed and the era of the drone has dawned. And it makes sense in a way. While ballistic missiles are faster, they're more troublesome to build and make work (rocketry can be a bitch when you try to attain stable flight). Drones may be slow by comparison, but they're small enough to make detection difficult and you can really zero in on the target up until the moment of impact. Parts to make them are cheap and readily available too.
    1
  195. @borregoayudando1481 The GPS guided drones are, yes. But from what I've been told, the RC drones used in the field are less susceptible to jamming. I guess it's got something to do with the radio bandwidth that the RC drones use is too close to radio communications, so if the enemy hopes to use jamming against RC drones they'd essentially cripple their own radio communications too
    1
  196. Odin Schmelzer: I assumed he was joking. :P
    1
  197. William Magoffin: And you don't think similar elements could be incorporated into a video game? I'd love a game with a campaign focusing on heroes like Erwin Rommel.
    1
  198. Florian Schönbächler: Nationalism is one of the greatest and most realistic ideologies out there.
    1
  199. Gibbons3457: While communism has a bigger death toll...
    1
  200. Gibbons3457: But you've been defending ideologies originating from communism.
    1
  201. Jimmeh: Well, the "parasites" aren't parasites by choice. They are a long lasting creation and consequence of socialist policies, making full on privatization efforts near impossible. The way socialist politicians trap voters is by making as many of them dependant on government welfare in one shape or form as possible. Because they know that even if they lose mandate to capitalist/liberal parties for a short while, the backlash their privatization efforts will inevitably recieve pretty much guarantees that the socialist parties will be back in power soon enough. This because while capitalist parties are more than happy to outsource and privatize as much as possible, they rarely take the average incomes and salary levels into account when doing it. Average people with average incomes are relying on things like subsidized healthcare to be able to live. Most of them wouldn't be able to afford it if they had to pay for the full costs out of their own pockets. Capitalists wants "austerity" in public spending and try to take away things like subsidized healthcare, because subsidized healthcare has to be funded with high taxes. BUT, they aren't too keen on making sure that the wages for people of average incomes are raised sufficiently to make them be able to afford paying for privatized healthcare out of their own pocket. Without socialist influence for several decades, the market could potentially reach a state where average incomes are balanced against the average costs of things like healthcare and education (although looking back in hidtory at times when the bourgouise had a bit too much power, average workers were exploited like hell and recieved little in return for doing all the work, but i'm not a communist so I don't run around assuming that it HAS TO happen like that, even though I do take the risk of it happening into account). The problem is that socialism has already created too many citizens dependant on it's policies for their very survival. These people will have to suffer, and the really sick ones even risk dying as a result of too much privatization and austerity. Socialism isn't economically sustainable, but you're not really offering the "proles" a very appealing option either. And since humans, by nature, focus primarily on issues that are their most immediate concern, you're not likely to get an maintain a majority vote for capitalist policies that will leave the majority of people unemployed, homeless, sick, or having significantly reduced rights and conditions in their workplace. Or to put it in more simple terms: Liberals/capitalists usually argue in favor of appealing to the "rational self interest" of wealthy capital owners, and defend their actions when they're motivated by "rational self interest". The problem is that they never take the rational self interest of the vast majority of labourers into account.
    1
  202. Gibbons3457: Let me explain this in simple terms so anyone can understand: Debt = pretty much what it says. It's the national debt whereby the government has borrowed money from a bank for certain projects, and is now paying back what they owe the bank at a certain interest rate. Ideally the yearly national budget covers the interest rate AND pays off some of the debt as well in order to decrease the amount of money tjat the government owes over time. Normally though, the government is content with merely paying off the interest rate while not paying off the actual debt, because preventing the national debt from increasing is considered a win in itself. Deficit = The amount of money "missing" from a yearly budget to cover all the costs of both running society AND paying off the interest on the national debt. The money needed can be missing for various reasons: taxes are set too low, people evade paying taxes, people aren't working/consuming enough, businesses are leaving the country and set up shop elsewhere, government bumbled the budget from last year (investments didn't pay off as much as the government projected etc.) Austerity = making budget cuts to certain departments of society, with the intent of reducing the deficit, in order to afford paying off the interest on the national debt. People naturally hate austerity for obvious reasons. And people (like you) question why the government should prioritize paying off some "silly national debt" rather than spending that money on the people. Of course, we could do like socialist muppets do and go "mañana mañana" when it comes to the national debt and the interest rate. However, every year you don't pay off the interest rate, the national debt increases, and a rampant increase in national debt is dangerous for any society, because once your national debt reaches a level where the yearly interest rate exceeds your yearly Gross National Product (GDP, which is essentially the amount of money/profit/value that your society "produce" each period) your society is fucked. Because every bank in the world will know that in order for you to merely pay off the interest rate (not paying off the debt/loan itself) you're gonna have to dump all into merely paying interest. You won't afford to make any kind of investments, you won't be able to pay for the basic things to make your society function and so on. Which means no one will lend you any more money or make investments into your country, which in turn means that the value/purchasing power of your currency will plummet and it will all lead to a downward spiral of societal decay that no country can recover from on it's own without help from the outside. If you want examples of this, look at Greece and Spain. Both well on their way to financial collapse.
    1
  203. Gibbons3457: sigh no Greece is a perfect example of illustrating what happens when your national debt and interest exceeds annual GNP, which is why I brought up Greece and Spain. I never said that I was out to explain the reasons why this happened in Greece and Spain, but the connection between deficit, interest and GNP. Although it is well known and established in circles of national economists that southern European states have a long standing tradition of spending more money than they can afford, and that's why they end up in situations like they do.
    1
  204. Gibbons3457: Also, the vulnerable and the poor will always be the first to suffer during finacial problems of any country. No route will ever safeguard any form of comfortable lifestyles for the poor and the vulnerable. It's quite literally a "damned if you do, damned if you don't"-dilemma. Do you think the poor and the vulnerable are much better off in Greece or Spain that was governed by incompetent spendthrifts in government, who took more loans than their countries could pay back as soon as they were given the chance? NO! The poor and the vulnerable are equally miserable, because austerity comes whether your government choose it or not. What the english could've done better however is not being spendthrifts on immigrants. Like you said yourself, austerity leads to jobs being cut in the public sector. Therefore it's fucking disastrous to import hundreds of thousands of unemployable "refugees" who will sponge off of social welfare almost their entire lives.
    1
  205. Yes, they get exploited. Also often working off the books and not paying taxes. Which means, the companies get cheap, unregulated and untaxed labour. While at the same time not being under any need of hiring legitimate labourers and also being able to avoid rules and regulations that the labour unions try to enforce. Every job an immigrant does is a job that an unemployed native could've done. Also, it's complete and utter bullshit that the immigrants are "refugees". More than 90 % of them are from North Africa and middle eastern countries not embroiled in war at all. They are economic migrants, nothing more. And considering the so called "refugees" that do come to Europe are mostly composed of young, able bodied men of military age: YES! They fucking damn well should return to their own countries and fight for them. But like the disgusting parasites they are, they leave the elderly, the women, the children and the infirm behind in order to go sponge off of Europe.
    1
  206.  @milionST : Your source is broken and can't be accessed. Second, the populations you mention are extremely small compared to the morr populpus countries like Russia (also composed of slavs), and the average height of Russians is not that great.
    1
  207.  @tonysu8860  You need to learn more about the importance of logistics, friend. The american Sherman tank in WW2 was pretty weak compared tp German tanks too. But who won the war?
    1
  208.  @Vincent98987  no?
    1
  209. American determination = being a chickenshit
    1
  210. Snack Freeman: Your meddling in the middle east and destabilization of several middle eastern countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria is what's sent throngs of refugees to Europes borders. If you and your government and military could learn to mind their own fucking business then Europe wouldn't be forced to clean up the mess you cause.
    1
  211. Max Tripp: Erm, sorry but the U.S "efforts" in the European theatre was minimal and token at best. The Nazis were on the run long before the U.S even bothered to send any troops of their own to Europe.
    1
  212.  @mrbrainbob5320 : Not really. American contribution was marginal at best. The war would've been won regardless. You americans always inflate your own importance rather than looking at the facts.
    1
  213. David Uivarosi: Well with such a humiliating defeat in Stalingrad at the hands of one of the generals acting on their own, in opposition to Hitlers demands, I can see why he would lose trust in them.
    1
  214. nattygsbord: Well, at least they learned that if you're gonna build large warships, you better build them as aircraft carriers instead of giant gunboats.
    1
  215.  @nottoday3817  1. You move them to refugee camps, temporarily. 2. It stands to reason that farms that feed guerilla insurgents are not supplying your own population with any substantial amount of food as it is. So those particular farms are already lost. Also to safeguard against the misuse of grown food: that's what food banks and depots are for. 3. No, they can't just buy or capture food en-gross. If insurgents in the past could, they wouldn't have to resort to gathering support from or strong arm farmers into giving them food. Also, proper supply depots are defensible structures. A guerilla force is not just waltzing in there taking whatever they feel like without opposition.
    1
  216.  @josecipriano3048 : The theory of communism is irrelevant, since the logical conclusion of communism is always a regime like Stalins, which is why every single communist state end up being a regime similar to Stalins. So his regime is very much communist.
    1
  217. TOFKAS01: I don't think you understand the question. The U.S war effort in Vietnam was divided up into particular mission objectives (not ambigous objectives like "win the war", but objectives like "take and hold city x or fortification y"). Last time I checked, pretty much all mission objectives in Vietnam were achieved by U.S forces. So calling the effort a "defeat" isn't very accurate.
    1
  218. Feuer der Veränderung: The vickers machinegun had water cooling around the barrel itself. But it became very heavy as a result. Which is why infantry machine guns evolved towards more portable, air cooled versions. That said, installed on a tank, the bulk of a water cooled machine gun wouldn't have the same issues as when infantry have to lug it around. I'm just thinking that in general, air cooled machine guns seem to overheat a lot quicker than water cooled machine guns did (it's basic physics really: water is a better conductor for heat than air is, therefore submerging a machine gun barrel in water would give it a better heat sink at ground level than just having it exposed to air) so maybe a watercooled machine gun would've been useful for tanks since their barrels wouldn't need to be replaced due to overheating as often?
    1
  219. edmundscycles1: No it's not. If it was, then the vickers and the maxim would've never even been used.
    1
  220. I think most people associate the word "blitzkrieg" with the concept of "Bewegungskrieg" the most.
    1
  221. Dicker Max: So salty you are. :)
    1
  222. But then again, wasn't it Halders initiative to march towards Stalingrad in the first place?
    1
  223.  @ssm445  Exports mean little. Because exports of military hardware is about 90 % a game of politics/lobbyism and 10 % about performance.
    1