There is a joke. A division of troops were standing around when they hear that they have been surrounded by unknown forces. They decide to fire a shot. If they respond with precision rifle shots, they are British. If they respond with deadly, accurate machine gun fire, they are German. If your front line gets blown up by a grenade, they are Canadian. If they respond with a massive wave of people and tanks, they are Russian. If they respond with a banzai charge with people waving swords, they are Japanese If they surrender, they are French. If nothing happens for a couple minutes, and your entire front line disappears to artillery and air strikes, then they are American.

@carl1592

3 жыл бұрын

lmao i get it all

@Stevenwoodward-ii1uw

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

@redacted9694

3 жыл бұрын

And if your lines get demoralised by intensive swearing, they’re Australian

@charlesstuart7290

3 жыл бұрын

Germans always complained that the Americans wouldn't engage unless they had artillery and air superiority.

@clothschickensogs2947

3 жыл бұрын

If you are manuevered by guerilla tactics. And swarms of soldiers hiding and sniping you. They are Filipino

Early German Units are OP , until the nerf patch of attrition

@dank_lord

3 жыл бұрын

@Cpl. Rook and we all know that soviets only lost in the first half because of the massive -50% org penalty from the great purge national focus. Once they finished the lessons of war focus, they basically won.

@VypeFX

3 жыл бұрын

Cpl. Rook they definitely were op as france defenses where shocked by their ability to keep pushing forward without sleeping and stopping for DAYS. USSR army is not as strong as the germans and they simply used their manpower, weather against hitlers blindness of not retreating.

@VypeFX

3 жыл бұрын

Cpl. Rook I can agree on the part in the fight against the french and british but defenitely not on the eastern front. German military had more quality in man and in the beginning also in their armament, planes etc . The german ardenn offensive was heavily carried out with drug use which also added to their power. Idk certain but I think I heard that this offensive was one of the fastest ever in human history. Can also be bullshit tho

@audunms4780

3 жыл бұрын

@@VypeFX ehemm, google, the manchurian campain. I love zuckow chan.

@joseemmanuelosegueracamare4044

3 жыл бұрын

*Finland

The Finnish army was remarkable in how it stood up to the might of the USSR

@LSgaming201

2 жыл бұрын

More Soviet incompetence rather than Finnish skill. But still remarkable.

@georgeousthegorgeous

2 жыл бұрын

@@LSgaming201 more like finnish winter rather than finnish skill

@grandadmiralthrawn3164

2 жыл бұрын

There was no real infrastructure in the area which meant that the ussr could not bring their entire military to bear on the Finnish

@LSgaming201

2 жыл бұрын

@@grandadmiralthrawn3164 They outnumbered the Finns in nearly every battle fought for the entire 9 month war. The Soviet battle plan was idiotic and when Stalin fired Voroshilov the war suddenly turned in the USSRs favor. Because Voroshilov had no idea what he was doing.

@grandadmiralthrawn3164

2 жыл бұрын

@@LSgaming201 yes I know the Finns fought valiantly and when Semyon Timoshenko took over the tide immediately turned, however if the infrastructure had been better even a incompetent political officer like Voroshilov could defeat Finland thanks to massively overwhelming numbers

A quick add-on to the German infantrie, they trained their NCOs and Junior Officers to be proficient in the use of all small arms and heavy weapons including heavy MGs MG34&42 mortars/light artillery and anti tank weapons so they were very flexible in combat situations being able to use any equipment in any situation and pass that knowledge on to their men

@fangslaughter1198

4 ай бұрын

Same with the Canadian infantry. Simply the Best!!🇨🇦

@aswaltan8962

4 ай бұрын

​@@fangslaughter1198I'm still believe most effective army ww2 are German nazi but they are cruel ,brutality and killer robbery.

@9:45 German son: "Dad what did you do in the war"? German Army Dad: "Eh, what did you say, let me get my hearing aide in". German son: "I SAID WHAT DID YOU DO IN THE WAR"?!! German Army Dad: "Well son I was an improvised bi-pod for an MG 34"

@lit-litaly1204

3 жыл бұрын

this is very under rated

@travisdozier1357

3 жыл бұрын

I’ve shot an mg42... not a mg53.. and I’ve owned an mg34.. great gun. Never had a problem with it.. the m1919 I owned..what a pos. Nothing but a boat a anchor.

@ninjagamingxplayz6585

2 жыл бұрын

No wonder he needs hearing aid

@theinvictus9130

2 жыл бұрын

@@travisdozier1357 I'v got a dog. I usually walk him at least twice a day cause he a big boy. After that he gets his food

@Phozz4

2 жыл бұрын

The correct german term is "Fleischlafette".

Therapist: “hitler with diabetes isn’t real he can’t hurt you” Hitler with diabetes 1:09

@GuitarAndWhatevs

3 жыл бұрын

Too many luftwaffles

@cryingcatgoesbark310

3 жыл бұрын

Daniel Guzman, lol he also put some *insert ww2 food sounding thing here* on his waffles

@Daesarul

3 жыл бұрын

*wide hitler*

@picklerix6162

3 жыл бұрын

I was thinking WWE Hitler.

@js11238

3 жыл бұрын

He needs a manzier. (Ref. Seinfeld)

No wonder why the attack on the Shanghai warehouse took so long. The Chinese who stood their ground there were trained by German trainers.

There's no contest here, it only takes 1 half blind Canadian soldier to capture/liberate a city.

@skylerkelsey3684

3 жыл бұрын

Leo Major be like.

@sbwmurray3988

3 жыл бұрын

They Love to keep Canadians out of the Mix in these..Hands down he best fighting units.

@rome316ae3

3 жыл бұрын

Komedy achieved 🤡

@iwantlee9510

2 жыл бұрын

@@sbwmurray3988 except they werent

@skylarsoper241

2 жыл бұрын

Crazy canucks all the way to V-day !!

Theraphist: diabetic hitler doesn't exist it cant hurt you Diabetic hitler: 1:09

@maximilianolimamoreira5002

3 жыл бұрын

🤣😅

@jaypea30

3 жыл бұрын

D E A R G O D

@whyhellothere9822

3 жыл бұрын

@@jaypea30 theres more

@maximilienlonca7006

3 жыл бұрын

diabetic Hitler has an Eddie Hall strongman body now...

@addieloveswheelies5672

3 жыл бұрын

💀

Therapist: Adolf Thiccler doesn't exist, he can't hurt you Adolf Thiccler: 1:08

@clumsycommissar5260

3 жыл бұрын

Hans wait... are you the bad guy?

@Hans-hy5jp

3 жыл бұрын

@@clumsycommissar5260 yeah

@Yuki_Ika7

3 жыл бұрын

The German bulk bogan

@Yuki_Ika7

3 жыл бұрын

@Jim lastname idk, i just know some people call fat people Bulk Bogan, that's all

@roskcity

3 жыл бұрын

@@Hans-hy5jp we are the baddies man

I’m English but Germany had by far the most effective infantry of ww2

@vanmust

9 ай бұрын

watch it...when you say English what side? French (Norman) or German (Saxon)?where was your great great great great grandfather during the battle at Hastings?

@vanmust

3 ай бұрын

Normans came from the Vikings...France's king allowed them to habitate Normandy and take on french customs

I agree with you on that German Units were most effective during WWII. Great video!

@NHOJ11

2 жыл бұрын

United states and german units were good

@ruffnecky3

2 жыл бұрын

@@NHOJ11 Battle of Wizna? 40:1? with their equipment Polish soldiers would finish Germans in 1939, even fighting with Soviets on second front at the same time

@megasbasileios3154

2 жыл бұрын

@@ruffnecky3 lol Poland obliterated in 4 weeks by Germany what you're taking about? The definition of destroying someone is what Germany did to Poland

@marks665

2 жыл бұрын

@@megasbasileios3154 The Polish actually put up a good fight. It wasn't until the Soviets invaded from the East that they really started to collapse. But that's to be expected when a small country is fighting a two front war against two much larger countries.

@theeater8906

2 жыл бұрын

@@ruffnecky3 The Polish soldiers fought bravely, they were probably among the most valiant fighters during the whole war (saying this as a German). However they were lacking the equipment, manpower and logistics to compete with Germany. I think some people judge soldiers too easily because their nation lost quickly. Everybody jokes about France but if you truly analyze how and why France lost the war and how French soldiers sacrificed themselves in order for British soldiers to be able to retreat to GB, you get a different picture.

5:47 “British infantry made good use of the Lee Enfield” *shows an American with a Springfield*

@thesnake2620

3 жыл бұрын

Also he insinuated that the Thompson was inferior to the Bren because "The barrel couldn't be swapped out" even though they are completely different types of weapons...the video was entertaining but pretty poorly researched.

@severedsage5867

3 жыл бұрын

The Snake yeah the video is very flawed and probably heavily scripted with typos

@mofal_bluk9472

3 жыл бұрын

He called the thompson a machine gun (not that big of a deal, since you could think it was a typo) and then compared it to the Bren, which means he actually meant machine gun. And later on he said MP42 instead of MP40.

@renlin8925

3 жыл бұрын

Mиша haha gotta love the mp42, the mg42’s little brother.

@mofal_bluk9472

3 жыл бұрын

@@renlin8925 cousin of the FG42

Me, when he pronounces Wehrmacht and Blitzkrieg right: "Impossible"

@Perceval777

3 жыл бұрын

The Germans themselves didn't actually use the word Blitzkrieg during the war, though.

@fnnsvnssn2164

3 жыл бұрын

@@Perceval777 It's still a german word.

@jozzaprouductionsHD

3 жыл бұрын

​@@Perceval777 bewegungskrieg is correct

@phuckos

2 жыл бұрын

but then pronounces english words wrong lol

@cxtcutsml706

2 жыл бұрын

@@phuckos how tf? He pronounces English word perfectly fine.

There is actually a joke made by the soviet soldiers that if you need to capture an alive Fritz all you needed was to be of a higher rank and shout out commands loud and clear enough

@citizennoble9231

2 жыл бұрын

there was also a joke made by the german soldiers...a soviet soldier.

@user-io3ph5ll6w

2 жыл бұрын

@@citizennoble9231 nobody laughing since 1943 tho

@headhunter1945

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-io3ph5ll6w Technically correct, but more accurately, people in the Soviet Union had actually not laughed since at least 1922.

@user-io3ph5ll6w

2 жыл бұрын

@@headhunter1945 noone in ex soviet countries enjyoing their lives since 1991

@headhunter1945

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-io3ph5ll6w the difference is that now they are allowed to complain about it without being shot

It was amazing that the Germans managed to hold out for so many years. The allies had to simply spend years slowly and relentlessly grinding them down at great cost.

@AHLSPUDS

2 жыл бұрын

I mean, not really. Upon America entering the war they took Africa fairly quick, then Italy fell even faster. Afterwards they moved so fast through German territories that they had to stop for a winter to resupply, they moved quicker than they could get trucks with ammo to the front. While the Soviets had great cost, the British and American's lost a good bit less than Germans and Soviets, and it definitely wasn't slow.

@pc86914

2 жыл бұрын

@@AHLSPUDS agreed. D-Day could have happened a lot earlier if the technology and logistical expertise needed to pull it off had already existed. The long wait for D-Day was more to allow technology and supply to catch up and make it possible rather than the Germans being too powerful. Many troops that landed on D-Day had already been in the UK for over a year by that point.

@trololoev

2 жыл бұрын

Germany and allies is 300 million people.

@pastek93

2 жыл бұрын

Americans would have delayed the D-day if they could. They landed in Europe because Stalin was steamrolling the Wehrmacht in the east towards Berlin. USA wanted to reach Berlin first.

@AHLSPUDS

2 жыл бұрын

@@pastek93 They landed in Europe because the Soviets kept demanding they did and threatened to slow down.

it's heartbreaking that WW2 movies often depict german soldiers as weak ineffective forces that were easily gunned down. In reality the allied forces had to face hell in order to defeat the german war machine

@Jibbermidget

3 жыл бұрын

What fucking movies are you watching?

@rob5944

3 жыл бұрын

@@Jibbermidget American ones.

@rob5944

3 жыл бұрын

@Noah But they always loose.

@rob5944

3 жыл бұрын

@Noah Well in Patton-A Lust For Glory it shows them winning at the Kasserine Pass and at Arnhem in A Bridge too Far....not the whole film of course...

@mrcool2107

3 жыл бұрын

Hollywood propaganda makes others weak

When the whole world gets together to stop you... you are the best.

@massivepussylips1752

3 жыл бұрын

Yes the whole world

@walawalayaga8116

3 жыл бұрын

yes the whole world

@biggussdickuss5184

3 жыл бұрын

Yes the whole world

@heresy8384

3 жыл бұрын

Ah yes, because Isis is obviously the best. American soldiers can't even compete with some 11 year old conscripted child with a pipe bomb who is told to run at the nearest US Base.

@spolarn

3 жыл бұрын

Yes im sure it wasnt because of the rapant expansionism, militarism and genocide

Speaking as a Brit, the Germans were the best fighters in WW2 by a mile.

@thegreenskull4244

2 жыл бұрын

yes

@burnsmatkin9606

2 жыл бұрын

Well that's a slap in the face when we Canadians saved your butts with shock troops and materiel through out the war. You might want to look up Ortona or the fact that on D-Day the Canucks held out against the 12th Panzer when the rest of the allies faced regular troops. We did that in WWI too. Frankly, your generals suck.

@thegreenskull4244

2 жыл бұрын

@@burnsmatkin9606 but he's right

@swampdonkey1567

2 жыл бұрын

@@thegreenskull4244 he ain't though.

@thegreenskull4244

2 жыл бұрын

@@swampdonkey1567 then who is

So many nations should get further credit. French infantry covering the rear of British retreat to Dunkirk did well (terribly lead). Poles were the soldiers who finally captured Monte Cassino, Aussies at Tobruk who wouldn’t bend for Rommel, Canadians, Indians, South Africans all tough. But ultimately your summary is fair and the Wehrmacht infantry was head and soldiers above all comers.

This was a really non nazi depiction of wehrmact this was very good

@TheFront

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks, Muneeb!

@zexal4217

3 жыл бұрын

I'm curious what you mean by that?

@tavish4699

3 жыл бұрын

@@zexal4217 well the fact that the german soldiere wasnt called nazi about 25 times in this video makes it much more enjoyable

@zexal4217

3 жыл бұрын

@@tavish4699 Ehhh, despite what some early literature may say, the average German soldier (and Wehrmacht as a whole) was pretty nazified with quite fanatical and evil men within it. Of course not ALL were like this, but a significant enough majority to justify referring to it as such.

@Editzsbyunemployed

3 жыл бұрын

@@zexal4217 if you watch 90% videos on internet about this you will see that the German soldiers as a whole were spawn of demons and they had evil magic powers sort of things if you know what I mean and then they were defeated by righteous allies so yeah it was a good non nazi video

The fact that it took the help of Americans, British, French, Canadians, and Russians to make Germany surrender is statement of how tough the German army is.

@chrissmith-td3iu

3 жыл бұрын

Not the British but the British Empire (including natural resources, manpower etc) French Empire (including natural resources, manpower etc)

@Gleichtritt

3 жыл бұрын

@L.C. Champlain I have to disagree with parts. The generals pictured Hitler as a mad man after the war, but he was not. He was evil ofc, but not mad or stupid. The generals believed in old manner, its enough to take the capital city, while Hitler saw the economic warfare. Therefore he did not want to go for moscow in the first place, but was not that "dominant" with his decisions, as he was later. His idea was from day one, to go straight for the caucasus and take Russias oil. The idea, that he wanted Stalingrad only for its name, is one that I only saw in one American documentary....and its flat out not true. Stalingrad, besides other important factors, guarded the wolga river, where a very important amount of supplies for russia came through. Eventually Germany could not proceed its successful blitzkrieg strategy against russia, because they had not enough oil to run all the machines. Horses saved them eventually, because again, there was not enough oil to execute the war in the way they wanted. And to Clear Kim I can only say, that this picture is a very simplified idea of Russia at that time. Russia's industry was simply underestimated plus they received gigantic amounts of supplies from the western allies. Also Russias technology was not that far behind Germany's, a good example is their T34, which was for quiet some time superior to German tanks, forcing them to develop new tanks, just to engage this enemy.

@l1ouston

3 жыл бұрын

Actually the list is a bit longer: - France (icluding it´s colonies = French Indochina, Afrika) - British Empire (including all of it´s colonies = Britisch Malaya, Afrika) - Australia - New Zealand - India (not really manpower but it´s resources) - Canada - USA - Russia - Luxemburg - Belgium - Netherlands (inlcuding the Dutch East Indies) - Denmark - Greece - Yugoslawia - Poland i think that´s about it...

@silent00planet

3 жыл бұрын

you forget the allies were decent people fighting monsters the fins were decent people

@JDP2104

3 жыл бұрын

@L.C. Champlain you underestimated the amount of Soviet deaths by about 7 million

Those Finns had definitely one of the best ratio and the Soviets one of the worst. If I'm thinking of who's was the most effective, I'm thinking of the RATIO (kills vs losses) and the total casualties. The deadliest sniper ever in history (Simo Häyhä) is one of the examples. Total casualties (the Winter War): Finland (70,000) vs the USSR (381,000) Total Casualties (the Continuation War): Finland (225,000) vs the USSR (944,000)

@davecopp9356

11 ай бұрын

With the help of the germans. Finns alone would have been finished way sooner. And Finns were ungrateful like the italians who changed sites whenever things got tough.

While I agree with your final conclusion, I think leaving out Canadians was a huge over sight. Let's also not forget the USA was the last to join the fight by years, giving them lots of time to arm and train and enter the war fresh when the others were already war weary.

@18roselover

2 жыл бұрын

@@AchiB918 NO , just a member of the british commonwealth s africa palestine , india , rhodsia, australia new zealand etc

@thebigsad5402

2 жыл бұрын

The US joined the war effort early in the war. While they weren't a huge presence in Europe, in places like the Pacific, Africa they were fighting in 1942. Some say they were in the war on day 1 with the constant supply they kept giving to both the British and Soviets in the Alantic.

@gregorycraig9882

2 жыл бұрын

@@thebigsad5402 Early? Should have been there in 1939, like Canada.

@corey2232

2 жыл бұрын

@@gregorycraig9882 Canada was still very attached to the UK, like Australia, so of course they joined shortly after the British... Also, this wasn't a WW1 situation. The other forces weren't all depleted or "war weary," by that point, and you act as if the US wasn't heavily supplying & supporting the Allied forces. But then again, Canadians have this constant obsession to point out their superiority over the US & differentiate themselves at every opportunity because they totally, for real, definitely, are not just like Americans themselves....absolutely, I promise guys, they're SO different!

@georgeousthegorgeous

2 жыл бұрын

Canadians barely did anything in the war. Even US army was rather small, and canadians' were like a drop in an ocean. Barely 100'000 whereas USSR's army was 5'000'000+

Swizerland. Every Soldier was equipped with a Letter that wrote: "HI, surrender! We have all your money."

@akshayjb8205

3 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately they still got accidentally bombed by both sides

@kh2b573

3 жыл бұрын

@@akshayjb8205 your sources? if you say mark felton i wil slap you for not watching Military Aviation History you uncultured swine

@gerovon2558

3 жыл бұрын

@@kh2b573 well my dude mark felton lmao

@latenight3111

3 жыл бұрын

Even the nature in Switzerland is neutral and they are the most prepared nation in the world since 19th century, they have planned for everything, even Zombie apocalypse. They are immune to viruses. Be like a Swiss.

@toxicelamain2494

3 жыл бұрын

Late Night Tune Their one and only reason to exist is to produce endless amounts of milka.

50% of the comment section angry Finns wanting a shoutout

@ieat10kittens94

3 жыл бұрын

REEEEEEESEEEEEESESEEESESESESEESES

@brianpetersen2364

3 жыл бұрын

Based upon their performance in the winter war against the USSR they would have won hands down, Leadership bravery and tactics they were in my opinion one of the best armies of WW2

@samisha5834

2 жыл бұрын

@@brianpetersen2364 If a guy with modern soldier equipment shoots down 10000 inmovilized teenagers is he the best soldier ever? Cause that is what the fins did. When encountering a decently prepared Soviet army later (while trying to invade) they didn't cause almost no harm.

@carfentanyl1223

2 жыл бұрын

@@samisha5834 let’s crunch down the facts the Finns had 300,000 soldiers fighting in the war and the soviets had over one million fighting in it even if they were poorly trained they had better gear more efficient weapons tanks and planes ect and all the Finns had were guns, sticks and burning vodka so Finland fought better than the Soviet Union and if they had the same gear and manpower as the soviets thy would of probably been in the top 5 most powerful military’s in ww2 change my mind

@MagicButterz

2 жыл бұрын

@@brianpetersen2364 they were annoying too attack so Russia ignored them, they were as significant as Brazilians in WW2

What a great video. Nice job.

Outstanding video. No nonsense. Subscribed.

"Nobody respects a country with a poor army, but everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish Army" Josef Stalin, April 6th, 1948

@bige1106

3 жыл бұрын

Indeed, Stalin making such a toast was a big surprise, many where shocked by his toast, it for sure is one Hell of a statement to come from Stalin and is telling of the stubborn character of the Finns.

@andyz.5431

3 жыл бұрын

@Alex Adamson Germans inflicted 50% more in the west, in the east it should be around 100-200% more. About Finns we have to consider that Soviets attacked a fortified line (Mannerheim Line) during winter, the worst circumstance for an offensive, while German fought mostly mobile battles. Nevertheless still a great performance of the Finns which for sure knew how to use their landscape.

@otom20

3 жыл бұрын

@@andyz.5431 The strongness of the Mannerheim line was mostly just russian propaganda. It was stubborness and courage of thr Finnish infantry that kept it's positions no matter what.

@andyz.5431

3 жыл бұрын

@@otom20 It was a fortified line with bunkers and tunnel systems, quite strog in a winter war. Without it the Finns would have been overrun fast.

@Viljapossu

3 жыл бұрын

@@andyz.5431 Mannerheim line was strong, or at least the first line of it was, but Finns used it only at Winter War, and not during the Continuation War, which lasted far longer. And Mannerheim line covered only the Karelia area till the shores of Lagoda (as you probably know) and Soviets attacked on width of the whole border. As a Finn, I'm not that intrigued about why the Finnish soldiers were so strong, but why the Soviets were so terrible during the Winter War. I know about the cleansings and purges of Soviet military system, but still, it's baffling that how terrible they were. Kudos to them about learning fast thou.

The mp40 wasn't used more than the 98k, there were 1 or 2 SMG s per squad and 4 to 5 rifles

@julianbinder3244

3 жыл бұрын

Definetly true. In fact the germans prosuces relativly small numbers of smgs compared to the other major nations. Except Italy...

@markmanuba1741

3 жыл бұрын

From 1943-1944 every German soldiers prefer to have a SMG than a rifle. During this time Germany is on a extensive defense and more fighting fought at cities rather than open fields, thus the production of SMG or disposable SMG and ammunition are tripled. So his facts are true.

@pepperidgefarms1772

3 жыл бұрын

Streifi TM yeah only 2 smgs 4 to rifles and the squad most works around with MGs mostly the MG34 or 42 was used to suppress the enemy then rifle and smgs would mostly finish and move up

@fenrirunshackled4319

3 жыл бұрын

He might have misread the script, or had a typo. He may have meant "were used more" instead of "more were used" and was stating that a very large portion of German infantry tactics were centered around them, and that they were used more effectively than the rifles. He also could have just done shoddy research, idk.

@dimakapeev3156

3 жыл бұрын

And considering the fact Soviets outfitted entire battalions with submachine guns, that statement is false.

The American 101st Airborne Div, Screaming Eagles were a fine example of American infantry.

@menachemelkayam153

2 жыл бұрын

Yuppp

@hitman_zulu

2 жыл бұрын

I mean there are alot, 82nd as well 1B1M Big red One

@menachemelkayam153

2 жыл бұрын

@@hitman_zulu exactly. But no, we’ll ignore that and say that the army which was high on meth was the strongest 😆

@hitman_zulu

2 жыл бұрын

@@menachemelkayam153 yeah lots of overlooked points here, like USA had the smallest standing army at their entry into the war. US was forced to invade two fronts that were not even remotely close to their own home. Not to discredit the germans, but i dont see how US isnt #1

@menachemelkayam153

2 жыл бұрын

@@hitman_zulu exactly! Ppl keep on saying “oh the Wehrmacht were the best!” But the Wehrmacht were training and war equipped from the beginning. The fact that America woke up and created such a powerful force out of the blue is very impressive

Well done video!

I think that the japanese had a bit more experience becose they were fighting in china before ww2 even started

@markusmatt7209

3 жыл бұрын

@Capitalism i was talking about the second Sini-japanese war whitch started in 1937

@markusmatt7209

3 жыл бұрын

@Capitalism i ment sino*

@bigredwolf6

3 жыл бұрын

If we’re being technical here they started WW2. They were the first aggressors.

@siggisten278

3 жыл бұрын

markus matt But at the same time both the germans, italians and soviets had experience from the spanish civil war where they all learned alot from.

@bigredwolf6

3 жыл бұрын

leafonabreeze Even if they were forced to fight China, they still invaded Manchuria for the resources and committed some serious war crimes. Like the rape of Nanking

F's in the chat for Italy

@colonialbred3399

3 жыл бұрын

*sad pizza time noises*

@derkernspalter

3 жыл бұрын

Imagine France is already beaten and when you try to go in and occupy South France your troops are driven out by the remaining french militias.

@aclarkk5462

3 жыл бұрын

Italy’s forces weren’t too bad, it’s a common misconception. They had very poor leadership and had to little recourses. Italians under German command were much more effective.

@flyingsac

3 жыл бұрын

And for the French LOL

@Yuki_Ika7

3 жыл бұрын

F

Im an American combat Vet. (US Army 505 82nd Airborne Division). While I proudly served as an 82nd Airborne Division Paratrooper, I asked many older senior NCO's, some of who served In WW2, Which of the fighting sides had the best Military, and best trained combat Troops? Without exception they All either replied, "The Germans!", or that, "The Germans were our equals!".

When the US, UK, France and Russia fight togethter with an enemy then you know who are the best

@putitinreverseterry

2 жыл бұрын

yessir the allies forsure!

@shrekthesoviet3187

2 жыл бұрын

wehraboo

@jayseswick5773

2 жыл бұрын

@@shrekthesoviet3187 is he wrong ? Lmao

@shrekthesoviet3187

2 жыл бұрын

@@jayseswick5773 if they were really the best they could’ve beaten them. napoleon had more success than hitler

@jayseswick5773

2 жыл бұрын

@@shrekthesoviet3187 Germany could still have a superior army in terms of quality ( which they did in almost * all areas) and still loose because of the sheer number of enemies they fought. It’s like a boxer who has the most skill but can’t beat 4 others at once. It’s not hard to understand. I’m not even German man it’s just common sense to me . Not trying to be rude

Here's my humble generalization: The Germans, the most efficient...The British, the most tactical...The Russians, the most resilient...The Japanese, the toughest or most hardcore... The Americans, the most confident.

@NapoleonBonaparde

3 жыл бұрын

The Italians the most spaghetti

@Joe_biden_for_communism

3 жыл бұрын

The french.... fastes runners

@Number-py1bs

3 жыл бұрын

T K Germans were most tactical, efficient and most confident , and most patriotic

@edvard8449

3 жыл бұрын

The Germans, the most efficient and creative, The British, the most cautious, The Soviets, the bravest, The Japanese, the most fanatic, The Americans, the most methodic

@Cta2006

3 жыл бұрын

The Norwegians ...

American Infantry tactics: Artillery Support Air Support

@tiwabrutu3211

3 жыл бұрын

Nuke support

@monkeychromosome

3 жыл бұрын

@@tiwabrutu3211 lmao

@paulcoy6081

3 жыл бұрын

Tiwa Brutu 2 nuke support

@ramonmartinsoto3717

3 жыл бұрын

and is that supposed to be a bad thing? also ignore how they somehow kicked the nazis all the way out of France and past the Rhine in less than a year, through some of the most perfect defensive terrain in the world (the french Bocage)

@raka522

3 жыл бұрын

@@ramonmartinsoto3717 Less than a year ... wow! And that with the factor of 10 to 1 superiority in the air and in tanks. Respect, real heroes! And how many weeks did the Wehrmacht need in 1940 to conquer the same territory against an enemy who was at least as strong? Just a question ...

If we're talking about the most effective soldiers, I'd definitely pick Finland. They won almost all of the Battles in the Winter War & the Continuation War when they faced the Soviet Union. It's crazy to look how hugely outnumbered those Finns were (their ratio was amazing. Even the deadliest sniper in history is a Finn)

@kirohaas3193

Жыл бұрын

They even beat the Germans in the Lapland war, after they signed an armistice with the Soviets, and they had to agree to evict all German troops (with whom the Soviets were still at war) from Finland. The Germans did not agree to go peacefully.

amazing video thx!

that german flag gave me a shock😂😂😂😂🤣🤣

@codycampbellfishing2007

3 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣ikr

@ambermaynard2412

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

@comradesam3382

3 жыл бұрын

Hulkler?Adolk?

@bluejayfrosty2410

3 жыл бұрын

Toby Wareing no it gets demonetized if youtube picks it ip

@ln7929

3 жыл бұрын

The original nazi flag

Considering the fact that Germany took on about half the world, and was very succesfull for a good while, and held out for a long time on several fronts, I'd say Germany was the most effective war machine with the best soldiers. But that's just my opinion.

@justinusberger3933

3 жыл бұрын

An opinion that happens to be 100% correct.

@hentaimaster6221

3 жыл бұрын

I wouldn’t say that, Their Soldiers were elite, tho they weren’t good at close combat like the Soviets, and they relied on Quality over quantity, so they didn’t have nearly as many tanks as the other nations, and their tanks and planes were over engineered, and required lots and lots of resources to maintain, and lots of resources like oil was something Germany didn’t have a lot of.

@GalaxyGamerITA

3 жыл бұрын

@@hentaimaster6221 your name is making me die from laugh

@GalaxyGamerITA

3 жыл бұрын

@@hentaimaster6221 but you're right

@ErikLikesLemonLime

3 жыл бұрын

​@@hentaimaster6221 Not really the germans were alot better than the soviets at close combat. If we take stalingrad for example the germans had captured almost the whole city despite being outnumbered. One of the biggest reasons they lost the battle was because the romanians who where covering the flanks outside of the city got overrun and that resulted in the germans being surrounded inside of stalingrad.

Great video!

What about the Indian, French, Canadian, ANZAC, and Italian units? They should be included in the comparison.

@Trajan2401

Жыл бұрын

The ANZACs were the best fighting combination ever for their populations

Finland had the most effective fighting force of the Second World War. Size notwithstanding, the Finns laid a heavy toll on the Russian forces arrayed against them. The average Finnish soldier was considered an “Elite” combatant for another country. What the Finns accomplished is simply remarkable.

@silent00planet

3 жыл бұрын

apparently stalin was told that the soviet army had stopped for afternoon tea when the fins attacked he executed every officer

@Blankskeen

2 жыл бұрын

@@silent00planet Classic Stalin

@JackoBanon1

2 жыл бұрын

The problem was that the whole offensive was badly organized because of the purged high command and that the Soviet troops were not really ready to fight at temperatures that reach up to -40°C. The Fins on the other hand sent people with skis in the darkness of the night to put the tents and material on fire with the help of molotov cocktails or snipe down uncareful soldiers. The fact that a great amount of Soviet soldiers was lost to the harsh weather conditions while Finish snipers terrorized them combined with the fact that the Russian population didn't see this war as a just war had an extremely bad impact on the morale of the soldiers. The Fins on the other hand knew about the danger of a Soviet invasion and were well prepared for it with hidden bunkers and they knew where and how to ambush the Soviets best. And they defended their home very bravely as well.

@davecopp9356

11 ай бұрын

With the help of the germans. Finns alone would have been finished way sooner. And Finns were ungrateful like the italians who changed sites whenever things got tough. The germans had the worst allies during ww2.

The great Erwin Rommel ranked Australian and New Zealand infantry extremely highly, famously remarking he would use the former to take hell and the latter to hold it.

@kidd32888

3 жыл бұрын

Just like in the WWI, these are first rate troops

@johnlshilling1446

3 жыл бұрын

Aside from Crocodile Dundee and Shrimp on the Barbie... this is why we should be eternally grateful to them for being our allies.

@suspiciouscanadian6478

3 жыл бұрын

Cries in Canada

@bahamut149

2 жыл бұрын

Not if hell hold by 3 heads Emus.

@johnlshilling1446

2 жыл бұрын

@@bahamut149 Uuuhhh... Could you rephrase that? It makes no sense to this American. 😕 I don't claim brilliance, so forgive and indulge me, please.

New to the channel, thankyou by the way - not trying to be "that guy" and I'm betting it's open source copyright free music but that intro is Ballen in my head, just because I've watched his videos and he's a prolific producer. As I've written this though it occurred to me that there will be people who haven't heard of his channel or watched his videos and will only associate that music with your videos! Perspective is everything!

i would've loved to see comparisons with more minor players as well, French resistance, The Italians, Canadians, Polish, etc

I think Finland had even more effective soldiers

@happysamoan97

3 жыл бұрын

Those 6 guys fought like hell

@Alias_Anybody

3 жыл бұрын

"If there were 40 million of you, we'd rule the world together"

@whoismarkk

3 жыл бұрын

Finland's efforts are often overlooked because Soviets are somewhat underrated

@hectichazerdus

3 жыл бұрын

they were certainly underestimated and considering they were out numbered i believe it was like 10-1 against soviet union they are worthy of a mention

@dapperfield595

3 жыл бұрын

Did Finland have soldiers? I don’t see them anywhere...

Germany and Finland hands down.

@markusk1015

3 жыл бұрын

My thoughts exactly

@hnys7976

3 жыл бұрын

And Japan. They were extremely brutal but they were very brave. Japanese soldiers would slit their throats in world war 2 to avoid being captured. They blew themselves up flying planes into battleships during kamikaze attacks. This was because it was embedded into their culture and religions that it's very dishonourable to surrender.

@bodasactra

3 жыл бұрын

@@hnys7976 Phanatical behavior and bravery alone does not make a great fighter. Sorry, I could never put Japan near the above two in effectiveness when they were wiped out so many times doing so little in return.

@cringe5157

3 жыл бұрын

@@hnys7976 for the miso soup

@hnys7976

3 жыл бұрын

@@bodasactra I know it doesnt make a great fighter. But the original comment was talking about bravery and effectiveness. I'm not Japanese, but they were very effective in ww2...Japan invaded China in 1937, and were the last country to surrender, after Italy and Germany.

I read in a book about U.S. Airborne in WWII titled "Curahee" that during the invasion of Normandy those paratroopers let a butter bar lieutenant form up a platoon of men and march them down the center of a road. They came under fire, and the formation was dispersed. It didn't say anything about casualties. Vietnam era soldiers would never have let a Second Lieutenant do that to them. They believed that E6 in the trenches had more situational awareness than a newbie lieutenant, and he was the one who ran the show.

The most terrifying scenario that I can imagine would have been the Wehrmacht infantry armed with the FG-42 and the MG-42 throughout the army. Thank God for inter service rivalry and the "not invented here" aversion of the army against the Luftwaffe paratroop rifle. The MP-44 was a help, but slightly under powered and far too late in adoption. Adopting a modified DG-44 with the mag on the botton back in 1940 would have been bad for us and the allies

Finland must have had some pretty good soldiers, being able to fight the entire Soviet army and keep them at bay..

@sammuller8331

3 жыл бұрын

Take a look at the Russian uniforms and the terrain brown uniforms on white snow kind of stickout .

@otom20

3 жыл бұрын

@@sammuller8331 Finland fought against russia four years.. there was also summer battles..

@Mitke420

3 жыл бұрын

@@otom20 cuz Russians didn't bothered that much, they just underestimate Finland but.still won

@kennykash6089

3 жыл бұрын

Except for that minor detail of the aligning with the Nazis at the start of the war.

@Sinn0100

3 жыл бұрын

This Fin's had The White Death and he made the Soviets pay for crossing the border of his country...yes, he owned it. ;)

As a Norwegian, i would have to say Finland.

@stevenjohnson4283

3 жыл бұрын

yes they had the worlds best sniper.

@hardgay7537

3 жыл бұрын

Ah, the White Death. Legendary Commie killer.

@sgtmonkeypirate

3 жыл бұрын

Hard Gay no scope

@agentsquid9079

3 жыл бұрын

Hard Gay he killed hundreds of russians by himself

@trumpetscall8910

3 жыл бұрын

​@@agentsquid9079 probaly over 1000, around half would be comfimed.

1:09 Hitler after eating too many luftwaffles

I would say that the Japanese infantry man had the will to fight to the last in total defeat under horrid conditions w/out supplies or reinforcements. Had they had the updated weaponry and strategic oversight in battles then they would of been a serious challenge to the allies.

@dagoobertron

2 жыл бұрын

I dont know this idea of japanese small arms being subpar either. The arisaka was tested after the war and showed extreme durability, unlike the enfield with had issues under stress. arisakas also had very good accuracy at long range from the smaller rounds they fired. Nambu machine guns can be regarded well as they were still accurate and easier to maintain then saw the german MG's, what you sacrifice in a high fire rate you get back in easier maintenance.

@user-pn3im5sm7k

2 жыл бұрын

@@dagoobertron Yeah that can only be said for their handguns, the Arisaka was founded to be literally the best bolt receiver of any country, even last ditch examples. Many Japanese ships, submarines, torpedoes, and planes also never got beat in terms of objective measures.

The soldier is only as good as his gun and orders. Sometimes being badass just isn't enough

@terrycoontz

3 жыл бұрын

My thoughts exactly I doubt any soldier one on one was really surpiror just tactics at play.

@AHLSPUDS

2 жыл бұрын

@@terrycoontz American, M1 Garand had more ammunition than most rifles, and fired faster than all of them

@terrycoontz

2 жыл бұрын

@@AHLSPUDS again comes down to logistics. And planning not the individual soldier.

@AHLSPUDS

2 жыл бұрын

@@terrycoontz I'm well aware, but we are speaking of the individual soldier in a fight, not the war. Logistics and planning matters of course. And even then, that would belong to the American war machine that produced ships within a week made to carry supplies.

@silence-humility-calmness

2 жыл бұрын

luck too,

1:08 You expected a German flag. BUT IT WAS ME, HITLER!

@davidvasquez08

3 жыл бұрын

*Nani?!?!?!*

@realmario979

3 жыл бұрын

It's fatler

@-----Alcatraz------

3 жыл бұрын

@@realmario979 Adolf Fatler? Thats not bad.

@Gussyboy06

3 жыл бұрын

Thiccler

@ap-dk5yw

3 жыл бұрын

Isszzz dat a *JoJo reference* insert jojo with lazer eyes

Germany for sure. Harder training regime, all soldiers were literate, technology and technical expertise were better than any other.

@amishdinkledork

2 жыл бұрын

dont forget the meth

@Matthew-bx5yf

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, you forgot to mention the Crystal Meth.

@LINAZAS

2 жыл бұрын

But soviets had better tanks... :( they started to produce up and in late 1942 and 1943 they oped the T-34's :( this is very sad ... to sum up Axis had no real allies..

@ZHBraden13

2 жыл бұрын

@@LINAZAS Yea, that's why you had German tank aces killing dozens of Russian t-34's at a time, one guy (Michael Wittmann) even almost wiped out an entire tank platoon with a Sturmgeschütz III by himself; It wasn't until the end of the war when the Russians started using the t-34-85's that they started faring better.

@starred1096

2 жыл бұрын

Wehraboo spotted, MEMPHIS BELLE ACTIVATED.

Good job 👍

Thompson’s weren’t really swapped for sten. Thompson’s were actually pretty expensive for the time. Coming in at around $50 for one gun. Both the Americans and British loved the gun, but as the war went on Britain couldn’t get more and they were too pricey. The sten was created from a program in Britain at the time to make cheap weapons with minimal supplies found on her shores. It was a imperfect weapon often supplied to resistance movements. Around the same time the Germans also created a similar program introducing many new inferior weapons from the high quality machined weapons we know and love. These were stamped sheet metal and incredibly inferior weapons. The Germans and brits adopted essentially the same doctrine late war when it came to supplies.

@OhioYANKEE1865

3 жыл бұрын

Thompson’s came in at 200$ a piece man.

@dansmith9724

3 жыл бұрын

No mention of the Owen gun, still used in Vietnam. Also superior jungle gun.

@dansmith9724

3 жыл бұрын

I heard old aussie soldiers say they werent keen on the sten as it jammed too much. They seem to have a preference for the tommy gun, i recall them saying the tommy gun was heavier then the sten but not an issue compared to throwing a bren gun around. It would be fun to have a crack at them all to see first hand.

@satiresatori658

3 жыл бұрын

@@dansmith9724 Pretty sure a Thompson with a standard 20 round mag is about 10 pounds. Wonder what the 50 rnd was like.

@dansmith9724

3 жыл бұрын

@@satiresatori658 i guess alot of these weapons arent that heavy in isolation but i guess it depends on what else they were carrying and if they were in new guinea, everything was up or down a muddy hill. A 50 round drum mag and a few spare would be quite bulky but would be handy fighting in the jungle.

Worth considering the Poles who fought ferociously, the Gurkhas who fought heroically and the Finns who humiliated the Soviets.

@xstrawarot

3 жыл бұрын

didnt the soviets won that war?

@TheTestyDuck

3 жыл бұрын

xstrawarot Yeah, but the casualties were stagnating. Pyrrhic victory yeh?

@xstrawarot

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheTestyDuck nobody cares now. VICTORY BABY! USSR USSR USSR BLYAT

@Daniel-qz3pk

3 жыл бұрын

@@xstrawarot great with a massive bloodbath among Soviets and just wasting many young man's life's. That's just out numbering and not exactly effectiveness. And the Soviets had gulags which are similar to KZs BTW

@TheTestyDuck

3 жыл бұрын

xstrawarot one nation survived into the 21st century, one didn’t tho lmao

Excellent analysis - Dr. Apu Chowdhury

My dad fought all the way through North Africa and Italy. He didnt talk much about the war. He admired the Ozzies and Kiwis, Yet when as a kid I asked him who were the best soldiers he answered with one word... "Jerry".

If Hitler is still in Argentina, do you think somebody cared to bake him a birthday cake this year?

@Nich-ib7xv

3 жыл бұрын

Eva Braun

@Clem_Fandango11

3 жыл бұрын

It would be massive with the number of candles required.

@georgyzhukov6409

3 жыл бұрын

What if napoleon is still alive?

@jspec-vz3mc

3 жыл бұрын

Dammit@@georgyzhukov6409 Napoleon does not live in Argentina.

@Clem_Fandango11

3 жыл бұрын

@@jspec-vz3mc Technically possible....exiled to South Atlantic, rumour he was going to escape and lead revolutions against the Spanish in South America.....or so it said in one the Sharpe books 😁

Yes, I agree that Germany had the most effective soldiers in World War Two. However, I came to this conclusion long ago after having read extensively on the history of that conflict.

@ireviewshtuff

3 жыл бұрын

The Germans actually had such a strong officer corps that they had the smallest special forces of any field army, because it just wasn't needed in an army that encouraged initiative. Of course, they also had the smallest logistic department as well...

@Marcfj

3 жыл бұрын

@@ireviewshtuff - But they had the terrible misfortune of having an Austrian Corporal as their Commander-in-Chief.

@ramramonrainer6453

3 жыл бұрын

Marcfj True but the German army would have never become that good without him. Anyways without him they would not have needed this kind of army

@Marcfj

3 жыл бұрын

@Edward Roberts - Are you being deliberately stupid, or are you just a genuine ignoramus who knows nothing of the history of World War Two?

@ramramonrainer6453

3 жыл бұрын

Edward Roberts there are just two battles the Germans really LOST. 1st one is Stalingrad. They lost only because they weren’t prepared for the Russian winter. 2nd one is dday. And there they lost just because of the big big luck on the allies side. The German defense was too effective but the allies had enough soldiers and if the battle on Omaha would have gone a little bit longer the US would’ve lost all troupes down there.

I would say Finland. Admittedly, there were hardly any officers in the red arm, but it was much better equipped, or yes it was at least more expensive equipped may not necessarily be better. Then white clothes and skis were perhaps better equipment than tanks in the Winter War. Sometimes you can not always look only at military training. In the Nordic countries, for example, sports and leisure activities have long been popular, giving you advantages in war. Such are, for example, skiing, biathlon, orienteering, horseback riding, motocross, hunting.

Great video, but is there a place where I could find the sources used?

What about Canada? The canadian Infantry were some of the best soldiers throughout the war and fought through treacherous terrain in the Netherlands to free the dutch and other European Countries. The ruthlessness of Canadians in world war 1 and 2 left German forces terrified of facing them in battle.

@jantschierschky3461

3 жыл бұрын

Actually during WW1, WW2 Canadians, kiwis and Australians were greatly respected, but not feared.

@noah5524

3 жыл бұрын

Jan Tschierschky during ww1 they were feared because they executed prisoners

@fogfullofsilhouettes5842

3 жыл бұрын

I agree Canadian infantry were probably amongst the most fearless of WW2, they were extremely effective and in some situations even whilst outnumbered, could do extremely well against their foes.

@rinatdying735

3 жыл бұрын

was it some ps4 release? as far as i know NO one saw canadians on a battle field with thair pants on...

@jantschierschky3461

3 жыл бұрын

@@noah5524 well Canadians done well in later part of the war, vimy Ridge etc, so have Australians and NZ. I can tell you Canadians had great respect, but no actual fear. I read German soldiers letters, reports etc. They literally called all commonwealth colonial troops as fire-fighters and did not distinguish between them.

Do Gurkas vs Japanese. Chinese vs Japanese. Italian vs Americans. Japanese vs British Russian vs Japanese Japanese vs Russian

@EugeneRimmer

3 жыл бұрын

Gurkhas win Japanese win Americans win

@mfp5431

3 жыл бұрын

@@EugeneRimmer Nice, simple answer based on the training (shooting, hand to hand combat, strategies like geography and maths) of those soldiers. Very good answer

@hiimryan2388

3 жыл бұрын

Eugene Rimmer well... random rice farmers isn't as good as trained rice farmers... But god the Japanese was merciless.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

3 жыл бұрын

@@EugeneRimmer Except the Japanese lost the Burma campaign in 1944 whereas the British won, so that's the other way round.

@greyscaleb1537

3 жыл бұрын

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- that's because they were losing the war altogether and can no longer supply their garrisons, ofcourse they lost

I respect the Japanese, an isolated people in a random backwater island in the low shores of Asia. Turned into a competent force in such a short amount of time. Europe was in a cross cultural exchange, for centuries with the Middle East and China and itself. The Japanese had to develop on their own for the most part.

It is very important to highlight the change in resources available to soldiers during the war. The German military had very good initial success because it was able to commit it's resources to 'bewegungskrieg', or 'war of movement'. An aggressive method of waging a war to avoid the stalemate of the trenches and shock the enemy into surrender by combining, efficiently, the use of air superiority, armour and rapid infantry maneuvres. However, their ability to wage this type of warfare rapidly deteriorated because they were running out of necessary resources. Chief among this, the Wehrmacht required oil to keep up this sort of warfare (oil to fuel the tanks and planes as well as move troops around quickly and taxi aircraft on runways). Because of the decision by Britain to remain in the war and blockade external oil supplies to Germany, the German High Command concluded that they would run out of oil by October 1941. "Britain, wooed to the last moment, had declared war on him, placing him in a position of strategic and economic dependence on the state whose annihilation was his central objective, the Soviet Union." [German Official History, pg. 19]. "It is crucial to seize quickly and exploit the Caucuses oil fields, at least the areas around Maikop and Grozny. In oil fields that have not been completely destroyed, it will take about a month to resume production, and another month for its transportation. We will have to seize those areas no later than the end of the operation's second month. If this proved unsuccessful, we must expect the most serious repercussions, with unpredictable consequences for military operations after 1.9.[1941] and for the survival of the economy." [Georg Thomas, March 1941]. The Germans were, at the time, relying on Romanian oil fields which only provided 5,200,000 tons of crude oil in 1941, whilst the Germans required just under 10,000,000 tons at minimum to sustain their lands in Europe, let alone to supply the Wehrmacht. As such, they aimed to invade the Soviet Union and claim the oil supplies in the Caucuses (notably, seizing Maikop and Grozny, whilst taking Stalingrad to cut the Soviet Oil supplies from Baku and the Volga-Urals). They had to invade the Soviet Union because it was the only realistic source of oil. The Middle-Eastern oil industry was in its infancy and there was no feasible method of transporting it to Germany. They did attempt to seize oil in Africa, but failed and also could not transport it across the Mediterranean. It is worth noting, with regards to logistics, that the Italian fleet (the dominant Axis fleet in the Mediterranean) had been stuck in port due to a lack of oil supplies, leaving the Royal Navy dominant and preventing Axis forces from transporting African or Middle-Eastern oil supplies. "The occupied territories would drain Germany's meager petroleum reserves within a year unless the Third Reich took immediate action to expand its supplies by invading the Soviet Union." [Toprani, The First War for Oil]. As we know, the Wehrmacht was unsuccessful. In 1941, they failed to capture the Caususes oil fields or Volga river before having to dig-in for the winter. By the time they, in 1942, did achieve these objectives it was too late and the fuel crisis had arrived. As such, German forces began to de-motorise (which, as established, significantly weakened their strategy of bewegungskrieg). In-short, the loss of oil meant that the German military became much less effective than it had been in the early-periods of the war. "Tellingly, at a time when the Soviets were rapidly rebuilding and mechanising their forces, the Wehrmacht was in the process of re-equipping its reconnaissance units with bicycles. This demodernisation of the Ostheer did not bode well given that the success of the campaign depended on seizing objectives more than eight hundred miles from the German start line, an operational and logistical challenge greater even than that of the previous summer." [Ostkrieg, pg. 237]. "Fuel, too, was in such short supply that the Wehrmacht High command cut the fuel ration to the Ostheer considerably, a blow to its mobility accentuated by the serious loss of horses." [Ostkrieg, pg. 237]. "As a result [of the fuel crisis], the Wehrmacht was forced to rely extensively on horse-drawn transport, which led to further problems: the tremendous differences in the pace of march between the motorised and other units raised the issue of when and how to close pockets; horse-drawn columns were vulnerable to attacks that aggravated logistic problems; and the lack of fodder and replacement animals put a strain on civilian supplies." [Ostkrieg, pg. 83]. The change in fortunes and military capability, in-effect, gave the Soviet forces a huge advantage over the German forces. There was, essentially, a reversal in their military fortunes after the Wehrmacht were hit by the fuel crisis. This change in attitude is highlighted by the swapping of Manstein for Model (Manstein being the maneuvre general, with Model being more defensive). Tl;dr: A major influence in the effectiveness of military units during the Second World War was their access to key resources. Without key resources, certain things were unachievable. For instance, the German military relied extensively on a combined assault of mobilised infantry, tanks/armour and aircraft (all in communication) to shock the enemy into quick surrender (the fall of France being a good example of this). However, this relied heavily on oil, which the Wehrmacht were quickly running out of, meaning that they had to change their strategy in 1942, leading to their units being much less combat effective.

@klums7651

2 жыл бұрын

Congrats u passed the exam

@trajan6927

2 жыл бұрын

Very well written. Good job.

@trajan6927

2 жыл бұрын

And to think that the mighty U.S.A. had plenty of resources. The tyrants time was limited from the start. I asked my father, "was the U.S.A. concerned about losing the war?" "He said we never thought that we were going lose," we always knew that we would win, losing was never discussed, we just knew it would take some time."

@pyoung512

2 жыл бұрын

Is that you Tick?

"British tanks were inferior to german" Shows a matilda tank vs a Panzer I

@matthewthesaladbowl6315

3 жыл бұрын

Matildas are british medium tank I in hoi4

@ameenparks2868

3 жыл бұрын

@@matthewthesaladbowl6315 I feel like this video showed up in my recommended because I play hoi4

@somethingelse4878

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah one British tank was about 14mph faster than a Sherman, can't remember the name. And a Churchill tank though looking old and crap, had better armor than most allied tanks Ref Dieppe 1944 the jubilee disaster The German anti tank guns bounced

@tizi087

2 жыл бұрын

@@somethingelse4878 which one? I doubt the pak 43 (the 8.8cm) would bounce of a chruchil the whole time)

@richardbrayshaw9963

2 жыл бұрын

@@tizi087 pak40s I think

My moneys on Finland 🇫🇮, those dudes where brutal fighters.

@paulcoy6081

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah and they had a good sniper to

@paul8158

3 жыл бұрын

@@paulcoy6081 And invented the Molotov-cocktail! Cheers!

@MichaelDavis-mk4me

3 жыл бұрын

Exept they are not a major power, that's why only 5 are on the list.

@obaolori

3 жыл бұрын

kyllä

I'd like to see similar summaries with the Australian, Canadian, Indian, Greek, and Italian infantries.

Would love to see a comparison of the differences in skill, experience and technique between the US Army ground forces in Europe and the US Marines in the Pacific. Two separate wars vs two different enemies, both successful but both fought in much different ways. As a former US Marine who has heard the Esprit de Corps side of things, would love a non-biased comparison of the two different American armed forces.

@thenevadadesertrat2713

2 жыл бұрын

At Arnhem the U.S. 82'nd, 101'1st, the Polish 100'air, th British 101th air all got eliminated. The 82'nd had to be entirely rebuild. The Bittrichbattle group had two tough SS divisions with new Tigers. Out of 10,000 Allied troops only 2,000 returned. A stunningly high casualty rate.

@redaug4212

Жыл бұрын

It would probably be impossible to reach a consensus on the quality of Army forces during WWII since the size disparity was so enormous. Something like 600,000 in the Marine Corps compared to 12 million in the Army. A better comparison might be Army units in the Pacific compared to Marine units in the Pacific, but even then there were about three Army divisions in the PTO for every Marine division.

As the content always is from this channel- this is excellent.

@TheFront

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks, Brandon!

I feel that at different stages of the war the answer could be different. At the beginning of the war it seemed like the Germans were well further ahead in training and technology and tactics than any other nation. The longer the war went on it seemed like the allies did a nice job at closing that gap and it also helped that Germany couldn't replenish its experienced troops and dwindling resources. Overall i feel that this video is correct in its conclusions taking into account only the major players.

@jpigg86

3 жыл бұрын

In Rise and Fall of the Third Reich the author talks about the stark contrast after the fall of France between healthy tanned German soldiers and the captured British forces. He theorized that early militarization of society along with the Hitler Youth programs gave the German Army an early tactical edge. In any case losses of experienced personnel drastically limited German combat effectiveness by the end of the war. While the Allies ended with stronger units.

@volbound1700

3 жыл бұрын

Agreed although keep in mind Germany was not fighting the Soviets or United States until 1941. The only major powers that Germany had to deal with prior to 1941 was a France Republic broken by WW1 and the British who historically focused more on air and naval than land warfare.

Respect to all that served all deserve respect

"Its barrel wasn't as easy to swap out as the Bren gun, but it was still a force to be reckoned with" (M1A1) the Thompson was a .45cal submachine gun and likely fought the entire war with the same barrel. The Bren was a light machine gun. Totally different and incomparable beasts. The STEN or mp40 is the M1A1's comparisons.

@talknight2

2 жыл бұрын

If you turn on captions you'll see he was actually meant to be comparing the BAR to the Bren there. I guess they accidentally recorded that wrong.

@jacobjones4766

2 жыл бұрын

@@talknight2 even so. The bar might have been used as an lmg but john browning never designed it to be so.

@talknight2

2 жыл бұрын

@@jacobjones4766 That's why it wasn't that good an LMG compared to the Bren. It was designed for WWI and was outdated for WW2.

@RRaquello

2 жыл бұрын

@@talknight2 Even so, in my younger days I knew and talked to US veterans of the war and American soldiers loved the BAR. I guess maybe because it was reliable and light weight for the amount of power it packed. I don't know exactly why, but the soldiers liked it.

@ravenmoon5111

Жыл бұрын

@@talknight2 The BAR scared the hell out of the Germans. According to a veteran I know well, they would often go after the BAR with a tank round just to silence it

You got it right mate, the Germans never let anybody down for a dam good battle and were worthy adversaries even when they were street fighting the Russians in Berlin! They took on too much on too many fronts and this overstretched their resources and their armed forces high command must also have some credit, Heinz Gudarian and Von Manstein along with Walter Model were brilliant planners of campaigns.

@davecopp9356

11 ай бұрын

Also the germans had the worst allies during ww2 like the italians who changed sites whenever things got tough or the Finns who took material and help from Germany but did not reciprocate. Only Japan was firm in his position but also did not attack the sowjet union from the rear like A.H. wanted.

a close call between germans and finns but definitely not americans who relied entirely on air force and navy. without the air superiority, american performance would be like that of hürtgen, a complete catastrophe.

@davidedwards3465

3 жыл бұрын

True summary that.

@ 44 seconds, the respect the soldiers have in a nearly destroyed Church is amazing

What people forget is that there was fighting before WW2. My dad was in the Battle of Cyrenaica and the Battle of Maleme. He was wounded a week before WW2 started, and was operated on the day the war started.

Great video, although there should be a video like this on the various Commonwealth forces in WW2. Aussies were insane in Tobruk, Nigerians oblitarated Italians in Addis Ababa, Indians and Nepalese faced the strongest Japanese troops in Burma and ended up with highest per-regimental medal tally in the British armed forces, Anzacs were incredible in Crete....all around brave SOBs

@TheFront

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks, man, and thanks for the suggestion.

@mechghost5742

3 жыл бұрын

You forgot us canucks

@dragonstormdipro1013

3 жыл бұрын

@@mechghost5742 liberating a town by one guy alone...madlads

Germany didn't have more smgs than other countries.

@anonymoose8020

3 жыл бұрын

Germamy

@joegatt2306

3 жыл бұрын

Actually they did. They had more than the British and Commonwealth Forces, more than the Americans, Japanese, Italians and French, and compared to most of the Soviets units, more than these also. The Soviets bunched up their SMGs in special SMG Battalions, the rest were distributed in much lesser rate to Rifle Battalions.

@Loup-mx7yt

3 жыл бұрын

Joe Gatt bullshit, the British alone made a shitload of stens in the war and there is no way they had more smgs than the Americans and Soviets if you look at production stats.

@minnihd6470

3 жыл бұрын

@@Loup-mx7yt Production yes but not in action. If you look at everything Germany had less at everything. It is the way this equipment is used.

@theultimategamer8537

3 жыл бұрын

I’m pretty sure Russia had more especially during the city fighting, I also disagree that the mp40 was definitively better than the others. Probably lighter and more handy than the tommy gun and ppsh but slightly less reliable and accurate I believe

Enjoyed the "MrBallen" music.

No matter how good the Germans were, I think that taking on three giants (the entire British Empire, the US and the Soviet Union) who had much larger - and out of range - production capacities was not a great idea…

@Lglover3

2 жыл бұрын

@@ScytherOnSpree spotted the Anglophile. Right tho, hitler admired the British and even the French. His entire war plan was knock france out early, control the English Channel and the British air and they’ll sue for peace. Then invade the USSR. He got the French to show the white flag and half of France became nazis voluntarily. Very close to achieving his plan. Of course the Brits not being cowards and the Battle of Britain ruined it all

@lewonderfulgeorgian3335

2 жыл бұрын

​@@ScytherOnSpree Do Soviets declare war on Germany? Are you kidding? Soviets, who was not prepared for war, Stalin, who think that Germany will not attack them, and was outnumbered at the start of the war? Hitler knew that Great Britain and France will declare war on him after he invaded Poland. The only country he don't want to war really was the USA. Please, read this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Axis_attack_on_the_Soviet_Union_(1941)

@lewonderfulgeorgian3335

2 жыл бұрын

@@ScytherOnSpree I read that article. Looks like that was debate between historical in the first paragraph. Quote from the second "The majority of historians believe that Stalin was seeking to avoid war in 1941, as he believed that his military was not ready to fight the German forces, although there is no agreement among historians as to why Stalin persisted with his strategy of appeasement of Nazi Germany despite growing evidence of an imminent German invasion.[3]". Show me where here is written that Stalin want to attack Germany on July? Stalin hoped to the end that there will not war his country vs German. But judging by your logic, Germany is a stronghold of good, which the evil usa, england and the ussr wanted to tear apart, which is pretty child thinking, and I don't want to continue and prove that it is already a fact to a person who has clocked his own truth. You can believe whatever you want. One my grandfather was in Leningrad and he become major, other died on Caucasus , and my grandfather and his comrades don't had any commands or even any preparation to war with Germany at July, and German attack was a big surprise for them.

@lewonderfulgeorgian3335

2 жыл бұрын

@@ScytherOnSpree 1. German invasion of Poland - Hitler was notified that if he will invade Poland, Great Britain, and France will declare war on him 2. Hitler has planned to invite Britain, but it's failed - operation Sea Lion 3. Hitler declares war on the USA after Japan attack them because he doesn't think about the USA as a serious opponent. He easily just could not declare a war 4. USSR invasion into Germany - just a theory. Show me any proof, in July, not in July it's don't have any matter. 5. About my family - no matter what do you think about it, no need to move the arrows on this, this discussion is not about this - it's about the people, who really lived in that time, and had real commands from high command - there was no plans or commands to invade Germany at that time. 6. "it has zero to do with what I said and also doesn't do anything to prove your point if you even have any" - Time to go for a serious insult? Nice try, but it just shows that there are no arguments to prove your point. 6. Stalin sees in Hitler's ally against west Europe, capitalism was for him more enemy than fascism. 7. "I just stated that Germany did not want to fight on all fronts all at once" - no, you tell that USSR, USA, and Great Britain declared war on them on their own, which don't have any sense and make a Germany victim in this war, a stronghold of good against drunk Churchil, USSR who want to attack despite the non-aggression pact, and the USA, who was attacked by Japan and then by Hitler, which has no sense for him. 8. Yes, Hitler didn't want to fight against all the nation at one time, but he declared war on them by himself or by provoking them by invade Poland 9. I didn't say any about your broken logic. How do you even notice that? 10. The main - germany declared war on USA, USSR and England by itself, read any historical articles

@lewonderfulgeorgian3335

2 жыл бұрын

@@ScytherOnSpree show me where I change my goals and contradict, or where I am trolling. Good try to sneak out and blame it all on trolling and contradictions. My debate starts from that USSR don't declare war on Germany, and I never change this position. I never said that Germany want to war on 2 fronts, but Hitler did this, he declare war on every country by himself. If you are trolling - you are genius, but otherwise if you don't want to debate I agree to finish

My grandpa had to fight in the Wehrmacht too at the age of 21 He fought on literally ALL fronts as a machine gunner. He was not a Nazi, just a "landser" ( son of a farmer as most in the Wehrmacht) But he said his unit always had to fight against overwhelming enemies forces no matter on which front (maybe except France or Poland) and still gained some big victories. They were largely well trained and had a harsh discipline. Most soldiers didn't care for politics, just wanted to fight to survive. He said he wondered how many men the Soviets just threw at them and they simply didn't have enough resources on all fronts to win, but still did a very good job in what soldiers do and even counterattacked successfuly in the late years of the war. I don't want to say that other countries didn't have good solider too, but over all the conditions were the worst for German soldiers and still, they often gained victories in helpless situations.

@rommyjoj326

3 жыл бұрын

Only way germany had a chance to win the war was to get all the resources before the war Outcome of the war speaks itself

@rodafowa1279

3 жыл бұрын

@@rommyjoj326 This is the definition of a nothing statement.

@ibims1baum175

3 жыл бұрын

@@rommyjoj326 only way germany had a chance to win the war was not to attack the f*ckin' Soviets, Napoleon lost the same way, how can u be that stupid and do the same thing again? Sry, I forgot, it was Hitler🙄

@ibims1baum175

3 жыл бұрын

@Vinny Fuchs He can attack the Soviets, but not in 1941. If he bombed Britain to the ground, blocked the supplies from the US with the U-boats he could easily defeat Britain, especially when he made a few friends in the middle east. AFTER that he can attack the Soviets and they had stood no chance. They only could fought so hard, because they were that many and the US barely kept them alive and Hitler made some major mistakes (Stalingrad).

@zexal4217

3 жыл бұрын

Sorry to say, but odds are that if he served on the Eastern Front, he likely did some less than savoury things... 6 million out of 10 million Wehrmacht soldiers on the Eastern Front committed atrocities (as per David Stahel and Alex Kay) so if they supposedly didn't care about politics, why did they commit such evils?

5:50 is a Springfield, not an Enfield also some of the comparisons didn't really make sense, a Thompson isn't in the same class as a Bren gun. Was hoping for a little more in depth exploration of how the doctrines combated one another, but decent video.

@tertwigsmash356

3 жыл бұрын

Springfeild was from america. British didnt use it

@tertwigsmash356

3 жыл бұрын

YEah it is weird why they show a springfield tho

@TheFront

3 жыл бұрын

Regarding the Thompson/Bren issue, I think I made a slip-up in the script. As for the doctrines, I agree. Perhaps a longer video would have been better. There's always next time!

@tertwigsmash356

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheFront Still loving the content keep it up!

German squad tactics: We got 1 machine gunner, then 9 ammo carriers

Really enjoyed the video would like to add that all the Royal New Zealand Infantry WW2 veterans I have ever spoken with say that the Germans where very good soldiers hi praise as some of these old Kiwi soldiers we away to war in 1939 and didn't return to New Zealand until late 1945.

@peace-now

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. Unfortunately most of them were gone before WW2 even started. That is when Germany was winning. My dad was operated on the day the war started, Dec 7, 1941.

I agree with your assessment. General Harold Alexander in writing a despatch to Lord Allen-Brooke wrote 'We are fighting the finest army in the world. What men!'

Shout out for the Finns... man for man, they dealt out a heck of a lot of damage.

@WWRTheJudge

3 жыл бұрын

⚒️🤜🏻🇫🇮🤛🏻⚒️

@liverpoolscottish6430

3 жыл бұрын

Yes true. HOWEVER- they were dealing with a very poorly trained and poorly led Russian army. Stalin had purged the army and 'removed' many talented commanders. The Finn's made good use of the terrain and they were well trained. But were they the finest soldiers in WW2? Absolutely not, not by a country mile.

@eelihakala4466

3 жыл бұрын

@@liverpoolscottish6430 most were old conscripts, they were trained, sure, but it had been multiple years prior. Besides, what the USSR was lacking in terms of leadership, we were in terms of equipment. All things considered, man for man, I think they were some of if not the best soldiers.

@suppo6092

3 жыл бұрын

@@liverpoolscottish6430 How come that poorly led army of trash troops that was the Red army still won the war? The meme about soviets being bad fighters comes from winter war maybe. They got much better and even adapted during the winter war, that's why Finland was desperate to find a peace agreement. At the start of winter war our military was the worst it has ever been, and at the start of continuation war it was the strongest... Go to your local hero graveyard and you can see that the vast majority of the fallen were in their early 20s.

@liverpoolscottish6430

3 жыл бұрын

@@suppo6092 How did the Red Army defeat the German's in the East? Simple- a KIA rate of 20:1 Russian's to German's. Sheer weight of numbers at the end of the day. Communist regimes do not value the individual, people are just fodder and nothing more. If only 1 Soviet soldier had been left standing at the end of the conflict and Germany was defeated, Stalin would have rejoiced and regarded it as a success. Nothing new about the majority of KIA during a war being in the early 20's, it's always the young who pay for the folly of politicians.

It's good to see the German soldier get the credit he deserves. One thing left out of the discussion was his incredible courage and his willingness to fight on against overwhelming odds. The German soldier has always been slammed because he fought for the wrong cause but the winner always writes history. These men followed orders because they no choice regardless what today's popular thinking is.

@redaug4212

Жыл бұрын

German Generals were allowed to rewrite the history of the eastern front to excuse their participation in Nazi war crimes, to downplay the performance of the Soviets, and to cover up their own incompetence. And unfortunately the west has bought into their false narratives for decades. Winners don't write history, people do.

“Just dumb luck” Bismarck in a nutshell

Man you picked a hard topic lmao great idea for a video, subscribed.

It sounds like the American and British Army where a good pairing. You have the Americans that were more offensive-minded i.e. the spearhead of a assault. Well you have the British more defensive-minded with a support in an assult.🤔

@bt9762

3 жыл бұрын

I've heard with regards to the armed forces the americans are the battering ram and the Brits the surgical knife

@bt9762

3 жыл бұрын

@TheSlot1942 Definately british strength has always been strong artillery and the main force fighting from distance and a commando unit destroying the enemy from within not ploughing through the enemy in great numbers its slower but keeps the troops alive. That's why a small nation has been one of the most effective fighting units in the world despite being relatively tiny. Not a lot has changed even when the Brits had to be evacuated from dunkirk it was because the french lines collapsed so quickly the brits weren't able to properly set into the country to create their defensive lines. When the USA entered the war the Brits withheld the bulk of the german army and tanks while patton and co broke out in massive numbers round the flank unchallenged it worked perfectly since the Brits didnt have to the technology or manpower to launch a major offensive and the Americans didnt have the patience or experiance to hold the line against massive German panzer divisions.

@bt9762

3 жыл бұрын

@TheSlot1942 the best example of this was in WW2 the Ardennes offensive it was the first time the Germans attacked the Americans head on in numbers and took them totally by suprise they had a lot of success and broke through into a bulge the Americans were unable to reorganize their line until british general Montgomery took over since the Americans had no solution he took command of the American units in the area and a british force closed an exposed American flank once this was done the Americans were able to push the germans back

@ireviewshtuff

3 жыл бұрын

@@bt9762 My favourite is when they entered the Battle of the Atlantic. So stubborn and so unwilling to work with the Royal Navy, that they suffer so many losses the Germans called it the second "Happy Time".

@bt9762

3 жыл бұрын

@@ireviewshtuff in a way it's a good thing they had those times because it showed the importance of cooperation

I would agree that the Germans were the best 39 to 43, but if we look at the battle of the Bulge there is no doubt that they were bested by the US army. They had in the start a numeric advantage of 12 to 1 in the area they attacked. The defenders were to the larg part newly arived or under reorganisation. The German attack was a total surprise and done with a 2 to 1 superiority in the operational area. In the start the Germans attacked with 7 armored divissions against two. 13 infantry divissions against 6. The Germans had close to 6 dayes with superior forces and mobility. But they did not acheave their tactical goals and absolutely not their operational goals. They had heavier and better tanks, and should have won the battle, they did not their casualties were greater in every aspect exept in destroyd airplanes. This did show that the US army could keep up with anything Germany had. I do therefore not agree that the German units were better, I do think that the German generals were better with few exeptions.

@sorennilsson9742

3 жыл бұрын

@Mortes Have you been to the Hürtigen forest? It is infantery land it is a defenders dream, the attacker is extreamly handicapped by the terrain, I would say no Army should attack there. One thing is clear the germans had better Generals. As for the other ecamples I would say not having been there only read about it. From what I understand Monte Casino was practically a climb most of the way, a perfect defensive position. One could instead look at the slaughter of the German army in France where the best of the German army fell. 19 000 US soldiers were killed in the battle of the Bulg and the rest were wounded. According to all literature the decision to attack was made by Hitler and he did in one way chose a good place for the attack, the time was excellent since no planes could fly for dayes due to bad wether. The problem was that the Germans could not take the road crossing that everything depended on.

@redaug4212

3 жыл бұрын

@Mortes Not at disproportional cost to themselves though. In the first week of the Ardennes offensive air superiority was nullified by poor visibility, and the Germans did have an overwhelming superiority in terms of combat strength. For example, in the Bastogne corridor, the 110th Infantry Regiment (US) was outnumbered by a 7-1 margin while being attacked by elements of five separate German divisions. Yet they still managed to upset the German timetable by holding on to Bastogne's eastern approaches for three days and inflicting hundreds of casualties on the 5th Panzer Army. I think that really says a lot about how the quality of the German Army was declining. Where in 1940 they had been able to encircle if not destroy entire divisions in a matter of days, now in 1944 they were having difficulty on a tactical scale against relatively minor units.

@redaug4212

3 жыл бұрын

@Mortes It's not a stupid comparison, not when you're trying to say that the US could only stop the Germans with air superiority and reserves. If we're talking about combat performance of individual soldiers, then you should disregard any question of air superiority, reserves, or Germany's operational deficiencies. Those are not pertinent to tactical quality. As we both seem to agree, Germany's troop quality did decline at the end of the war. I am saying that even with Germany's advantages in the opening days of the Ardennes offensive, they were unable to dislodge much weaker American units precisely because of that dearth in troop quality. Also, German casualties for the Ardennes offensive vary widely, with low estimates at 70k and high estimates at 100k, so I would research the numbers carefully. In any case, an argument can be made that perhaps 1/5th of Allied casualties in the Ardennes were not from direct combat, but rather rear-echelon units becoming encircled and surrendering. Remember, the Ardennes was a "quite sector" for the Allies. They only had 5 combat divisions protecting the eastern perimeter of the forest. Of those 5 divisions, only one (the 106th, a totally green division) was encircled and destroyed, and even then only by 2/3rds. The rest, despite being taken by surprise and outnumbered by wide margins, had managed to put up enough resistance as to affect the strategic outcome of the battle as a whole. As for Monte Cassino and Hurtgen Forest, I would say the Germans certainly fought well. Though in both cases they had the added benefits of using rather extreme defensive features, as well as the rather poor deployment of units on the part of Allied commanders.

@Dhjdhebdaish

2 жыл бұрын

Zhukov was better than any German general

Fascinating