Military History not Visualized
Military History not Visualized
This channel features Military History and is a support channel to Military History Visualized (my primary channel). This channel focuses more on experiences, museum trips, military equipment and personal delivery.
Sources for this video are usually academic books or sometimes primary sources and are linked/referenced in the description of each video.
“A good speech should be like a woman's skirt; long enough to cover the subject and short enough to create interest.” - Winston Churchill
FAQ: militaryhistoryvisualized.com/faq/
»» Personal & Educational Background ««
Bernhard Kast
Master of Arts in History from the University of Salzburg (Austria)
Bachelor and Master of Science in Computer Science from the University of Salzburg (Austria)
Internship at the Military Research Institute (Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt) in Potsdam (Germany)
Пікірлер
with hindsight and with the unimpressive performance of "NATO-trained units" in Ukraine, I think that both Ukraine AND Russia are nowadays more experienced on modern warfare than practically any other army in the world. Desert Storm tactics don't work if you don't have complete air superiority and your tanks and IFVs can be blown up by a pair of FPV drones - think of the US tank doctrine of the commander giving orders with his hatch open as long as he can get away with it and the amount of casualties that this could lead to in Ukraine, even with kilometers away from the tank having direct contact with the enemy. Simply put, both russians and ukrainians are using the right tactics for a modern, attritional and industrial pier-on-pier warfare
The Churchill was a bit of a Swiss Army Knife AFV.
Believe me, its much less a scrappy underdog story, and more an insinuation of people God's chosen.
We have all these pz 38s which are no longer effective
My grandpa was a driver in an m-5 Stuart in the 2nd armored division he said he would always drive past a bunch of broke down British tank’s don’t know what kind he was talking about maybe not this one
8:25 paper thin armor may not stop things that will kill the tank but it will stop the most important thing- the rain.
Where do we find the after action reviews and Terain Recce Reports produced by the WW2 German Army, in its Ukrainian battles? Terrain doesnt change ...
You discussed derivation of standards. I was SO2 Trg Ops at Bordon. The School taught, amongst others, Recovery Mechanics. Part of the syllabus was towing on A frames. I got a call asking what the grade of slope should be as they were drilling a School and wanted to know how they could derive it, for their recovery vehicle and casualties. Took me about of digging to find the right Recovery Mechanic to come up with an unbelievable, but credible answer: 26'. Turned out Recovery Hill, the place we taught Recy Mechs to downhill tow a casualty, had been set up so long ago, that the grade of the hill at Bordon had become the standard!
Developed when Germany was on its heels. First love is tanks, second and forever love is everything that destroys em. Should be core doctrine from the start. We learned soo much from their adjustments and failures.
No such thing........they're all overrated, VASTLY OVERRATED!
That coat might fit me?
My Dad served under General Stilwell in the China Theatre. He actually led him around at night because the General was night blind according to my Dad. My Dad spent 3 years in China, attached as support with other Americans, to a Chinese Battalion. His recounting was that this unit spent more time retreating "running" from the Japanese forces. He said they had many nighttime "retreats" because the "Japanese were coming". Dad was very frustrated the whole time and to add insult to injury his unit was left behind, "forgotten" after the war ended. It took three months for them to finally be able to have the transportation to go home.
Ya now interview the Sherman crews that actually went toe to toe with the German Tigers not the ones that never saw one.
Are you stupid
The way he swallows and looks awaywhen talking about the Ukraine offensive tells you what a disaster it was.
Where were you in OH? I live in Pittsburgh, which is probably driving distance to where these tanks are.
/
My Dad was in McArthur's army. He hated McArthur. Years later some folks gave Dad the book "American Caesar." He said that might burn the book. I mentioned that to a guy I worked with. His father was also in McArthur's army and he told his dad what my Dad said. He sent back the message "tell the man to burn the book." The other man was a Federal Judge.
Easy M10 with 6000 build or M3-5 with 22000 build and no one mentions them.
About the artillery pulling i am an aa gunner (flab kan 63/12 35mm) and when we constructed a position we had to pull the gunns into the position (only if its a field) and we pulled that little f'er with 20 guys btw the gun weighs about 7 tonnes or 14000 lbs give or take so yeah good choice mounting an at gun on a tank at least u dont have to pull it through the mud 😂
What Ukraine showed me about Russian tanks is that the Russian deployment tactics are years behind those being employed by the western powers; that Russian crew training is second rate, as is its maintenance schedules. Lastly that the command structure of Russian military still is locked in the cycle of mindlessly expending its resources with out concern of the significance of losing that resource and the inability to replace it. That goes for both man and machine.
It wasn't just about a tank, Americans had a lot more to think about than just building a tank. Everything had to be designed to be easily shipped, the wights, the size, many other things. If the Germans had not invaded the USSR and incountered the KV and later the T34 they would not have had to rethink the armor and gun size of their tanks. When designed , the sherman tank was just about the best tank compared to the Germans both in protection and fire power. Yes the famous tiger was being developed but it was designed to be a break through tank for fortifications. There was never that many made ( the US build somewhere close to twice as many liberty cargo ships than the Germans built tigers) it never ceases to amaze me when people will point to some new German weapon designed and claim that if the Germans just had this or that new wonder weapon they would have prevailed , ignoring that you have to build it in numbers to effect the outcome of a war. The British and American technological advances and industrial capacity was amazing. If the war had lasted much longer for the Germans they would have been on the receiving end of the A bomb (which was developed with the Germans in mind not the Japanese) which would have decided the outcome.
What is the name of that game please?
Warno
Podvozek z LT 38. Ke konci války motory dodávala i Tatra
See, I would have said the T-26. It‘s the most important and most-produced interwar tank, but it plays no role in WWII simply because almost all of them were captured or destroyed in the first few months of the war, without ever getting the opportunity for the Soviets to really do anything with them. The Soviets in the early war were completely unable to use their tanks effectively, simply due to a lack of experienced personnel combined with no time to train the people they had-but under different circumstances there‘s arguably no reason the T-26 couldn‘t have been used as effectively as the Panzer II or the 38(t), both of which were used extensively by the Germans at a time when they were already fairly obsolete. Actually, the T-26 outguns both of those tanks with its 45mm cannon and it crucially has a separate gunner. So, compared to other tanks that saw use in the early war because they were available, it’s actually very good, and the USSR had over 10.000 of them at the start of the war-a potentially a significant strategic asset, had it been used effectively.
The Sherman was a good tank with a shit gun by 1944
The S-tank was actually a brilliant design for SWEDEN. It should be kept in mind that when the S-tank was being designed, outside the big cities like Stockholm and Goteburg, most Swedish "highways" were narrow, winding, two-lane roads through dense forests. Although not aligned formally with NATO, Sweden expected their likely opponent would be, of course, the Soviet Union, either making amphibious or even airborne landings across the Baltic from Estonia or Latvia, or going overland from the Soviet side of Lappland, probably through Finland, which also had pretty much all narrow two-lane roads through dense forests. Simply put, the typical MBT with a long "pecker" often didn't have a lot of "swinging room"! By dispensing with the turret altogether and making the S-tank able to readily aim its fixed gun, the resulting package was low and very well-protected. It was figured that a platoon of S-tanks would lie in wait for an advancing column of Soviet T-55s or T-62s, then, once they'd sighted their targets, unleash their 105 mm main guns on the hapless Soviet vehicles, then, with the secondary driver able to likewise drive the tank BACKWARDS, not unlike "Oddball's" (the recently-passed Donald Sutherland) Sherman that could go equally fast forwards OR backwards (that "Moriairty", the late Gavin McLeod, was indeed a "mechanical genius"), scooting out of range before any survivors of the ambushed Soviet column, if any, could retaliate! Although that's the classic role of a Tank DESTROYER, the Swedes insisted the Stridsvagn S-103 was indeed a "tank". However, all the upsides for the Swedish Army aside, this vehicle simply had no role outside its country of build. Sure, FINLAND could have used it, quite well, indeed, but the post-WWII "Finlandization" process meant that the Finns wouldn't do something like that, lest they give the Soviets a pretext to come stomping in. Whether Sweden would have formally come to Finland's aid in such a scenario is problematic; but like in the 1939-1940 Winter War, who's to say some "volunteers" wouldn't have come over, their S-tanks festooned with those Finnish swastikas?
You're some small dudes. Y'all make the wee Hetzer look bigger than it actually is.
To clarify before I even watch this video, I bet it has something to do with factory tooling. I recall there being some issues with cranes, or presses, or some other stuff.
"What later was Czechoslovakia" ".. Oh, and before".
Ladies and Gentlemen The Tiger ❤❤❤❤❤
You Germans make some cool looking but very effective machines. I'm glad we're allies now😅
Say what you like about Germans, they speak English beautifully.
Not really, this is an extreme cherry picking example. Mainly because a part of his job is speaking English. Try visiting anywhere in east Germany, and especially outside of Berlin and the other large cities. You’ll be surprised.
Thank you.
13 minutes video and I feel like the really interesting chat of tank fans just began 🙂 Still a lot of interesting information. Greetings from Czech, sad that our best tank design finally helped the wrong side. Now it's history, but let's learn from it.
Why choose the StuG life when you could Hetz?
Yes
Stalin screamed pretty loudly for that ‘insignificant aid’.
I think that having an unsupported 60 year old vehicle slowly moving down a road being blown up was a conclusion that we should've reached a long time ago really
nice video
you look like jonny sins
The Liberty ship on board crane limit was 30 tons. Second it is not shipped home. A Panther can go back by rail for you grade. A Sherman would be have to be shipped to the shore, on boarded to a ship, off loaded, rail to the factory. Also the 75 gun had a great HE shell.
The more I hear, the more I appreciate General McNair; he mostly did the job (efficiently win the war), not what we want the job to have been (build kick-ass tanks).
The only thing that I changed my mind about was how they have been employing them.
One Year Earlier 1943 , If The American Arsenals Where Set Up To Manufacture The British 17 Pounder 🇬🇧 Installed On New Mfg Sherman's For " Tank On Tank Battles , More Allied lives Would Of Been Saved ! 🇺🇲 Ox And Bucks !
T-95 .... Camping Bush World Champion!
I'm sorry, but at 1:43 you did something i also like to do, four hundred fifty FREIV??? 🤣 A few weeks ago i had a similar linguistical brainfart in a official meeting...confused myself for around 10 to 20 seconds what language I'm currently talking in😂 By the way, I'll never get it why the StuG III wasn't a Tank. I always see it as a simplified tank without turret, no matter what army branch invented or used it. Used by the Sturmartillerie it was still similar to a I Tank in British doctrine. I mean i wouldn't call a Matilda II a Tank Destroyer because it only could fire AT ammunition.
I had the privilege of meeting someone who was in a Swiss army for many years who drove one of these beautiful things around, needless to say, they convinced me this is one of the best tanks ever made. I LOVE the Hetzer.
If the Germans would have fought with their superior bread, beer and bratwurst, they would have surely vanquished and won over the vodka-slavians.
m10 tank destroyer for me, used mostly as arty, but filled the tank destroyer role until the m18
Where has this guy been? There are more than enough videos out there showing the Russians definitely have thermal sights. The real debate is whether tanks themselves have become obsolete in peer on peer like battleships.