This channel features Military History ranging from Classical Times up to contemporary conflicts. The focus is to keep it short, visual, analytical and entertaining.
Since around June 2016 almost every video uses mainly academic books as sources, if possible. The sources are always provided in the description.
“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)
I've read the trilogy of books Citino wrote about the Germany defeat in WW2 (starting in 1942) and the number of times he cites and explains how important Bewegungskrieg was to Prussia/Germany wars in the past and on WW2 and how Stellungskrieg was avoided whenever possible it makes this concepts fixate in your mind and you just forget about the term Blitzkrieg. I recommend this trilogy of books whenever someone wants a good source on WW2, especially looking more to the german side.
Very much reminds me of a RipSaw tank, just without all of the technology and the ability to be a EV powered manned or unmanned light tank. EV tank? Could you imagine trying to command and manage a whole armored division of electricity gobbling tanks? They would need to invent a portable nuclear power plant, or do it hill billy style and ratchet strap a Walmart generator on its back and keep that thing running and plugged in. LOL. Electric tanks? I still don’t understand why, there is way way to many disadvantages still, just to get a little more torque and instantly available power. Unless they invent a type of armor to bolt on all around it, that is also an unworldly efficient solar panel.
Is it possible that Germans systematically overestimated the quality of Soviet vehicles in their reports in order to excuse their failures on the Eastern Front?
> Is it possible that Germans systematically overestimated the quality of Soviet > vehicles in their reports in order to excuse their failures on the Eastern Front? Maybe, but a) the Germans destroyed a lot of Soviet tanks: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gzzsNuWlyHc.html and b) there were a lot of successes in 1941-1942.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized both a) and b) are obviously true, nevertheless, it is clear that by 1942 Germans have fallen short of their principal objectives on the Eastern front, and, despite the initial immense success, the Blitzkrieg had stalled. So there was an obvious incentive to portray the enemy stronger than they really were.
> So there was an obvious incentive to portray the enemy stronger than they really were. Like post war documentaries, where there they state in each episode "this weapon could have changed the outcome of the war" (usually referring to a German weapon)? I generally have the the other impression, e.g., German officers noting (almost complaining) that if the enemy had pushed further that they would have lost. If am not mistaken, here are two examples: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HXFJH_amdyA.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AiXgf9lRlb4.html Also, the Germans were highly critical of their own performance as well: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-crfn5k_JGpc.html Overestimation of the enemy generally happens on both sides, e.g., ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-heYKjYCYONE.html when it comes to actual combat.
8:21 this is propbably speculation as at the time the Royal Navy was the only navy on the planet that could perform night time operations (in during the entire of WW2 it was the only one to have it's full carrier force capable of this). So I imagine that is a german naval air arms officer imagining it from their perspective of how many aircraft could could land with no training.
And yes, it's absolutely possible to load a live round by mistake and blow yourself up, which undoubtedly happened in the heat of combat a few times at least. I saw a video of some guys with explosives permits test it and they got a "partial detonation"
I will say that tanks as a concept are most definately not obsolete. But Modern Tanks need some very serious changes to be be competitive on modern battlefields.
Absolute best channel to come to for well-researched and well-presented information on German equipment and tactics of WWII, presented by an actual German so you can learn the correct pronunciation of the names as well! Thanks for what you do!
Yes, they were concerned a lot about mobility. Although, it is Bewegungskrieg not "Blitzkrieg": ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-M8y-of5WpVA.html
This is the first time I've read a survivor's account from Bismarck, thanks for finding and publishing this. At the risk of opening a can of worms, there is a question as to whether Bismarck was actually sunk by the various British attacks or was scuttled prior to abandoning ship. I've gathered that German policy on denying the use of ships or equipment to the enemy as a last resort was quite strict (see Graf Spee). I would think if a survivor recalled the word being passed to scuttle, that would be an important clue in this regard. I noted that this sailor's circumstances probably would have prevented him from hearing a scuttling order if one was given.
It was my favorite tank in World of Tanks. Frontal armor was good enough in its tier if you just angled your tank and used cover. It was pretty good firing on the move up close as well.
In short: Germans were short on resources and needed to maximize every ounce of metal they had. Allies: laughs in 50 to 1 mechanical numerical advantage. Keep in mind Germans were still using horses to pull things in WWII. We were using express overseas deliveries to send our soldiers freshly baked cake from their hometowns while they were on duty in Europe.
What gets me is why the Germans, knowing full well how much work and material the Russian's had poured into that salient, didn't switch to attacking another section of the line and used Kursk as a decoy attack?
Seems like German propaganda or arrogance as per the norm. Churchill mk 1 & mk3 obviously had short coming in fire power but the QF 6 pounder adequate but the armour was comparable to anything Germany or the USSR had. Personally the German putting a 8.8cm KwK 36 in the Tiger 1 was overkill as the 7.5 cm KwK 42 in the panther was ample enough. At least the Churchill tank didn't break down under it's own power like the tiger tank. Better a tank with some short comings then a tank that excels but will soon be a pill box or get scuttled. Churchill had a 4.38PSI ground pressure & maximum slope climb of 34.8 degrees on the test field with a high stall of about 40degrees. A tiger tank for perspective 10.45 to 17.49 PSI & stall was 25 degrees supposedly but no real proof but I say the maximum climb is 20 degree on good ground. You might think ground pressure & climb isn't important but what is the point of having the most speed or largest gun if you can't get the tank up a hill in the desired position? In north Africa the Germans were caught multiple times unawares as they didn't guard select heights/high grounds as they assumed no tank would ever reach that position or come from that direction but the Churchill did. Positioning by being able to go over terrain no one would expect is far more important then people think as this isn't a war game or theoretical as bog, slurry & sink holes exist. For a hypothetical as commander is I had the choice 1 of the tank with highest figures in the 'iron triangle' or choice 2 of a tank lacking in the triangle but could go over any terrain the choice is easy. I pick option 2 as better to have a subpar tank that can go anywhere it pleases. In a video game or on paper British tank design makes no sense in ww2 but in practice with explanation that can't be shown with figures alone you understand British tanks were probably the best suited in the war hence the Centurion/ 1st universal tank/Main battle tank just after ww2 from the gathered lessons. Britain & the USA were far more practical with their tanks as they took more into consideration then the Iron triangle & communication like the Germans got obsessed with as the cost of maintenance or mundane specifications that are very useful like ground pressure & climb. USSR they sacrificed near all turret depression & so much that should not be given up but the USSR made the correct call due to their Geography was pretty much all flat. T34, IS, SU & KV would have been awful tank or self propelled guns in much of the world but in the vast plateau's & steppes of central Asia & eastern Europe they were exactly what was required! No wonder Russia always had trouble in the Caucus, Afghanistan & Iranian mountains as little of their assets is suited to such terrain. People might get lippy at this but the T34 is both the best & worse tank simultaneously in ww2 for the reasons I described among others. T34 was enough of an Issue that the German high command saw the need to answer it with tiger tanks which I think was a terrible doctrine decision. Should have just made more antitank guns or Stug's or as taking a tank out with a tank is not advisable as it is usually a trade for a trade with exceptions.
Is the question of the FlaK 88 being a one-shot killer that every *shot* equals a kill, or is it that it only takes one *hit* to kill an enemy tank? Because this video operates on the first premise, but I don't think that's usually what most people mean when they talk about "one-shotting" something. It might take 20 rounds to walk onto target, but if it only takes one hit to kill the enemy tank instead of having to hit it several times to knock it out, then that still qualifies as a one-shot and I think that's what people think of when they talk about the FlaK 88 as compared to something like the 75 on a Sherman which you might have to hit something several times before knocking it out. There is definitely a popular misconception about how accurate first-round shots are though. They get whiffed a lot more than most people think. Especially in the days of manual fire control where your only tools were a handcrank and some quick mental math, without a laser rangefinder and a computer making the calculations and adjustments automatically.
Overall I think the assessment is fair. The Churchill is a tank, that by itself poses no new problems that require innovation. I'm certain that those same people would judge german tanks the same way, aware how the allies and the soviets have weapons clearly capable of destroying of destroying their own hardware. Tanks are tools, don't attach your self value to them.
10:10 its crazy that they actually had 100 Ferdinands in that battle. i wonder how much kills they achieved or if like 100 stugs would have been more efficient in the same situation
Wow, I never knew that most of the sailor wouldn't know about the radar. does it have any correlation with the fact that radar is a new thing back in early 1940s?
I believe that all nations' radars were classified equipment during the war, especially in the early years. I can readily believe that sailors not involved with fire control weren't informed about it.
From the Official Report. At 1030 on the 26th a Catalina of the Coastal Command sighted the Bismarck about 550 miles west of Land s End. The King George V, Rodney, and Renown were now converging on the Bay of Biscay. Reconnaissance planes from the Ark Royal took up the watch on the Bismarck, At 1500 an air striking force was dispatched from the Ark Royal, but its attack was ineffectual. The second and decisive attack was made by 15 Swordfish, armed with torpedoes, and lasted from 2055 to 2125, The 400 men assigned to the Bismarck's anti-aircraft guns maintained a furious barrage, but the crews, which had been on watch almost continuously for 5 days, were near exhaustion and their fire was not as effective as previously. The planes attacked simultaneously from a number of points, diving to the attack at an angle of about 50 . One torpedo struck amidships on the port side, one on the starboard quarter, and possibly a third on the port quarter; The torpedo which hit the starboard quarter wrecked the steering gear, jamming the rudders and causing the Bismarck to turn slowly in circles to the starboard. Frantic efforts were made to repair the damage: It was announced that the man who succeeded in freeing the rudders would be given the Knight Insignia of the Iron Cross. Divers succeeded in centering one rudder, but the other could not be freed, Efforts were made to steer the ship by her engines, but after a short period, instead of proceeding on her intended southeasterly course, the Bismarck was actually northwest of her position when the attack was made. There appears to have been further controversy among the officers. The captain, when asked by an officer whether he should try to blow off the jammed rudder, is reported to have replied, "Do what you like; I am through with it." The ship's best speed was now reduced to 10 to 12 knots. At 0857 the Bismarck sustained her first hit. Five minutes later a 16-inch shell from the Rodney apparently put the German battleship's A and B turrets out of action. C and D turrets were firing on the King George V when a shell from one of the British warships carried away the rangefinder and paralyzed the control position. These exchanges took place at a range of about 20,000 yards. By 0020 range had been narrowed to 11,500 yards; 10 minutes latter the Bismarck was on fire and virtually out of control, though her C and D turrets were still firing independently and her secondary battery was in use. Demoralization of the Bismarck's crew was now apparent. One officer is said to have drawn his revolver and shot several seamen who refused to obey him. Officers were reported to have committed suicide, and scores of the crew jumped overboard before the action ceased. Almost all of the 400 anti-aircraft gunners, for whom no special protection had been provided during surface action, became casualties.
Pretty easy They had their plans vc the British broke their code and put defense in put in to defend the plan.Also had double the losses still not a huge victory.Like taking a test with a cheat sheet die that make you more intelligent.Please quit with the soviets propaganda
An ironic thing is that the Spanish heavy cruiser Canarias, which was searching for survivors, was both the heaviest ship in the Spanish navy and the lightest ship present in the area (not counting destroyers)
On the discrepancy between the count of salvoes. Drachinifel mentioned in his video on Operation Rheinübung that the Bismarck fired half-salvoes to be able to close in faster on the enemy. If the seaman counted only a full salvoe as a salvoe that would fit, because salvoes 1 and 2 he would count as 1, 3 and 4 as 2, and 5 as 3 (i.e. the first half of three). In his position he did not have any chance to know what was going on and to count the fire of all guns as one salvoe makes perfect sense from his perspective.
Re the Tannoy announcement about fighting and dying that lowered morale: The "commander of the fleet" (Flottenchef) was not Raeder but Lütjens aboard Bismarck herself. He seems to have been strangely untalented as a leader of men but of course he had far less freedom of decisionmaking than his grandiose title of Flottenchef implied.
