Did you ever hear the tragedy of King Tiger the heavy? I thought not. It's not a story the Panzerwaffe would tell you. It's a Wehraboo legend. King Tiger was a Heavy Tank of the Wehrmacht, so Armored and so deadly he could use his cannon to influence the 88mm shells to Burn Shermans... He had such an unnecessary amount of armor that he could even keep the ones who crewed him, from dying. The German tank design theory is a pathway to many monstrosities some consider to be under powered. What happened to him? He became so up-armored and heavy... the only thing he was afraid of was destroying his transmission, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his adversaries everything he knew, then his adversaries copied the good parts of his design after the war. It's ironic he could save others from damage, but not himself.
Non business messages can be sent to potentialhistory@gmail.com or to my Facebook page If you want to ask/talk about anything.
the other sherman also has a 76 the only difference is it doesn't have the muzzle break on it, its most likely a m4a1 (76) w which most of the time features no muzzle break unlike fury which is a m4a2 (76)w
One thing I don’t agree with is saying the 75 Sherman’s should do nothing and let the easy 8 handle it is wrong because any fire down range is better than none and it’s not like 75mm rounds slapping off the armor wouldn’t be noticeable to the crew they would definitely feel it and it might even mess up their aim especially if they hit a vision port 😅
Glad to see the Russian tradition of invading their smaller and seemingly weaker neighbor only to get slapped with hundreds of thousands of casualties is still going strong.
Germany lost the moment they invaded the soviet union. not because Russia strong but because 300million wins vs 80million so long as equipment is even barely on a similar level, especially during those early times of motorised combat.
@gary6884 this all lead to the creation of anime, which led to girls der panzer, which led to girls der panzer potiential history RU-vid series and the potiential history community.
The survival of the British was the catalyst in German world domination, if the British fell then the USA wouldnt of got involved in Europe meaning Hitlers whole capabilities would be focused in the East, not to mention German gains in logistics from beating the British.
There's also the uncomfortable fact that Soviet-tied double agents in the US during the late 1940s fed lies to Harry Truman about how much of a threat the communist Chinese were, and thus encouraged Truman to cut support to the Chinese Nationalists.
I like how in Mein Kompf Hitler states that one of the reason other from all the jew and communist crap, He said that basically because the Kaiser started a 2 Front war that how the Germans lost the great war and I mean in theory yeah it made it rough only reason they surrendered is they couldn't push and also suicide attacks aren't very favorable to the people of Germany. So I mean showing how much Hitler is a hypocrite Hitler criticized Kaiser Wilhelm that he lost because of a 2 front war then starts a air campaign in Africa and Europe, fights the French then, fights the British in Africa starts a war in Russia arial and ground meaning by the year of 1942 Germany had the African air campaign and land, the Western aerial campaign and the Eastern front as a hole even sending some men to Finland. So over all Hitler basically started 2 different categories of 4 front each to simply state, Sure it went down in late 42 early 43 but still its interesting to watch Hitler and his regime do things contractionary to many things they said. Over all World War 2 seems like the perfect line up in history aligning just perfectly for the most destruction and development the earth has ever seen
Fair enough, presentation. Follow up: there was not an endless supply of atomic bombs. The Scientists told the military commanders that they may, perhaps, have six more Atomic bombs available to the date of the planed envision of Japan. Also, the "Big Six" Supreme Council, were all interviewed by military intelligence after the war. And they were questioned on the reasons for surrender. For many weeks the American leadership was quizzical about the conflicting statements coming from the Japanese. And essentially, an understanding developed, though not written, that if the Emperor could maintain his position, then a surrender might become acceptable. In any case the Supreme Council, never voted to surrender the vote was 3-3.
The Midway plan was actually drawn up before the Coral Sea operation, and was supposed to have all 6 carriers. But the IJA - who didn't really want anything to do with Midway - demanded carrier support for their landings at Port Moresby, as a condition for participating. "Sure," Yamamoto said, "we can do that. It definitely won't result in us losing a third of our planned strike force." Am I being too hard on Yamamoto? Well, he also decided to throw resources at Kiska, which was too far away to divert anything from Midway, and then positioned his battleship force between the two prongs so that he was too far out to actually _support_ either of them. So, not really.
Given that the current Ukraine war is a large scale proixy conflict, I’m seeing the same lessons from this video as applied to the Ukrainian and Russian sides. Russia and its frienimies act like the axis powers in ww2 (worse than the axis powers given that Germany in ww2 was at least able to convince its buddies to fight the conflict and Russian Allie’s are terrified to send boots on the ground and just become weapons dealers exclusively to Russia and sometimes to Ukraine as well). Where Ukraine and it’s friends have the same objectives in mind and thus can collaborate better as a team.
5:00 we are seeing the same thing happening with modern drone warfare in Ukraine. More and more, both sides of the proxy war are borrowing and developing drones and drone counter measures that prior to the current special operation were only available to the American military (publicly). The war on terror was the first conflict to have modern drone usage, but they were expensive support units (in terms of construction for payload) and didn’t have any enemy drones to battle. Since there introduction in the war on terror, other country’s have started to develop drones at a more cost effective rate (Iranian drones for example) and only really in the Ukrainian war in present are drones being battle tested in a conventional warfare sense (rather than an occupation operation). The air forces on the Russian and Ukrainian sides stopped sending out pilots due to the payload of a drone being enough to wreak ground forces on both sides (and the anti air weapons constantly getting deadlier faster than new pilots can be trained). I can predict nearing the end of the Ukrainian conflict a reduction in heavy arms on Botha sides becoming a factor due to the ability of cardboard drones to ruin armoires with little effort.
@@ian-Alex-2000 the reach is crazy, nobody made that connection. Plus if they genuinely hate jewish people more than Nazi germany, which hurt as many white people as it hurt jewish people, then theyre obviously sympathizers (like you) whose opinions arent worth anything to begin with Im not even jewish either
IMHO: The Tiger 1s were the BEST!!!!! Had the Best Armour, and it’s Murderous 88!!!!! It kinda lacked in mobility!!!! But can turn any Allied Tank into Toast!!!!!
If both the British and the Americans had been smart enough to stay out of the First World War then Germany would’ve most likely have won that conflict, and consequently there would never have been either a Soviet Union or a Nazi Germany. But the British especially were unaware of their limitations which is why they sent a vast army to the continent to jump into the meat grinder with the French. This eventually led to the bankruptcy of the British Empire.
True, the Germans were totally incapable of winning the war they got stuck with when the British and the French declared war on them for invading Poland, something which they failed to anticipate. What they might have been able to win would have been a straight forward invasion of the Soviet Union if they had waited until they were supposed to, or in 1947 once they’d presumably been much better prepared, especially if the British had not minded that they took out the Soviet Union, which could possibly have been entirely plausible. But the war they got stuck fighting, against the world’s largest empire which owned the most powerful navy, was doomed to failure starting as they did with just 40 odd obsolete diesel submarines not even equipped with snorkels. And neither were they able to defeat the British Air Force. Then also there were the Americans, a former British colony, who inevitably came to the rescue of the mother country. So the only way they could possibly have won was by waiting to fight an entirely different war against just the Russians. But as you point out there was no atomic bomb in their future because they foolishly demonized the Jews. And their foremost Danish collaborator sabotaged their nuclear research or Niels Bohr if my memory serves me correctly.
Looks at the Red Army rape myth. (Stalin wrote an order preventing this and declaring that any Soldier who did this would be shot.) Yeah typing that into RU-vid gives me uhhhhh not great results. Note: It is likely it occurred on some level but don't know exact number. Do not send me that goofy ass number written by that guy whom doesn't even list sources nor the actual source of said number. (No citation on the sentence)
Here in September 2024, Russia is still throwing warm bodies at the "problem" but i am not sure if this will work with Ukraine as it dod against the Nazis.
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION *Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books.* Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) *technically known* as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source) In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies. *From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."* If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). EPISODE I: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one." SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910." There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies (ALL MORE THAN ADEQUATELY ELABORATED in the below comments section) called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend. EPISODES II thru IV: Lotsa other stuff happening. EPISODE V: If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized - and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003 Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice. Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover... No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire. If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power. When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most? *Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.* _After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided"._ The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative. "Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl... _London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century._ After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable *alpha bark* to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games. *All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries* Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died. They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
