Military Historian Reviews 250 Years of Warfare in Movies | Part Two
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июн 2024
- Military historian Dan Snow MBE reviews the evolution of warfare over the course of 250 years depicted in historical movies.
Spanning from the late-18th to early-21st Century, Dan charts the development of battle tactics and strategy, as well as the rapid evolution of weapons technology which have transformed the battlefield.
In the second episode, starting of with Fury (2014) starring Bard Pitt and Shia LaBoeuf, Dan explains how the concept of a pitched battle was made obsolete by the introduction of armoured vehicles, more specifically, tanks. Although tanks had been introduced in the latter years of the First World War, it was only in the Second World War that they became integral to the strategies of Allied and Axis armies. Two of the most iconic tanks from the conflict are seen in this scene from Fury, the German Tiger Tank and US M4 Sherman. Dan assesses the pro and cons of each tank and analyses how they were used in World War Two.
Moving on two decades from the Second World War to the Vietnam War, depicted in Casualties of War (1989) starring a young Sean Penn and Michael J. Fox, Dan remarks on the difficulties American soldiers had in battling a new kind of enemy, one that was almost indistinguishable from civilian populations. Whilst US soldiers struggled to identify who they were meant to be targeting with their superior weapons and equipment, the Vietcong used guerilla tactics to consistently inflict casualties and slowly chip away at US morale using a combination of hit-and-run attacks, secret tunnels, booby traps and mines.
Lastly, Dan reviews Zero Dark Thirty (2012), a film depicting the raid on Osama Bin Laden's compound in Pakistan on 2nd May, 2011. Dan comments on the remarkable development of weapon and stealth technology used by elite soldiers such as the Navy SEALs and the way warfare has evolved to the extent at which the US President (Barrack Obama) was able to watch the raid in real time.
Check out Sony's Evolution of Warfare playlist! - • The Evolution of War |...
Watch Fury Now: AAN.SonyPictures.com/Fury
Watch Casualties of War Now: bit.ly/WatchCasualtiesOfWar
Watch Zero Dark Thirty Now: bit.ly/WatchZeroDarkThirty
Discover the past on History Hit with ad-free exclusive podcasts and documentaries released weekly presented by world renowned historians Dan Snow, Suzannah Lipscomb, Lucy Worsely, Mary Beard and more. Watch, listen and read history wherever you are, whenever you want it. Available on all devices: Apple TV, Amazon Prime Video, Android TV, Samsung Smart TV, Roku, Xbox, Chromecast, and iOs & Android.
We're offering a special discount to History Hit for our subscribers, get 50% off your first 3 months with code RUclips: www.access.historyhit.com/
#historyhit #moviereview #warfare #evolution
00:00 Introduction
00:31 Fury (2014)
06:38 Casualties of War (1989)
11:19 Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
![TRASH or PASS! Eminem ( Houdini ) [REACTION!!!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cB1WrZcMwMc/mqdefault.jpg)
Dan snow does an excellent job of distilling the Hollywood from the historical reality without being condescending or ruining the movie for the watcher.
He might have looked at it from the Vietnamese point of view. They were the best infantry in the world, carrying heavy equipment over mountanous terrain, living of rice and fish oil. The Americans have my respect, but I also respect the Vietnamese for their tenacity in liberating their country.
my thoughts exactly--every other historical movie reviewer acts like they themselves were at the battle and are the first people to ever think something in a movie might be a bit inaccurate
Agreed.
enslaving their country to communist tryants
Hes talking out of his ass half the time.
One trope - tigers were hard to maintain and there was a lack of spare parts. Pisses me off to no end.
The Tiger was an engineering marble, the issue was the vehicle was misappropriated by incompetent/desperate commanders who forced the Tiger into a role it couldnt commit.
The Tiger was, by all means and purpose a support vehicle for advancing german troops. It was meant to be a highly effective, long range killer so softer units could move up. Because of its position on the frontline, it would allow them the time to properly maintain the vehicles at set intervals. That worked fine up until it didnt, and as fast maneuver warfare began losing its effectiveness, desperate commanders turned to the Tiger as a hail mary and turned them into shock tanks. Issue 1) the Tigers werent fast enough to keep up, causing crews to overwork gears and engines.
Issue 2) the weather was horrendous after winters thaw and the tigers lost what little mobility into thick mud and deep bodies of water. The issue? These engines simply were too powerful and due to the bog, over torqued itself on weaker parts like drivetrain or sprocket gears. There were even accounts of tigers detracking itself as the tracks were vacuum sucked into the deep mud and refused to move
3) by the time Tigers were pushed into breakthrough role, it was already far too late. Logistics were already in shambles, the correct type of petrol was scarce, forcing tiger crews to use regular petrol which caused permanent engine damage and mobility killed in some cases. Spare parts were nearly nonexistent as the Tiger was forced into service with a shortage of tools and parts.
In every single occasion the Tiger was placed into its proper role and position, it excelled and outperformed its counterparts. Defense of Berlin being a well known example.
The Fury clip shows pretty much exactly why a German Tiger commande would NOT leave his well-prepared, almost hidden position surrounded by trees, when he has a gun that can kill the Shermans comfortably at the distances shown here.
Also shows why you use more than one *single* unsupported tank for an ambush.
Meanwhile Fury and the other 76 Sherman could pop the Tiger from range too
100% correct mate that was laughable and so was the final battle scene 300 SS troops armed with panzerfausts cant take out a disabled tank ridiculous
He was also wrong about the Gun's penning. From this short range even the 75's would pen the Tiger.
Yes, but that would have been boring. Sometimes you have to sacrifice historical accuracy, if you want to fill the seats.
Could watch like two - three hour special about this, let say 3000 years of warfare or something. Very enjoyable, Dan Snow is great.
Yes, let's have that, please History Hit TV
I'm glad he pointed out that North Vietnam had a regular army, many people falsely believe that it was just the Vietcong. For example Top Gun was created in response to the high quality dog fighting pilots of the North Vietnamese, who had a small but well trained air force. Not to mention North Vietnams Anti-Aircraft capabilities that meant at the time it had the most comprehensive air defence system on the planet and is the reason the US lost thousands of aircraft and Helciopters.
Edit : the US lost 10,000 aircraft in Vietnam, 2,462 fixed wing aircraft lost to hostile action and around 5,000 Helicopters. I know it's a huge number but it's what happened.
Thousands??Really i think youve gone a bit OTT
@@Ickie71 nope the US lost 10,000 aircraft in Vietnam, 2,462 fixed wing aircraft lost to hostile action and around 5,000 Helicopters.
@@Alex-cw3rz5000 helicopters?
@@Bruno_bm151 around that yeah
@@Bruno_bm151 Pretty accurate estimation according to the data. The US lost about half of their nearly 12,000 helicopters during the Vietnam War.
Thank you Dan for featuring "Fury."
My father was a tank gunner with the 70th Independent Tank Battalion---often attached to US 4th ID, 22nd Infantry, amongst others. DDay, Hürtgen, Bulge, etc.
Yes, dad viewed "Private Ryan" and was moved by the accuracy of the DDay invasion.
Unfortunately, Dad did not live to see "Fury." But based on the recollections he could share with me, it was realistic. I will never forget the scene in the town when they stayed and had dinner with a couple of women---identical to one of dad's memories. And Dad called some of the tanks "Ronson Lighters," because they could go up in flames so quickly.
Dad was a tank gunner---came out of the war with hearing loss, neuropathy in his legs, and late diagnosis of PTSD. The effects were most acute later in life.
A salute to the 70th "Soixant Dix," "Strike Swiftly." Company B...Sgt Hall, Ensley, DeCarlo, and Harry Eversole...forever comrades and friends. They are now together again in Valhalla.
(For all the pain, Dad said they believed in the mission so strongly he would do it again---and wished the US had joined the fight earlier. Much Admiration for the allies who endured the years without US engagement.
In contrast, he felt badly for what our Vietnam vets endured)
Can't get enough of Dan Snow's reactions and expertise!
He quoted Stalin when talking about the M4 Sherman: "Quantity has a quality of it's own"
> Quotes Stalin
> Discusses ww2 military vehicles
Tankie confirmed.
@@Rugz90It is not actually a Stalin quote though
@@I_Am_Bowi It was a pun
I talked to an old Russian tanker, and while the armor didn't give out. He said what the movies never get right is the (even with headphones on) the ear ringing sound when the tank is hit. He served in Afghanistan, but his father was a tanker in WWII and said it was even worse being hit by a tank round.
I bet it would ring like a bell. It would be deafening and disorientating
I need one video of military historian review of sixteen and seventeen centuries warfare movies with Dan Snow, because is an underrated period in military history and there are good movies like The Profession of Arms (2001), Alatriste (2006), The Deluge (1974), Cromwell (1970), Cyrano de Bergerac (1990), The Man in the Iron Mask (1998), Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007), Michiel de Ruyter (2015), 1612 (2007), etc...
Well, there was another Sherman with a 76mm gun there too. It is the M4A1 (cast hull) with VVSS (not all 76mm guns had muzzle breaks and you can clearly see the thread protector on the end of the tube). Though the two variants of Shermans could be seen together in the same units, especially later in the war, they tended to be grouped separately for maintenance purposes. The M4A3 (that Fury represents) had a Ford GAA V8 engine, and the M4A1 had a Continental R975-C1 or -C4 9 cylinder radial engine. The M4 (no suffix) also had the Continental engine, so would often be seen with M4A1s, the only difference being that the M4 had a welded, instead of cast hull. After the war, the US Army officially adopted the M4A3 as the standard medium tank.
The fury tank was an M4A2E8 with the GM engine, not an M4A3E8. The Tank Museum do a really good run through on the actually tank they used in production.
Yes I know. Note that I said: “represents.” The M4A2 was mainly used by Great Britain, the USSR, and the US Marines. It is interesting that though the US Army didn’t use it as standard, they used the M10, which was based on the M4A2 chassis. One of the few diesel-powered vehicles used by the Army in WWII.
As long as this guy narrates history....i will keep coming back! His enthusiasm is infectious ❤
This two vids may be some of the best you have done. Kudos to the team of History Hit and Dan Snow, amazing work.
Thanks HH . Another great one. Thanks Dan for being able to explain things to the masses and for being a cool dude. One of my 2 favorite historians named Dan 🙂
_"In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war."_
Just like the grim darkness of the past.
I think they should’ve used “we were soldiers once” for Vietnam, it shows three evolutions of war; air Calvary, viet cong tactics, and American tactics.
I think we had enough already of Gibson's bullshit.
@@karlkarlos3545 you can have your opinion on realism but you can’t deny the representation of the evolution of warfare
@@karlkarlos3545 his bullshit is better than Sleepy Joe's
@df_productions The final scene was rubbish, a total misrepresentation of the use of air cavalry.
@@tomhanna8508 that’s kind of what I just said
There used to be a channel on cable TV that was nothing but history. Now it's has shows like Prawn Stars and such.
Now when that channel actually was about history. I remember watching a show about M4 Sherman tanks. One part of that show was actual tactics that M4 Shermans would use against a German Tiger tank. Now a standard tank platoon of Shermans, was 5 tanks. A standard tank platoon of Tigers was 2 tanks.
So the tactic wasn't too far off from what was shown in the movie Fury. The difference would have been the last tank or first tank in the column would try to use whatever terrain was available. To get in behind the Tiger tanks, and knock them out. The other 4 Shermans would do exactly what was shown in the movie. Fire smoke shells to make it harder for the Tiger tank to hit any of the Sherman tanks. Then those Sherman tanks were to charge the Tiger tank. This is where Sherman tanks were sacrificed in order to knock out heavy tanks like the Tiger.
The U.S. made just under 50,000 M4 Sherman tanks during WW2. Where as the Germans most commonly made armored vehicle. Was the Stug 3. The Stug 3 was called an assault gun in German. It was designed as an infantry support weapon. The Germans took the chassis of a Panzer 3 tank. Modified it to no longer have a turret. Put an armored superstructure around a casemate gun. Now you have a simple and easier to make armored vehicle. That can free up the Panzers, from infantry support duties.
This simpler armored vehicle the Stug 3, turned into the most produced German armored vehicle of WW2. Including Panzer 3s and Stug 3s, there was something like 10,000 make.
Just have to point out that a Tiger platoon (zug) had 4 Tigers, not 2.
There were only a total of five instances of US forces fighting against Tigers. One of those was when a US unit came across damaged Tigers on a train. The British had to deal more with Tigers than the Americans.
From Normandy onwards they only faught them 3 times. To quote The Chieftain "The first time the Sherman won, the second time the Pershin lost. And the third time thr tigers were being loaded onto flat cars(trains), so it wasn't really a fair fight".
The Americans were so terrified of the Tiger that they thought many tanks they came across were such from the Bulge onwards. "It's a Tiger!" No, it's a Panther. Or something else. But as a propaganda tool, it was very effective.
But your average "septic tank" cinema goer is not going to hand over his cash to watch a film where the British Army is the one doing the herioc heavy lifting fighting Tiger Mks 1 and 2. They want to beat thier chest and yell "USA!" watching a movie where the US Army saves the day and makes the other armies look incompetent and/or lazy. In Hollywood history is flexible in regards to milking the cash cow which is the US cinema audiences.
@@Shank039 I really wish more people would watch that. Dispels so many myths you still see being perpetuated.
Tigers were better as propaganda tools than in combat. They hit hard in action, but the expense, maintenance time and reliability problems were serious liabilities.
Brilliantly done Dan. I’m Welsh and I LOVE Zero Dark Thirty, it doesn’t hold anything back from the CIA involvement to the torture of supposed enemy combatants. My favourite actor is Jessica Chastain so I’ll watch everything she’s in, but this film was a must for all of us who remember 9/11 and that pivotal moment when the planes hit the Towers and the Pentagon… I also loved Fury because as a history fan the tank battles are superbly done. I love ALL HISTORY, but there’s something about WW1 and WW2 that always draws me in.
Well Zero Dark Thirty did falsely present the torture as obtaining valuable information to find Bin Laden which it did not and never did ever.
Dan caught my attention mentioning the Battle of Cowpens. We live about 15 minutes north of the battlefield. It's a big part of local history.
Thank you Dr. Snow
Casulties of War is a really underrated movie!
I'm hoping that there's going to be Part Three.
What a just fantastic historian voice. This man could tell me anything in these videos and I'd belive him.
About the M4 Shermans. In addition to the advantages mentioned in the video, there are some additional advantages: first, since they were manufactured in the US, they had to be loaded onto ships, sail across the Atlantic, then unloaded, sometimes at battle damaged or even improvised facilities. The Sherman was small and light enough that it could be shipped in unmodified rail cars and docks. It could navigate narrow streets and tight corners better than the larger tanks could, wnd could cross much small, quicker to assemble bridges. Another very important advantage the Sherman had over all the German tanks was the ease of repair and maintenance. German tanks were not only a lot harder to repair, but often had to be shipped back to the manufacturer to be repaired. This was impossible if the enemy had control of the air or the battle field the tank broke down on. During the battle of the bulge, nearly half of all the Shermans that were disabled by enemy action were repaired and returned to battle in 48 hours.
2:12 could you imagine being in a turret that SHIFTS because of the force of a tank round wizzing by? I love that little detail because it’s horrifying
Love the fact that Brad Pitt is using a sturmgewehr 44 he’s picked up from the battlefield somewhere!
I’d like to see Dan watch some movies from the non western perspective of these conflicts. I’ve spent my entire life eating the western perspective.
I got it
Have you seen all quiet on the western front?
@@douggaudiosi14 I have. It was from the perspective of the Germans. By Non Western I was trying to exclude focuses in the “Western” Perspectives and in my mind that would include the German perspective. I was thinking more along the lines of movies from the perspective of middle eastern combatants, Asian combatants, African combatants:
Hope that makes sense
If you haven't, watch Tora Tora Tora! which was co-produced by Americans and japanese and gives a fantastic double depiction of Pearl Harbor
Fantastic video
Bravo Dan. I love tbe comparison of 1776 to 2011 at the end. Really makes you appreciate being the big guy lol.
Platoon was my. favorite VN movie. Loved the story line, cultural plays and script.
How about covering some of the better TV series like "Band of Bro's/Pacific" and "The Last Kingdom" come to mind. Brilliantly written books put to screen.
The Sherman at those ranges vs the tiger could pen it frontally and if not it could disable it. The 76 could have done it at the initial combat range
They had gyrostabilizers and numerical advantage, it’s better to charge and close in
If that Tiger scene would have been realistic it would be 1. Last Sherman in convoy gets blown away 2. The other 3 Shermans shoot couple of smoke shells down the field and just flee from where they came until they run out of gas. The End. And Tiger would've never blown their cover especially if they could hit all 4 tanks whilst still in cover
Why would they run till they were out of gas? Surely they would have moved into a defensive position and either planned a counter using the tanks they have or reinforcements.
Yeah, no need for the tiger to charge forward.
Probably would have taken out the lead Sherman first to bring the rest to a temporary standstill. Not sure if the last one or the Firefly variant would have been next. Last one would have prevented the remaining two from backing up, but taking out the Firefly would remove the most viable threat. And the Tiger would definitely not have broken cover unless they lost line of sight.
The Firefly would have been the first target.
Also, kinda pointless firing whilst moving and expecting direct hits.
The 17pdr could penetrate the armour of any German tank. There is a huge difference between the American Easy 8 76mm and the earlier Sherman low velocity 75mm, but before D-Day, tank crews could have chosen the 76 (good against all but, possibly Tiger front armour) but US doctrine was not tank v tank (v rare in reality, as is endlessly shown in contemporary accounts ie war diaries). US doctrine was tank destroyers (90mm) defending against tanks, tanks fought infantry/strong points, not tanks in nine out of ten engagements.) and the 75mm had a better HE shell. I do wonder what period(s) Dan Snow is truly expert in. History Hit is great when it showcases genuine, expert historians but much as he is a great presenter, I fear Dan is more 'clickbait presenter' than expert.
6:41 Casualties Of War has to be in late 1967 or early 1968 because the 23rd infantry Division in the film (The Division known for their actions during the “My Lai Massacre “) wasn’t reactivated till 1967.
War. War never changes.
Sure it does. It gets ever more hellish all the time.
I think he's referring to who starts it, justifications, and motives.
fury...the most unreal tankbattle EVER!! ..starts with killing the wrong tank first....the first tank first to imobilize forwards...the last tank would have been hit as 2nd of course....and the german tiger would have never ever given up his superior firing position plus firepower on longer distance....soooo wroooong
It's worth noting that although the sherman got the "Tommy cooker" and "Ronson" nicknames, it was actually one of the best tanks of the war for crew survival rates. Many crews were able to continue after their tank was shot out from under them, and there was always another sherman waiting. The Chieftain goes into the myth on his channel.
I'd love to hear Dan review Blackhawk down. From a veterans perspective its the most authentic war movie I can think of, and to my knowledge is a really accurate depiction of events.
Nice series Dan 👍
9:37 my dad fought in that war he did two combat tours in 69 and 70 with the third brigade of the 82nd
Wow you’re a legend
Snow is a legend
What's with the crummy audio forced into centre channel when Dan is speaking? Sounds absolutely fine in the brief film snippets. Last few videos have had these issues
That shot of Fury, with the four tanks doesn't strike me as realistic because they would be a lot farther apart, and depending on the situation, two would be moving and two would be providing overwatch. I suppose they need to do it for dramatic effect.
Firing on the move and expecting direct hits.
And Dan says nothing.
Instantly put me off watching any more.
@@jocktheripper2073the Sherman had gyro stabilisers, so could shoot on the move. Getting behind the German heavies was the main plan for the shermans unless you had a Firefly or something similar.
Can you do a review of masters of the air when possible,,,,thanks
Does anyone know if he's mentioned Hamburger Hill in any of these videos yet? A very underrated movie on Vietnam, arguably the best!!!
You had me at "Dan Snow".
Very good display of an SSE follow-up
Regarding Sherman vs. Tiger. It needs to be mentioned that these tanks were infantry support, not tank killers. The Allies had the M10, the Achilles and Archer to take out German armour. The Sherman, Churchill, Matilda and Valentine were mostly meant for recon or infantry support where they were used to take out pillboxes, mortars emplacements, sniper hides, and to break up massed infantry.
Granted that the tanks had thinner armour at the rear, and the engines too were a vulnerable target, but I'm curious why weren't the tracks and/or sprockets targeted, as they were never covered, always in full view and could disable it ?
Gunners always go for the kill bcoz disabling the track means enemy gunner shoots next and....
Fury is really anything but realistic in the Tiger scene
And many other scenes too ^^
Why? Were you there?
Just a deep interest in military tactics, history and technology. That is enough to debunk near every fighting scene in this movie. They are pretty and flashy though .... and seeing a real Tiger in action is a thing of itself.
I like your series. Audio tip: keep the movie clips in stereo but mono your commentary. It’s hard to listen to on headphones
"one man has more firepower than an army" - probably true for the gunner of a tank. However a tank still needs a crew of at least 3 (commander, gunner, driver) + a lot of support because othwrqise it is quite vulnerable to certain kinds of attacks.
Even the 76mm without HVAP, which was rare and not readily replaced, had difficulty penetrating the Tiger I frontally over 400 yards or so and even then it'd have to be dead straight to it, not firing at an oblique angle. The Tiger I had unique nickel steel of 265 Brinell Hardness, which actually gave it an effective armour thickness greater than its 'paper' thickness. Add to this the slight angling, 24 degrees in the lower glacis, and this is why no American Sherman ever penetrated a Tiger frontally beyond around 300 yards.
The Germans never used the phrase Tommy cookers. The Brits themselves did. Tanks in the desert are ungodly hot and the Brits called their own tanks "tommy cookers" because they were so hot. And Sherman 75mm could penetrate the SIDE of a Tiger easily.
Excellent movie picks.
War never changes
Mr. Snow emphasizes that Fury has a 76mm main gun which "can" penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger. My uncle, a WWII vet (North Africa, Sicily, France, Germany), said "can doesn't always mean will". He saw a Sherman's 76mm shot bounce off the front armor of a Panzer IV, much to everyone's surprise. However, the second one penetrated. He told me the only Tiger he ever saw was burned out and abandoned.
The Sherman was actually the most survivable vehicle in WW2. Only about 10% of tankers who served in Shermans ended up as casualties.
To replace the gearbox on a Tiger I, which was it's biggest weakness, the turret had to be removed, as well as everything in the front of the hull, so, it could be pulled out from the inside. If a Sherman needed a transmission swapped out, you just had to undo the bolts on the outside, and, bolt a new one up.
So you mean to say that Americans are just big cry babies?
thats total NONSENSE!
So Tommy cooker and RONSON was just a MYTH then?ok mr make believe
It's worth mentioning sample size for instance 1 in 10 is equal to 10 in 100 when you look at percentages.
There's a couple of things wrong with Fury. Firstly, the Tiger would've taken out the lead Sherman first to bring the convoy to a halt instead of the last one. Secondly, the Tiger would've stayed hidden and not given away its location by going out into the open
Absolutely. It would almost certainly have taken out the firefly as well as that was the primary threat. The scrap tank and flying turret would have been fury.
Also there's very few instances of Tigers being encountered on the western front. Most were allocated to the eastern front to counter the heavier Russian armor. It would've been more likely a Panther or a Panzer IV, which get mistaken for Tiger 1s quite a bit.
@@BrokeSpike I think they put a tiger in the film just because it's the most famous German tank and people with a small to average knowledge of history wouldn't know what many of the tanks looked like
Is that Doakes from Dexter in the 1989 movie???
Nuts how anyone can come back from any sort of active war zone and *not* have PTSD.
The American M36 tank destroyer-later of the M26 Pershing with it's lso demonstrated a capable counterthreat and it had a 90mm gun not a 76MM the 76mm still proved very difficult to penetrate a tiger tank unless it was quite close enough, 400m or so, even then it would take a few hits. Sadly it's not easy to determine, but americans feared the tiger tank because during D-Day they faced panther tanks and even those tanks withstood the 75mm and 76mm guns and if they could, imagine what a tiger would be like
All quiet in the western front (2022) should've been added to review in this clip
Great movie. Every single Sherman tank crew were heroes.
5:00 - A Sherman tank commander w/ a Stg 44?
Most American crews preferred the 75mm armed M4A3, as encounters with German tanks were not as common in the North-Wesyern European Theatre as we have been led to believe. The 76mm only carried armour piercing rounds and was useless against German bunkers and 88mm Flak positions. The 75mm had both HE and armour piercing rounds; this was very effective against the numerous fixed targets, but not so much against armour. The British likewise used their Fireflies in fewer numbers than their 75mm armed M4s.
Tiger 131 looking as badass as ever
Dan’s discription of the Tiger is my BMW. It breaks down a lot, it was and continues to be expensive. I thought the German engineering would be better but a Sherman would be better
"Turrets thrown into the air like a child's toy."
Boy, how things have changed...
If I could ask him something, I would ask him about the scene in Fury, if it was realistic with the amount of tracers they used during the battle. Out of all the battle footage Ive seen I haven't seen that many tracers used in abundance. My son made a comment that it looked like Star Wars.
Would like to hear comments on the beast kovie from 88
An expert calculated that a modern infantryman had perhaps 250 times the lethality of an infantryman of the Second World War. Not due to personal armament but due communications in being able to identify and designate targets and then the calling up of artillery or aircraft to undertake precision strikes.
tyhank you Dan Ive finally found something that interests me i n the name of true history i nstead of media bullshit, Im a retired 76 yr old guy so I know a lot of the stuff you tell but its good to see it portrayed in a watchable and entertaining way thanks happy 2024 if the world lasts with idiot fanatics in charge
a fact that took me a long time to finally grasp is that tank vs tank battles weren't as common as some believe. IDEALLY its more like rock paper scissors, you dont want rock vs rock because they could potentially even out. you would want air strikes or something vs tanks because then you have the decided upper hand, tanks vs light vehicles or infantry because again, you would have the upper hand. you aren't trying to have a fair fight in order to see which country has the best tank, you're trying to be in the most advantageous position possible at all times.
"War Never Changes"
Only the technology changes...but the immaturity of the people who wage war does not
We call it a turret toss my friend
whats going on with the audio in these reaction videos? Dans voice is always echo-y so bad i literally cant watch it. anyone got any fixes?
Shermans not only could be pumped out, but very importantly they could be shipped across the Atlantic quickly.
and hastily repaired in the field.
...once the U-boat threat had been dealt with.
Interestingly Casualties Of War changed the American unit that committed the murder from the Airborne Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division to the infamous Americal Division of My Lai infamy.
I know it's a loose retelling of the real story but I wonder why they chose the Americal?
#6:10
more stuff beats less stuff.
Why is the Patriot missing? I'm guessing copyright claims?
He talked about the Patriot in part one.
He talked about The Patriot in part one of this video segment:
ruclips.net/video/SQtJY9M_zQI/видео.html
@@stepper997 ah thank you didn't realise this was a part 2
In the previous video
I thought it was interesting how the Vietnamese fought to break the spirit of the US soldiers during the Vietnam War with guerilla tactics, and then years later the US would focus on breaking the spirit of Al-Qaeda by taking out its leadership with special forces, using stealth.
👍👍
Don’t quote me on this, but I think the sherman 76mm gun could penetrate a tigers tank’s armour.
Did the Americans have an uprated gun in their Shermans. I know the the Brits had the Fire fly. The tank killer I thought was the US better AFV for engaging Tigers?
Yeah but Brad Pitt. He just asked a Brit for one and they were polite enough to agree.
As firing reveals your position & the Tiger fired,@Uncle-T is wrong.If the Tiger had remained,it probably would have received artillery ammo.
They would never have shot that middle tank in the Fury ambush. They would have shot the front one to make the entire convoy idle for a bit
The ability of the 76 mm to penetrate the armor of the Tiger II is highly dependent upon the situation; Mr. Snow doesn't seem to make that obvious here. It's not a guarantee a Sherman could penetrate that 150mm frontal armor. In general, the 76 wasn't enough to penetrate the armor of the Tiger II. Source? A gunner I knew from WWII. That being said, side or rear attacks were far more successful w/ the 76.
Of course. Mr. Snow is correct that infantry support -- he speaks of the Sherman, but indeed any tank -- was crucial to their success. Especially in urban warfare.
In fury the tank commander had a German assault rife
I would watch a 40 minute video of Dan Snow telling me I’m a piece of sh*t
I don’t really want to find out, but I do truly wonder what an actual modern war between two super powers would be like. Ukraine is a glimps, but ukraine is a tiny country with a small population, and russia is a shadow of its former self. It’s terrifying to think of teams like that seal team facing off against another equally formidable opponent.
Fury. The Sherman's 76mm AP had no problems penetrating a Tiger. But lets rush it! LMFAO.
The wars in this video only cover about a century?
Brad Pritt's 'Tiger'?
I think he meant Sherman.
They said the biggest threat is the threats you can't see.
Although THEY weren't the ones sticking their heads out of a giant bullet sponge
'Quantity has a quality of its own', Stalin. Roughly recalled. The Firefly Sherman's could take out a Tiger. Why were not more Sherman's converted into Fireflies or built?
Original sherman built by civilians with zero battle experience at a time when tank usage & tactics was still a novelty
Because of Doctrine.
The ww2 US army counted on artillery to defeat armor. In turn this resulted in the introduction of tank destroyers (AT guns mounted on lightly armored tanks chasis).
Besides, the 75mm gun of the sherman was good enough to deal with all but the heaviest german tanks, and those were few and far between. I dont know if the information its still true to this day, but the american army encountered only 3 Tiger I's in the whole conflict.
Tank on tank battles really only happened in the eastern front. Post D-day on western front tanks were more like an armoured infantry support/bombard unit. On Eastern Front, however, the most built german tank was the StuG III, a tank destroyer. The T34 was upgraded from a 76mm gun to 85mm to deal with heavier german tanks.
In the Fury clip the Sherman’s are too bunched. They should be far enough apart so that only one of them appears in the optics of the enemy tank.
Is it automatic rifle use by brad pitt? Looks like a Kalashnikov.
Stg44. The AK was based, loosely, on it.
@@johncee853 that was I thought, That is a first automatic weapon that was created by German in the lattter part of the war., If that was made in the beggining of the war, it would make a lot of difference.
@@Umaykalamay Maybe...but if Germany did have it at the beginning of the war, the allies would have countered it. If you wanna change German tech at the beginning of the war, you also have to change the allies tech. It's not like they aren't gonna respond in kind.
@@johncee853 you have a point about it. i remember the series. The man in high castle, interesting series
Yah skipped the Korean War "Retreat hell" is a good movie for that war
The Germans had to call in engineers to repair their tanks.
The Shermans were fixed by the crews