History Files For Fun

The Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe / Sturmvogel (German for swallow/storm bird) was the world's first operational jet fighter. Developed in Germany and deployed by the Luftwaffe in 1944, in the hope of restoring German command of the skies. Although it failed, it has nevertheless garnered for itself a fearsome reputation. But is it overrated? Technological advantage : The Me 262 was designed to counter materiel and numerical disadvantages with technological advantage.But was it as technologically advanced as books have made it out to be? tl:dr On the battlefield yes, in the labs it’s debatable. You see, in the skies the Me 262 dominated. When it was first introduced its design stunned Allied air commanders. It had sloped wings, advanced guns, and a jet engine, that the Chief of Staff convened an emergency meeting to discuss countermeasures. But, it sort of lagged behind this in the lab. People often state the fact that Germany cancelled/delayed many weapon projects such as the Tiger...

  The Tiger Tank: possibly history's most famous tank. It's historical reputation is one of a hulking giant, beaten only by drowning it under waves of inferior quality tanks or aircraft. But is it deserving of these fearsome reputation, or is it overrated? Armor:  The Tiger is often cited as having very thick armor, having 120 mm of armor in the front. But this is unimpressive compared to other heavy tanks. The Tiger's cousin in the Panzer arm, the Panther, may have had just 80 mm of armor, but many forget that this armor is slanted, giving it effectively 140 mm worth of protection. In fact, many other, lesser well known tanks and armored vehicles have better armor. The IS-2, built to combat the Tiger, had 130 mm of armor, unslanted. The Ferdinand, known for lacking any kind of close range guns, had an astonishing 200 mm of armor, 250 mm slanted. Gun : The Tiger is armed with the 88mm gun, considered on both sides to be the best of the war. But is the gun overrated? tl:dr, ...

  The Roman Empire has been described as the greatest empire in history. A juggernaut than conquered dozens of militarily inferior civilizations, to form a mighty empire that ruled over the globe before it collapsed from internal struggles. But does it deserve this reputation, or is it overrated? Empire size:  The Roman Empire is, as its name suggest, an empire, and a pretty large one at that. If there's one thing people know about the Roman Empire is that it was huge. But the thing is, this empire is actually pretty puny compared to others. All we have to do is look a few inches to the right(on a map, not real life) As you can see, directly to the east of the Roman Empire is Persia, which commands an impressive chunk of land, and would in fact in the future surpass Rome. Further to the east is a Chinese Empire which is even large than Rome at its peak. And if you want to compare Rome at its peak vs the world's largest continuous empire: Technological might:  The Romans h...

It was hailed by British Radio as "The greatest British feat of arms ever carried out", by American newspapers as "The largest amphibious landing in history” and by the Soviets as the “Opening of the Second Front”. D-Day is arguably history’s most famous military operation. But does D-Day deserved it’s near mythical reputation, or is it overrated? Organization of the landing: D-Day has been especially praised by historians, documentaries and more as a masterpiece of planning. Millions of parts, from troop movement to morale to ship bombardment to coming together in one massive punch that pierced through the Atlantic Wall and liberated the oppressed people of France and the Low Countries from the Germans. And that is true. D-Day was a massive, extraordinarily complicated operation. 150,000 troops in 3500 landing craft supported by thousands of other ships landed on German occupied France, with millions more following. The logistics for the attacks were massively complicat...