Tiger vs IS-2: A Dumb Comparison?
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
In this video Peter Samsonov and I look at the differences between the Tiger I and IS-2 in terms of Combat Roles, Doctrine, Organization & Employment. We also ask if this is a dumb comparison or not.
»» GET BOOKS & VIDEOS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Panzer - Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Tank Assault - Combat Manual of the Soviet Tank Forces 1944 - stm44.com
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
» Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» Panzer - Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
and our brains
00:00 Intro
00:31 Comparing Tanks
00:50 Role: Tank Killer
03:45 Pursuit Missions
06:13 Prohibited Missions
08:33 Geschlossener Einsatz
09:41 Soviet Doctrine & Concepts vs "West"
12:46 Lone Tigers
15:14 Soviet: No Piecemeal
15:39 Tiger Pamphlet & German Doctrine
19:37 Dumb Comparison?
#ww2 #tigertank #is2
I actually finished reading "Stalin's Warhammer" about two days ago. Nice quick read, very portable book to take with you on the go. It's great.
Thank you! Glad you liked it!
That is why I love this channel is that it gets behind the trivial stuff to the overall effectiveness of the vehicle in the strategy and tactics employed. That is why I always get upset at my fellow citizens who compare the Tiger I to the Sherman and find the latter inadequate. If I tell them one is a medium tank used for these purposes, and the other is a very heavy tank for different purposes all you get is "a tank is a tank". Sheesh. Interesting the comment about heavy tanks and their longevity in battle. I wonder if tactics changed from when the Tiger was new and had teething issues, through the updated designs to address some of the drawbacks, then to the late period where drivers did not have much training?
Ask all those "a tank is a tank" folks which one they'd rather have to take out. That oughta put it in perspective for them. Tactics are generally honed and developed on the battlefield once a weapons system is well understood.
No different to the Shermanboos who criticise the Tiger for having more mechanical issues than the Sherman. Well no shit it's 25 tons heavier than the Sherman. Even the Pershing had mechanical issues and that was nowhere near as heavy as the Tiger.
@@lyndoncmp5751 tbh everyone cries about the reliability issues of german heavier tanks, but forgot there are plenty more german tanks which had same issues and were nowhere near as different as the problems of tigers and panthers which were pretty reliable in reality. But often the heavier ones were abandoned because of lack of time to recover... even stugs were left behind. And guess what the wehrmacht was in general retreat after stalingrad/kursk. But oh boy when you mention that late panzer 4s/StuGIIIs ate shermans and not to mention the heavier cats ... out of the sudden they come up with "shermans survivability was 0.86" ... or act like shermans werent driving bombs. "german panzers were overengineered and unreliable" yea sure thats why german losses were 1/3 of allied destroyed vehicles i guess. There is no thing "overengineered" they were designed with crews comfortability and suvivability in mind. Or the "Panther is based on T-34, they stole it" ... A tank is a tank, your friends are right at that tbh. There are different types for different roles, but theres no use of an M24 chaffee if its encountering a Tiger. The IS-2 was a VERY good designed tank but had a fucking terrible gun, in fact the shittiest cannon you could choose for a tank.
@@blackginkgo8169 Yes, and the Tigers and Panthers were not as unreliable as the modern revisionists now claim. Tigers and Panthers had an overall 60%-70% operational average in 1944/45. Lower in 1945 but higher in 1944. Indeed, all tanks of all nations are abandoned when in retreat. It was the same with the allies in France 1940, Barbarossa in 1941 and in North Africa 1941/42. Absolutely, the allies lost 3 tanks for every 1 German tank lost. Even in the Ardennes, the Americans lost around 3 tanks in direct combat to every German one.
@@blackginkgo8169I completely disagree that there is no such thing as 'overengineered'.
I remember you mentioning that quote before about a tank made in 6-12 months and an infantryman 18 years. I believe it was from a Division Commander during the Battle of Stalingrad.
Soviet commanders putting much emphasis on forbidding lone or separated IS-2 tanks could be stemmed from the fact that IS-2 was really not designed or good to operate alone: With less than 30 shells in total, coupled with lengthy reload of 122 mm gun, any german tanks forces numbering more than 2 and the IS-2 would guaranteed to be out-flanked and shot. Tigers cannon at least had much higher ammo, quicker reload, and more gun and "safe" engagement range for some leeway. And for the German side, it was heavily discouraged and forbidden to use literal lone tiger tank, with literally no single soldier outside the Tiger. Most of the times, the "lone" Tiger was at least support with infantry, usually paired with whatever AFV German commanders had nearby: Stug, Panzer IV, Marders, or even halftracks. While definitely not ideal from tactical and logistic standpoint, but by 1944 many Panzer battalions were given Stugs anyway so beggars can't be chooser for them.
Admiral Cunningham is said to have said something similar about the evacuation of Crete: it takes 3 years to build a destroyer, 300 a reputation; the evacuation goes on.
And then they run from France, ruining their reputation as allies.
"Don't go alone against an IS tank." Wouldn't there be an implication that the IS isn't alone either?
Peter is right. The corset thing really poetic.
I heard it so often and it is used so regularly that it is just a simple metaphor for me.
Beautiful, calming work.
Did IS2 Formations have Tank Riders that rode on them into Battle.
In Italy there was an engagement where a 75mm armed M4A1 defeated a Tiger that was by itself so expedience forced the break down of doctrine
If you go back to the video game side of things, there was an old tank combat simulator called 'ipanzer44' that correctly modeled tanks being deployed in groups of 5 and not piecemeal units. Also The 'close combat' series of games, not all but some of them like the ardennes campaign one, also deployed tank types in groups of 5 units or the historical known number (sometimes less if you have holes in your lineup due to unreplaced losses). I've always thought that does a much better job of modeling what happens in real combat. People can argue all day about sherman vs panther (for exemple) but when it's 5 shermans vs 5 panthers and infantry is left to deal with the aftermath you start to get a better idea of what was going on.
could listen to these guys all day👍🏽
Great talk. Thanks for getting into this comparison between the Tiger and IS-2. Interesting stuff.
Glad you enjoyed it!
21:18 The closest compareable tank in the arsenal of the german wehrmacht would be the Marder III in the version with the same 76,2mm fieldgun. Of cause its role got redesignated from infantry fire support to tank hunting operations, but as soon you may ignore the difference reguarding the vehicle basis, it would be the most fitting tank in my point of view. Note: All this is excluding your mentioned organizational level of argumentation.
Thank you for this great video as always.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I've been curious as to the role of the IS-2, this is really great. Thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it!
The translation of Korsettstangen I'd use is corset stays, since they're the rodlike structure that gives the garment its shape and rigidity. The other term that'd get used is boning, since a lot of them used whalebone (not actually bone, but that's language for you) for a somewhat rigid but still moderately yielding structure. I would not use that due to the connotations if the noun were misunderstood as a verb.
This has been an interesting set of discussions so far. From what I've heard, the IS-1 was built more as a replacement for the KV than as an answer to the Tiger. Oddly enough, the KV-13 chassis served as the basis for the IS-1 prototypes. I remember something about the clutch packs on the track drives being unreliable on the old KVs, but now it seems that unreliability plagued Soviet heavy tank designs in general. I wonder if this was due to lack of materials science, lack of adequate materials, or just a primitive design?
We had an earlier video about this. The short of it is that the KV-1 was developed at 40 tons, the first prototype weighed 42 tons, the first mass production tanks weighed 45 tons, the KV tank built in the summer of 1941 weighed 48 tons and by the end of the year they could weigh 50 tons with absolutely no improvement to any part of the drivetrain. This is why the KV-1S got bumped down to 42.5 tons and the weight of the IS-2 was so strictly controlled.
@@TankArchives Thanks. Revisited this video to clean up my "Watch Later" playlist and saw it. Yeah, that massive gain in weight over the design had to have an effect.
Interesting Video and comparison. The SU-76 thing is an intersting Point.
About the pursuit mission of the German tanks. The original organization structure of the schwere Panzerabteilungen had a lot of Panzer III's. Not only as filler as some claim, they had either specific roles for which a Tiger was thought impractical or were organized as 1 of the 3 companies within the abteilung. Could it be that the manuals were referring to these for the pursuit mission?
The British and US equivelent to the SU76 is the GMC halftrack. Maybe not in doctrine, but definitely in employment. Also, consider that as the 75mm was based off a pre ww1 howitzer so it was a general purpose gun. So every M4, cromwell or churchill could do indirect fire to the same effect (the shells being rather comparable, as an SU76.
Then again, simply going by the numbers a German tanker was much more likely to run into Soviet armor than Soviet armor was likely to run into German armor. The Soviets had more tanks, the Germans had fewer. So the IS-2 would have a load out more fitting to the task in front of it.
This is random but I've been deep-diving through ancient history and stone-age tools lately and that silhouette at 0:10 of the tank shell really, really looks like a stone-age knife, or maybe a spear-point.
Not that random. Had the same thought. Of course a knife- or spear-point has the obvious task of penetrating the protective skin of a target. So it's not as much a coincidence.
I'd love to see a video about the Panzer IV vs the IS-2. I've never found anything about their encounters on the internet. In a 1-on-1 engagement, the Russian tank had the advantage of course, but as both must have met on the battlefield, it would be an interesting video. How did the German fare? Could its 75 mm gun handle Soviet heavies?
Targo Frumos
I have read about an encounter between an IS-2 and a Panther 2. The IS-2 AP shot went completely through the Panther's mantlet and out of the back of its turret without exploding the Panther.
@@fazole there are a ton of those stories. An HE shot of is2 would rip the turret of a tiger or a panther straight off, or straight up kill the crew within a tank.
,,As the Soviet attack ebbed, Langkeit’s Panzers came under long-range fire from 13 JS-2 heavy tanks from the 14th Guards Separate Heavy Tank Regiment. Langkeit brought up Oberleutnant Fritz Stadler’s eight Tigers and the first battle between the latest Soviet and German heavy tanks began at a range of over 2,000 metres. Technically, the Soviet 122mm D-25T gun had better penetration than the German 8.8cm KwK 36 at this kind of range, but the Soviet tankers lacked the training to achieve accuracy over this distance. Von Manteuffel saw rounds from the Tigers strike the enemy heavy tanks, but they ‘all bounced off.’ The IS-2 had a much lower rate of fire than the Tiger and only eight BR-471 APHE rounds each, so they fired sparingly. Stadler decided to move in closer and probably told his crews to switch to Panzergranate 40 APCR with tungsten cores.This time, from a range of about 1,800 metres, the Tigers were able to destroy four IS-2, which caused the rest to retreat. Langkeit aggressively ordered a company of Pz IVs to pursue the retreating enemy heavy tanks and they were able to close within 1,000 metres and knock out a few more with shots into the rear armour." - Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front, 1943-1945: Red Steamroller by Robert Forczyk this is the action from the 2nd Battle of Tirgu Fromos
I guess another reason why to not distribute an IS2 Regt is that its is so small in terms of vehicle numbers (22) compared to 45 in a full strength schwere Panzerabteilung (of course this would include some untaskworthy vehicles) but its still roughly twice the size of the Soviet Regt. In terms of just numbers, the Soviet Regt is almost down to German Kompanie size.
Generally true. Soviet units tended to be smaller than their Western equivalents and had less inherit support, and thus a higher "tooth-to-tail" ratio. This could be good or bad depending on the situation. Soviet and German units could be pulled out of the front and rebuilt, whilst full-strength replacements took their place. Western units were often deployed across great seas and so had to be more self-sustaining.
isn't the closest parallel with Stug su-122 or 85? su-76 was desgined at the same time as su-122 (according to a quick wiki check) as much as su-76 was used as an assault gun it was kind of pressed into that role
I think the closest equivalent to the SU-76 in German service was the 251/9 half track with the 7.5cm infantry gun.
In this version of the is2 122mm did they have to elevate the cannon to reload? Tiger crews spoke about this.
It is not needed in any IS-2; however it was definitely done some times. The 122mm shell is big and heavy; it takes a while to reload even in the best of times and dropping the gun breech down (by elevating the barrel) is going to make the loader's job a lot easier.
_"Corset stiffeners" is the best English translation. So more or less the same in both languages._
Maybe self-propelled light howitzer like Vespe could be compared with Soviet SU-76 to a degree, and US self propelled vehicles with French 75mm gun could compare even closer, but I am not sure were there any tracked vehicles with such gun.
Great video, love the tiger and enjoy the is2.very informative. F 🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺
Glad you enjoyed it!
"There are many things in the field that are unthinkable in the manuals", a battle experienced soldier would say. To which an staff officer would answer: "But there are also many things in the manuals that are unthinkable in the field."
Isn‘t the SU-76 then exactly what the StuG could have been if it had kept being used for infantry support instead of given to the tanks?
Meanwhile in modern war: almost everything kills a tank. Even the smallest of drones.
✌✌
I think, I can't be sure, but I think somewhere in the wehrmacht panzer manual unit there was a an officer who was a total boob guy
Always thought the biggest problem with the IS2 was its reload, forcing them to require the target every time.
If German bunkers had been able to move, back then, that would have been it.
What do you all think of that statement, "It takes X time to make X equipment but 18 years to make a soldier."?
I'm guessing the IS-3 was post WW2?
Yeah, pre-series were finished but they arrived too late for fighting, but early enough for the victory parade.
Why such vitriol against splitting tanks? Tanks spread around infantry formations are way more effective and efficient than bunched up, stug-3 showed that, while fighting with infantry they scored several times more kills than in tank units
Deploying tanks as piece meal against an opponent that had concentrations of effective units with cooperating tanks, was never the answer. The French had more tanks than the Germans in 1940, and because of their piecemeal deployment, where consistently overpowered and outfought because of this
@@tristanmakeiv7037 it was not because they employed them piece-meal, they did have dedicated tank units, which all were in Belgium at the time, and they didn't have the logistic to ship them back fast enough. A huge concentration of units is much easier to bypass or encircle too
Wasn't the low AT ammo less present in the IS because the Soviet had tanks in more numbers, guys? It makes sense since they probably wouldn't meet as much adversary tanks as the Germans. And the Soviet were also lacking manpower during the late days and compensating this with tanks. They had a large proportion of tanks in relation to infantry than they had at the early war, so tanks were doing the infantry work and the heavy tanks are more suitable for this role than a medium one. And I think they kept large formations together during action because of this as well. During the late period, they would have to focus on specific areas of the front and then send waves after waves of tanks together, covering each other. They would have to find the best suited areas for armor advance and then not attack German strong positions and points directly on. Focusing on isolating the German lines while advancing westward instead. That's why the Germans ended up with many large kessels in specific areas, even deep further east. Also, a significant amount of AT guns would be present in the defensive lines, so having large amounts of HE ammo would help more tackling that. As for the SU-76, I think the closest thing in comparison to it would be like a mix between the Wespe and an early war StuG with the short gun.
It's an interesting thing about IS-2s. If you look at Panzer Leader II, by SSI, their model of the tank has it beating Tiger Is left and right. HOWEVER, the ammo carried is low, which also, I believe, models soft factors such as need for maintenance in high friction situations, such as active war fighting.
@@scottjoseph9578 yep, and it also comes up a lot to sighting too. How well would a tank spot and then fire at the adversary in the distance? Because theoretically both tanks could be knocked out from afar fighting against each other.
"Wasn't the low AT ammo less present in the IS because the Soviet had tanks in more numbers, guys?" Nope. This is because the purpose of the IS-2 was a breakthrough tank. This means that this tank having greater AT capabilities than self-propelled guns tried to apply specifically in this role. And the video already mentioned figures such as 2 tanks (IS-2) in a platoon, 21 tanks in a regiment, but the speakers didn't touch the operational width topic, which was used for all branches of the Army. That's why comparing absolute numbers is as dumb an idea as trying to compare lost/kill ratio of tanks lately (apparently it came from computer games as an example of the efficiency which is understandable in terms of a kind of common person's, even philistine, logic). Because the headquarters of the commander of the operation is allocated the right number of troops just keeping in mind these standards, provided that there are always not enough troops on all sides. And the operational width as well as the load on the supply infrastructure for these units is a certain limit of the troops involved, even in an ideal situation of complete numerical superiority. The only advantage, expressed in absolute numerical superiority, is faster replacement of casualties and fewer situations where a unit is forced to operate at less than full strength due to lack of replacement of destroyed equipment. At least in theory.
@@Ailasher I understand your point, but even if the tanks weren't meant for breakthrough, it still wouldn't make sense carrying more AT ammo because, as I said, statistically Soviet tanks of all branches most likely would find infantry/AT guns in way more proportion than enemy tanks to combat. So it doesn't make any sense taking away precious room for more AT rounds when it actually should be filled with HE shells instead. So, it doesn't really matter what role the IS was supposed to perform, it won't change that reality. I wouldn't be surprised if T-34s had a higher ratio of HE shells too in comparison to the German medium tank equivalent at the time.
@@TheStugbit "I wouldn't be surprised if T-34s had a higher ratio of HE shells too" Actually, it did. I don't know, man. I've been thinking about that question for a long time. And I have come to the conclusion that there is some difference in perception here at the level of basic perception of armored troops. The Western, conventionally "Western" or, more precisely, US or NATO concept originates from the German one. The one in the latter half of WWII when "we don't have enough men and we need to stop the Asian tank hordes" was a practically Panzerwaffe's motto. Literally: all the most famous NATO tanks copy not literally, i.e. technically, but conceptually - based on their tasks, one tank known to all of us: the "Panther" tank. These tanks have to fulfill one very important condition: to have a high ability to withstand enemy tanks, literally to be not only MBTs, but a tank destroyer in general. I mean: look at the modern Abrams: there are now no HE shells in its ammunition, only HEAT at most case. Whereas all the Russians are still outfitted with HEs (and with a caliber of 125mm, it's directly comparable to regimental artillery shells), to support the troops. I think the Soviet side, and the Russian side by inheritance, deeply perceived the concept of "tanks do not fight with tanks", when armored units are needed not to counter enemy armored vehicles, but to carry out mobile warfare and support their troops in a field.
Your corset bars are called “stays”.
I think the hard parts of a corset are called "boning".
😂
I think comparison in a vacuum is pointless. In my opinion, the best tank is one that you can and have produced in large quantities and that also performs its assigned tasks with greater efficiency. This also includes the crew itself, which can be trained faster, and which in practice will be the fastest to achieve maximum efficiency.
So a T-34 or Sherman
American M8 scott is exactly like su-76M but with less powerful gun
Less powerful in terms of pen, yes, but it has a turret and decent HE
Over all the tiger was the superior tank in both single in combat and tactical unit organization and combat effectiveness !
The "Lone Tiger shouldn't engage an IS2" anecdote is an unsupported claim, and also pretty silly, hence it most likely never actually existed. If an IS2 shows up and you got a Tiger nearby, you're going to use the Tiger to engage it with, esp. since the Tiger is the better of the two in an actual tank on tank duel due to several factors, such as better sights, faster reload and lower gun dispersion. Hence the Tiger is far more likely to score the first hit, which usually is decisive. So I think there's a very good reason peter has never seen the "original German source", it quite simply doesnt exist.
I think they mean an unsupported Tiger, because from what they've said in the video, where there is one IS-2, there is more, and that Tiger is extremely valuable at this point in the war
Lower gun dispersion really isn't true, though the D-25T was harder to aim, so I guess that's what you mean?
@@spinosaurusiii7027 No I am also talking about actual inherent gun dispersion, the firing tables for both guns makes that clear. The KwK36 had a mean (50%) dispersion on average about half as small as that of the D25T. For example if we take the KwK36's firing table, it features a 50% dispersion zone of 0.5x0.9 m at 2 km firing PzGr.39. For comparison the D25T firing table using a 25% dispersion zone (Std. Russian practice) achieves a dispersion of 0.6x0.6m (i.e. 1.2x1.2m using a 50% dispersion zone) at the same distance firing BR471B. In short the Tiger not only features better sights making aiming easier, as well as a faster RoF making for quicker follow up shots, it's also inherently about twice as accurate.
In the September 1944 issue of the bulletin of the Panzertruppe an after action report of an (unknown) Tiger company was published In which a duel with IS-2 tanks was described. Also The company leader reported some experiences learned from this short battle against Josef Stalin tanks, one of the conclusions was - "A shooting match with Josef Stalin tanks should be commenced only in platoon strength. Any combat by a single Tiger will lead to its loss." Later The Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen (Inspector General of the Armoured Troops) gave some remarks (extracts) and stated that ,,This conclusion is correct; but three Tigers may not retreat when facing five Josef Stalin tanks, only if they are not in platoon strength. The combat by tank vs. tank is all too often decided by the better tactics." it's funny that the company leader made such a conclusion after winning a duel with IS-2 tanks... But he probably noticed the danger of the 122 mm gun. Anyway for example During the second battle of Târgu Frumos, Fritz Stadler's Tigers engaged IS-2 heavy tanks from the 14th Guards Separate Heavy Tank Regiment with good results, there was no escape. ( source - Tiger (General Military) by Thomas Anderson ).
"Fine video bro but, i saw in one of your videos that the Is-2 was a "Medium tank"(according to Weight) so it doesn't fall under the category of a heavy tank..."
You might wanna watch that video again.
Or just rewatch the bit starting at 19:36
The weird "what if" I always wanted to see is to give an american unit that was supposed to get M36 the same number of IS-2 with all the required manuals, ammo, parts, etc and then pretend that nothing changed. And see how well IS-2 would fair if treated as dedicated tank destroyer.
I mean it seems a bit wasteful of a 122mm massive gun in this tight turret, my as well use the 100mm and unknowingly make a prototype t54
@@looinrims 122mm D-25 is using separate loading, 100mm D-10 is using single piece loading. Single piece loading allows to load faster, BUT results in far longer case that needs more internal space and wider turret ring(in ideal conditions).
please do a video on these (this is a copy and paste list for a few channels) units and tactics/evaluation of loadouts of troops (from different jobs (and other branches) like the 82 snd 101 airborne units or infantry tank units, (or when tanks were assigned a infantry unit like i think earlier war Russia then all tanks were formed into there own units wich meant the infantry no longer knew the true strength of there own tanks but alowed tank units to fight more efficiently) the tank doctrine of countries evaluation of tank veiw ports evaluation of tanks/armored vehicles of different countries evaluation of aircraft types of different countries, different between navil and army/air force fighters logistics units of the axes and allied powers in ww2 ww1 estern front tactics Russian Civil war tactics and strategies navil ship cross sections (all the rooms and how it all works) evaluation of types of ships or evaluation of navil warfare (or just dedectsded videos on ww1 and ww2 navil doctrine as theres stuff out there on other times of history) air craft carrier strike group formations exsamples (from different countries) ancient persan ships, ancient veneti ships (gauls that fought ceaser) ships used by genoa and the vernesain republic the vernesain republic government all sailing ships, (i know theres many on yt but some contradict each other and i think theres more left out) ancient macenean greek and trojan troops 2b9 vasilyok morter tactics used so far in the Ukraine war, better for squads to be 2 teams of 5 or 3 teams of 3, and probably the easiest, better to keep troops well feed or starved like an animal how dose age effect comsnders eg napoleon got older so took less risks, ancient urban warfare ww2 tactics in Asia, tactics in the Chinese age of warlords, (and Chinese civil war) tactics in the ruso jap war cold war navil tactics, Korean war tactics, strange tactics or unque battles from the American war of independence and America civil how were 17th centry sailing ships build types of bombs lunched by drones comands given on sailing ships (like ease the sheets and get ready to chine, or slack n beases, basically things you hear movie capitns say) why did the nazis never return (or a video on best occupations) why did the Japanese empire fall, dont just say "America" like things like how there army and navy argued alot alot more on the Polynesians and māori, but please learn pronounceations if you do this
Could you please stop the spam. You've done it long enough on multiple channels. Just stop.
@@AssassinAgent why? Im mearly trying to contact the creators the only way i can... Would you prefer i were insane and did something ilgal like stalking them instead of leaving a comment you can choose to egnore... Anyway thanks for not being a big jerk about it...
@@theromanorder there is a difference posting the same comment once or twice but you've been on this what seems to be about half a year. And it is getting really fucking annoying. And if the CC's would be doing something from their list, they've would have reacted to your comments by now. So, just stop spam posting your list.
@@AssassinAgent nope, i have changed it and add to it... And im not certain they have seen it, thus why i continue... 3 channels i posted the list on reacted to it, i stoped on them I would also like to point out this is one of the first times ive done this in 2 months, additional its one of the only bits of consistent "work" im doing as i sprial down, I understand its probably annoying and its annoying to me, every time pasteing this list, recently its been more anoying, But as i said earlier you can egnore his, it takes 2 seconds to scroll past me... But i must comend you on your courage... Wrong word.. all well, to take your point to me... Just one other problem, ive received more support then you being the first to say anything bad.. however as stated earlier your feed back has been noted, Anyway hope you have enjoyed reading this wasting time instead of being produced, then again i can't tslk considered im spending more time and as said earlier im struggling to do any sort of work at thr moment😅 Anyway enjoy your day *insert gender here*
@@AssassinAgent also forgot to say, im not trying to guilt trap you or purposely waste your time with such long comments i just go on long tangents 😅