@@Serb9 There's no problem with NATO or the Entente supplying Ukraine/Serbia respectively. He's just saying that supplies are/were necessary for them to survive against their much bigger foes.
@@rarescevei8268 delusional is what it is. Serbia did have a good army for its size but they should have not hold against Austria-Hungary. Serbia would have hold for a good half year but would fail in the long run
@@theduckapple Austria-Hungary's army was utterly pathetic. It's recon tactics lead to cavalry either failing to come back to deliver information or not delivering proper information about the front line. 2. It's heavily demoralised and disorganized army was an ineffective fighting force. 3. Inefficient artillery tactics lead to Austria-Hungary being unable to utilise it's artillery to the maximum, which lead to inferior artillery outdoing Austria-Hungary's. 4. Many of the troops were deserting, or supported the enemy more than Austria-Hungary, which lead to mutinies, demoralisation, and a refusal to fight. 5. Lack of military experience. Serbia had a lot of military experience against modern weaponry, while Austria-Hungary did not. All of this lead to a decrepit army that had to be bailed out against Serbia, Romania and Russia. Success in Italy can be attributed to italian incompetence as well as the troops being austrian, and thus loyal to the crown, alongside the mountainous terrain present there.
@@rarescevei8268 sure that may be true but 1: A-H has the number in manpower and industrial power 2: so they could turn in into a war of attrition and wear the Serbian army down and after that easily break trough
It’s a paradox, how Austria only won by immense help against Serbia, but at the same time obliterates Italy without a single defeat. *Many think Austria only defeated Italy with Germanys help, but this is wrong. They were only helped in one later battle, but they support was only like ammunition and weapons and not even that much.
Well, there are differences between the Serbian and Italian campaigns: In Serbia the Austro-Hungarian army was quite unexperienced and they were attacking in a quite unfavorable terrain with an incompetent commander like Potiorek. Not to mention that Serbia got quite good French artillery and the Russian invasion of Galicia served as good distraction for the Austro-Hungarians. At this point conquering Serbia was only possible with German and Bulgarian help. Italy is a different story though. The Austro-Hungarian troops at the Isonzo River already got combat experience from the previous WW1 campaigns in Galicia and Serbia, and those troops were quite lucky to be led by someone actually competent like Boroevic. Austria-Hungary also spent most of the time in the defense here in mountainous terrain, inflicting the Italians numerous casualties. And while the Germans did help at Caporetto, it was relatively minor compared to all other WW1 fronts. Hope this helps!
Serbia literally required supplies from the Entente to even defend themselves from Austria Hungary
so what ukraine is also supported by Nato, whats wrong with that allies are for that?
@@Serb9 no way you think serbia couldve capitulated AH
@@Serb9 There's no problem with NATO or the Entente supplying Ukraine/Serbia respectively. He's just saying that supplies are/were necessary for them to survive against their much bigger foes.
Empire of Austria was dupple so good Like Austria-Hungery
Austro hungary :(
Xdddd
Serbia is strong
Serbia was destroyed by the central powers in the beginning they only survived because of allied help
No. Without entente support, Serbia pushed Austria-Hungary over the Danube and out of Belgrade.
@@rarescevei8268 delusional is what it is. Serbia did have a good army for its size but they should have not hold against Austria-Hungary. Serbia would have hold for a good half year but would fail in the long run
@@theduckapple Austria-Hungary's army was utterly pathetic.
It's recon tactics lead to cavalry either failing to come back to deliver information or not delivering proper information about the front line.
2. It's heavily demoralised and disorganized army was an ineffective fighting force.
3. Inefficient artillery tactics lead to Austria-Hungary being unable to utilise it's artillery to the maximum, which lead to inferior artillery outdoing Austria-Hungary's.
4. Many of the troops were deserting, or supported the enemy more than Austria-Hungary, which lead to mutinies, demoralisation, and a refusal to fight.
5. Lack of military experience. Serbia had a lot of military experience against modern weaponry, while Austria-Hungary did not.
All of this lead to a decrepit army that had to be bailed out against Serbia, Romania and Russia.
Success in Italy can be attributed to italian incompetence as well as the troops being austrian, and thus loyal to the crown, alongside the mountainous terrain present there.
@@rarescevei8268 sure that may be true but
1: A-H has the number in manpower and industrial power
2: so they could turn in into a war of attrition and wear the Serbian army down and after that easily break trough
@@theduckapple That is what they tried for 2 years. Didnt work.
It’s a paradox, how Austria only won by immense help against Serbia, but at the same time obliterates Italy without a single defeat.
*Many think Austria only defeated Italy with Germanys help, but this is wrong. They were only helped in one later battle, but they support was only like ammunition and weapons and not even that much.
Well, there are differences between the Serbian and Italian campaigns:
In Serbia the Austro-Hungarian army was quite unexperienced and they were attacking in a quite unfavorable terrain with an incompetent commander like Potiorek. Not to mention that Serbia got quite good French artillery and the Russian invasion of Galicia served as good distraction for the Austro-Hungarians. At this point conquering Serbia was only possible with German and Bulgarian help.
Italy is a different story though. The Austro-Hungarian troops at the Isonzo River already got combat experience from the previous WW1 campaigns in Galicia and Serbia, and those troops were quite lucky to be led by someone actually competent like Boroevic. Austria-Hungary also spent most of the time in the defense here in mountainous terrain, inflicting the Italians numerous casualties. And while the Germans did help at Caporetto, it was relatively minor compared to all other WW1 fronts.
Hope this helps!
🇦🇹💪
🇭🇺
❤🇦🇹🇦🇹
Serbia
Hungayry
Kosovo is serbian btw
least patriotic serb@@rarescevei8268
@@rarescevei8268 no
@@rarescevei8268 bro im from Poland serio
@@Duo41275 Kosovo is still serbian