TIKhistory
patreon
Super-Quick Patreon Update #10
🕑 Added 2018-05-18 15:08:01 +0000 UTC Hey everyone! Been focusing on creating Monday videos as well as Crusader recently, so not had time to reply to everyone. I'm really sorry about that. Because of this, I'm going to spend a few hours tomorrow morning (Saturday) replying to you all :)In the meantime, here's the quick update video, and some screenshots you might like. The first is my progress on the Western Desert Crusader map -
Definitely not finished! I'm currently working on the roads, plus putting all the places in, as you can see.
I've also decided to put black circles around the places so they can be viewed easier from a large height. I'll be doing an proper map-update video soon for the $10+ Patreons so I can show you the full progress, plus discuss some issues I currently have for the map, but I wanted to give everyone a quick update for now.
And finally, here's a unit I had to create for this coming Monday's video -
And yes, I did mess it up! It should be armour and infantry, but too late to go back and fix. I'll have to add a note to the pinned comment!
Anyway, I'll leave it there. Again, thank you all for supporting. If you have any questions or comments, let me know and I'll get back to you tomorrow morning.
Lewis
Comments
I actually try to do that as much as possible. Sadly, the sources don't always say, which is why I can't :( when I can though, I will
Craig Marshall
Hey TIK love the videos to death, really amazing work. Can I make a request though? Almost every Army in the war had their own 'sizes' of troop formations, and its sometimes hard to keep track of how many men you're talking about. It would really help with the flow of the videos if you mentioned something along the lines of: ".238 Volkssturm Battalion had X,000 men". You do it sometimes with how many panzers or batteries are in tank/artillery formations. Thanks for reading, keep up the great work!
Sorry for late reply. I absolutely agree with your assessment of Beevor. His Stalingrad book may be forgivable since it was written a long time ago. But his book on Arnhem isn't forgivable. He's making history popular - I guess - but it appears he's focusing too much on saying the things that people want to hear so his books will sell, rather than saying things that are right so that we get a proper history. I can understand that to a certain extent, but I personally don't think it's right for a historian to do that.
Norraya
My history teacher in 6th grade loved Anthony Beevor's book on Stalingrad, and lent it to me. I only had enough time to go through the index, but I still appreciated the gesture. I was young and dumb and believed that Hitler's meddling was the reason why Germany lost and that Senpai Manstein (Praised be his name) was just awesome. I wish that I had read some Glantz back then. Anthony Beevor seems to be walking the line between serious academic source and pop history. Giving the appearance of academic studies while still retaining the simplifications of pop history.
