Not mentioned above (from what I can tell)...
Managing involves stuff like emotional intelligence, understanding the difference between adult-adult and parent-child types of communication, evaluating and measuring performance, and knowing how to 'read' a job candidate. People that do this stuff instinctually are scarce, and tend to work in very stable and financially secure organizations. As the business environment becomes more volatile, so do the managers - in short you are dealing with someone who has probably 'not made the cut' elsewhere, and probably thinks he's been dumped in a trash bin, figuratively speaking. While it may take awhile to figure out - it's probably safe to say that his pay is below industry norms, he's been asked to manage projects that are unreasonable in scope (at least for his talents) and that the resources of the organization aren't sufficient to 'cover the bases'. But he can't leave - he's got a mortgage to pay and kids to feed. In short, he's trapped.
There may also be a perspective of manager as dictator - he may have a feeling that he needs to make an example out of someone in order to be respected. As the least paid and least skilled, you're 'cheap', if you quit less harm is done than if anyone else does. Perhaps a point he's trying to make is that he is perfectly capable of firing someone, or making someone miserable if he wants to - 'don't mess with the boss'. It would sound like he doesn't understand his role, that of facilitator. Managers in organizations are there to support the people on the front lines, which means going to bat for employees rather than beating them up.
He may see that there aren't enough resources to do this, so capricious behavior 'doesn't matter'. Very often it does - your skills may not be much now, but if you're making efforts they'll improve. I have hired people to work on projects I've managed, and then discovered via reversal of fortune that I'm working for them on things they manage. This happens all the time in software.
Much of the advice offered elsewhere is 'confront' - stand up to him and don't just automatically follow his dictates. With respect to time schedules, even good bosses make bad scheduling estimates, so there is no point in committing to unrealistic times, or for saying yes to work you can't do. Overall, however, confrontation is best avoided. There are three separate strands you can follow.
First, are you gaming the situation as much as he is? Is he reading body language on your part that communicates that you think he's a tyrant or an idiot? You may be communicating non-verbally things that you wouldn't dare say. Others in your group might see things you can't. I've tended to be an introvert, sometimes this bothers people, and it isn't because I'm trying to make them mad, I just tend to hole up in my cubby. He's yelling, you're signing.
Second, every manager is engaged in the 'global war for resources'. This is an unholy alliance of labor, finance, material, and time. In short, you're working for someone that is forever out scrounging for anything he can find to carry out his duties. Some managers are AWOL - they don't understand the nature of this fight and don't play at all. Others are utterly ruthless, however such individuals are more Machiavellian than overbearing. The most pleasant, sociable, and forgiving manager you work for may be the one that can win at this game, the ones that are losing know it, and it reflects on their attitude. He's asking you to pass the ammo, and you don't have much to offer, by your own admission. He may not be able to fire you, so he simply tries to run you off. One analogy in all this is if your team were a unit in the trenches, what would you be doing? Does he or the other team members feel that you're getting in the way and can't contribute? If so, is it something you can fix?
It doesn't take much to realize from the above that real talent in management is scarce. Within that, talent in software development management is even scarcer. Someone running a business process outsourcing call center has to find people that have enough language and social skills to interact with customers on the telephone and keep them happy enough that they show up for work every day. This is a combination of scheduling flexibility, pay, working conditions, and positive reinforcement that keeps the center staffed. In comparison, software staff is not populated from lines of people wrapped around the block desperate to get anything at all. An individual in this role had a fundamental interest in it as a teenager, has some amount of formal education (perhaps running for years), and some amount of real world experience. People in this role have their share of the work required to keep somewhere between one and two billion computers doing useful things for users. The computers are often dirt cheap - a $25 Raspberry Pi is worth one hour of recently graduated developer pay. Therefore the supply of computers is expanding exponentially faster than the supply of developers. Keeping such people happy and productive is not merely a matter of air conditioning and comfortable chairs.
Most managers do not discuss resource constraints with their employees beyond a 'we can't afford that' when someone asks for a new monitor or more memory. If you're a foot soldier in this battle, you have to figure out whether you're on a winning team. This means figuring out whether the product that's going out the door is worth much to consumers. If it isn't, you are cannon fodder - someone viewed as 'disposable', as is, in effect, the entire company. This means you have to take on the perspective of the senior management and figure out what efforts are worthwhile. There is no point wasting your life on losers.
Third, facts is facts. Some of my more antagonistic relationships have been with people that were very good at what they do. My perspective is different (as anyone reading my posts notices). I would go off on conversational tangents about controversial ideas that someone wouldn't like, and they'd try to cut me down. Very patiently, I would find and present my sources - why I thought so, where the idea came from, who else follows that line of thinking. After awhile, some of these people realized I could defend my perspective from something more than 'because I said so'. If your boss is saying things that aren't so, be able to prove they're wrong. This doesn't mean creating embarrassment, it simply means being able to cite your sources, and being able to explain why a given line of thinking comes up short. This is going to mean periodic reassessments on your part, as you come to terms with things neither of you have heard of.
Getting out is good if you can. If not, project to him that you expect him to explain reasons - every step of the way.
