Disagree? Would love to see your counterargument. No timestamps because it’s not that type of video. It requires you to watch it from start to finish. Would also recommend you don’t read this comment fully until AFTER watching the video… but I know some of you won’t wait for that, so don’t say you weren’t warned :) *Notes -* For those that will no doubt come back and say that “nobody ever says the T-34 and the KV’s were war winning tanks”. No, people do. I’ve had quite a few comments claiming this, and there are sites out there that do say this. For example, medium.com/war-is-boring/the-t-34-was-a-war-winning-tank-662ba112774f www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/soviet-t-34-tank.html Some very interesting quotes from Iseav on the Dubno battle you guys may find interesting - “Anyone who has not limited themselves to merely studying the initial period of the history of the war would be struck by the abundance of infantry divisions on the site of the tank battles in the triangle formed of Brody-Lutsk-Dubno. This was never subsequently repeated. In the advance outside Kursk in the summer of 1943 German tank divisions were forced to plot the route in front of them independently and from the first few days, or even hours of the battle, they were ‘gnawing through’ the Soviet defence. In this same location outside Kursk there was no amiable breaking in the defence as had happened in the case of the ‘Molotov Line’ in Ukraine in the first half of the day on 22 June 1941. Between 1944-1945 the operational support for tank formations by infantry was very poor and unregulated. Moreover, as the number of infantry formations decreased that had fought in the battle, between 1943-1945 the quality of the infantry deteriorated considerably.” -From Isaev, P192-193 “Naturally such a multifaceted phenomenon as a week-long battle of a large number of tanks is not just limited to a clash of tanks and infantry. The enemy divisions that were armed with tanks unavoidably clashed on the battlefield. Complex factors determined the winner in these battles, but first and foremost it was the organisational structure of the tank forces on both sides. Here the Wehrmacht’s infantry and artillery, though this time they were motorized, were a match for the tanks of the Red Army. This enabled the pulverisation of enormous numbers of light tanks and the attacks by T-34s and KVs to be countered.” -From Iseav P193-194 This next quote is from the Staff of Strategy and Tactics Magazine. Page 122 (see sources below) “1942-45 Soviet Motorized Anti-Tank Regiment - “This is the unit that destroyed the German "panzerblitz" in the East. Based on their experience, the Soviets calculated that 12 rounds of 45mm or six of 76mm gun fire were needed to destroy one medium tank. Based on the calculation, each 76mm gun was expected to put 2 or 3 medium tanks out of action before being destroyed. Heavier tanks (Panther and Tiger) cut the 76mm gun's effectiveness by about half. But the Soviets were producing more 76mm guns than the Germans were producing tanks. In the 1944 the Soviets produced 23,800 76mm anti-tank guns (some 20 percent more than 1943) as well as 16,500 45mm guns (then being replaced by the 57mm gun). The Soviets employed their 76mm guns in batteries of four guns, all concentrating their fire on one target at a time.” From the Rommel Papers talking about tanks in North Africa - “[The Mark II Matilda tanks] were also only supplied with solid, armour-piercing shell. It would be interesting to know why the Mark II was called an infantry tank, which it had no H.E. ammunition with which to engage the opposing infantry. It was also, as I have already said, far too slow. In fact, its only real use was in a straight punch to smash a hole in a concentration of material.” What’s interesting is the Rommel’s main concerns about the British tanks were their speed and guns. He notes that the Matilda had heavy armour, but was too slow and that it’s gun was not capable for firing HE, meaning it wasn’t a very effective infantry-fighting machine, and was easy to take out with the 88mms. Heavy tanks therefore can be vulnerable. He also praises the Crusader tank for being very fast, but says its gun (2-pdr, the same gun as the Matilda) had too short a range. He says if only it had a heavier gun “it could have made things extremely unpleasant for us.” He even says this gun therefore did not make up for the “heavy armour it carried”. For Rommel at least, armour protection alone is not as important as speed, maneuverability, and firepower. “The armoured units which they threw against our striking force in the area north of Sidi Omar failed to prevent the advance of the 5th Light Division and 15th Panzer Division, and thanks to the excellent co-ordination between our anti-tank, armoured and A.A. forces, were themselves destroyed.” - again from the Rommel Papers. Last week, GM4ThePeople said “For this reason, mass-produced light vehicles, with a de-emphasis on protection, & an emphasis on mobility & firepower were indicated. Doctrine should have more closely adhered to the strategic reality. Motorised infantry, not armoured halftracks. The Pz II chassis was the solution, not the problem.” The Panzer II part aside, as shown in this video, the role of the tank does not require it to have overly thick armour. Therefore it could be argued that medium tank designs are the most suitable sort of tank. I do think that Panzer IIs were a little too weak in this, since they couldn’t fit a decent enough gun in their turret. Panzer IIIs also have limited turrets - which is why the StuG design was very good. But the Panzer IV is a great tank which, perhaps with the adoption of sloped armour, could have been focused on, even in the late war. It could, and often has, be argued that the production of Panthers and other heavy tanks (Tigers were good for morale purposes, but beyond that, there were too few to make a difference) was a waste. If you consider tanks to be used as exploitation vehicles, then heavier tank designs are a waste. Then again, the Germans didn’t have the fuel to fight the war of movement anyway so perhaps it’s a mute point. Perhaps heavier tanks were the best option for the Germans, given the circumstances. Would love to know your thoughts on these points. I also want to point out that the Soviet mortar numbers are the only weapon number that increases by that much. Most other weapons either increase somewhat or decrease somewhat, but not multiply by that amount. The conclusion in this video will play an important part in explaining both the Crusader and Stalingrad battles - both of which I’m still working on creating “Battlestorm” documentaries for. Next week’s video will be Stalingrad-related… *Selected Sources* Butler, Daniel Allen. Field Marshal: the Life and Death of Erwin Rommel. Casemate Publishers, 2015. Clark, L. “Kursk: The Greatest Tank battle Eastern Front 1943.” Kindle, Headline Publishing, 2013. Mawdsley, E. “Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War 1941-1945.” Second Edition, Kindle, University of Oxford. Glantz, D. When Titan’s Clashed. University Press of Kansas, 2015. Kavalerchik, B. The Price of Victory: The Red Army’s Casualties in the Great Patriotic War. Pen & Sword Military, 2017. Liedtke, G. Enduring the Whirlwind: The German Army and the Russo-German War 1941-1943. Helion & Company LTD, 2016. Isaev, A. Dubno 1941. The Greatest Tank Battle of the Second World War. Helion & Company, 2017. Healy, M. Zitadelle: The German Offensive Against the Kursk Salient 4-17 July 1943. Kindle edition, 2016. Hart, L. The Rommel Papers. 1953. War in the East, Staff of Strategy and Tactics Magazine (this section on order of battle by James F. Dunnigan), Simulation Publication s Inc., NY, 1977. Page 122 Link to Purges video - th-cam.com/video/JnWNnI6YlQQ/w-d-xo.html Please consider supporting me on *Patreon* - www.patreon.com/TIKhistory Thank you all for watching!
@TIK David Stahel states in his series that before operation barbarossa kicked off the SU did have more artillery than the German Wehrmacht and that in any case the Germans should have by all means themselves used more artillery in the start of operation barbarossa..now you are correct in that the SU armies although high in numbers and man power they lacked full strength in terms of equipment..but as David Stahel states that they did in fact have the higher numeber of artillery and as the SU wasnt expecting an attack at that time i guess it wasnt fully distributed throughout the armies as of yet..and also in David Stahels series he stated how the Germans had a very hard time in the first few months of the war when they were encountering T-34s & KV-1s..There are German battle reports of single KV-1s or T-34s getting behind the German lines and wrecking havoc..it took them a little while to learn how to destroy those tanks with the weapons they had and totally took the German High Command off guard.. @Secret Moon The Tiger I and Tiger II were designed to lead the Pincer Movements during the Blitz..Picture a Tip of an arrow " /\ " The Tiger I or II would be at the Top of the tip leading the way to break through enemy lines followed by Medium tanks in the middle of the Arrow Tip and having light tanks at the end of the arrow tip.. But you are right that they were used mainly for defense but that was because by the time they were built the Germans were mainly on the defensive(although there were offensives just not many).. But yeah the main purpose of the Tiger I and II on the offensive was at the front of the Pincer Leading the attack..Tiger I and IIs in Perfect condition and Perfect/Decent terrain could run between 20 and 28 mph and on pavement could reach up to 30 mph...
The 109 could out climb and had a higher ceiling than the 190. Allies reported that 190s performance dropped off severely above 20,000 ft. Of course, the 190D was the exception, but too few of those. Also, the 190 was purposely designed to use a radial engine as those were more available than the DB inline engine used in the 109. This radial did not have the high altitude performance, so the more robust 190 was assigned low-med altitude and ground attack missions.
Great video. I'm really enjoying watching all of your WWII videos. Can you do a 'what if' video? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the optimal time for Germany to begin Operation Barbarossa. Based on the statistics presented in this video, would Germany have had more success against the Soviet Union if they had invaded a year earlier (and not engaged in the Battle of Britain)? Thanks.
I always thought i get the general picture of ww2. But as im learning it seems that 90% of that are misconceptions. Cant stress enough how interesting and well made your videos are to me
im extually proud and dissapointed in myself i always coulndn t get why infantry isnt taking that many tanks out since they totaly look vulnerable ( oh this was a misconception) so i allways seen that there is a flaw but i never elaborated further
Do not listen to Tik. His goal is to make the German army look like an incompetent, blundering, poorly led, amateur army who had every advantage in their favor but squandered it. TiK is as biased as the Englishmen come.
I'm eternally embarrassed by how little I know. And how much of that is actually misconception. Learning about the eastern front is an excellent example of this.
I was a tanker in the Marines and I can assure you: modern tanks break down constantly. There is so much maintenance to perform, and that's with well trained crews and competent mechanics with supplied maintenance areas.. I could not imagine being with under supplied logistics and not enough fuel in the middle of Russia. Screw that.
So there’s no maintenance free tanks? If Toyota made tanks with precision components would the tanks do any better? I believe you as my dad was a bombardier with the B-17 planes and he said they needed folks fixing them all the time.
@@alcoholfree6381 Every vehicle in the military needs more hours of maintenance than operation, if following the book, but no vehicle can be built that requires no maintenance at all. Parts break, gaskets blow, intakes clog, track pads wear out, end-connectors need to be tightened, oil and grease needs to be regularly applied, and that's only basic things the crew themselves have to handle(not including gun, breech, periscopes, and a hundred other things) without pushing it to higher echelon maintenance (support platoon mechanics), and the crew doesn't even touch the engine, that goes straight to the mechs. Something always goes wrong, no matter what. I wish we had tanks that never broke... Constant, absolutely constant.
@@InspiriumESOO Cars aren't usually driven cross-country, don't weigh almost 70-tons (61000+ kg), don't burn 2 gallons (7.5 l) of fuel per mile driven (yes), and have far fewer components. Track links alone are 60 pounds (27 kg) each, and one track has 70 of them. 14 road wheels on each side, sprocket, and idler wheel, with all the power and weight of the tank moving all of this at 40+ mph (64+ kph). Lots of hard wear, hardware, and hard care put a toll on a block of thousands of pieces of metal, and then it make big boom and the thing that does that is it's own story. In a nutshell.
It cannot be over emphasized. Logistics, fuel, spare parts, crew maintenance and specialized maintenance is more important than “the art of war.”! As it had been said, amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. A tank is nothing more than an expensive pile of metal unless it’s crew has the resources and training to keep it operating. The Russians can’t overcome this so resort to infantry attack. Although the tank is in the mix, it is not alone the battle winning element for either side. Great video.
"amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics" I have started to think that there are missing one bit in that comment... "and experts study strategy". You can have the best logistic organasetion in the world, if you don't know how to end the war or contain it, then logistics will ultimately be wasted... And so few people actually knows strategy on a grand level.
I agree and disagree at the same time. It is true that flawed logistics often result in loosing a battle but perfect logistics doesn't insure victory. The art of war is not only the tactical or strategic decision in a battle but also controlling everything that leads up to a battle and logistics is part of that. The phrase: amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, makes us reflect on the importance of it, which is often overlooked but I think that both should work in synergy.
You make a good point, it might not be everything but Logistics is at least a prerequisite, and is very hard to get right. Even today, what it takes to keep units in the field is astonishing. “Logistics in the Falklands War” is a good study on the difficulties even in the modern era.
And to prove that the infantry support of tanks is vital, the Turks are losing their Leopard IIs in Syria because they continually fail to support them with infantry.
Yes. The Turks are so upset with their "lemon" Leos, they are holding a German journalist as hostage and wanting to force the Germans to up-armour their Leos to the latest spec so they will survive ground attacks. Infantry is obviously for peasants. If I can post a link...point 4 . www.quora.com/Why-is-Turkey-losing-so-many-tanks-in-Syria Also this - middle of page 2 reports they were being used as mobile artillery without ground support protection. Saudis are losing M1A1s in Yemen using the same "tactics". nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/germanys-leopard-2-tank-was-considered-one-the-best-until-it-24234
Ye, but back in WW2 allies or axis didnt had a guided weapon (in this case ATGM) which can go to few kilometers of range and hit the tank. So it was harder dealing with heavily armored tanks like Tiger from the range in WWII, and eastern front was especially good for ranged combat on open plains. I guess it was good for Soviets that only 1000 of Tigers were built.
th-cam.com/video/AGjJc-dP5a4/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/tZtBxbLHbRw/w-d-xo.html Modern anti-tank weapons allow you to do this. One-two people can destroy a tank at a distance of 5 km by an anti-tank missile or even an old Soviet RPG. In most cases, infantry support is powerless. Modern means of protection are necessary. th-cam.com/video/q87dcsxZzgk/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/yQ9JPTVDFeg/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/5jFk1ieL_yI/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/tE7gL5yoRtc/w-d-xo.html
Vlad79500 I've never fought a real war. But it's things like that, that make wonder, is armour with a big gun even worth anything? Or would I much rather just have a truck, or maybe....a scout/recon vehicle or tankette/IFV if I want a gun on my transportation still?
Don't forget to have 9 security divisions as well (which weren't included in that graph and which didn't participate on the front line - at least not initially)
Trevor 941 I just sit around and make the kaiserreich and use chaos ai so the soviets declare war on Romania and justify war goal on turkey so I can invade Austria and Czechoslovakia and puppet Czechoslovakia in Slovakia and also italy gives yugo istra and south tyrol to Austria idk why so I just annex Austria take Czech from Czechoslovakia and istra and Slovenia and the I rush the second weltkrieg then I wait till after the peace deal with the allies so when the soviets attack Poland that would call in the Central Powers. #6dchess
When it comes to the rapid expansion causing issues, you see a very similar situation in the AEF in 1917. Before the US entered the war in 1917 its entire army consisted of about 98,000 men, half of which were deployed abroad. By the Spring of 1918 the OFFICER corps of the AEF numbered well over 250,000, thats just the Officers. It led to huge issues in the training of the troops at all levels, so much so that AEF Divisions landing in France had to undergo a further 6 months of training before the British and French believed they were able to enter the line. This is NOT a dig at those young men, but it DOES illustrate the problems that a massive and rapid expansion of military force can have on the training and thus the ability of the troops in the field. The AEF had the luxury of time to retrain in France, the Red Army in 1941 did not....
Nice video sir , I interesting post made by german tank specialist regarding the Est front, I have the complete report if you are interested , it is about the romanian tank destroyer Maresal : 3. Various information. a) Russian armor. The 2 German officers declare that both in technical quality and in quantity, the Russian armor is superior. The Russian T.34 tank cannot be matched by the German industry because of its light engine, of aircraft type, built of light metals. Germany does not posses such metals therefor she cannot build light yet powerful engines. The German tanks are trying to counter this inferiority by employing a more powerful gun, improved interior installations and a better trained, conscious and disciplined crew. Regarding the value of the Russian 76.2 gun that arms the T.34 tank, the German officers admit that, having a shorter barrel and no muzzle break, its power is inferior to the 75 mm German gun. But it has the advantage to fire the same shell as the field cannon or as the anti-aircraft gun, an advantage of capital importance in this war. The unification made by the Russians in the armament, engineering, aviation, is of an unimagined utility besides the diversity of models that the German army fights with. Considering this, Lt.-Col. Ventz expressed his concern that our anti-tank gun wouldn’t be able to accept German ammunition. The Russians produce only the T.34 tank. The K.W.1 and K.W.2 stopped being produced. The Russian prisoners talked about 100 tons tanks, but they weren’t seen and their tonnage seem to limit their utility. Regarding the production capacity of T.34 tanks, no figure can be given. It is known only that the Russian specialists, arrived in Germany in 1940 to receive the plans for the German tanks M.III and M.IV (in accordance with the agreement from august 1939) have asked to be shown the factories, not only the experimental workshops (which were in fact minuscule compared to the Russian ones). The Russian self-propelled howitzer, put together by placing a 122-mm howitzer upon the T.34 tank chassis, is little valuable: too tall, few ammunition and rudimentary installation. On the other hand, a recent Russian assault gun is successful and dangerous. b) German armor. The latest modified M.IV tanks, Tiger and Panther, are superior to the Russian tanks, according to the German specialists, as a sum of their qualities. Among the German armored units it is noticed a preference for the assault gun (Sturmgeschutz), more than for the tank. The assault gun, having no turret, carries a gun of a caliber superior to the one of the tank of equal tonnage, offers a smaller profile and has fewer chances to be hit. The tank finds its typical utility only in the big armored units called to penetrate deep in the battlefield and fight in unexpected situations. In all the other cases, the assault gun, which resembles a bit with “Maresal” tank destroyer although it has a weaker armor, has a much large utility. c) Anti-tank ammunition. The unit reports from the German front shows that the Hohlladung shell loses its importance. The troop prefers the armor piercing shell that gives a more reliable effect. The divisional artillery has and uses the Hohlladung shell to protect itself when attacked by tanks at short range. d) The progress of war. Germany makes great efforts into the armor, new weapons (about which we have no knowledge) and aircraft areas. Although air raids hit some of the factories, the reconstruction began the very next day. Yet we can expect neither these weapons nor those assembled on the coast of the Channel to be decisive. It is only believed that the Russians won’t be able to continue the attrition war forever and that Germany will be able to defeat them only after the Russian’s shortages and straggling weaken the strength of its army. Lt.-Col. Ventz, without showing any concern for the German army potential, believes that if it hadn’t been so many German units scattered across Europe, the Russians could have been defeated in 4-5 months. Lt.-Col. Haymann, although thoughtful when told about the progress of war, says that, with the help of new weapons, the new light and heavy German bombers and with the reprisals upon England, the chances for Germany to win the war increase.
Spot on Tik! Mortar/RPG formations is how the Taliban fought the Soviets in their Afghan war. Mortars stripped off infantry support leaving Tanks open to RPG ambush. To counter the Soviets had to assault mortar positions, who would pull back and set up new positions. That's how that conflict went. Air power and Helicopters were an added dimension.
It's Afghanistan Sunni Mujahideen, not Talibans. Talibans wouldn't form until after that war and majority of Mujahideen forces would oppose Talibans in following civil war, which is still ongoing to this day.
There are two very very good books on it (colleague of David Glantz) the first one is The Soviet-Afghan war: How a Superpower Fought and Lost by Lester Grau. kind of a goofy title the publishers used to try and draw ordinary people into the book, but don't let that fool you, it's actually a translation of the official Soviet General Staff report which are quite thorough and scholarly (Glantz published a number of soviet general staff reports of WWII like the ones for Kursk and Belorussia) which they made in order to learn absolutely everything possible about war to teach to their officers. It also has editor comments throughout, and it's not too long. You will also want The Bear Went Over the Mountain also by Grau *get the 10th anniversary edition! maps are 100x better* The book is made up of many vignettes which are short about two to four page reports made by officers detailing the entire process of their operations mainly at the battalion and company level with operational maps. It's a fantastic accompaniment or you can study it on it's own, many of the battles from the first book are in greater detail in bear went over the mountain.
@@TheImperatorKnight I saw an interview of a Afghan War soviet veteran, he was a mortar crew member. He says that experienced mortar crew will lay second grenade in a circle of 2 meter at 2 km distance or so. So beside its cost and weight to a standart artillery, mortars have a much more accuracy. Since mortars hasnt changed much from WWII I think its all true to those times also.
Wargamers see all those tanks in games and get a false sense of scale. James Dunnigan did a scenario for Talonsoft's East Front, emulating the real East Front. It was an infantry fight. Great vid. Thanks again, TIK.
Glad you agreed, spartan! As a gamer myself, I too fell into this category. Been wanting to make this sort of video since some guy was arguing that the Eastern Front wasn't the main front of the war "because it was just a big infantry slog and therefore not important compared to the west" (paraphrasing). He kinda missed the point a little :)
Yet another mind blowing video. I can't imagine you have much time after research to do the ordinary things like eat, sleep and other mundane things to keep going!
I'm working very hard behind the scenes, and time is very precious to me. I know I can't waste any, so I focus focus focus in every spare moment. Got to get things done in the bits between eating, sleeping and work. Sleep though is something I try not to skip. I've tried sleeping less, but can't concentrate the next day. So it's bed early most nights. That way I can focus and hammer out research the next day (also helps if I have a week off work - like this week just gone!)
Glad to hear, or should I say read, your response and I appreciate your taking the time to respond. What are you doing awake? With such a speedy reply and you, I presume being somewhere in Britain which is ten hours behind me in Australia and it's just 10:40 here you should be racking up the Zs. That's true dedication to a subscriber.
Yeah, since I started releasing videos on a Monday, I decided that this would be the only day I'd stay up a little later to reply to comments :) so pro-tip: if you want to be (almost) certain to get a reply, reply in the first few hours after a video is released
I just want to give another big shout out to my Patreons for your continuing support. Thanks to you guys, one of the many books I have purchased recently was the (quite expensive) "Halder Diaries", which arrived a couple days ago. Oh yes, a video on Halder will be coming at some point and the planning for Barbarossa will be explored in greater detail. Perhaps it'll be more than one video... Got to digest it all first, but I do have some more videos planned in the meantime. Either way, your support has been critical to the research of these videos so honestly, thank you all very much. You're awesome!
I get the impression you are not one of Halders biggest fans - I shall look forward to that video. It does seem (which I realized only after you implied it during your oil war film) that his opinion on Barbarossa just seems to have been taken as gospel by western historians after the war. I shall be interested to see you challenge that.
I know they are expensive but a good buy for tank info are jentz s books www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30042311849&searchurl=tn%3Dpanzertruppen%26sortby%3D20%26an%3Dthomas%2Bjentz&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-image1 and his other one 1943 - 45
Great video, I shared it with the Tanks Encyclopedia team. Your point about infantry is spot on. Everything in the military is designed around the infantry, it is designed to support, protect and improve the infantryman. This includes tanks, guns, backpacks and all inbetween. Loving these weekly uploads and look forward to then every week.
It's true, and I think a lot of people don't realise what tanks are there for. Can't do much without infantry. And yes, I'm doing my utmost to keep to these Monday videos. Can't promise they'll always be this long though :) and thanks for sharing btw! Means a lot. Hope the TE team find this as good as you did
I absolutely love the way you incorporate multiple sources in your videos. That is the proper way and I am very impressed. Anyone can read one source and argue all day long about how they are correct. Keep it up!!
Very well done once again. An excellent argument, well stated and backed by impressive stats. I agree it was primarily an infantry war (aren't they all?). This is one reason I put a lot of my time into documenting the Soviet rifle (infantry) divisions in Wikipedia. Those people did the heavy lifting. And I agree the mortars were crucial, although I will concede that the Germans had the technique down first. On the other hand, they recognized the superiority of the Soviet 120mm and copied it, so I guess it comes to a fair trade.
Hey David, yeah I'm glad you agree it was mainly an infantry war. Hopefully gives extra incentive for your work on Wikipedia, since that's the main part of the war :)
Yes! This is a book review on the Death of the Leaping Horsemen, but I talk about them a bit in the video th-cam.com/video/sPNhk7ForPw/w-d-xo.html I also plan to do a follow-up video specifically on the 24th Panzer Division (the division that 1st Cavalry Division is converted into).
A good video. The United States took about a year and a half to mobilize and train an effective large army force. Also note that the America provided the Soviet Union with tens of thousands of trucks and about 3,800 railroad steam locomotives. In the end, the German Army was mostly horse drawn, that of the British and Empire forces and American Forces almost completely mechanized, the Soviet forces mostly mechanized. The United States had two vast oceans to buffer us from the immediate pressure of the war efforts of the Japanese Empire and the German War machine. The Soviets did not, their armed forces in the field had to fight with the organization and weapons they immediately held, millions of men were lost buying the time necessary to to equip, develop, and deploy an army capable of throwing the invader back.
As a artillery observer NCO in Finnish army, I would always choose mortars over artillery if they have same caliber. Mortars are more accurate and have higher explosive force due to thinner shell walls which allows for more explosives. Safety distances between infantry and the target of the bombardment is much smaller with mortars.
I think there has only been a fascination and obsession with tanks, fighter planes, and battleships in WW2. People love romanticized machines.... rate of fire, range of fire, speed, armor thickness, gun caliber, etc. People visualize tanks running all over the battlefield fighting other tanks. It is what is seen in movies as well. Mines, directional charges, anti tank guns and handheld devices don't excite the senses.
Mines directional charges and handheld anti tank weapons don't excite the senses if you're doing it wrong. But yes, unfortunately we live in a world where not everyone is as well read with the Second World War as TIK is.
Tbf the warship combat is less misrepresented than tank combat. Warships were in skirmishes all the time, and a lot of the work was done by the big bois (aircraft carriers and battleships)
I keep saying it, but it's true. It is making a massive difference, so thank you :) Also, I do think the credits scrolled a little too quick in this video. I'll try slow it down in future because you deserve to be on the screen a little more.
I don't see your name in the credits :( did you change your youtube name after donating to his patreon? OR did you just decide to use your real name for the patreon donation? Cause that's very disappointing. Seriously when i watch Hbomberguy Patreon credits, they tend to be hilarious cause people keep using the silliest and weirdest names they can come up with.
I pull the names off Patreon, so the names won't match those on TH-cam (unless they decide to use the same username). I think many Patreons prefer to use their own names as usernames, possibly so they can appear in the credits 😊
I remember hearing at some point the number of German tanks that were actually operational at any one time on the Eastern Front (I think in 1942-43). I remember the number being shockingly low, like 100-200ish. I have always wished I could find that statistic again. If you come across any data like that I would be really interested to know.
I read somewhere a while back and forgive me for not remembering the source. But it stated that during the onset of Barbarossa the soviet tank corps had half as many engineers assigned to them as the German ones. This being in addition to German tank corps having a lower number of tanks in total that needed to be serviced. This may have contributed greatly to the abysmal breakdown rate. Also initially the soviet tank corps lacked logistics companies and expected the commanders to oversee fuel needs. The Germans learned during the polish campaign about the needs for a separate logistics office.
It should be mentioned that not only Germany fought against the USSR, but also the divisions of the French, Italians, Rumanians, Czechs, Fins. And if you think so, almost all of Europe fought against the USSR.
@@jimmyuk007 that's highly debatable. America would have been fighting at the end of an even longer logistics chain than Germany was. And the Soviets had already prototyped the T-54 tank (called the T-44-100) which was basically a King Tiger, but with thicker armor that weighed less than 2/3 as much and was optimized for mass production. They didn't bother rushing the T-54 / T-44-100 into production because the war was ending, but if America had fought the Soviets they surely would have. Also, the IS-3 which is described as a "heavy tank" but was about the same weight as a Panther despite making the King Tiger look puny was in production by the end of the war. Across the board the Soviet Union was ready to make a war with the West a massively costly mess, and the Soviet Union was better able to bear that cost fighting for survival than America could fighting a war of aggression.
I don't like how you refer to the Soviet Eastern Front. Couldn't you say "against the Germans"? In a Soviet context the Eastern Front would be the divisions in Siberia standing guard against the Japanese.
You're right, but don't forget that the reason it's called the "Eastern Front" in the west is because our history of the conflict has been written by the German generals. They called it that, so we now call it that. The Soviet archieves were not open, and the west did not trust Soviet accounts because of the politics during the Cold War. So we call it the Eastern Front. You're right though. Technically it could be called the "German-Soviet Front", although that's a little long-winded. I may have to come up with a phrase that's more suitable because a quick google search does not come up with many alternatives.
It's called Eastern front because for the Germans/French/British/American and all european countries the fight in Russia did happen in the east. It has nothing to do with German bias. Even in WW1 it was called "eastern front".
So whats the solution? Call it the "Soviet-Polish-Bulgarian-Finnish-Hungarian-Croat-German-Romanian-andsomeothers front" for the sake of perfect neutrality? Or use a term that is firmly grounded in historiography, a term that was used in all over Europe and the Americas during and since WW2? It's a false debate: if the author/speaker has a western background it makes sense to use the term "eastern front"; if the author/speaker as a Russian/Soviet background it make perfect sense to use "western front" or "GPW".
It may be an older source, but I am impressed with how how much of this Clark got right in "Barbarossa." The Soviet "advantage" in tanks is useless when, as you say, they are light tanks, thrown in piecemeal, if they even made it to the front, by inexperienced commanders, and then smashed against German AT guns. Great video.
"Mortars can't take out tanks." The Italians on the North African front would disagree. Most divisions that had no direct AT capabilities had to get creative with satchel charges and mortars when they engaged British tanks.
And there was that British guy at Arnhem (Robert Henry Cain) who ran around with a mortar trying to take out German tanks. Apparently he took a few out with it too
You don't need to knock out the tanks. If strip off the tanks supporting infantry and are hitting them with enough fire power, small arms mortars artillery etc. All you need to do is convince them to withdraw.
Jeremy Clarkson's father-in-law. Clarkson did a documentary about him, worth watching. From memory it was a PIAT rather than a mortar and he did well enough that they awarded him a VC.
With enough rounds you could make such a mess of the roads that enemy tanks couldn't advance along them, even if the tanks get through fuel trucks etc might not.
And many KV tanks were placed on or near bridges or rail or road crossings, each one slowing the Germans down a day or so... Which adds up to not taking Moscow or more critically not taking Grozny.
Excellent presentation TIK. When looking at any weapon (except perhaps the atomic bombs), most people do not understand that a weapon system (tanks for example) cannot win a war by itself, it does not operate in a vacuum, it has to be an integrated part of a coordinated unit. Germans had great successes (at least initially) because of the coordination of their motorized/infantry/artillery units with the support of the Luftwaffe and most importantly all the logistic support (ammo, fuel, food, repair units, etc.). Especially in a war where the enemy (including civilians) will not surrender because of the "mistreatment they got from the Einsatzgruppen units or their own Commissars/political enforcing troops, a limiting factor in the German's advance was the clean-up that the infantry had to undertake following the tank push. Other important factors: Germans are losing their experienced fighters to attrition that new recruits could hardly replace. German supply lines are getting longer (while Soviet lines are getting shorter) Conquered territories are still restless grounds (partisans, revolutionaries, resistance) something Hitler should have learned from Cesar's strategy in Gaul. Blitzkrieg is difficult on such a large scale as the Soviet Union and most of all, was the Soviet field commanders were learning (and getting better, developing their own war plans and tactics such as deep penetration/offensive,etc.), Great research and interesting delivery, Ciao L (Veteran, 3 wars)
Honestly, I was shocked when I saw that number. They started off with 56,100 mortars on 22/06/1941, and 272,400 entered service between then and January 1st 1943. So that's 328,500.
While I don't know the total production numbers for specific models, one thing I know is that the soviets also employed 120mm heavy mortars who could almost be considered artilery pieces! I saw one at a museum at Volgograd/Stalingrad. The tube was nearly as tall as my body!
If i recall correctly, the same 120mm heavy mortar was given to the Vietnamese during the USA-Vietnam Conflict. Would not want to be on the business side of that!
LTC DePuy in WW2 concluded that the US Army took heavy casualties because they were poorly trained. He discovered that putting his unit on the forward slope was lethal. In the early days, there wasn’t even a Basic Combat Training. Congress later mandated BCT for all. DePuy later got to create the Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) to try to fix training. One piece of the solution was the National Training Center (NTC) ….. units would deploy there to ‘fight’ an Opposing Force. The first rotations didn’t go well. IMO the single largest mistake he made was to say that the training base would train individual tasks and collective tasks would be trained in units. Given 190 MOS with a variety of assignments, this means some folks never get collective training. The huge challenge is how do you train the large organization's Commanders (BN, BDE, Division, etc.). There has never really been a system to do that..... now DARPA's SIMNET offers that opportunity. Looking at WW2 interviews, German tank gunners were proud of their training and accuracy while Soviet tank gunners rarely got any formal training, let alone collective training. Just a few more variable in the stew.😮
By the way, Soviets were not only good in mortar numbers, but in design. Soviets 120mm regimental and 160mm divisional mortars were basically copied by Germans. And the mortar emphasis is still in Russian army with 9 pieces per battalion (3 automatic 82mm "Vasilyek" (80 rounds per minute), and 6 conventional 82mm "Podnos"), 120mm regimental, 160mm divisional and 240mm corp mortars. The last one has videocamera correctable mines.
Wow, one of the most accurate and clearest videos I've watched about WW2. Armchair generals, video game makers, and movie directors should take note of these facts. It's about time people learn what really happened in the past.
Blah blah blah... "these light tanks couldn't stand up to a panzer 2" - what bullshit. You show us a BT-7 soviet light tank when you said this. Which had a 45mm main weapon which was at that time in 1941 equal to the best german main weapons on their NEWEST panzer IIIs & IVs. That was the case until the longer barreled tanks came out. Dude, do you know anything or is this channel just a wannabe historian?
The Soviets pioneered the 120mm mortar. The Germans were sufficiently impressed by the Soveit 120mm mortar that they simply copied the design and put it into production. Since mortars are fired at lower pressures than artillery rounds the mortar shells carry more HE, along the lines of a 150mm or 152mm HE round. While smaller mortars can damage or disable a tank a 120mm mortar could destroy a tank with a direct hit.
The German tanks that were used during Operation Barbarossa were PzKpfw IIs, IIIs, IVs, 35(t)s, and 38(t)s, as well as some captured tanks. With exception of the IV the rest are light tanks. There were about 480 Panzer IV medium tanks in Operation Barbarossa, no German heavy tanks were used. So it was light tanks against light tanks. A burning T-34 and other vehicles destroyed in the encirclement battles between Bialystok and Minsk. Soviet tank units were badly handled during 'Barbarossa', and the standard of crew training was poor. The first T-34s were also prone to mechanical breakdowns. The Soviet Union had twice or perhaps three times the number of both tanks and aircraft as the Germans had, but their aircraft were mostly obsolete. The Soviet tanks were about equal to those of the Germans, however. A greater hindrance to Hitler’s chances of victory was that the German intelligence service underestimated the troop reserves that Stalin could bring up from the depths of the U.S.S.R. The Germans correctly estimated that there were about 150 divisions in the western parts of the U.S.S.R. and reckoned that 50 more might be produced. But the Soviets actually brought up more than 200 fresh divisions by the middle of August, making a total of 360. The consequence was that, though the Germans succeeded in shattering the original Soviet armies by superior technique, they then found their path blocked by fresh ones. The effects of the miscalculations were increased because much of August was wasted while Hitler and his advisers were having long arguments as to what course they should follow after their initial victories. The Battle of Raseiniai was a large tank battle fought at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union. The battle was fought in Lithuania, then part of the Soviet Union's Northwestern Front. Some 240 German tanks from the 4th Panzer Group were tasked with destroying almost 750 Soviet tanks of the 3rd and 12th Mechanized Corps. Despite their numerical advantage over the Wehrmacht, the result of the battle was an utter catastrophe for the Soviets. Some 700 Soviet tanks and their crews - almost the entirety of the Soviet Union's deployed mechanized units on the Northwestern Front - were destroyed, damaged, or captured. The Battle of Brody is the largest tank battle in history, according to some historians. Also fought during the beginning stages of Operation Barbarossa, the battle saw some 1,000 German panzers of the 1st Panzer Group's III Army Corps smash into 3,000 Soviet tanks from the six mechanized corps of the Soviet 5th and 6th Armies. Again outnumbered, the Wehrmacht proved that superior training, tactics, communication technology, and air support make all the difference. The exact number of casualties is not known, but estimates put Soviet tank losses at somewhere between 800 to over 1,000. The Wehrmacht also suffered heavy casualties, with anywhere between 200 to 350 tanks destroyed. The Battle of Prokhorovka took place during the larger Battle of Kursk. It was long thought to be the largest tank battle in history, but according to the book Demolishing the Myth: The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka, Kursk, July 1943 by Valeriy Zamulin, a Russian military historian, that is not the case. But that is not to say it was small or insignificant. The battle saw over 600 Soviet tanks from the 5th Guards Tank Army smash head on into around 300 German tanks from the II SS-Panzer Corps. The fighting was some of the most intense in the history of armored warfare. The Soviets lost around 400 tanks, more than half of their force. German tank losses were smaller by comparison, up to 80 tanks and assault guns destroyed.
That graph explains the German tank kill counts. It's not surprising if a Panzer 4 can blow up 2 or 3 soviet tanks with ease if they're all light tanks, I bet the light tanks couldn't even penetrate medium tank armour
A side to side graph showing ratio of men each army had at the beginning of the war that have actual combat experience and/or over three years of service vs fresh conscripts/new officer grads with less than 3 years under their belt would be nice
@@crhu319 The T-34 and KV-1 have been noted to be quite a surprise for Germans since most of their weaponry just had their shells bounce off the armor. But they didn't have these tanks and the planes in large numbers. Katyusha Rockets also made an early impression on the Wehrmacht
@@crhu319 At the time of Dubno, they were largely helpless in the air. This was 1941, remember and the opening attacks of Barbarossa were aimed at destroying the Red Air Force.
Wow. That's the first time I heard that there's much more massive tank engagements outside Kursk. And that's when the Germans being outnumbered by the Soviets with vast light tanks.
The Soviets didn't want to talk about it, because it was a major loss for them. But why the Germans didn't want to talk about it, I'm not sure. To hazzard a guess, maybe because many of the units that took part in this battle were the same ones that got trapped at Stalingrad?
It would be worth looking if the German part is true. This is like Japan forbidden to talk about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombing aftereffects from its citizens.
As far as I know a large portion (likely as much as half) of the Soviet tank losses in 1941 were operational losses: they were not actually destroyed by the Germans in battle, but by their own crews as they ran out of ammunition, fuel or just broke down. Many Soviet units were in a bad shape prior to the invasion, they lacked spare parts, mechanics for maintenance, and even basics like fuel or ammunition due to serious supply problems. Given that, it is plausible that the German tankers were not so proud of riding through piles of scrap metal, when even the tanks that they actually destroyed were only obsolete light tanks. It is not something that would make you feel like a tough guy. But destroying hundreds of those dreaded T-34s and KVs in a fair battle at Kursk is another story.
The largest danger for tanks was operational failure for all major countries was breaking down. So how many German tanks were lost this way at the time? Actually, that reminds me of a Game Theory video about World of Tanks by MattPat. Something commonly brought up about the Western Front is that Germans did not have spare parts lying around and also just had vehicles much more complex to perform maintenance in the field when compared to tanks like the Sherman. The Germans were on the retreat and lost great numbers of vehicles similarly to the Russians a few years beforehand.
great video. You might look into the greatest battle you never heard of "Nomonhan". Soviets versus the Japanese between 1938 to 1939. General Zhukov cut his teeth here. The Soviet name is "The Battle of Khalkhin Gol." It is important because of how both countries covered it up to manipulate their other enemies. For the Soviets, Stalin was playing the Western Powers off of each other and did not want them to know how many divisions got sucked into this. The Japanese on the other hand did not want anyone to know what happened when they finally faced off against a world class opponent.
A better battle you never heard of would be the battle of Lake Khasan, where the Japanese crushed a vastly superior and dug in Soviet armoured force with a tiny force. It was due to this stunning victory, after a series of several dozen border skirmishes where the Japanese likewise won, that the Japanese decided to up the ante and attack across a river with a single strengthened Division against 3 Soviet divisions.
The Soviets threw T-34s at the Germans with little regard, they had difficulty most years of just making good their losses. In 1941 they produced 2800 T-34s, they lost 2300; during the entire war they produced 57,224, they lost 44,900. The reason why they exported so many after the war isn't because they had huge stocks of them sitting around (like the US and the Sherman), its because they kept building them until 1958 and kept refurbishing them until the 1970s. As much as everyone loves to make the T-34s out to be the "best tank of all time" (which arguably for 1940 when it came out it was likely the best) it was squandered in actions without combat or logistical support. Battles are almost never tank vs. tank; their tank, infantry, artillery, and air vs tank, infantry, artillery, and air; the battle is either one with those arms together or lost to those arms apart.
Personally, I believe it’s more of an issue with the quality of Soviet tanks crews. The Soviets had rapidly expanded their army from 1938 to 1941, nearly doubling it from 1,513,400 men to about 5,000,000 under Shaposhnikov’s mobilization plan. That resulted in lots of inexperienced officers and men, which most certainly helps to explain the massive Soviet casualties during Barbarossa. I believe it is a case of Soviet disorganization rather than German excellence, especially on the tactical level. I’ve also read accounts that many fuel and ammunition were moved closer to the frontier, at least in the Kiev Military District (under the command of Zhukov if I remember rightly), which might explain the lack of logistical support for Red Army units in the field. Great video!
Of the Soviet tank formations in the Border military Districts the one with the highest percentage of its logistic and support vehicles was at about 55% of TO&E for those categories.
Many crews didnt know how to repair their tanks, which led to many cases in which they would abandon their machines in case of even small break down. My grandgranddad, having finished Stalin's academy of armored troops in 1941 and surviving first skirmishes in Belorussia ( tank-less, trainees fought as infantry), was sent to the factory, where he trained the crews while their tanks were manufactured there. This method greatly helped to teach the crews to repair tanks.
The Soviets prime tank in 1941 was the BT-7. It was fast and great on rough terrain. It was improved into the T-34. The T-26 was essentially a made under licence British Vickers. A tank the British army never took up, but sold to many other countries. The BT-7 and T-34 had the American Christie suspension. The USA never took it up. The British did, but heavily modified the suspension. The Christie suspension had less external parts so was less prone to being clogged up with mud and ice, unlike German designs. The Christie suspension meant tanks could run faster over rough terrain.
Not really a counter argument, just a suggestion...do you think you could post the books/articles you used in the description box of the video? Would really be a big help. You pose some compelling arguments and would like to look it up myself. Keep up the good work.
I think its important particularly the Germans excelled at combined arms and along with Befehlstaktik (Command and Control) of units throughout the war and there were many ocasions were some units didnt. Many russian units were under command of their HQ and would only take orders from them particularly early in Barbarossa and not be used to working in combined arms. German units particually trained together and would even go far as to never critic other branches of the Wehrmacht (i.e Singing or mocking) and were encouraged to respect each branch. The Russians later would become better at combined arms due to learning from the 41-42 defeats they would slowly but surely become very skilled at this, particularly with Tanks and infantry but this was not till 1944-45 that this was happeneing as planned. Source- Panzertactics by Wolfgang Scnieder Operation Barbarossa by David Glantz
AWESOME REPORT - I read so much about the (second world) WAR but you broke it down to the point like I have never seen/read or heard before!!! Very well done! And really astonishing is the fact that you didn't use the excessive spitten out "n"-word like in every fucking stupid rubbish (so called) "documentary about this topic.. Really AWESOME Dude!! OF COURSE LIKE & SUBSCRIBE
I agree with this as in the enlisted online game, I mostly use and have success with infantry dynamite charges and anti tank guns rather than tanks as they are quite easier to deploy and there are simply more opportunities to use them as each soldier is a potential antirank solution.
I have a question, is there any relevance to russian ak 47 having 7.62mm bullets to soviet artillery having 76.2mm shells? just noticed that when you were showing a picture of 76.2mm gun in your video. thank you
TIK It's because of Imperial Russian caliber system which used inches (there were no metric system back then), so 7,62x54R for Mosin rifle (so called "three lines" system, "line" term stands for 1\10 of an inch), 76,2 mm for field gun ("30 lines"\3-inch gun caliber), not to mention 152 mm and 122 mm howitzers are actually grandchildren of heavy '60 lines' (6-inch) and '48 lines' (4,8 inch) artillery pieces of imperial times. So it's kind of historical tradition of using 152\122\76,2 mm calibers nowadays (but still new guns can use older shells). 120 mm mortars developed in USSR times are more 'metric'. 7,62 mm caliber for AK-47 was also chosen because of current machining equipment needed to produce gun barrels in 40s (it would be too costly to switch from existing small arms production equipment to any other caliber than widely used 7,62 mm after the war)
all this doesnt change the fact that the same number of german soldiers dont wanted the war like all other nations and the soldiers there. every dead, doesnt matters from which nation is sad. its like you guys are happy that so many german soldiers died but the most of them dont wanted war... :(
One of the best introductions of WW2 was the Kangaroo - the armoured personnel carrier which is so essential in modern warfare. A Canadian idea using a Churchill tank with the turret removed, a door inserted and armour on the top. I think it was done by Hobart and his Funnies. It took troops right to where the fighting was in relative safety from mortars and machine gun fire.
Great video again, thank you TIK! let's also not forget how devastating the Katyusha's were on the German Infantry, technically that'd fall under artillery but do think that cheap & easily mass produced weapon was another decisive factor :) look forward to the next video!
Surprisingly, according to the statistics I used (from Mawdsley's Thunder in the East) the Katiushas were listed seperately to artillery. They only had 3,600 Katiushas on the 1st of January 1943 (700 had been lost by this point too).
The severe lack of radios on the Soviet side was also quite significant. This exacerbated the Red Army's problems with command and control. I was surprised you didn't mention this.
The T 34-2 men turret and only the platoon tank had radio. The commander was gunner and commander once he was taken out you had only a machine gun to fight with. This was the best one they had, with armour like that you don't employ combined tactics. The T34/85 was a different tank altogether and it's effectiveness was superior to the Pz IV and maybe just slightly inferior to the Panther but made it up by its reliability and sheer numbers, they produced over 20000 of the T34/85 against total production of the Panther of 4500 at the Tiger I and II production you won't even make 7000.
Germans made 6000 Panther and 1840 Tiger I-II.Get your facts right!Also,just %6.5 percent of German military budget was spent on AFVs during WW2,so no wonder they made less tanks.
Brilliant presentation, I highly recommend a book about the Ostfront: *"The Forgotten Soldier" by Guy Sajer* , it really puts you in the middle of it all in a brilliantly written first hand account.
The tank against tank ideal evolves over the war, and to the present. The Tiger and Panther are anti-tank weapons. Stalin's dictum that artillery is the queen of battle is reflected in the raise of the SP. You are right, but your thesis is ignoring the evolution of the war. The turretless tanks created in ever increasing numbers proved very effective, and efficient. They were very respected, and produced the best Aces of the tank hunters. You are right, and I am thankful you have researched the numbers, as they are very indicative, but it is a lagging indicator. Production is for last year's strategy and it's designs. Your agrument is caught between what happened, and what was intended to happen. With regard to mortars, everyone always forgets mortars.
It is very difficult to coordinate infantry with tanks. Even more so when your tanks have no radios like the early Soviet tanks. That is the primary reason for their poor coordination.
It's actually coming on quite nicely, although pace has slowed since I decided to do weekly videos. Next Monday's video will be on Stalingrad though (it isn't the main documentary, but a video you'll probably enjoy)
TIK YESSSSS!!!! I cant wait:) If you could please mention the biggest fake hype of Vasily Zaitsev during initial assault that never happened when he was assigned to 62nd Army, 284th Rifle Division, 1047th Regiment (Enemy at the Gates) where Order 227 was obscenely portrayed and soldiers were handed one rifle and another clip of ammo. Biggest lie in western myth of the eastern front - you would do millions of Russians who were killed justice. I look forward to the video :)
Superb video. Tbh, none of it was brand new to me...until the datapoint on the huge increase in USSR mortars by 1943 compared to relatively minor changes in other weapon types. THAT was mind-blowing.
Great study. Thanks. Would love to see a documentary on the use of horses. The Red Army had a lot of Calvary formations. Were those guys riding into battle on horses? How were the Calvary formations used?
Thanks! I'm trying to make the most detailed videos possible (especially my Battlestorm series), so it's good to hear you like the style of the ones I've made so far :)
Thank you for this video. Although in Russia this sort of information is accepted easily but when arguing with "Western people", it becomes almost impossible. Like :)
There's a very vocal but minor portion of the west which isn't open to new ideas and wants to see the Germans as superior in every way (as the German themselves at the time claimed to be). But a majority are open to new ideas and are willing to change their views when presented with strong evidence and a compelling argument. This in itself is encouraging 😊
I just discovered your channel during historyclass, at first the teacher got mad after seeing me non stop on my phone. But the next day he told me it was fine and he is not mad at me, but mad that only 12k people subscribed to your channel. Keep up the good work mate!
well my mind was blown the first time I watched this and saw those weapon output numbers, and that the humble mortar was the most produced weapon. It actually does make sense when you actually step back and remember that tanks aren't usually going around by themselves. They have infantry with them. Also I had heard of similar things about most of the Soviet tanks that were destroyed weren't even needed to begin with and that they were in some ways outdated like the T-26 and all their destruction did was give a false impression on the so called "tank killers" the German tanks like Tiger could do. But that is also because when the USSR armor is talked about, T-34 and KV are placed at the forefront so the misunderstanding is there on both sides. But this has also helped reinforce the truth about armies for me: the infantry are and will always be the back bone of the army.
What do you think is the reason why people like to think that tanks mostly fought other tanks? My guess is that people just like to compare different WW2 tanks so they think of these "which one would win, Sherman or Tiger?" scenarios. And of course games like War Thunder and World of Tanks where combat mostly happens between tanks.
Tank vs tank battles did happen tho, because why would Germans made their tanks have stronger armor and have their tanks have a cannon which can penetrate more armor than previous one. Heavy tanks were designed to attack other tanks, bunkers and spearhead the attack.
They were quite common but they didnt have an impact as infantry had (i think thats what TIK is trying to say). For example durign the battle of Kursk, German tanks on southern pincer almost broke through Soviet defensive line and then Soviet had to send their tank reserve to stop the German breakthrought and that its known as Battle of Prokhorovka. Because if tanks achieved a breakthrought then infantry could follow. So in this case Soviets used their tank reserves to stop a breakthrough.
FIRST! The fact that Soviet tanks were instantly superior compared to German tanks at the beginning, is silly, the Soviet main tanks which really gave the Germans a run for their money was the T-34 and K-V1s. These were in very few numbers, and the tanks at the beginning of the war which the Soviets mainly used were awful, and could be crushed by pretty much anything other then light firearms. The Tiger and Panther could deal with the T-34s, however there were so many of them by the end of the war, it was useless. When the amount of T-34s increased beyond the number of the German tanks, it was pointless, as the Soviets were now producing far more tanks then the Germans, as well as excellent T-34s
by late October 1941 the Soviets had lost just over 1500 T-34s. The T-34 was not "excellent" as a combat platform in fact it was a very poor weapon tactically. The one excellent thing about the T-34 was that the Soviets were able to produce it cheaply in large numbers with mostly unskilled labor.
It might not be 1917, but something similar happened on that year, during the Battle of Cambrai, in November. George Montague Harper, the commander of the 51st division, had used a local variation of the tank drill instead of the standard one laid down by the Tank Corps so his tanks would be pretty much attacking alone, without proper infantry support and also, Flesquières, his main objective, was one of the most fortified points in the German line and was flanked by other strong points and its defenders had specialist training in anti-tank tactics and experience against French tanks in the Nivelle Offensive of April 1917.
Another thought provoking video! This is why I love this channel. Lets jump right into it. Graph at 0:55 About the "superior" Soviet tanks. The graph is pretty clear in the abundance of light tanks over the other types. If one were to weed out the light tanks, we get some 500 heavy tanks and 900 T-34s as "real" tanks. So far, so good. But the German arsenal is also filled with less than ideal tanks: 152 Panzer I (hopeless), 179 Panzerbefehlswagen (great for command and control, but they artificially inflate the number of combat tanks), 743 Panzer II (poor), 155 Panzer 35 (t) (poor) and 85 Flammpanzer II. So those are some 1300 + light tanks (almost a third of the Panzer strength) that find themselves in the same spot as the Soviet lights. Also, I think stating that the Soviet light tanks wouldn´t be able to go toe to toe with a Panzer II is a bit too much. There are 7732 BT-7, 1688 BT-5 and over 10,000 T-26s, all equipped with different iterations of the Soviet 45 mm gun, good enough to tackle the Panzer II of the aforementioned statement. Of course, the end point of the video is that a lot of tanks went down at the hands of the infantry and not the Panzers (a statement to which I agree 100% and will elaborate further at the end of my comment) but I wanted to state that most of the Soviet light tanks could go toe to toe with the Panzer II (your words at 1:42). If they weren´t able to do it in the field, it was due to the logistics, command and control failing them, but in that event, they would have succumbed to a wheelbarrow mounting a Panzerbüchse 39, so the point is moot. 00:19 Ah, the T-34. "War Winning Weapon". Wholly agree with you in your assesment regarding that statement. I could probably spend hours criticizing the T-34 (which I personally find severely overrated) but I will just mention one thing: it is often argued that the T-34 was distributed in small numbers during Barbarossa and that is why it couldn´t make an impact, but numbers show otherwise. Barbarossa had started with almost 900 T-34s, that is, almost 1 T-34 for every 4 German tanks, including those way out of place (Panzer I, Panzer II, etc), and by December, the Red Army would have deployed 3000 T-34s. The Soviets had almost the same number of T-34s than the entire German tank strength in the East! So they were lost not because they were available in small numbers, but because of those factors you mentioned before: poor logistics, bad training, inadequate maintenance, lack of equipment, and a lot of "soft" flaws in the T-34s design. 3:01 Off topic here, but I have to comment on the impressive amount of rings on the 88. 7:20 "Is this because the Soviets are incompetent? No" Well, I would argue that they somewhat were. Of course, a lot had to do with the sudden influx of new recruits at pretty much every level, but even prior the Red Army was not in the same league as the Wehrmacht. And this is due to large array of factors that together produce the aforementioned disaster. I will quote David Campbell on this: "Officers were drawn from a far broader section of society than in Tsarist times; the best candidates were creamed off for the NKVD, the VVS and the RKKA’s engineer and artillery branches, with the infantry, as is often the case, at the back of the line. For the enlisted men, conscription came at 19 years old, and fed them into an army that was drawn mostly (around 80 per cent) from the peasant villages rather than the cities, men who came from a multitude of 15 ethnic backgrounds and who spoke in mutually unintelligible dialects or languages. The expansion of the 1930s wasn’t accompanied by an equally large growth in infrastructure or planning, and the RKKA rifleman of 1939 would often find himself with shoddy or missing equipment, living in dismal accommodations and eating poor food, subjected to daily lectures on the importance of the Party, and more used to being employed on ad hoc agricultural projects than as a soldier [...] The existing supply structure was complex, sluggish and corrupt; it failed at almost every level." Now, on the effect of the purges. Certainly the millions of men entering service might have had a more direct effect than the tens of thousands executed, but the purges had another effect, less direct, but no less damaging. Again, from Campbell: "For the officers and men in the rifle regiments the purges had little direct effect, as personnel at this level largely escaped the worst of the venom that ran through the higher echelons. The influence was more subtle, but pernicious. In such an atmosphere even relatively junior officers felt the creeping insecurity that was the natural result of such a trustless system. ‘Instead of taking pride in responsibility, an officer was well advised to dodge the limelight and to pass the buck. Cadets learned very little about inspiring their men in field conditions. The party hacks, the Politruks, were supposed to take care of that’. Mechanized forces were underdeveloped, operational knowledge stagnated, and freedom of thought and independence of action were positively discouraged in favour of strict adherence to detailed, written orders. Such inflexibility was married with political interference at every level due to the re-emergence of the Politruk; such men were ideological guardians of the Party’s message, who had equal rank with the commander of the unit to which they were assigned, from a division all the way down to a rifle company, and who could overrule that commander’s orders if they saw fit. Such ‘dual commands’ were an obvious disaster waiting to happen, but in Stalin’s RKKA the legacy of the purges ensured that all actions were mediated by loyalty to the Party and its leader." 12:41 This citation regarding the Germans having adequate anti tank weapons (and in line with the infantry doing most of the work, as mentioned above) is something I agree with with, and in no small part because I like settling scores. The PaK 36 has the infamous nickname of "door knocker" due to its performance in very specific actions (namely Arras) but it is easy to forget that those tank that the little PaK couldn't crack were but a small fraction of the enemy tank inventory. And the same is true for it's performance in 1941 in the East. 90% of the Soviet Union's tank inventory could be dealt with the PaK 36 from standard combat ranges. And it was small, light, easily concealable and suited itself exceptionally for infantry manhandling, weighing just over 400 kg.
This ties in nicely with The Chieftain’s presentation on Myths Surrounding the M4 Sheridan and the US preference for Tank Destroyer Doctrine on the Western Front.
You have done so much to peel away the Cold War/Post War hyper exaggeration of the German Armed forces in WW2. This hangover was all through popular culture including the stuff i read in school in the late 70's early 80's such as Sven Hassel and Guy Sajer alone - amidst so much more.
This is my current aim. I have just got the Halder Diaries, and can't wait to make a few videos on that, since he was the guy who championed this view of the German army in ww2.
Louis Thecollege; 'Popular culture' is what i said - thats the bit that filters its way out of the 'war' segment and into the hands of ordinary people who get a skew if version of history because they cant balance it against anything else.
Great video, very informative, interesting and well presented. I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the war in the East but as usual it is far more complex than most doco's on the subject would have you believe. I always thought infantry wasn't as important as the number of tanks, planes and tech and that was why vast numbers of Russian infantry was defeated in the first months of the war in the East. I'll definitely watch more of your vids and hope they are all this good. Thanks for doing them.
Disagree? Would love to see your counterargument.
No timestamps because it’s not that type of video. It requires you to watch it from start to finish. Would also recommend you don’t read this comment fully until AFTER watching the video… but I know some of you won’t wait for that, so don’t say you weren’t warned :)
*Notes -*
For those that will no doubt come back and say that “nobody ever says the T-34 and the KV’s were war winning tanks”. No, people do. I’ve had quite a few comments claiming this, and there are sites out there that do say this. For example,
medium.com/war-is-boring/the-t-34-was-a-war-winning-tank-662ba112774f
www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/soviet-t-34-tank.html
Some very interesting quotes from Iseav on the Dubno battle you guys may find interesting -
“Anyone who has not limited themselves to merely studying the initial period of the history of the war would be struck by the abundance of infantry divisions on the site of the tank battles in the triangle formed of Brody-Lutsk-Dubno. This was never subsequently repeated. In the advance outside Kursk in the summer of 1943 German tank divisions were forced to plot the route in front of them independently and from the first few days, or even hours of the battle, they were ‘gnawing through’ the Soviet defence. In this same location outside Kursk there was no amiable breaking in the defence as had happened in the case of the ‘Molotov Line’ in Ukraine in the first half of the day on 22 June 1941. Between 1944-1945 the operational support for tank formations by infantry was very poor and unregulated. Moreover, as the number of infantry formations decreased that had fought in the battle, between 1943-1945 the quality of the infantry deteriorated considerably.”
-From Isaev, P192-193
“Naturally such a multifaceted phenomenon as a week-long battle of a large number of tanks is not just limited to a clash of tanks and infantry. The enemy divisions that were armed with tanks unavoidably clashed on the battlefield. Complex factors determined the winner in these battles, but first and foremost it was the organisational structure of the tank forces on both sides. Here the Wehrmacht’s infantry and artillery, though this time they were motorized, were a match for the tanks of the Red Army. This enabled the pulverisation of enormous numbers of light tanks and the attacks by T-34s and KVs to be countered.”
-From Iseav P193-194
This next quote is from the Staff of Strategy and Tactics Magazine. Page 122 (see sources below)
“1942-45 Soviet Motorized Anti-Tank Regiment -
“This is the unit that destroyed the German "panzerblitz" in the East. Based on their experience, the Soviets calculated that 12 rounds of 45mm or six of 76mm gun fire were needed to destroy one medium tank. Based on the calculation, each 76mm gun was expected to put 2 or 3 medium tanks out of action before being destroyed. Heavier tanks (Panther and Tiger) cut the 76mm gun's effectiveness by about half. But the Soviets were producing more 76mm guns than the Germans were producing tanks. In the 1944 the Soviets produced 23,800 76mm anti-tank guns (some 20 percent more than 1943) as well as 16,500 45mm guns (then being replaced by the 57mm gun). The Soviets employed their 76mm guns in batteries of four guns, all concentrating their fire on one target at a time.”
From the Rommel Papers talking about tanks in North Africa -
“[The Mark II Matilda tanks] were also only supplied with solid, armour-piercing shell. It would be interesting to know why the Mark II was called an infantry tank, which it had no H.E. ammunition with which to engage the opposing infantry. It was also, as I have already said, far too slow. In fact, its only real use was in a straight punch to smash a hole in a concentration of material.”
What’s interesting is the Rommel’s main concerns about the British tanks were their speed and guns. He notes that the Matilda had heavy armour, but was too slow and that it’s gun was not capable for firing HE, meaning it wasn’t a very effective infantry-fighting machine, and was easy to take out with the 88mms. Heavy tanks therefore can be vulnerable.
He also praises the Crusader tank for being very fast, but says its gun (2-pdr, the same gun as the Matilda) had too short a range. He says if only it had a heavier gun “it could have made things extremely unpleasant for us.” He even says this gun therefore did not make up for the “heavy armour it carried”. For Rommel at least, armour protection alone is not as important as speed, maneuverability, and firepower.
“The armoured units which they threw against our striking force in the area north of Sidi Omar failed to prevent the advance of the 5th Light Division and 15th Panzer Division, and thanks to the excellent co-ordination between our anti-tank, armoured and A.A. forces, were themselves destroyed.” - again from the Rommel Papers.
Last week, GM4ThePeople said “For this reason, mass-produced light vehicles, with a de-emphasis on protection, & an emphasis on mobility & firepower were indicated. Doctrine should have more closely adhered to the strategic reality. Motorised infantry, not armoured halftracks. The Pz II chassis was the solution, not the problem.”
The Panzer II part aside, as shown in this video, the role of the tank does not require it to have overly thick armour. Therefore it could be argued that medium tank designs are the most suitable sort of tank. I do think that Panzer IIs were a little too weak in this, since they couldn’t fit a decent enough gun in their turret. Panzer IIIs also have limited turrets - which is why the StuG design was very good. But the Panzer IV is a great tank which, perhaps with the adoption of sloped armour, could have been focused on, even in the late war. It could, and often has, be argued that the production of Panthers and other heavy tanks (Tigers were good for morale purposes, but beyond that, there were too few to make a difference) was a waste. If you consider tanks to be used as exploitation vehicles, then heavier tank designs are a waste.
Then again, the Germans didn’t have the fuel to fight the war of movement anyway so perhaps it’s a mute point. Perhaps heavier tanks were the best option for the Germans, given the circumstances. Would love to know your thoughts on these points.
I also want to point out that the Soviet mortar numbers are the only weapon number that increases by that much. Most other weapons either increase somewhat or decrease somewhat, but not multiply by that amount.
The conclusion in this video will play an important part in explaining both the Crusader and Stalingrad battles - both of which I’m still working on creating “Battlestorm” documentaries for. Next week’s video will be Stalingrad-related…
*Selected Sources*
Butler, Daniel Allen. Field Marshal: the Life and Death of Erwin Rommel. Casemate Publishers, 2015.
Clark, L. “Kursk: The Greatest Tank battle Eastern Front 1943.” Kindle, Headline Publishing, 2013.
Mawdsley, E. “Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War 1941-1945.” Second Edition, Kindle, University of Oxford.
Glantz, D. When Titan’s Clashed. University Press of Kansas, 2015.
Kavalerchik, B. The Price of Victory: The Red Army’s Casualties in the Great Patriotic War. Pen & Sword Military, 2017.
Liedtke, G. Enduring the Whirlwind: The German Army and the Russo-German War 1941-1943. Helion & Company LTD, 2016.
Isaev, A. Dubno 1941. The Greatest Tank Battle of the Second World War. Helion & Company, 2017.
Healy, M. Zitadelle: The German Offensive Against the Kursk Salient 4-17 July 1943. Kindle edition, 2016.
Hart, L. The Rommel Papers. 1953.
War in the East, Staff of Strategy and Tactics Magazine (this section on order of battle by James F. Dunnigan), Simulation Publication s Inc., NY, 1977. Page 122
Link to Purges video - th-cam.com/video/JnWNnI6YlQQ/w-d-xo.html
Please consider supporting me on *Patreon* - www.patreon.com/TIKhistory
Thank you all for watching!
You could be right with that. It does make a lot of sense. But then, why not just produce a lot more anti-tank guns, which could do the same job?
at guns were extremely vulnerable to mortar and artilleryfire, and in these things soviets usually had a huge advantage over the germans
@TIK David Stahel states in his series that before operation barbarossa kicked off the SU did have more artillery than the German Wehrmacht and that in any case the Germans should have by all means themselves used more artillery in the start of operation barbarossa..now you are correct in that the SU armies although high in numbers and man power they lacked full strength in terms of equipment..but as David Stahel states that they did in fact have the higher numeber of artillery and as the SU wasnt expecting an attack at that time i guess it wasnt fully distributed throughout the armies as of yet..and also in David Stahels series he stated how the Germans had a very hard time in the first few months of the war when they were encountering T-34s & KV-1s..There are German battle reports of single KV-1s or T-34s getting behind the German lines and wrecking havoc..it took them a little while to learn how to destroy those tanks with the weapons they had and totally took the German High Command off guard..
@Secret Moon The Tiger I and Tiger II were designed to lead the Pincer Movements during the Blitz..Picture a Tip of an arrow " /\ "
The Tiger I or II would be at the Top of the tip leading the way to break through enemy lines followed by Medium tanks in the middle of the Arrow Tip and having light tanks at the end of the arrow tip..
But you are right that they were used mainly for defense but that was because by the time they were built the Germans were mainly on the defensive(although there were offensives just not many)..
But yeah the main purpose of the Tiger I and II on the offensive was at the front of the Pincer Leading the attack..Tiger I and IIs in Perfect condition and Perfect/Decent terrain could run between 20 and 28 mph and on pavement could reach up to 30 mph...
The 109 could out climb and had a higher ceiling than the 190. Allies reported that 190s performance dropped off severely above 20,000 ft. Of course, the 190D was the exception, but too few of those. Also, the 190 was purposely designed to use a radial engine as those were more available than the DB inline engine used in the 109. This radial did not have the high altitude performance, so the more robust 190 was assigned low-med altitude and ground attack missions.
Great video. I'm really enjoying watching all of your WWII videos. Can you do a 'what if' video? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the optimal time for Germany to begin Operation Barbarossa. Based on the statistics presented in this video, would Germany have had more success against the Soviet Union if they had invaded a year earlier (and not engaged in the Battle of Britain)? Thanks.
Of course you can't win the war with only tanks, if you have only tanks in your divisions you don't have any org!
Got to have that org, man. Got to have that org
And not enough soft attack!
but you can win a war with only paratroopers, nukes, and the airforce...unless you're fighting Nepal...then you might as well surrender
i was searching for this comment
Maybe put a scout brigade
I always thought i get the general picture of ww2. But as im learning it seems that 90% of that are misconceptions. Cant stress enough how interesting and well made your videos are to me
im extually proud and dissapointed in myself
i always coulndn t get why infantry isnt taking that many tanks out since they totaly look vulnerable ( oh this was a misconception)
so i allways seen that there is a flaw but i never elaborated further
Do not listen to Tik. His goal is to make the German army look like an incompetent, blundering, poorly led, amateur army who had every advantage in their favor but squandered it. TiK is as biased as the Englishmen come.
I'm eternally embarrassed by how little I know. And how much of that is actually misconception. Learning about the eastern front is an excellent example of this.
I was a tanker in the Marines and I can assure you: modern tanks break down constantly. There is so much maintenance to perform, and that's with well trained crews and competent mechanics with supplied maintenance areas.. I could not imagine being with under supplied logistics and not enough fuel in the middle of Russia. Screw that.
So there’s no maintenance free tanks? If Toyota made tanks with precision components would the tanks do any better? I believe you as my dad was a bombardier with the B-17 planes and he said they needed folks fixing them all the time.
@@alcoholfree6381 Every vehicle in the military needs more hours of maintenance than operation, if following the book, but no vehicle can be built that requires no maintenance at all. Parts break, gaskets blow, intakes clog, track pads wear out, end-connectors need to be tightened, oil and grease needs to be regularly applied, and that's only basic things the crew themselves have to handle(not including gun, breech, periscopes, and a hundred other things) without pushing it to higher echelon maintenance (support platoon mechanics), and the crew doesn't even touch the engine, that goes straight to the mechs. Something always goes wrong, no matter what. I wish we had tanks that never broke... Constant, absolutely constant.
It's like General Bradley said. Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics.
@@KonstantineMortis13 how do cars manage to do the opposite?
@@InspiriumESOO Cars aren't usually driven cross-country, don't weigh almost 70-tons (61000+ kg), don't burn 2 gallons (7.5 l) of fuel per mile driven (yes), and have far fewer components. Track links alone are 60 pounds (27 kg) each, and one track has 70 of them. 14 road wheels on each side, sprocket, and idler wheel, with all the power and weight of the tank moving all of this at 40+ mph (64+ kph). Lots of hard wear, hardware, and hard care put a toll on a block of thousands of pieces of metal, and then it make big boom and the thing that does that is it's own story. In a nutshell.
It cannot be over emphasized. Logistics, fuel, spare parts, crew maintenance and specialized maintenance is more important than “the art of war.”! As it had been said, amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. A tank is nothing more than an expensive pile of metal unless it’s crew has the resources and training to keep it operating. The Russians can’t overcome this so resort to infantry attack. Although the tank is in the mix, it is not alone the battle winning element for either side. Great video.
Great comment, and I agree :)
"amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics" I have started to think that there are missing one bit in that comment... "and experts study strategy". You can have the best logistic organasetion in the world, if you don't know how to end the war or contain it, then logistics will ultimately be wasted... And so few people actually knows strategy on a grand level.
I agree and disagree at the same time. It is true that flawed logistics often result in loosing a battle but perfect logistics doesn't insure victory. The art of war is not only the tactical or strategic decision in a battle but also controlling everything that leads up to a battle and logistics is part of that.
The phrase: amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, makes us reflect on the importance of it, which is often overlooked but I think that both should work in synergy.
You make a good point, it might not be everything but Logistics is at least a prerequisite, and is very hard to get right. Even today, what it takes to keep units in the field is astonishing. “Logistics in the Falklands War” is a good study on the difficulties even in the modern era.
Etienne Sauvé
And that is Strategy in essens.
And to prove that the infantry support of tanks is vital, the Turks are losing their Leopard IIs in Syria because they continually fail to support them with infantry.
Wow, is this true? They need to study a little more history
Yes. The Turks are so upset with their "lemon" Leos, they are holding a German journalist as hostage and wanting to force the Germans to up-armour their Leos to the latest spec so they will survive ground attacks. Infantry is obviously for peasants. If I can post a link...point 4 . www.quora.com/Why-is-Turkey-losing-so-many-tanks-in-Syria
Also this - middle of page 2 reports they were being used as mobile artillery without ground support protection. Saudis are losing M1A1s in Yemen using the same "tactics". nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/germanys-leopard-2-tank-was-considered-one-the-best-until-it-24234
Ye, but back in WW2 allies or axis didnt had a guided weapon (in this case ATGM) which can go to few kilometers of range and hit the tank. So it was harder dealing with heavily armored tanks like Tiger from the range in WWII, and eastern front was especially good for ranged combat on open plains. I guess it was good for Soviets that only 1000 of Tigers were built.
th-cam.com/video/AGjJc-dP5a4/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/tZtBxbLHbRw/w-d-xo.html
Modern anti-tank weapons allow you to do this. One-two people can destroy a tank at a distance of 5 km by an anti-tank missile or even an old Soviet RPG. In most cases, infantry support is powerless. Modern means of protection are necessary.
th-cam.com/video/q87dcsxZzgk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yQ9JPTVDFeg/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/5jFk1ieL_yI/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/tE7gL5yoRtc/w-d-xo.html
Vlad79500 I've never fought a real war. But it's things like that, that make wonder, is armour with a big gun even worth anything? Or would I much rather just have a truck, or maybe....a scout/recon vehicle or tankette/IFV if I want a gun on my transportation still?
3:27 I'm stealing that graph for my hoi4 games.
Don't forget to have 9 security divisions as well (which weren't included in that graph and which didn't participate on the front line - at least not initially)
I dont think I've ever seen two people that both know about HOI together in one spot before :O
Arthas Menethil are we talking about Hoi4 now?
40 withe divisions are the best.
Trevor 941 I just sit around and make the kaiserreich and use chaos ai so the soviets declare war on Romania and justify war goal on turkey so I can invade Austria and Czechoslovakia and puppet Czechoslovakia in Slovakia and also italy gives yugo istra and south tyrol to Austria idk why so I just annex Austria take Czech from Czechoslovakia and istra and Slovenia and the I rush the second weltkrieg then I wait till after the peace deal with the allies so when the soviets attack Poland that would call in the Central Powers. #6dchess
When it comes to the rapid expansion causing issues, you see a very similar situation in the AEF in 1917. Before the US entered the war in 1917 its entire army consisted of about 98,000 men, half of which were deployed abroad. By the Spring of 1918 the OFFICER corps of the AEF numbered well over 250,000, thats just the Officers. It led to huge issues in the training of the troops at all levels, so much so that AEF Divisions landing in France had to undergo a further 6 months of training before the British and French believed they were able to enter the line.
This is NOT a dig at those young men, but it DOES illustrate the problems that a massive and rapid expansion of military force can have on the training and thus the ability of the troops in the field. The AEF had the luxury of time to retrain in France, the Red Army in 1941 did not....
I learn something new with every video you post. And I thought I know everything about Eastern front. Good work.
Question everything and you'll never stop learning!
Nice video sir , I interesting post made by german tank specialist regarding the Est front, I have the complete report if you are interested , it is about the romanian tank destroyer Maresal : 3. Various information.
a) Russian armor.
The 2 German officers declare that both in technical quality and in quantity, the Russian armor is superior.
The Russian T.34 tank cannot be matched by the German industry because of its light engine, of aircraft type, built of light metals. Germany does not posses such metals therefor she cannot build light yet powerful engines.
The German tanks are trying to counter this inferiority by employing a more powerful gun, improved interior installations and a better trained, conscious and disciplined crew.
Regarding the value of the Russian 76.2 gun that arms the T.34 tank, the German officers admit that, having a shorter barrel and no muzzle break, its power is inferior to the 75 mm German gun. But it has the advantage to fire the same shell as the field cannon or as the anti-aircraft gun, an advantage of capital importance in this war. The unification made by the Russians in the armament, engineering, aviation, is of an unimagined utility besides the diversity of models that the German army fights with.
Considering this, Lt.-Col. Ventz expressed his concern that our anti-tank gun wouldn’t be able to accept German ammunition.
The Russians produce only the T.34 tank. The K.W.1 and K.W.2 stopped being produced. The Russian prisoners talked about 100 tons tanks, but they weren’t seen and their tonnage seem to limit their utility.
Regarding the production capacity of T.34 tanks, no figure can be given. It is known only that the Russian specialists, arrived in Germany in 1940 to receive the plans for the German tanks M.III and M.IV (in accordance with the agreement from august 1939) have asked to be shown the factories, not only the experimental workshops (which were in fact minuscule compared to the Russian ones).
The Russian self-propelled howitzer, put together by placing a 122-mm howitzer upon the T.34 tank chassis, is little valuable: too tall, few ammunition and rudimentary installation.
On the other hand, a recent Russian assault gun is successful and dangerous.
b) German armor.
The latest modified M.IV tanks, Tiger and Panther, are superior to the Russian tanks, according to the German specialists, as a sum of their qualities.
Among the German armored units it is noticed a preference for the assault gun (Sturmgeschutz), more than for the tank. The assault gun, having no turret, carries a gun of a caliber superior to the one of the tank of equal tonnage, offers a smaller profile and has fewer chances to be hit.
The tank finds its typical utility only in the big armored units called to penetrate deep in the battlefield and fight in unexpected situations. In all the other cases, the assault gun, which resembles a bit with “Maresal” tank destroyer although it has a weaker armor, has a much large utility.
c) Anti-tank ammunition.
The unit reports from the German front shows that the Hohlladung shell loses its importance. The troop prefers the armor piercing shell that gives a more reliable effect. The divisional artillery has and uses the Hohlladung shell to protect itself when attacked by tanks at short range.
d) The progress of war.
Germany makes great efforts into the armor, new weapons (about which we have no knowledge) and aircraft areas.
Although air raids hit some of the factories, the reconstruction began the very next day.
Yet we can expect neither these weapons nor those assembled on the coast of the Channel to be decisive.
It is only believed that the Russians won’t be able to continue the attrition war forever and that Germany will be able to defeat them only after the Russian’s shortages and straggling weaken the strength of its army.
Lt.-Col. Ventz, without showing any concern for the German army potential, believes that if it hadn’t been so many German units scattered across Europe, the Russians could have been defeated in 4-5 months.
Lt.-Col. Haymann, although thoughtful when told about the progress of war, says that, with the help of new weapons, the new light and heavy German bombers and with the reprisals upon England, the chances for Germany to win the war increase.
Ciprian Florin I’m very late, but super interesting information. Thank you for that.
He should seriously consider writing his own book on this subject!
Spot on Tik! Mortar/RPG formations is how the Taliban fought the Soviets in their Afghan war. Mortars stripped off infantry support leaving Tanks open to RPG ambush. To counter the Soviets had to assault mortar positions, who would pull back and set up new positions. That's how that conflict went. Air power and Helicopters were an added dimension.
I know very little about that war, so it's good to hear similar scenarios from different wars. Thank you!
It's Afghanistan Sunni Mujahideen, not Talibans. Talibans wouldn't form until after that war and majority of Mujahideen forces would oppose Talibans in following civil war, which is still ongoing to this day.
Thanks for the clarification. Is my analysis of the tactics accurate? RPG/Mortar combined arms to combat Soviet Infantry/Armor?
There are two very very good books on it (colleague of David Glantz) the first one is The Soviet-Afghan war: How a Superpower Fought and Lost by Lester Grau. kind of a goofy title the publishers used to try and draw ordinary people into the book, but don't let that fool you, it's actually a translation of the official Soviet General Staff report which are quite thorough and scholarly (Glantz published a number of soviet general staff reports of WWII like the ones for Kursk and Belorussia) which they made in order to learn absolutely everything possible about war to teach to their officers. It also has editor comments throughout, and it's not too long.
You will also want The Bear Went Over the Mountain also by Grau *get the 10th anniversary edition! maps are 100x better* The book is made up of many vignettes which are short about two to four page reports made by officers detailing the entire process of their operations mainly at the battalion and company level with operational maps. It's a fantastic accompaniment or you can study it on it's own, many of the battles from the first book are in greater detail in bear went over the mountain.
@@TheImperatorKnight I saw an interview of a Afghan War soviet veteran, he was a mortar crew member. He says that experienced mortar crew will lay second grenade in a circle of 2 meter at 2 km distance or so. So beside its cost and weight to a standart artillery, mortars have a much more accuracy. Since mortars hasnt changed much from WWII I think its all true to those times also.
Wargamers see all those tanks in games and get a false sense of scale. James Dunnigan did a scenario for Talonsoft's East Front, emulating the real East Front. It was an infantry fight. Great vid. Thanks again, TIK.
Glad you agreed, spartan! As a gamer myself, I too fell into this category. Been wanting to make this sort of video since some guy was arguing that the Eastern Front wasn't the main front of the war "because it was just a big infantry slog and therefore not important compared to the west" (paraphrasing). He kinda missed the point a little :)
Video games overemphasize tanks in the mix for sure.
Yet another mind blowing video. I can't imagine you have much time after research to do the ordinary things like eat, sleep and other mundane things to keep going!
I'm working very hard behind the scenes, and time is very precious to me. I know I can't waste any, so I focus focus focus in every spare moment. Got to get things done in the bits between eating, sleeping and work. Sleep though is something I try not to skip. I've tried sleeping less, but can't concentrate the next day. So it's bed early most nights. That way I can focus and hammer out research the next day (also helps if I have a week off work - like this week just gone!)
Glad to hear, or should I say read, your response and I appreciate your taking the time to respond. What are you doing awake? With such a speedy reply and you, I presume being somewhere in Britain which is ten hours behind me in Australia and it's just 10:40 here you should be racking up the Zs. That's true dedication to a subscriber.
Yeah, since I started releasing videos on a Monday, I decided that this would be the only day I'd stay up a little later to reply to comments :) so pro-tip: if you want to be (almost) certain to get a reply, reply in the first few hours after a video is released
Is that miracle? Somebody is quoting Alexey Isaev's books in English?
You made my day! Many thanks for making this (and many others) videos!
I just want to give another big shout out to my Patreons for your continuing support. Thanks to you guys, one of the many books I have purchased recently was the (quite expensive) "Halder Diaries", which arrived a couple days ago. Oh yes, a video on Halder will be coming at some point and the planning for Barbarossa will be explored in greater detail. Perhaps it'll be more than one video... Got to digest it all first, but I do have some more videos planned in the meantime. Either way, your support has been critical to the research of these videos so honestly, thank you all very much. You're awesome!
I get the impression you are not one of Halders biggest fans - I shall look forward to that video. It does seem (which I realized only after you implied it during your oil war film) that his opinion on Barbarossa just seems to have been taken as gospel by western historians after the war. I shall be interested to see you challenge that.
Wonderful video yet again!
Halder was the idiot who ignored the logistics professionals and told Hitler a Soviet Invasion was doable.
I know they are expensive but a good buy for tank info are jentz s books www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30042311849&searchurl=tn%3Dpanzertruppen%26sortby%3D20%26an%3Dthomas%2Bjentz&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-image1 and his other one 1943 - 45
Ok
Great video, I shared it with the Tanks Encyclopedia team.
Your point about infantry is spot on. Everything in the military is designed around the infantry, it is designed to support, protect and improve the infantryman. This includes tanks, guns, backpacks and all inbetween.
Loving these weekly uploads and look forward to then every week.
It's true, and I think a lot of people don't realise what tanks are there for. Can't do much without infantry. And yes, I'm doing my utmost to keep to these Monday videos. Can't promise they'll always be this long though :) and thanks for sharing btw! Means a lot. Hope the TE team find this as good as you did
I absolutely love the way you incorporate multiple sources in your videos. That is the proper way and I am very impressed. Anyone can read one source and argue all day long about how they are correct. Keep it up!!
Multiple sources are the key!
Very well done once again. An excellent argument, well stated and backed by impressive stats. I agree it was primarily an infantry war (aren't they all?). This is one reason I put a lot of my time into documenting the Soviet rifle (infantry) divisions in Wikipedia. Those people did the heavy lifting. And I agree the mortars were crucial, although I will concede that the Germans had the technique down first. On the other hand, they recognized the superiority of the Soviet 120mm and copied it, so I guess it comes to a fair trade.
Hey David, yeah I'm glad you agree it was mainly an infantry war. Hopefully gives extra incentive for your work on Wikipedia, since that's the main part of the war :)
3:53
Hum, I didn't know about 1st Cavalry Division (Wehrmacht)
Any chance of hearing more about them? =)
Yes! This is a book review on the Death of the Leaping Horsemen, but I talk about them a bit in the video th-cam.com/video/sPNhk7ForPw/w-d-xo.html
I also plan to do a follow-up video specifically on the 24th Panzer Division (the division that 1st Cavalry Division is converted into).
+Steve Kaczynski
But was it still cavalery when upgraded to a division?
A good video.
The United States took about a year and a half to mobilize and train an effective large army force. Also note that the America provided the Soviet Union with tens of thousands of trucks and about 3,800 railroad steam locomotives. In the end, the German Army was mostly horse drawn, that of the British and Empire forces and American Forces almost completely mechanized, the Soviet forces mostly mechanized.
The United States had two vast oceans to buffer us from the immediate pressure of the war efforts of the Japanese Empire and the German War machine. The Soviets did not, their armed forces in the field had to fight with the organization and weapons they immediately held, millions of men were lost buying the time necessary to to equip, develop, and deploy an army capable of throwing the invader back.
As a artillery observer NCO in Finnish army, I would always choose mortars over artillery if they have same caliber. Mortars are more accurate and have higher explosive force due to thinner shell walls which allows for more explosives. Safety distances between infantry and the target of the bombardment is much smaller with mortars.
I'd imagine mortars are also easier and quicker to move around than artillery?
Of course. Mortars weight about 10%-20% of same caliber howizer. Mortar ammo is also cheaper because it can be cast, when gun ammo must be machined.
@@pekkamakela2566 bless your life's work,,,,,,,,,,,r.g.wachendorf usa
All true, but, mortars generally have FAR less range than howitzers of similar bore.
The truth is an army needs both.
@@executivedirector7467 In an infantry battle, mortars are essential.
I think there has only been a fascination and obsession with tanks, fighter planes, and battleships in WW2. People love romanticized machines.... rate of fire, range of fire, speed, armor thickness, gun caliber, etc. People visualize tanks running all over the battlefield fighting other tanks. It is what is seen in movies as well. Mines, directional charges, anti tank guns and handheld devices don't excite the senses.
Which is why almost every action movie ever mostly involves infantry scale engagements. ;P
Which is why people have such a poor understanding of the Eastern Front in WWII.
Mines directional charges and handheld anti tank weapons don't excite the senses if you're doing it wrong. But yes, unfortunately we live in a world where not everyone is as well read with the Second World War as TIK is.
@@thethirdman225 the Eastern Front was full of tanks and planes though.
Tbf the warship combat is less misrepresented than tank combat. Warships were in skirmishes all the time, and a lot of the work was done by the big bois (aircraft carriers and battleships)
Yay, I'm in credits!
Great video, I'm glad I'm supporting you financially.
I keep saying it, but it's true. It is making a massive difference, so thank you :)
Also, I do think the credits scrolled a little too quick in this video. I'll try slow it down in future because you deserve to be on the screen a little more.
I don't see your name in the credits :(
did you change your youtube name after donating to his patreon? OR did you just decide to use your real name for the patreon donation? Cause that's very disappointing.
Seriously when i watch Hbomberguy Patreon credits, they tend to be hilarious cause people keep using the silliest and weirdest names they can come up with.
I pull the names off Patreon, so the names won't match those on TH-cam (unless they decide to use the same username). I think many Patreons prefer to use their own names as usernames, possibly so they can appear in the credits 😊
the average world of tanks weeb seem to believe that real life is based on the game, and not the other way around
I remember hearing at some point the number of German tanks that were actually operational at any one time on the Eastern Front (I think in 1942-43). I remember the number being shockingly low, like 100-200ish. I have always wished I could find that statistic again. If you come across any data like that I would be really interested to know.
Who needs tank anyway?
Milk truck will do.
Tovarisch ZIS
I read somewhere a while back and forgive me for not remembering the source. But it stated that during the onset of Barbarossa the soviet tank corps had half as many engineers assigned to them as the German ones. This being in addition to German tank corps having a lower number of tanks in total that needed to be serviced. This may have contributed greatly to the abysmal breakdown rate. Also initially the soviet tank corps lacked logistics companies and expected the commanders to oversee fuel needs. The Germans learned during the polish campaign about the needs for a separate logistics office.
It should be mentioned that not only Germany fought against the USSR, but also the divisions of the French, Italians, Rumanians, Czechs, Fins. And if you think so, almost all of Europe fought against the USSR.
UssR Troll Well most of these were Volunteer divisions. So they make up only a small part of the army.
@@tom_skip3523 War is not about armies it is about logistic and military complex + some goods.
Yawn. That information was included. For example, labeled "Axis" vs. "German."
Americans would beat USSR
@@jimmyuk007 that's highly debatable. America would have been fighting at the end of an even longer logistics chain than Germany was. And the Soviets had already prototyped the T-54 tank (called the T-44-100) which was basically a King Tiger, but with thicker armor that weighed less than 2/3 as much and was optimized for mass production. They didn't bother rushing the T-54 / T-44-100 into production because the war was ending, but if America had fought the Soviets they surely would have. Also, the IS-3 which is described as a "heavy tank" but was about the same weight as a Panther despite making the King Tiger look puny was in production by the end of the war. Across the board the Soviet Union was ready to make a war with the West a massively costly mess, and the Soviet Union was better able to bear that cost fighting for survival than America could fighting a war of aggression.
As the saying goes:
"Infantry are the Queen of the battlefield, Artillery are the King.
And everyone knows what the King does to the Queen"
пщщв щту рфрф
That's not "a saying"
I don't like how you refer to the Soviet Eastern Front. Couldn't you say "against the Germans"? In a Soviet context the Eastern Front would be the divisions in Siberia standing guard against the Japanese.
You're right, but don't forget that the reason it's called the "Eastern Front" in the west is because our history of the conflict has been written by the German generals. They called it that, so we now call it that. The Soviet archieves were not open, and the west did not trust Soviet accounts because of the politics during the Cold War. So we call it the Eastern Front. You're right though. Technically it could be called the "German-Soviet Front", although that's a little long-winded. I may have to come up with a phrase that's more suitable because a quick google search does not come up with many alternatives.
It's called Eastern front because for the Germans/French/British/American and all european countries the fight in Russia did happen in the east. It has nothing to do with German bias. Even in WW1 it was called "eastern front".
RouG - Regardless, it isn't the eastern-front for the Soviets is it? So juggalo is right, it doesn't make sense to call it that
TIK For Soviets we talk about western front, while for Germany it is eastern.
So whats the solution? Call it the "Soviet-Polish-Bulgarian-Finnish-Hungarian-Croat-German-Romanian-andsomeothers front" for the sake of perfect neutrality? Or use a term that is firmly grounded in historiography, a term that was used in all over Europe and the Americas during and since WW2?
It's a false debate: if the author/speaker has a western background it makes sense to use the term "eastern front"; if the author/speaker as a Russian/Soviet background it make perfect sense to use "western front" or "GPW".
People talking about equipment like it's winning wars.
*laughs in economy and logistics
It may be an older source, but I am impressed with how how much of this Clark got right in "Barbarossa." The Soviet "advantage" in tanks is useless when, as you say, they are light tanks, thrown in piecemeal, if they even made it to the front, by inexperienced commanders, and then smashed against German AT guns. Great video.
"Mortars can't take out tanks."
The Italians on the North African front would disagree. Most divisions that had no direct AT capabilities had to get creative with satchel charges and mortars when they engaged British tanks.
And there was that British guy at Arnhem (Robert Henry Cain) who ran around with a mortar trying to take out German tanks. Apparently he took a few out with it too
You don't need to knock out the tanks. If strip off the tanks supporting infantry and are hitting them with enough fire power, small arms mortars artillery etc. All you need to do is convince them to withdraw.
Jeremy Clarkson's father-in-law. Clarkson did a documentary about him, worth watching. From memory it was a PIAT rather than a mortar and he did well enough that they awarded him a VC.
With enough rounds you could make such a mess of the roads that enemy tanks couldn't advance along them, even if the tanks get through fuel trucks etc might not.
Unless the mortar are equipped with heat, it would only presumably slightly damage the tank if possible
You start off, by making a big deal about the Soviets having only 500 Heavy tanks on 6/22/41. Well the Germans had Zero Heavy tanks.
And many KV tanks were placed on or near bridges or rail or road crossings, each one slowing the Germans down a day or so... Which adds up to not taking Moscow or more critically not taking Grozny.
Excellent presentation TIK. When looking at any weapon (except perhaps the atomic bombs), most people do not understand that a weapon system (tanks for example) cannot win a war by itself, it does not operate in a vacuum, it has to be an integrated part of a coordinated unit. Germans had great successes (at least initially) because of the coordination of their motorized/infantry/artillery units with the support of the Luftwaffe and most importantly all the logistic support (ammo, fuel, food, repair units, etc.). Especially in a war where the enemy (including civilians) will not surrender because of the "mistreatment they got from the Einsatzgruppen units or their own Commissars/political enforcing troops, a limiting factor in the German's advance was the clean-up that the infantry had to undertake following the tank push.
Other important factors:
Germans are losing their experienced fighters to attrition that new recruits could hardly replace.
German supply lines are getting longer (while Soviet lines are getting shorter)
Conquered territories are still restless grounds (partisans, revolutionaries, resistance) something Hitler should have learned from Cesar's strategy in Gaul.
Blitzkrieg is difficult on such a large scale as the Soviet Union and most of all, was the Soviet field commanders were learning (and getting better, developing their own war plans and tactics such as deep penetration/offensive,etc.),
Great research and interesting delivery, Ciao L (Veteran, 3 wars)
Just a quick history lesson; The Infantry ALWAYS does the bulk of the work. ALWAYS
I don't even care that it's not "Romantic" It's a two god damn hundred thousand mortar army... Thats Awesome!
Honestly, I was shocked when I saw that number. They started off with 56,100 mortars on 22/06/1941, and 272,400 entered service between then and January 1st 1943. So that's 328,500.
While I don't know the total production numbers for specific models, one thing I know is that the soviets also employed 120mm heavy mortars who could almost be considered artilery pieces! I saw one at a museum at Volgograd/Stalingrad. The tube was nearly as tall as my body!
If i recall correctly, the same 120mm heavy mortar was given to the Vietnamese during the USA-Vietnam Conflict. Would not want to be on the business side of that!
LTC DePuy in WW2 concluded that the US Army took heavy casualties because they were poorly trained. He discovered that putting his unit on the forward slope was lethal.
In the early days, there wasn’t even a Basic Combat Training. Congress later mandated BCT for all.
DePuy later got to create the Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) to try to fix training. One piece of the solution was the National Training Center (NTC) ….. units would deploy there to ‘fight’ an Opposing Force. The first rotations didn’t go well.
IMO the single largest mistake he made was to say that the training base would train individual tasks and collective tasks would be trained in units. Given 190 MOS with a variety of assignments, this means some folks never get collective training.
The huge challenge is how do you train the large organization's Commanders (BN, BDE, Division, etc.). There has never really been a system to do that..... now DARPA's SIMNET offers that opportunity.
Looking at WW2 interviews, German tank gunners were proud of their training and accuracy while Soviet tank gunners rarely got any formal training, let alone collective training.
Just a few more variable in the stew.😮
Excellent analysis. You have clearly demonstrated the difference between superficial data and the deeper meaning. Logistics!
It's all about interpreting that data :)
By the way, Soviets were not only good in mortar numbers, but in design. Soviets 120mm regimental and 160mm divisional mortars were basically copied by Germans. And the mortar emphasis is still in Russian army with 9 pieces per battalion (3 automatic 82mm "Vasilyek" (80 rounds per minute), and 6 conventional 82mm "Podnos"), 120mm regimental, 160mm divisional and 240mm corp mortars. The last one has videocamera correctable mines.
Wow, one of the most accurate and clearest videos I've watched about WW2. Armchair generals, video game makers, and movie directors should take note of these facts. It's about time people learn what really happened in the past.
Blah blah blah... "these light tanks couldn't stand up to a panzer 2" - what bullshit. You show us a BT-7 soviet light tank when you said this. Which had a 45mm main weapon which was at that time in 1941 equal to the best german main weapons on their NEWEST panzer IIIs & IVs. That was the case until the longer barreled tanks came out. Dude, do you know anything or is this channel just a wannabe historian?
The Soviets pioneered the 120mm mortar. The Germans were sufficiently impressed by the Soveit 120mm mortar that they simply copied the design and put it into production. Since mortars are fired at lower pressures than artillery rounds the mortar shells carry more HE, along the lines of a 150mm or 152mm HE round. While smaller mortars can damage or disable a tank a 120mm mortar could destroy a tank with a direct hit.
The German tanks that were used during Operation Barbarossa were PzKpfw IIs, IIIs, IVs, 35(t)s, and 38(t)s, as well as some captured tanks. With exception of the IV the rest are light tanks. There were about 480 Panzer IV medium tanks in Operation Barbarossa, no German heavy tanks were used. So it was light tanks against light tanks.
A burning T-34 and other vehicles destroyed in the encirclement battles between Bialystok and Minsk. Soviet tank units were badly handled during 'Barbarossa', and the standard of crew training was poor. The first T-34s were also prone to mechanical breakdowns.
The Soviet Union had twice or perhaps three times the number of both tanks and aircraft as the Germans had, but their aircraft were mostly obsolete. The Soviet tanks were about equal to those of the Germans, however. A greater hindrance to Hitler’s chances of victory was that the German intelligence service underestimated the troop reserves that Stalin could bring up from the depths of the U.S.S.R. The Germans correctly estimated that there were about 150 divisions in the western parts of the U.S.S.R. and reckoned that 50 more might be produced. But the Soviets actually brought up more than 200 fresh divisions by the middle of August, making a total of 360. The consequence was that, though the Germans succeeded in shattering the original Soviet armies by superior technique, they then found their path blocked by fresh ones. The effects of the miscalculations were increased because much of August was wasted while Hitler and his advisers were having long arguments as to what course they should follow after their initial victories.
The Battle of Raseiniai was a large tank battle fought at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union. The battle was fought in Lithuania, then part of the Soviet Union's Northwestern Front.
Some 240 German tanks from the 4th Panzer Group were tasked with destroying almost 750 Soviet tanks of the 3rd and 12th Mechanized Corps.
Despite their numerical advantage over the Wehrmacht, the result of the battle was an utter catastrophe for the Soviets. Some 700 Soviet tanks and their crews - almost the entirety of the Soviet Union's deployed mechanized units on the Northwestern Front - were destroyed, damaged, or captured.
The Battle of Brody is the largest tank battle in history, according to some historians.
Also fought during the beginning stages of Operation Barbarossa, the battle saw some 1,000 German panzers of the 1st Panzer Group's III Army Corps smash into 3,000 Soviet tanks from the six mechanized corps of the Soviet 5th and 6th Armies.
Again outnumbered, the Wehrmacht proved that superior training, tactics, communication technology, and air support make all the difference.
The exact number of casualties is not known, but estimates put Soviet tank losses at somewhere between 800 to over 1,000. The Wehrmacht also suffered heavy casualties, with anywhere between 200 to 350 tanks destroyed.
The Battle of Prokhorovka took place during the larger Battle of Kursk. It was long thought to be the largest tank battle in history, but according to the book Demolishing the Myth: The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka, Kursk, July 1943 by Valeriy Zamulin, a Russian military historian, that is not the case.
But that is not to say it was small or insignificant. The battle saw over 600 Soviet tanks from the 5th Guards Tank Army smash head on into around 300 German tanks from the II SS-Panzer Corps.
The fighting was some of the most intense in the history of armored warfare. The Soviets lost around 400 tanks, more than half of their force. German tank losses were smaller by comparison, up to 80 tanks and assault guns destroyed.
Ground troops feared mortars as they were difficult to hide from.
Glad you agree :) I was honestly shocked to see how many they made compared to other weapons.
That graph explains the German tank kill counts. It's not surprising if a Panzer 4 can blow up 2 or 3 soviet tanks with ease if they're all light tanks, I bet the light tanks couldn't even penetrate medium tank armour
A side to side graph showing ratio of men each army had at the beginning of the war that have actual combat experience and/or over three years of service vs fresh conscripts/new officer grads with less than 3 years under their belt would be nice
Hitler reportedly commented that he wouldn’t have invaded Russia if he knew how many tanks they produced.
Wow, this video just destroyed my belief in the importance of tanks (well, by themselves).
You'll probably enjoy this video as well, which goes into detail why tanks alone cannot win battles th-cam.com/video/OQblCC1rh74/w-d-xo.html
The germany army also grew for couple of years from 300 thousand People. So why is So different, why germany also do not have the same issues.
Why did you forget about German dominance in the sky?
Tanks without aviation support are simply coffins.
But the Soviets are not helpless in the air, they have the IL-1 Sturmovik, which is as much of a surprise to Germany as the T-34 and KV-1 & -2.
@@crhu319 The T-34 and KV-1 have been noted to be quite a surprise for Germans since most of their weaponry just had their shells bounce off the armor. But they didn't have these tanks and the planes in large numbers.
Katyusha Rockets also made an early impression on the Wehrmacht
@@crhu319 At the time of Dubno, they were largely helpless in the air. This was 1941, remember and the opening attacks of Barbarossa were aimed at destroying the Red Air Force.
Quite right.
Wow. That's the first time I heard that there's much more massive tank engagements outside Kursk. And that's when the Germans being outnumbered by the Soviets with vast light tanks.
The Soviets didn't want to talk about it, because it was a major loss for them. But why the Germans didn't want to talk about it, I'm not sure. To hazzard a guess, maybe because many of the units that took part in this battle were the same ones that got trapped at Stalingrad?
It would be worth looking if the German part is true. This is like Japan forbidden to talk about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombing aftereffects from its citizens.
As far as I know a large portion (likely as much as half) of the Soviet tank losses in 1941 were operational losses: they were not actually destroyed by the Germans in battle, but by their own crews as they ran out of ammunition, fuel or just broke down. Many Soviet units were in a bad shape prior to the invasion, they lacked spare parts, mechanics for maintenance, and even basics like fuel or ammunition due to serious supply problems. Given that, it is plausible that the German tankers were not so proud of riding through piles of scrap metal, when even the tanks that they actually destroyed were only obsolete light tanks. It is not something that would make you feel like a tough guy.
But destroying hundreds of those dreaded T-34s and KVs in a fair battle at Kursk is another story.
Many even lacked the manuals for the specialized officers (Armor, Artillery etc.) and the repair manuals for the maintenance sections.
The largest danger for tanks was operational failure for all major countries was breaking down. So how many German tanks were lost this way at the time?
Actually, that reminds me of a Game Theory video about World of Tanks by MattPat.
Something commonly brought up about the Western Front is that Germans did not have spare parts lying around and also just had vehicles much more complex to perform maintenance in the field when compared to tanks like the Sherman.
The Germans were on the retreat and lost great numbers of vehicles similarly to the Russians a few years beforehand.
Don’t forget assault guns. Basically tanks without a turret. Then pak guns.
At dubno the heavies and mediums Russian tanks totally missed the battle due to bad communication.
great video. You might look into the greatest battle you never heard of "Nomonhan". Soviets versus the Japanese between 1938 to 1939. General Zhukov cut his teeth here. The Soviet name is "The Battle of Khalkhin Gol." It is important because of how both countries covered it up to manipulate their other enemies. For the Soviets, Stalin was playing the Western Powers off of each other and did not want them to know how many divisions got sucked into this. The Japanese on the other hand did not want anyone to know what happened when they finally faced off against a world class opponent.
A better battle you never heard of would be the battle of Lake Khasan, where the Japanese crushed a vastly superior and dug in Soviet armoured force with a tiny force. It was due to this stunning victory, after a series of several dozen border skirmishes where the Japanese likewise won, that the Japanese decided to up the ante and attack across a river with a single strengthened Division against 3 Soviet divisions.
The Soviets threw T-34s at the Germans with little regard, they had difficulty most years of just making good their losses. In 1941 they produced 2800 T-34s, they lost 2300; during the entire war they produced 57,224, they lost 44,900. The reason why they exported so many after the war isn't because they had huge stocks of them sitting around (like the US and the Sherman), its because they kept building them until 1958 and kept refurbishing them until the 1970s.
As much as everyone loves to make the T-34s out to be the "best tank of all time" (which arguably for 1940 when it came out it was likely the best) it was squandered in actions without combat or logistical support. Battles are almost never tank vs. tank; their tank, infantry, artillery, and air vs tank, infantry, artillery, and air; the battle is either one with those arms together or lost to those arms apart.
Personally, I believe it’s more of an issue with the quality of Soviet tanks crews. The Soviets had rapidly expanded their army from 1938 to 1941, nearly doubling it from 1,513,400 men to about 5,000,000 under Shaposhnikov’s mobilization plan. That resulted in lots of inexperienced officers and men, which most certainly helps to explain the massive Soviet casualties during Barbarossa. I believe it is a case of Soviet disorganization rather than German excellence, especially on the tactical level. I’ve also read accounts that many fuel and ammunition were moved closer to the frontier, at least in the Kiev Military District (under the command of Zhukov if I remember rightly), which might explain the lack of logistical support for Red Army units in the field. Great video!
I did mention this in the video ;) but I don't think that alone explains it.
Of the Soviet tank formations in the Border military Districts the one with the highest percentage of its logistic and support vehicles was at about 55% of TO&E for those categories.
Logan McGrath Soviets didn't have radios at the start of the war they used signal flags!
Your forgot the Red Army purges in the 1930s
Many crews didnt know how to repair their tanks, which led to many cases in which they would abandon their machines in case of even small break down.
My grandgranddad, having finished Stalin's academy of armored troops in 1941 and surviving first skirmishes in Belorussia ( tank-less, trainees fought as infantry), was sent to the factory, where he trained the crews while their tanks were manufactured there.
This method greatly helped to teach the crews to repair tanks.
The Soviets prime tank in 1941 was the BT-7. It was fast and great on rough terrain. It was improved into the T-34. The T-26 was essentially a made under licence British Vickers. A tank the British army never took up, but sold to many other countries. The BT-7 and T-34 had the American Christie suspension. The USA never took it up. The British did, but heavily modified the suspension. The Christie suspension had less external parts so was less prone to being clogged up with mud and ice, unlike German designs. The Christie suspension meant tanks could run faster over rough terrain.
Not really a counter argument, just a suggestion...do you think you could post the books/articles you used in the description box of the video? Would really be a big help. You pose some compelling arguments and would like to look it up myself. Keep up the good work.
See pinned comment. Sources are in there ;)
Ah, my bad. Thanks bro.
No worries, I should have made it more clear in the video
basically everything by david glantz is great
Is this because the soviets were incompetent? NO
*goes on to detail many examples of soviet logistical incompetence *
I think its important particularly the Germans excelled at combined arms and along with Befehlstaktik (Command and Control) of units throughout the war and there were many ocasions were some units didnt. Many russian units were under command of their HQ and would only take orders from them particularly early in Barbarossa and not be used to working in combined arms. German units particually trained together and would even go far as to never critic other branches of the Wehrmacht (i.e Singing or mocking) and were encouraged to respect each branch. The Russians later would become better at combined arms due to learning from the 41-42 defeats they would slowly but surely become very skilled at this, particularly with Tanks and infantry but this was not till 1944-45 that this was happeneing as planned.
Source-
Panzertactics by Wolfgang Scnieder
Operation Barbarossa by David Glantz
AWESOME REPORT - I read so much about the (second world) WAR but you broke it down to the point like I have never seen/read or heard before!!! Very well done! And really astonishing is the fact that you didn't use the excessive spitten out "n"-word like in every fucking stupid rubbish (so called) "documentary about this topic.. Really AWESOME Dude!! OF COURSE LIKE & SUBSCRIBE
Great video.
It's great that you think so :)
I agree with this as in the enlisted online game, I mostly use and have success with infantry dynamite charges and anti tank guns rather than tanks as they are quite easier to deploy and there are simply more opportunities to use them as each soldier is a potential antirank solution.
I have a question, is there any relevance to russian ak 47 having 7.62mm bullets to soviet artillery having 76.2mm shells? just noticed that when you were showing a picture of 76.2mm gun in your video. thank you
Great question! And I have absolutely no idea! Hopefully someone else can shed some light on this for us because I'm curious too now :)
Translate it to English measurements 3" gun. .30 caliber rifle (or .3 inch). Both were quite common around the world.
TIK It's because of Imperial Russian caliber system which used inches (there were no metric system back then), so 7,62x54R for Mosin rifle (so called "three lines" system, "line" term stands for 1\10 of an inch), 76,2 mm for field gun ("30 lines"\3-inch gun caliber), not to mention 152 mm and 122 mm howitzers are actually grandchildren of heavy '60 lines' (6-inch) and '48 lines' (4,8 inch) artillery pieces of imperial times. So it's kind of historical tradition of using 152\122\76,2 mm calibers nowadays (but still new guns can use older shells). 120 mm mortars developed in USSR times are more 'metric'. 7,62 mm caliber for AK-47 was also chosen because of current machining equipment needed to produce gun barrels in 40s (it would be too costly to switch from existing small arms production equipment to any other caliber than widely used 7,62 mm after the war)
all this doesnt change the fact that the same number of german soldiers dont wanted the war like all other nations and the soldiers there. every dead, doesnt matters from which nation is sad. its like you guys are happy that so many german soldiers died but the most of them dont wanted war... :(
One of the best introductions of WW2 was the Kangaroo - the armoured personnel carrier which is so essential in modern warfare. A Canadian idea using a Churchill tank with the turret removed, a door inserted and armour on the top. I think it was done by Hobart and his Funnies. It took troops right to where the fighting was in relative safety from mortars and machine gun fire.
not Iseav, but Isaev is the name of the author. Otherwise very interesting. Thank you.
Good one - now I'm going to watch and listen to it at least one more time . There's so much info.
Let me know if it was worth a second watch :)
Great video again, thank you TIK! let's also not forget how devastating the Katyusha's were on the German Infantry, technically that'd fall under artillery but do think that cheap & easily mass produced weapon was another decisive factor :) look forward to the next video!
Surprisingly, according to the statistics I used (from Mawdsley's Thunder in the East) the Katiushas were listed seperately to artillery. They only had 3,600 Katiushas on the 1st of January 1943 (700 had been lost by this point too).
Well, Germans had Nebelwerfers.
The severe lack of radios on the Soviet side was also quite significant. This exacerbated the Red Army's problems with command and control. I was surprised you didn't mention this.
One KV-2 took on an entire formation panzer 3’s!!!!
Yes,but that was exception to the rule.In the end,it only delayed German advance.
@@kaletovhangar which is how you win in Russia. #WinterIsComing
The T 34-2 men turret and only the platoon tank had radio. The commander was gunner and commander once he was taken out you had only a machine gun to fight with. This was the best one they had, with armour like that you don't employ combined tactics. The T34/85 was a different tank altogether and it's effectiveness was superior to the Pz IV and maybe just slightly inferior to the Panther but made it up by its reliability and sheer numbers, they produced over 20000 of the T34/85 against total production of the Panther of 4500 at the Tiger I and II production you won't even make 7000.
Germans made 6000 Panther and 1840 Tiger I-II.Get your facts right!Also,just %6.5 percent of German military budget was spent on AFVs during WW2,so no wonder they made less tanks.
Brilliant presentation, I highly recommend a book about the Ostfront: *"The Forgotten Soldier" by Guy Sajer* , it really puts you in the middle of it all in a brilliantly written first hand account.
Yes a superb memoir. Just be aware it is a memoir and not a history. So some of the details may be wrong.
The tank against tank ideal evolves over the war, and to the present. The Tiger and Panther are anti-tank weapons. Stalin's dictum that artillery is the queen of battle is reflected in the raise of the SP. You are right, but your thesis is ignoring the evolution of the war. The turretless tanks created in ever increasing numbers proved very effective, and efficient. They were very respected, and produced the best Aces of the tank hunters.
You are right, and I am thankful you have researched the numbers, as they are very indicative, but it is a lagging indicator. Production is for last year's strategy and it's designs. Your agrument is caught between what happened, and what was intended to happen.
With regard to mortars, everyone always forgets mortars.
Very nice work TIK! Thanks! The best explanation of the Eastern Front I have ever seen. And I have seen a lot.
Wow, I didn't expect anyone to say that! Really glad you found it useful, thank you :)
It is very difficult to coordinate infantry with tanks. Even more so when your tanks have no radios like the early Soviet tanks. That is the primary reason for their poor coordination.
Great video, as per usual. How is Stalingrad coming along? (Notice that I didn't say "When will it be out?")
It's actually coming on quite nicely, although pace has slowed since I decided to do weekly videos. Next Monday's video will be on Stalingrad though (it isn't the main documentary, but a video you'll probably enjoy)
Excellent!
I want a full video only about Manstein :P
That would be good and possibly one on Model. Any chance TIK?
TIK YESSSSS!!!! I cant wait:) If you could please mention the biggest fake hype of Vasily Zaitsev during initial assault that never happened when he was assigned to 62nd Army, 284th Rifle Division, 1047th Regiment (Enemy at the Gates) where Order 227 was obscenely portrayed and soldiers were handed one rifle and another clip of ammo. Biggest lie in western myth of the eastern front - you would do millions of Russians who were killed justice. I look forward to the video :)
Superb video. Tbh, none of it was brand new to me...until the datapoint on the huge increase in USSR mortars by 1943 compared to relatively minor changes in other weapon types. THAT was mind-blowing.
0:44 literally every eastern front meme in a nutshell
Great study. Thanks. Would love to see a documentary on the use of horses. The Red Army had a lot of Calvary formations. Were those guys riding into battle on horses? How were the Calvary formations used?
I just found your channel, very interesting and well presented, thought out and researched
Thanks! I'm trying to make the most detailed videos possible (especially my Battlestorm series), so it's good to hear you like the style of the ones I've made so far :)
Gutes Video,der Mann hat aufgepasst, er weiß was er sagt. Macht bitte weiter so.
Thank you for this video. Although in Russia this sort of information is accepted easily but when arguing with "Western people", it becomes almost impossible.
Like :)
There's a very vocal but minor portion of the west which isn't open to new ideas and wants to see the Germans as superior in every way (as the German themselves at the time claimed to be). But a majority are open to new ideas and are willing to change their views when presented with strong evidence and a compelling argument. This in itself is encouraging 😊
very good explanation, its never tank vs tank. its tank vs anti tank. logistics vs logistic, supply etc
I just discovered your channel during historyclass, at first the teacher got mad after seeing me non stop on my phone. But the next day he told me it was fine and he is not mad at me, but mad that only 12k people subscribed to your channel.
Keep up the good work mate!
Sounds like you have a good teacher :)
well my mind was blown the first time I watched this and saw those weapon output numbers, and that the humble mortar was the most produced weapon. It actually does make sense when you actually step back and remember that tanks aren't usually going around by themselves. They have infantry with them. Also I had heard of similar things about most of the Soviet tanks that were destroyed weren't even needed to begin with and that they were in some ways outdated like the T-26 and all their destruction did was give a false impression on the so called "tank killers" the German tanks like Tiger could do. But that is also because when the USSR armor is talked about, T-34 and KV are placed at the forefront so the misunderstanding is there on both sides.
But this has also helped reinforce the truth about armies for me: the infantry are and will always be the back bone of the army.
Fantastic work as always.
Cheers Kevin!
Nice to see you are reading Isaev on this topic, his books are great but unfortunately not that well-known outside Russia
A great video. I always thought the role of tank on tank combat in the Eastern front was much more significant. Thanks!
Happy to put things into perspective for you :)
What do you think is the reason why people like to think that tanks mostly fought other tanks?
My guess is that people just like to compare different WW2 tanks so they think of these "which one would win, Sherman or Tiger?" scenarios. And of course games like War Thunder and World of Tanks where combat mostly happens between tanks.
Tank vs tank battles did happen tho, because why would Germans made their tanks have stronger armor and have their tanks have a cannon which can penetrate more armor than previous one. Heavy tanks were designed to attack other tanks, bunkers and spearhead the attack.
Of course they happened, but as the man in the video said, they weren't as common and significant as people think they were.
They were quite common but they didnt have an impact as infantry had (i think thats what TIK is trying to say). For example durign the battle of Kursk, German tanks on southern pincer almost broke through Soviet defensive line and then Soviet had to send their tank reserve to stop the German breakthrought and that its known as Battle of Prokhorovka. Because if tanks achieved a breakthrought then infantry could follow. So in this case Soviets used their tank reserves to stop a breakthrough.
There is no Iseav source, the guy is Isaev!
FIRST! The fact that Soviet tanks were instantly superior compared to German tanks at the beginning, is silly, the Soviet main tanks which really gave the Germans a run for their money was the T-34 and K-V1s. These were in very few numbers, and the tanks at the beginning of the war which the Soviets mainly used were awful, and could be crushed by pretty much anything other then light firearms. The Tiger and Panther could deal with the T-34s, however there were so many of them by the end of the war, it was useless. When the amount of T-34s increased beyond the number of the German tanks, it was pointless, as the Soviets were now producing far more tanks then the Germans, as well as excellent T-34s
Hi Jamie! Glad to see you're back on the ball :)
TIK WOOO!
by late October 1941 the Soviets had lost just over 1500 T-34s. The T-34 was not "excellent" as a combat platform in fact it was a very poor weapon tactically. The one excellent thing about the T-34 was that the Soviets were able to produce it cheaply in large numbers with mostly unskilled labor.
Louis Thecollege yep don't fuck with the sovs
"If it is stupid, but works; then it isn't stupid."
Sage advise from a platoon sergeant of recon infantry from many years ago....
It might not be 1917, but something similar happened on that year, during the Battle of Cambrai, in November. George Montague Harper, the commander of the 51st division, had used a local variation of the tank drill instead of the standard one laid down by the Tank Corps so his tanks would be pretty much attacking alone, without proper infantry support and also, Flesquières, his main objective, was one of the most fortified points in the German line and was flanked by other strong points and its defenders had specialist training in anti-tank tactics and experience against French tanks in the Nivelle Offensive of April 1917.
Another thought provoking video! This is why I love this channel. Lets jump right into it.
Graph at 0:55
About the "superior" Soviet tanks. The graph is pretty clear in the abundance of light tanks over the other types. If one were to weed out the light tanks, we get some 500 heavy tanks and 900 T-34s as "real" tanks. So far, so good. But the German arsenal is also filled with less than ideal tanks: 152 Panzer I (hopeless), 179 Panzerbefehlswagen (great for command and control, but they
artificially inflate the number of combat tanks), 743 Panzer II (poor), 155 Panzer 35 (t) (poor) and 85 Flammpanzer II. So those are some 1300 + light tanks (almost a third of the Panzer strength) that find themselves in the same spot as the Soviet lights.
Also, I think stating that the Soviet light tanks wouldn´t be able to go toe to toe with a Panzer II is a bit too much. There are 7732 BT-7, 1688 BT-5 and over 10,000 T-26s, all equipped with different iterations of the Soviet 45 mm gun, good enough to tackle the Panzer II of the aforementioned statement.
Of course, the end point of the video is that a lot of tanks went down at the hands of the infantry and not the Panzers (a statement to which I agree 100% and will elaborate further at the end of my comment) but I wanted to state that most of the Soviet light tanks could go toe to toe with the Panzer II (your words at 1:42). If they weren´t able to do it in the field, it was due to the logistics, command and control failing them, but in that event, they would have succumbed to a wheelbarrow mounting a Panzerbüchse 39, so the point is moot.
00:19
Ah, the T-34. "War Winning Weapon". Wholly agree with you in your assesment regarding that statement. I could probably spend hours criticizing the T-34 (which I personally find severely overrated) but I will just mention one thing: it is often argued that the T-34 was distributed in small numbers during Barbarossa and that is why it couldn´t make an impact, but numbers show otherwise. Barbarossa had started with almost 900 T-34s, that is, almost 1 T-34 for every 4 German tanks, including those way out of place (Panzer I, Panzer II, etc), and by December, the Red Army would have deployed 3000 T-34s. The Soviets had almost the same number of T-34s than the entire German tank strength in the East! So they were lost not because they were available in small numbers, but because of those factors you mentioned before: poor logistics, bad training, inadequate maintenance, lack of equipment, and a lot of "soft" flaws in the T-34s design.
3:01
Off topic here, but I have to comment on the impressive amount of rings on the 88.
7:20
"Is this because the Soviets are incompetent? No"
Well, I would argue that they somewhat were. Of course, a lot had to do with the sudden influx of new recruits at pretty much every level, but even prior the Red Army was not in the same league as the Wehrmacht. And this is due to large array of factors that together produce the aforementioned disaster. I will quote David Campbell on this:
"Officers were drawn from a far broader section of society than in Tsarist times; the best candidates were creamed off for the NKVD, the VVS and the RKKA’s engineer and artillery branches, with the infantry, as is often the case, at the back of the line. For the enlisted men, conscription came at 19 years old, and fed them into an army that was drawn mostly (around 80 per cent) from the peasant villages rather than the cities, men who came from a multitude of 15 ethnic backgrounds and who spoke in mutually unintelligible dialects or languages. The expansion of the 1930s wasn’t accompanied by an equally large growth in infrastructure or planning, and the RKKA rifleman of 1939 would often find himself with shoddy or missing equipment, living in dismal accommodations and eating poor food, subjected to daily lectures on the importance of the Party, and more used to being employed on ad hoc agricultural projects than as a soldier [...] The existing supply structure was complex, sluggish and corrupt; it failed at almost every level."
Now, on the effect of the purges. Certainly the millions of men entering service might have had a more direct effect than the tens of thousands executed, but the purges had another effect, less direct, but no less damaging. Again, from Campbell:
"For the officers and men in the rifle regiments the purges had little direct effect, as personnel at this level largely escaped the worst of the venom that ran through the higher echelons. The influence was more subtle, but pernicious. In such an atmosphere even relatively junior officers felt the creeping insecurity that was the natural result of such a trustless system. ‘Instead of
taking pride in responsibility, an officer was well advised to dodge the limelight and to pass the buck. Cadets learned very little about inspiring their men in field conditions. The party hacks, the Politruks, were supposed to take care of that’. Mechanized forces were underdeveloped, operational knowledge stagnated, and freedom of thought and independence of action were positively discouraged in favour of strict adherence to detailed, written orders. Such inflexibility was married with political interference at every level due to the re-emergence of the Politruk; such men were ideological guardians of the Party’s message, who had equal rank with the commander of the unit to which they were assigned, from a division all the way down to a rifle company, and who could overrule that commander’s orders if they saw fit. Such ‘dual commands’ were an obvious disaster waiting to happen, but in Stalin’s RKKA the legacy of the purges ensured that all actions were mediated by loyalty to the Party and its leader."
12:41
This citation regarding the Germans having adequate anti tank weapons (and in line with the infantry doing most of the work, as mentioned above) is something I agree with with, and in no small part because I like settling scores. The PaK 36 has the infamous nickname of "door knocker" due to its performance in very specific actions (namely Arras) but it is easy to forget that those tank that the little PaK couldn't crack were but a small fraction of the enemy tank inventory. And the same is true for it's performance in 1941 in the East. 90% of the Soviet Union's tank inventory could be dealt with the PaK 36 from standard combat ranges. And it was small, light, easily concealable and suited itself exceptionally for infantry manhandling, weighing just over 400 kg.
Same old shibboleths.
This ties in nicely with The Chieftain’s presentation on Myths Surrounding the M4 Sheridan and the US preference for Tank Destroyer Doctrine on the Western Front.
Great video!
Thanks!
1941年春の幹部候補生達へのスターリンの言葉「ドイツ軍のフランス戦での成功を過大評価してはならない。彼らが同等の敵(ソビエト軍)と相対した時を見ようではないか。」スターリンはドイツの成功は人口と経済が敵より大きかったからであり、ロシアには通用しないと言いたかったのでしょう。
great video!
Thank you sir!
you make really interesting videos so I subscribed :D
Imperial Japanese Pepe I
Imperial Japanese Pepe TENNO HEIKA BANZAI
I read that Stalin demanded as many Mortars as humanly possible. They hammered them out.
They also had lots of sub machine guns.
You have done so much to peel away the Cold War/Post War hyper exaggeration of the German Armed forces in WW2. This hangover was all through popular culture including the stuff i read in school in the late 70's early 80's such as Sven Hassel and Guy Sajer alone - amidst so much more.
This is my current aim. I have just got the Halder Diaries, and can't wait to make a few videos on that, since he was the guy who championed this view of the German army in ww2.
Guy Sajer was writing a memoir not a history.
Louis Thecollege; 'Popular culture' is what i said - thats the bit that filters its way out of the 'war' segment and into the hands of ordinary people who get a skew if version of history because they cant balance it against anything else.
Be Surprised.....Steve
Great video, very informative, interesting and well presented. I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the war in the East but as usual it is far more complex than most doco's on the subject would have you believe. I always thought infantry wasn't as important as the number of tanks, planes and tech and that was why vast numbers of Russian infantry was defeated in the first months of the war in the East. I'll definitely watch more of your vids and hope they are all this good. Thanks for doing them.