Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, Android or iOS: 💥con.onelink.me/kZW6/olvfw37d Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days
Simply put Putin Russia did not deploy a massed armored attack. Has the very out of this World feel of a complete ignorance of Napoleonic Tactics as well namely the necessity of a *"main effort."* Russia appears from this thousands of miles away and certainly never a military officer who I am that this be what I think Napoleon labeled *"piecemeal efforts"* which after time can prove to have devastating consequences against a seemingly inferior if not non-existent enemy. How this is even possible given how Ukraine and Russia have been fighting since 2014...I cannot fathom the current now absolutely terrifying situation #loose_nukes
Unit structure has also shifted. Germany famously had fewer tanks than the French and British but they leveraged what they had into more concentrated groups. These days tanks seem to be more evenly distributed - at least armored vehicles are.
I think it's fair to say that armored vehicles today are far more vulnerable than infantry. A child can, and now often do, bring down even the heaviest armored vehicles thanks to anti-tank weapons being so abundant.
In WWII, France was indeed focused on the Low Countries and was arguably equivalent to the Germans in equipment. What did them in was poor comms; they couldn't react to German attacks in time; the Germans simply ran rings around them.
Good point and you could argue that German comms won the day for them, on every front, pretty much all the way up to 1942. Blitzkrieg, combined arms warfare, and superior tank doctrine were only possible thanks to Germany’s prewar emphasis on radio communications down to every individual vehicle (whenever possible) and incorporated radio usage into every aspect of training. The coordination this allowed, on every scale of operations from the individual tank platoon all the way up to division and army level, is probably the factor that really made Germany so much more effective than its opponents, especially in the early years when everyone had sh*tty comms.
Same question was asked in regards to Syria. The answer was that anti-tank missiles were chewing up the armored vehicles at a distance and tanks were relegated to being essentially direct-fire artillery. The balance has shifted back to the infantry again, using storm-trooper tactics combined with pinpoint artillery support.
I think its also pertinent to point out that much of WWII was not made up of armoured spearheads, sweeping over the country. There were many phases and theatres where the fighting resembled a WWI slogging match. For example Overlord was stuck in the Bocage for 2 months before the Allies could mount a breakout and several British and Canadian armoured thrusts around Caen rapidly bogged down. In Italy the campaign was mostly a slow grind that put paid to any ideas of a 'soft underbelly' ripe for attack. People remember the Blitzkrieg war in 1940 and 41 but tend to forget the many instances when an older, more industrial, positional warfare predominated.
Artillery, air strikes, and infantry wielded anti tank weapons have gotten much more accurate but tanks have not gotten any faster. Thats it. When a revolution in firepower is not matched by a revolution in mobility, warfare tilts to favor the defender. Firepower in WW2 was not much more effective or accurate than 8n WW1 but tanks and planes were much more mobile. Hence the aggressive fast moving front lines.
I'm still wondering when the first nation will try the one person in armored sarcophagus with a strong autoloader gun and really high mobility outside it strategy. Basically vulnerable components.. But impossible to hit or kill the driver, and really easy to replace parts on the outside should have way lower weight since all you need to armour is a single person bit. You could highly angle it and make it mine blast proof, have it have a ton of wheels and thus be hard to mobility kill, but since its way lighter make it faster too
Short Answer: WWII was over 80 years ago. It doesn't even come down to having infantry carried anti-tank weapons or mines; before one can even begin, you have to contend with the combo of advanced intelligence gathering and precision long-range attacks. It was easier to sneak an army around back then since your intelligence relied on the recon of spies and planes as well as intercepted comms. Modern-day armies don't have the luxury. Mass too many too close, and those logistical hubs become targets before an assault can even begin, so your only option is to have them spread out and then coalesce faster than your enemy can respond and that requires intensive communication and coordination and that's harder with a strict top-down structure. Then you have to contend with javelins and the like.
We have effectively returned to August 1914. Then it was heavy howitzers and machine guns. Today it is sensors and PGMs. In both cases, mass concentration of forces in the open was rendered suicidal.
@@nicholaswalsh4462 WHen Wagner capped Soledar, one soldier interviewed referenced creeping barrages. And this has been a war of attrition since last May.
@@bearsausage8599 yep, potentially you could see north of a million casualties on both sides before Russia gets tired of throwing away resources for nothing and leaves.
@flyboymb Ukraine isn't going to win. It's naive to think putin will just accept a loss and leave. It would likely mean his overthrow/death. The best they can hope for is losing the donbass and give up on crimea.
Theyre much less of a danger than putins rabid hordes of rapists and murderers. When the aggressor is beat, Ukraine will get lots of help from the free world to dispose the mines.
Tanks are at the point that battleships were in 1945, everybody still had them, they were still useful and powerful, but the age where they ruled the battle is over, supplanted by new technologies and tactics. Though the battleship was heavily armed and couldn't be matched in direct combat, the carrier could engage a battleship from way out of range, making it relatively invincible to just naval guns. The tank, was first used to dislodge infantry from its strong points, or outright bypass them, and then used in combination with infantry for extra defense on the tank and extra offense support on the infantry. Now a single infantryman with a good position and a cheap weapon (compared to the tank) can wipe out a whole column with little fear of retaliation, and on a strategic level, the loss of simply infantry if they do hit back successfully. And then there's drones. Tanks have no hope if a tiny civilian drone can direct accurate artillery on them before they're even on the front Times are changing, new toys in the field, and we all know what happens when armies have lots of new toys and bored soldiers and a sad low morale low recruitment peacetime army to whip into shape. JUST LIKE NOW !
people have been using this same dumb ass argument to argue the tank was obsolete since 1919. its still here. your argument is based on a childish idea of well x can beat Y, so X must be obsolete, right. Sorry bud military obsolescence doesn't work that way, otherwise infantry would have been obsolete centuries ago. Just because a javelin can kill a tank, doesn't mean it replaces one. One, a javelin missile ain't cheap. its $250,000 per missile. and another quarter million for the CLU. Other antitank missiles are cheaper but they are also either much shorter ranged than a tank gun, or have to be vehicle carried because they are too heavy. And it weighs 50+ pounds. No infantryman is carrying more than one of these things unless they are Hercules. Meaning, he has got one shot with a super expensive missile. While a tank is more expensive , a tank round is much cheaper, about 5k. and a tank round can get to its target in 1-2 seconds flat, where as a javelin missile can take up to 30 seconds to get to its target. That is very important because a lot can happen in 30 seconds. And no infantryman is ever going to run as fast as a tank, or survive machinegun, autocannon, or sniper fire, something that tanks, generally dont have to worry about. Infantryman themselves are also not cheap either. On average the an infantrymans life is worth a million to several million dollars for their government when you account for the money spent training them, equipping them, taking care of them, as well as the GDP they produce for that government over their lifetime. Oh and most infantry portable antitank weapons are pretty useless on offense because they are too heavy to fire on the move or require significant setup time, or are far too short ranged. Javelin needs a 30 second warmup time, TOW is too heavy to fire outside of a tripod mount. Where as a tank can move and shoot and kill other armored and soft targets at the same time. And tanks with cheap drones supporting them to scout for antitank teams would be an incredibly effective combination against javelin teams. War is a combined arms business, that has not changed. Everything on the battlefield is highly vulnerable without some other element to back them up. Tanks that go on offense without infantry get slaughtered, infantry that go on offense without tanks, air power, and artillery get slaughtered, artillery without something to spot and observe cant shoot, air power cannot hold ground, naval vessels cannot crawl onto land. And none of them work without the logistics to support them. That's been the rule of war for a long time and that is not likely to change any time soon.
@@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818 i think the problem is down to what you considerate a tank . horseman were a significant and effective part of any army in the past , when armies stopped using horsemen on the battlefield evryone tought they were done , in reality they were still used , simply differently . like battleships , that praticaly no-one uses or try to build anymore , "tank" as an armored cannon doesn't work anymore . nowdays a tank is not realy about the armor , but about the sensors, countermeasures , and firepower . the "tank" as an armored heavy veicle used in the past is done . there are still uses for tanks , and we will keep see tanks for many years . but at some point , tanks will just be a memory , simply because they are inferior to the potential of small arms and drones . you will not need a tank anymore to take positions and hold them , just drones and artilery . not yet toh. and ... infantry was never realy old or inefficent , so we are going to see infantry for as long as bots will be inferior to the decision making of an human and highter upkeep requirements .
@@unknow11712 sorry bud, but you have no idea what your talking about. how about you reread my previous comment and actually try and comprehend what i wrote instead of repeating the same tired old argument that's been used since 1919 to claim that the tank is dead.
Biggest point not covered imo: Tanks have never been a silver bullet capable of operating without support. It is a myth that German success early in WWII came because they had the foresight to emphasize tank warfare and their enemies did not. Combined arms was and still is the name of the game. French, Soviet and (initially) even British and American armored units contained higher concentrations of tanks than their German counterparts in WWII. What the Germans actually had that their opponents lacked were self-contained all-arms units that included motorized infantry, self-propelled artillery, engineering units, and enough radios to efficiently co-ordinate all of these assets plus their air support. Plus an army full of soldiers willing to and capable of taking the individual initiative necessary to keep an offensive moving forward once a breakthrough was made in this complex environment. The effect was kind of like playing a game of rock-paper-scissors where the rules say your opponent either always needs to go first or else can only ever select rock. They just always mysteriously seemed to have the right asset at the right place and time to counter their opponents who just had tons of unsupported and uncoordinated tanks which could be picked apart relatively easily. Now fast forward to the Ukraine war. Russia had tons of vehicles and firepower and even air support assets, but almost nonexistent co-ordinatoon and logistics. So even out-numbered and out-gunned (unlike binkov I don't count mobilized troops training and months away from battle as combat power available right now), Ukraine was able to exploit Russia's inability to co-ordinate or supply its forces first to stop the Russians, then in some cases to even push them back (though at significant cost due to the disparity in numbers and tech). And again look at Karkhiv. The Ukrainians were short on armor (though they did have some), but they had co-ordination, co-operation, and logistics. In short when they made a breakthrough they had all the pieces in place to support it. Finally, I'd like to point out that it wasn't just a lucky co-incidence that coalition troops like the US, Britain, and France always seemed to somehow fight with local numerical superiority during the Gulf War. This occurred specifically because they were better trained, better led, and had better situational awareness, that led to their being able to decide when and how they would engage (and they naturally usually made sure they did so when they had the advantage). Also, while local numerical superiority was obviously a useful advantage for them, it was not a prerequisite. At one point 2nd ACR (IE a single US Armored Cavalry Regiment) moved forward so fast it found itself caught between 2 Iraqi divisions, and it folded both of them up like they were cheap lawn furniture. Again, the quality and motivation of your personnel matters and the ability to bring the power of all of your combat arms to bear on your opponent at the time and place they are needed is critical (and obviously closely related to the quality and motivation of your personel) This, to me explains what we have seen in Ukraine. Are the Ukrainians the absolute best troops in the world? In spite of the nearly boundless respect I now have for them, no. But they are some of the best motivated troops in the world and likely the best troops in the world relative to the amount of time and money that can be invested in their training before they are sent out to fight. Still, they may lack the equipment necessary for a major combined arms offensive on a scale like WWII or 1991. Russia had the raw numbers men and weapons to do this back in Feb 2022 , but not the doctrine or logistics, and the average quality of their soldiers was also arguably too low even when they relied primarily on contract troops and their pre-war training cadres were still intact. Combined arms is hard (especially if you want to co-ordinate with air assets in a meaningful way). It requires lots of expensive, complex training that isn't always exciting to watch, and even experienced troops sometimes screw it up. As a result Russian units tended to avoid it. Plus the type of individual initiative required to make it work is not emphasized by Russian doctrine. This means that we have likely already seen Russia's best attempt at this last year (and that 40 mile long convoy to Kiev that just sat out on the roads for days getting sniped at by the Ukrainians was the result).
I think there's not enough focus on troop quality at the moment. Right now, Russian troop quality, on average, is dog-doo. There are still a few elite units - Wagner, for all its brutality, is generally viewed as effective, though it only has the ability for small scale operations (it's not going to be the one to lead a mass armored attack, for instance). There are still some VDV units and Russian marines, and even thought they're degraded, they have some combat effectiveness. But the average soldier is now a mobik, and they suck. In fact, there are even mobiks in those "elite" units. But when Binkov talks about a higher density of Russian troops given the shorter lines, a countervailing issue is the quality of the troops is a lot lower. Another indication that they suck is Russia's current disinclination to generate more mobiks. Instead, Russia's trying to recruit 400K new kontraktniki, which seems like an exercise in futility, given that Russia tried to do the same thing on a smaller scale last year, and the resulting unit, the 3rd Army Corps, was a lot smaller than 400K and disappeared without a trace, completely ineffective. It's unclear why Russia thinks that it can do on a bigger scale this year what it failed to do on a smaller scale in 2022. But it's an indication Russia realizes it needs not just more troops, but better troops. Surovikin probably had the right idea - preserving the best RU troops in the Kherson by pulling them back across the water, then going into a defensive posture for as long as it took to *properly train* RU mobiks. Draftees can be effective - most soldiers in WWII were draftees. But they need a lot of training. Russia gave the mobiks hardly any training at all and then told them to attack. Insanity. But attack was a political imperative because underlying Putin logic is Ukraine isn't a real country, and that it only needs a good hard push and it will collapse. Going into a defensive stance for many months (because Russia also needs to reconstitute training assets before it can properly train mobiks, having thrown its trainers into the meat grinder long ago), doesn't fit that narrative. So Russia kind of seems to be where it was in September 2022 when Putin called for mobilization - not enough troops, except (1) avg quality of troops is worse (2) avg quality of equipment is worse (3) used up a lot of ammunition relative to what it had in Sep 2022. They do have a lot of trenches they didn't have before. Presumably they have a lot of minefields they didn't have before. But the avg quality of RU troops - it sure as heck isn't *better* than it was in Sep 2022.
Slight problem with your analysis. German victory is artillery superiority where the airforce acts as a long range artillery. Zelensky has mobilized a million men as he had claimed while russia is using around 300,000 soldiers in ukraine. The reason for russia's continous success in offensives is artillery superiority an indication if good logistic capabilities of russia. NATO logistic is just terribly bad. The nato secretary general just said that ukraine is using more shells than NATO can produce. Which means they are running out of artillery stockpile reserves. NATO cannot increase production despite a year into the war. That is why NATO only promised a million shells to ukraine for the year or less than 3000 a day much lower than what ukraine uses. The reason ukraine suceeded in their offensive is russia lacks manpower to hold the front , artillery needs infantry to pin down enemy offensive that is why it has to mobilize new troops and shorten the frontline. In the siege of azovstal steel plant 1600 russians surrounded 3000 ukrainian soldiers who surrendered because russia has fire superiority. Ukraine cannot establish superiority except in manpower so i have low hope in achieving anything in this offnsive. The lancet drones would be the equivalent of germanys stuka destroying enemy equipment and ukraine has nothing to counter the drones. Tanks and ifv are just too vulnerable. Combined arms has now shifted to artillery assisted by drones and infantry for defense. Air defense has made aircraft to act like mobile artillery. Why use an aircraft when a cheap drone can do the job.
@@cv990a4 the way russia is handling this conflict is better than what the US performed in vietnam and afghanistan. The US takes city centers and ignore villages that is why there is no clear frontline. Russia takes villages then take the city center that is why there are almost no insurgency in occupied territories. The last time the US did actual battle is the korean war with clear frontlines. the taking of city centers only is a stupid strategy no wonder the US cannot control helmand province in 20 years.
The main problem was Putin not expecting Ukrainian resistance and therefore giving the Russian army almost zero notice. The Russian military was over-estimated pre-war, but to be a little bit fair to them, their biggest handicap has been the absurd decisions taken by politicians - i.e. Putin and his minions. Had Putin given the Russian generals even a couple weeks notice and the chance to prepare a reasonable contingency, they could likely have done a lot better than they did, but that didn't fit Putin's narrative of Ukraine being a rotten edifice that would collapse if you kicked down the door (as Hitler said in WWII about the USSR - he wasn't right about that either). Putin got high on his own supply, and that screwed the Russian military right up the poop chute. Ukraine couldn't have done this without Putin's gross incompetence.
Portable anti-tank weaponry was widespread throughout WW2. Yes it was worse, but so where the tanks. It is probably the least significant factor (that might be worth mentioning) on making it harder for tanks betwean the two wars.
For the same reason we no longer see infantry advancing in dense firing lines. That kind of mass makes sense when weapons are limited in range/accuracy/rate, but as weaponry improves in those areas, massed attacks become less effective. A platoon of modern MBTs hull-down in prepared positions can demolish 10x their number advancing across an open field. Throw in modern ATGMs and you're looking at slaughter.
Because we have the equivalent of the machine gun that neutralized cavalry in WW1. They are called Man portable guided missiles. Also neither side really has the logistical tail to keep a tank column moving.
There was no element of surprise on September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland. Poland had mobilised its troops in the spring of 1939 and moved them to the border. It expected war to break out and to be won swiftly since, both the UK and France had promised to invade Germany from the west, if a war broke out with Poland. However, Poland was betrayed by its allies, since the French merely started a symbolic attack in the Saarland and halted the advance after a few kilometers.
@@TheRandCrews True, the Allies try to forget that as best as they can, since it would cast a dark light on the USSR. But, history teaches us that the good guys always win the wars... what a coincidence? ;-)
IIRC wasn't there a dispute between the generals and politicians. The generals wanted to put the Polish troops behind better geographic defenses but the Polish government didn't want to leave any parts of western Poland undefended? I remember reading this somewhere but it was a long time ago. Poland probably could have held on even longer.
@@kilianklaiber6367 did you forget the cold war that painted the soviets as being terrible? Fuck off with the "History is written by the victors" wehraboo cope, its not true in the slightest.
@@kilianklaiber6367 The only one of the Allies to try to forget that is Russia, because it muddies the story of the Great Patriotic War. The fact that the USSR helped Hitler before fighting against him is one that Russia does its best to suppress. In fact it went back to shortly after WWI - Weimar Germany had a German air force base in the USSR, for instance.
Three reasons why we didn't see a WWll style large tank battle in Ukraine. 1: Portable anti-tank weapons are very effective. 2: Most, if not all, Russian armor vehicles and tanks got ambushed and destroyed. 3: There is no cohesive battlefield strategy from Russian armed leadership. Throwing tanks in the field will yield nothing.
again, total nonsense. do a modicum of research into Russia's tank storage and numbers. look at some documentaries from pre this cobflict to reduce the propaganda effect. their number are simply enormous. many of the most updates t80s got deployed last. the t14s are in Ukraine now, evidenced. just stop making things up, we will always call you out.
@@tariver1693 are you sure about that? I haven't seen any UA-camr make their own subtitles in years. But if the Binkov crew did, this must be intentional. xD
@@nervsouly If you go to the subtitles menu of this video you'll see two choices: "English" and "English (automatically created)". And a lot of creators make manual subtitles, I'm not a native English speaker, so I turn them on from time to time.
Before you had to run up to a tank with a mine to kill it or have a heavy truck drawn anti tank gut weighting 40-100ish kgs. Then you got Panzerfausts, Bazookas, Piats and Panzerschrecks to fight tanks further away from covered positions. Now you have dedicated anti tank missles that are easy to transport, easy to setup and easy to fire at a tank with a high chance to knockout or destroy the tank. Please also dont forget that airpower while impressive was still in its boots by the time ww2 kicked off compared to what we have nowadays. The doctrine of crushing the enemy with airpower alone as the us use it is a prime example while tanks cant move around and do what it wants anymore. Hell the last thing was true even at 1944 where allied bombers forces german tanks divisions to only move at night or get bombed off the streets.
The very same reason why Napoleanic-era mass infantry offensives failed during WW1: weapons technology has advanced exponentially, even entire military doctrines are rendered obsolete.
Went straight into the comment section looking for this. Saw the thumbnail and instantly thought: didn't they try multiple times and ran face first into the same minefield all of them?
Happened... ofc if not mentioning operation/battle taking place over couple thousand kilometer long front, for weeks or months and sizeable force did not participated in real action (maintenance, R&R, support, reserves etc)... just squeeze it into few paragraphs, small spreadsheet or short video...
The popular belief is in WW2 that all the mechanized German division where tanks and half track(or other transport) German propaganda made sure of that, a lot of it was not armoured, even relying heavily on horses for logistics. The Blitzkrieg tactic is just fast, violent and coordinated attacks throwing all your troops at specific targets and objectives and keep going creating havoc in enemy logistic and supply lines.
@@mafiafankyl they where making synthetic fuel because they had a hard time getting some, North Africa and the Bulgaria campaign was to capture oil fields.
@@ferociousfil5747 Yes, and also from Romania. Actually the campaign against the Soviet-Union was for oil, in the Caucasus. And for Lebensraum and other recources.
Part of the problem with tanks, is mass amounts of them aren't easy to hide from satellites. If you see the enemy massing tanks, you also know where you need to mass your anti-armor units. You can easily tell where the enemy is planning on making a push.
While I don’t always agree with Binkov’s conclusions and assertions, they are generally logical and have a solid factual basis. Binkov’s comment section on the other hand is generally an astonishing collection of copium huffers and mouth breathers who neither understand the topic at hand or are just completely delusional.
Please remember that the German incursion into Poland was largely driven by horse carts and bicycles. The machine guns and a few tanks destroyed the polish heavy horse cavalry. The German Airforce was superior in number and tech to Polish forces that was partially avenged by Polish military "defecting" to the Allies in England
Correct, a big Hollywood myth is that the German army of WWII was this highly armored and mechanized forced. The truth is that the German army of WWII was largely horse drawn.
German failure is russia was mainly a problem of having multiple fronts. This and american lend lease helping the russian war economy. But mainly having 2 fronts. The timing for DDay was one of the best military oparations done in our time. Waiting until the germans attack in the east to launch an invasion in the west was just brilliant. Especially since america waited until the germans had not enough ppl left to fill their battalions anyways. Basically in both world wars germany lost because it fought the rest of the world more or less alone. Wich is why russia will loose too. Altho russia has the advantage of having only 1 main front.
@@klausklautklopapier4679 General Frost made a big difference in Russia. The troops didn't have winter clothing because the boss had expected a short campaign.
The biggest reason that Russia never had a large tank offensive is that its logistics suck. They sucked at the start of the war and have gotten worse since.
We all know minor nations who get invaded during the first year of WWIII games benefit more on Grand Battleplan Doctrine. Russia on the other hand is still on their level 2 in Mass Assault Doctrine so their bonuses just arent there yet.
In World War One, troop concentrations were rendered suicidal by the advances in artillery and machine guns. Today, sensors and PGMs make those same concentrations suicide. As such, ground forces must operate heavily dispersed and have sufficient organic mobility to enable concentrations for defensive or offensive operations. Alternatively, firepower of smaller units and subunits needs to be dramatically increased to enable it to punch well above its weight on the defensive.
I really hate how this war brought out the “Analyst’s” and keyboard warriors, people who’ve never picked up a rucksack, done a march, cleaned a rifle, eaten MRE’s, plotting coordinates /locating them on a map, run through an obstacle course, wake up at 4:00 AM, worked with others in a team setting, or even just learning basic tactics or doctrine.
The answer is man portable AT weapons before WWII infantry was absolutely fucked if they came across a tank on their own now both sides can readily deploy infantry portable anti tank missiles
I wouldn't go as far as that. Tank still have the massive disadvantage of poor visibility. Depending on terrain, mobility (motorized or foot infantry) and weapons (anti-tank guns, mines, AT rifles/launchers) infantry can wreck even larger tank formations. As seen in the Winter War of 1939/1940 between Finland and the Soviet Union. The Soviet advance of tanks alongside roads allowed the Finnish to cut off the formations, close in and destroy those vehicles. The Soviets lost between 1200-3543 tanks according to wikipedia. The Finnish themselves had only 32 tanks, few artillerie pieces, virtually no airforce. But they had guys on skies with molotov cocktails. In world war I infantry also had good chances against tanks as they were still underarmoured and slow and could be taken out by tank rifles, field guns and even regular grunts - combined tank and infantry tactics was in its infancy.
@Nicolai Myshkin however, they are effective agaisnt the Early Tanks (MkII's & MkII's) but as time past on, Those weapons began losibg their effect gradually, except the Artillery & simply swarming the tank & throwing a grenade
Even in ww2 tanks were lost in large number anytime the army operating said tanks lacked air superiority, the germans had fewer tanks than france and britain or russia but had air dominance for both campaigns, but later when the allies established total air dominance germany suddenly couldnt advance even with local supremacy in numbers of tanks and so on like at kursk or the battle of the bulge
Lol, even video games got this right. Your biggest threat isn’t another tank, its the infantry man hiding in a bush with a guided missle launcher. Russians need to play battlefield.
@@christiandauz3742 If Germany also had those weapons in equivalent numbers and relative technological advantage as it did in WW2, I doubt the blitzkrieg would've failed. The germans had a big army, and in 1939 they had high morale.
@@unocualqu1era Actually it would since Poland, historically, had very few planes and anti-tank weapons Half the artillery/anti-tank guns and only 600 planes (Nazis had 4k) Giving both sides equal numbers benefits the defending Poles much more than the Nazis. Neither side dominates the sky and German Panzers are forced to be slow so they don't get ambushed by Polish RPG troopers!!!
Something that is frequently overlooked is the whole logistics quandary for Russia. Russia did not spend money on it's military logistics capability, The "unsexy" concept of spare parts, repair/recovery and maintenance was a very low priority. Add on top of that the lack of motorized supply (Off road trucks etc.) capable of keeping up with an armored thrust to keep the ammo, fuel and food coming is a key factor. Not to mention mobile hospitals to alleviate casualties taken. Most people don't think about that kind of stuff when considering military power. Logistics is king when the shooting starts.
Repair/Maintenance is _super sexy_ it's the only time you get to be all up in them guts and intimate with how your ride/occupation works (the thing your life depends on working). I could always spot a good pilot when they were genuinely interested in the inner-workings of their aircraft. I work medicine now, same goes for Doctors and their craft. My brother in logistics, I do believe that culture of "self-reliance" for Russia is fine if you're a lone frontiersman or guerilla force, but if you wanna invade another nation you better be praying to the church of logistics.
where did you take your info, because it's quite the opposite, russian design is way better suit for supply and repair, most western tank are a nightmare to repair, in the case of Ukraine they got many different tank with many different spare part that they need to import from many different country and some of them don't even use classic fuel
@@gizel4376 Sorta but not quite. Western armies emphasize robust supply repair and logistic networks that try to keep a "shadow version" of the equipment always floating around nearby just in case. Russian armies? The logistics come from the vehicle next to the vehicle you're tryna fix... when the work order comes through to fix the cannibalized platform.... well, you get the idea. Edit/TLDR: Western forces have developed armies based around the expeditionary fleet model. China and Russia have armies not built for such rapid invasion.
Thank you - I think there's a tendency for 'experts' to say the tank is not dead it's just because a failure of combined arms that they haven't been successful. I think you have shown why it's not as simple as that. It has to do with detection ranges and surveillance that disadvantages the tank vs simple infantrymen. I don't think anyone with a rifle is going to be able to snipe someone with an ATGM from 7-10 kilometers away. And you already explained why supporting tanks with air support is not as easy as it once was.
Tbh I think the war has shown exactly what the 'experts' are saying. ATGM's are left uncontested because of the lack of infantry support that would normally be tasked with hunting them down and clearing a path for the tanks, or at least spotting the things for air support or artillery to take out. Without that support, tanks are left largely unaware of their surroundings and are prone to being cut off and surrounded or destroyed by an enemy they never saw, with no infantry to relieve the pressure and give them the breathing room necessary to do their work.
@@SuperCrow02 Your point is well taken and I think there is still a role for infantry and artillery (and drones), to clear infantry, so on that we agree. If you consider that combined arms then perhaps your definition is different than those who might have traditionally defined it around infantry tanks and aviation. My question to you then is if the infantry and artillery (and drones) can clear the infantry then why do you need the tank at all? It seems that the others do the job more successfully and at lower economic cost.
@@csdrt20 It's not that the tanks are necessary, it's that they are extremely helpful. Destroying enemy tanks, destroying enemy fortifications, outpacing and surrounding enemy lines, tanks are extremely useful. You can survive without them, but you're going to take higher casualties and won't be able to make many speedy maneuvers against enemy lines.
@@csdrt20 Infantry and drones can’t really penetrate dug in positions on their own. That’s what tanks are most useful for. Yes, tanks will often take casualties doing that, but they can also thereby enable decisive maneuver, like what we saw at Kharkiv last September.
losses are normal in war, the last real war was fought in a place called vietnam, where the Americans lost 3700 planes and 5600 helicopters, against north vietnam.
As a major history nerd, I never looked into the specifics of aircraft losses of Vietnam.. I knew there would be a lot, but this comment made me look up some shit…. Bro,,,,,,,, USA alone lost around 10,000 aircraft…. Vietnamese military lost around 200…. Wow. That’s a ratio that’s NEVER discussed. Yeah, there is a lot that goes into it, but that’s the general numbers. USA had more aircraft so yeah they’d lose more,,,, but those MiGs and AA really did a number. AA took down 6 AC-130s 🤣 that’s wild…. Why does no one talk about this?!?
@@shakazulu301 the USA was essentially limited to bombing campaigns to undermine the North's war support, a direct military invasion was impossible due to the fear of a repeat of the Korean War. Instead of invading the North, the USA instead decided to destroy the North via bombing, which meant that many planes needed to be used, which allows the vietnamese to focus on anti-aircraft defenses since the Americans were never really going to invade northward
@@shakazulu301 Russian pilots were directly piloting those MIGs in the Korean War, the reason we don't want to talk about it is because it's grounds to turn the Cold War hot and attack Russia.
The answer is simple. With the proliferation of drone and sensor technology. Large tanks offensives are easily identified and preempted. The defenders are able to access and analyze the enemies formation and implement counter-measures before the tank offensive can make meaningful gains. Therefore, combine arms attacks are more successful due to multiple elements having a greater battlefield significance when use in conjunction with Tanks for example.
I actually expect that tanks will get lighter and faster again. Enough armor to stop a 50-cal and a gun that isn't much bigger. I also expect either drone tanks or tanks designed to be part of a "swarm" of vehicles, drones, and infantry. Imagine a tank towards the back, controlling 4 drone tanks, 8 drone aircraft, and supported by a platoon of infantry with two APCs. Yes killing a drone tank will cost money but the pilot and gunner are safe in the rear.
@@aaronbaker2186 So I believe you are correct that the battlefield will become more integrated. I suspect tanks will receive more complex defense measure and become ECW centers. The heavy firepower will likely evolve the way battleships evolved into the modern cruiser.
You forgot a key thing Binkov!The German army in 39-41 was way more skilled than todays Russian army and this capable of conducting proper mobile warfare. The Wehrmacht was way way more skilled , especially in its NCOs
@@goodlife6277 "The German army in 39-41", flag flew over Berlin in 45, so again before commenting and talking rubbish take a few moments and ......Read. R-E-A-D.
@@EL20078 You're the one who has to think before commenting nonsense, those Nazis were only effective against weak, unmotivated countries, as soon as they had the audacity to face the USSR they sealed their fate, these are historical facts, deal with it. 2 years of effectiveness... against mounted Poles and French depressed...
@@goodlife6277 Mate, He's not a Werhaboo. The German Army of 1939-1941 was probably the single best land army in the world at the time. This was the army that smashed Poland, France, the Low countries, Denmark Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece. All before it went into Russia. Was it perfect, No, did it make mistakes, yes of course. But compared to the Red army of 1939 to 1941. Its was no contest. The Red army would slowly ecplise and surpass the Wermacht in the coming years, certainly by 1943. But prior to that, No. Objectively speaking, operation Barbarossa for the Soviets, despite the Germans ultimately failing to achieve their final goals, was utterly disastrous, the casualties sustained by the Red army were just horribly lopsided. And keep in mind, the Red army for all their problems at the time, were not bad, they were one of the best in the world, despite the perception of west, they gave the Imperial army of Japan a very bloody nose in Khalkin gol in the year prior. Which is why had any other army tried Barbarossa, they would have not nearly been as successful. Which is why, the way history played out in 1941 is a testament to both the sheer quality and power of the wermacht and its fighting soldiers and the resilence and fortitude of the Red army, the Soviet soldiers and the Soviet union as a whole.
The Blitzkrieg is no longer possible because 1) 1940s Germany had 20 years to reverse engineer WW1 British Tanks (which were just armored cars), and nobody thought anyone wanted to go trhough WW1 again, (element of surprise) 2) Modern Roads, Bridges, & Fuel (is expensive) The Heaviest Tank in WW2 was Germany's Tiger 2 (78 tons) and it was not successful outside of Europe. Yes Tiger 2 can hit hard and survive anything, but can't go to where the battles are, just stuck in the mud. Light Tanks exist for a reason. 3) Finland (who just joined NATO) has spent the last decade becoming NATO ready, & NATO requirements are basically a checklist to defend against invasion, and every NATO ally knows what their wartime economy will look like, so the invader can't threaten a NATO member with anything
So long story short: massed armored warfare is hard to pull off and Russians are deficient in almost every aspect of operational art, so there's no way they could have done it. The much more interesting question now is whether Ukraine can do substantially better. We will see when the ground firms up there.
The next Ukrainian push will probably be mobile Infantry again. Not enough western tanks delivered yet and the Russian tanks are not up for a fast push.
Thats not true. I dont know of you would actually categorize it as that but for me the ukrainian counter attack was basically blitzkrieg. They took back in weeks what russia took in months. And they did so with combined Arms. It doesnt rly matter if you have better ATGM when a wave of animals rushes towards your position you maybe get of 1 or 2 shots with the ATGM until your position is gone. I think of this was nato vs russia youd see mobile warfare way more its just not russian doctrine.
@@klausklautklopapier4679 you do have a point of them regaining ground, I just dont see it as decisive advantage though. Its still a tug of war between controlling one area and losing some. This war/conflict is dragging on even before it was full blown over media..but what do I know im just a nobody over the internet.
it would be important to point out that the first time blitzkreig failed in ww2, as it foreshadowed a change in tank warefare would be the siege of Tobruk, where Australian infantry tactics made unsupported armoured thrusts obsolete
Somewhere, someone is developing a heat seeking, flying, drone anti-tank mine. One that doesn't need communications, can't be jammed, and attacks both tanks and sappers.
Integrated warfare doesn't work like the old wars. Troops don't clash on the battlefield or tanks. Enemy is destroyed before they see each other often many miles apart.
@@MultiCJ45 Actually Wagner is outkilling Ukrainians 10:1. The slow pace is to Russias advantage, not the impatient, unprepared West (out of ammo, crumbling economies, no industrial base).
Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, Android or iOS:
💥con.onelink.me/kZW6/olvfw37d
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days
😂😂😂 the Ukrainian Airforce has been wiped out 😂😂😂
the green wwwwwwwwwww2wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwee
@@zaynevanday142 pq
Simply put Putin Russia did not deploy a massed armored attack. Has the very out of this World feel of a complete ignorance of Napoleonic Tactics as well namely the necessity of a *"main effort."* Russia appears from this thousands of miles away and certainly never a military officer who I am that this be what I think Napoleon labeled *"piecemeal efforts"* which after time can prove to have devastating consequences against a seemingly inferior if not non-existent enemy.
How this is even possible given how Ukraine and Russia have been fighting since 2014...I cannot fathom the current now absolutely terrifying situation
#loose_nukes
🙃🙃🙃
Infantry just aren’t as helpless before tanks as they used to be… forcing armor to be more timid.
Infantrymen can even go on the offensive against armor too, causing a lot more logistics
Unit structure has also shifted. Germany famously had fewer tanks than the French and British but they leveraged what they had into more concentrated groups. These days tanks seem to be more evenly distributed - at least armored vehicles are.
I think it's fair to say that armored vehicles today are far more vulnerable than infantry. A child can, and now often do, bring down even the heaviest armored vehicles thanks to anti-tank weapons being so abundant.
@@dave_riots some elderly folks have got in on it too.
@@dave_riots Infantry are still massively more vulnerable.
In WWII, France was indeed focused on the Low Countries and was arguably equivalent to the Germans in equipment. What did them in was poor comms; they couldn't react to German attacks in time; the Germans simply ran rings around them.
Good point and you could argue that German comms won the day for them, on every front, pretty much all the way up to 1942. Blitzkrieg, combined arms warfare, and superior tank doctrine were only possible thanks to Germany’s prewar emphasis on radio communications down to every individual vehicle (whenever possible) and incorporated radio usage into every aspect of training. The coordination this allowed, on every scale of operations from the individual tank platoon all the way up to division and army level, is probably the factor that really made Germany so much more effective than its opponents, especially in the early years when everyone had sh*tty comms.
@@mbaxter22 Even with surprisingly primitive weapons and logistics.
France (and probably Britain) used outdated WW1 doctrine. That explains a lot.
6:12 "Operation YourAnus" Man, that saved my day! LOL
Same question was asked in regards to Syria. The answer was that anti-tank missiles were chewing up the armored vehicles at a distance and tanks were relegated to being essentially direct-fire artillery. The balance has shifted back to the infantry again, using storm-trooper tactics combined with pinpoint artillery support.
Operation Uranus may have been executed much cleaner had both sides taken toilet paper supply lines seriously.
lets put this comment on the top
The Panzers were nearly wiped out.
The Enterprise encountered many Klingons.
@@geetee2694 and it nearly rectum, too.
@@kmech3rd lolz
We will have a serious talk with our subtitler! 🙂
Haha ;D
Operation Youranus at 6:12, lmao.
I think its also pertinent to point out that much of WWII was not made up of armoured spearheads, sweeping over the country. There were many phases and theatres where the fighting resembled a WWI slogging match. For example Overlord was stuck in the Bocage for 2 months before the Allies could mount a breakout and several British and Canadian armoured thrusts around Caen rapidly bogged down. In Italy the campaign was mostly a slow grind that put paid to any ideas of a 'soft underbelly' ripe for attack. People remember the Blitzkrieg war in 1940 and 41 but tend to forget the many instances when an older, more industrial, positional warfare predominated.
even in close urban battles, tanks were invaluable. Aachen, Caen, Monte Cassino, Taranto, Stalingrad, Berlin, etc. were all examples of this.
Artillery, air strikes, and infantry wielded anti tank weapons have gotten much more accurate but tanks have not gotten any faster. Thats it.
When a revolution in firepower is not matched by a revolution in mobility, warfare tilts to favor the defender.
Firepower in WW2 was not much more effective or accurate than 8n WW1 but tanks and planes were much more mobile. Hence the aggressive fast moving front lines.
I'm still wondering when the first nation will try the one person in armored sarcophagus with a strong autoloader gun and really high mobility outside it strategy. Basically vulnerable components.. But impossible to hit or kill the driver, and really easy to replace parts on the outside should have way lower weight since all you need to armour is a single person bit. You could highly angle it and make it mine blast proof, have it have a ton of wheels and thus be hard to mobility kill, but since its way lighter make it faster too
@@GundamReviver Something like that sounds like it's just begging to be unmanned. Reduce the size and weight further.
Should have used those Japanese semi truck like isis.
Short Answer: WWII was over 80 years ago.
It doesn't even come down to having infantry carried anti-tank weapons or mines; before one can even begin, you have to contend with the combo of advanced intelligence gathering and precision long-range attacks. It was easier to sneak an army around back then since your intelligence relied on the recon of spies and planes as well as intercepted comms. Modern-day armies don't have the luxury. Mass too many too close, and those logistical hubs become targets before an assault can even begin, so your only option is to have them spread out and then coalesce faster than your enemy can respond and that requires intensive communication and coordination and that's harder with a strict top-down structure. Then you have to contend with javelins and the like.
It’s always easier seemingly to just counter, than build whatever they have.
We have effectively returned to August 1914. Then it was heavy howitzers and machine guns. Today it is sensors and PGMs. In both cases, mass concentration of forces in the open was rendered suicidal.
@@nicholaswalsh4462 WHen Wagner capped Soledar, one soldier interviewed referenced creeping barrages. And this has been a war of attrition since last May.
@@nicholaswalsh4462 But with drones so its twice as coordinated and bloody.
@@bearsausage8599 yep, potentially you could see north of a million casualties on both sides before Russia gets tired of throwing away resources for nothing and leaves.
Good to see the widespread use of howitzer dispersed land mines. They will be fun suprises for farmers and kids for generations.
Ukraine can do what the Allies did to the Germans after WWII and use Russian pows to clear their own minefields then walk them to prove their work.
@flyboymb Ukraine isn't going to win. It's naive to think putin will just accept a loss and leave. It would likely mean his overthrow/death. The best they can hope for is losing the donbass and give up on crimea.
No worries the Russians will take care of western Ukraine and give them an equal treatment.
Theyre much less of a danger than putins rabid hordes of rapists and murderers. When the aggressor is beat, Ukraine will get lots of help from the free world to dispose the mines.
@@luisromanlegionaire Sure, just like at Kyev, Cherson and Charkiv, right? Lmao
Subtitles off: Operation Uranus 😴
Subtitles on: Operation *YourAnus* 😮
Tanks are at the point that battleships were in 1945, everybody still had them, they were still useful and powerful, but the age where they ruled the battle is over, supplanted by new technologies and tactics.
Though the battleship was heavily armed and couldn't be matched in direct combat, the carrier could engage a battleship from way out of range, making it relatively invincible to just naval guns.
The tank, was first used to dislodge infantry from its strong points, or outright bypass them, and then used in combination with infantry for extra defense on the tank and extra offense support on the infantry.
Now a single infantryman with a good position and a cheap weapon (compared to the tank) can wipe out a whole column with little fear of retaliation, and on a strategic level, the loss of simply infantry if they do hit back successfully.
And then there's drones. Tanks have no hope if a tiny civilian drone can direct accurate artillery on them before they're even on the front
Times are changing, new toys in the field, and we all know what happens when armies have lots of new toys and bored soldiers and a sad low morale low recruitment peacetime army to whip into shape.
JUST LIKE NOW !
people have been using this same dumb ass argument to argue the tank was obsolete since 1919. its still here.
your argument is based on a childish idea of well x can beat Y, so X must be obsolete, right. Sorry bud military obsolescence doesn't work that way, otherwise infantry would have been obsolete centuries ago.
Just because a javelin can kill a tank, doesn't mean it replaces one. One, a javelin missile ain't cheap. its $250,000 per missile. and another quarter million for the CLU. Other antitank missiles are cheaper but they are also either much shorter ranged than a tank gun, or have to be vehicle carried because they are too heavy. And it weighs 50+ pounds. No infantryman is carrying more than one of these things unless they are Hercules. Meaning, he has got one shot with a super expensive missile. While a tank is more expensive , a tank round is much cheaper, about 5k. and a tank round can get to its target in 1-2 seconds flat, where as a javelin missile can take up to 30 seconds to get to its target. That is very important because a lot can happen in 30 seconds.
And no infantryman is ever going to run as fast as a tank, or survive machinegun, autocannon, or sniper fire, something that tanks, generally dont have to worry about. Infantryman themselves are also not cheap either. On average the an infantrymans life is worth a million to several million dollars for their government when you account for the money spent training them, equipping them, taking care of them, as well as the GDP they produce for that government over their lifetime.
Oh and most infantry portable antitank weapons are pretty useless on offense because they are too heavy to fire on the move or require significant setup time, or are far too short ranged. Javelin needs a 30 second warmup time, TOW is too heavy to fire outside of a tripod mount. Where as a tank can move and shoot and kill other armored and soft targets at the same time. And tanks with cheap drones supporting them to scout for antitank teams would be an incredibly effective combination against javelin teams.
War is a combined arms business, that has not changed. Everything on the battlefield is highly vulnerable without some other element to back them up. Tanks that go on offense without infantry get slaughtered, infantry that go on offense without tanks, air power, and artillery get slaughtered, artillery without something to spot and observe cant shoot, air power cannot hold ground, naval vessels cannot crawl onto land. And none of them work without the logistics to support them. That's been the rule of war for a long time and that is not likely to change any time soon.
@@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818 i think the problem is down to what you considerate a tank .
horseman were a significant and effective part of any army in the past , when armies stopped using horsemen on the battlefield evryone tought they were done , in reality they were still used , simply differently .
like battleships , that praticaly no-one uses or try to build anymore , "tank" as an armored cannon doesn't work anymore . nowdays a tank is not realy about the armor , but about the sensors, countermeasures , and firepower . the "tank" as an armored heavy veicle used in the past is done . there are still uses for tanks , and we will keep see tanks for many years .
but at some point , tanks will just be a memory , simply because they are inferior to the potential of small arms and drones . you will not need a tank anymore to take positions and hold them , just drones and artilery . not yet toh.
and ... infantry was never realy old or inefficent , so we are going to see infantry for as long as bots will be inferior to the decision making of an human and highter upkeep requirements .
@@unknow11712 sorry bud, but you have no idea what your talking about. how about you reread my previous comment and actually try and comprehend what i wrote instead of repeating the same tired old argument that's been used since 1919 to claim that the tank is dead.
6:10 bruh the subtitles 💀
Automated subtitles translating Operation Uranus in Operation YourAnus. Well played Google, well played!
🤣🤣Subtitles got me with "YourAnus" at 06:12🤣🤣
Came to the comments looking for this. Thanks.
Biggest point not covered imo:
Tanks have never been a silver bullet capable of operating without support.
It is a myth that German success early in WWII came because they had the foresight to emphasize tank warfare and their enemies did not.
Combined arms was and still is the name of the game. French, Soviet and (initially) even British and American armored units contained higher concentrations of tanks than their German counterparts in WWII. What the Germans actually had that their opponents lacked were self-contained all-arms units that included motorized infantry, self-propelled artillery, engineering units, and enough radios to efficiently co-ordinate all of these assets plus their air support. Plus an army full of soldiers willing to and capable of taking the individual initiative necessary to keep an offensive moving forward once a breakthrough was made in this complex environment. The effect was kind of like playing a game of rock-paper-scissors where the rules say your opponent either always needs to go first or else can only ever select rock. They just always mysteriously seemed to have the right asset at the right place and time to counter their opponents who just had tons of unsupported and uncoordinated tanks which could be picked apart relatively easily.
Now fast forward to the Ukraine war. Russia had tons of vehicles and firepower and even air support assets, but almost nonexistent co-ordinatoon and logistics. So even out-numbered and out-gunned (unlike binkov I don't count mobilized troops training and months away from battle as combat power available right now), Ukraine was able to exploit Russia's inability to co-ordinate or supply its forces first to stop the Russians, then in some cases to even push them back (though at significant cost due to the disparity in numbers and tech). And again look at Karkhiv. The Ukrainians were short on armor (though they did have some), but they had co-ordination, co-operation, and logistics. In short when they made a breakthrough they had all the pieces in place to support it.
Finally, I'd like to point out that it wasn't just a lucky co-incidence that coalition troops like the US, Britain, and France always seemed to somehow fight with local numerical superiority during the Gulf War. This occurred specifically because they were better trained, better led, and had better situational awareness, that led to their being able to decide when and how they would engage (and they naturally usually made sure they did so when they had the advantage).
Also, while local numerical superiority was obviously a useful advantage for them, it was not a prerequisite. At one point 2nd ACR (IE a single US Armored Cavalry Regiment) moved forward so fast it found itself caught between 2 Iraqi divisions, and it folded both of them up like they were cheap lawn furniture. Again, the quality and motivation of your personnel matters and the ability to bring the power of all of your combat arms to bear on your opponent at the time and place they are needed is critical (and obviously closely related to the quality and motivation of your personel)
This, to me explains what we have seen in Ukraine.
Are the Ukrainians the absolute best troops in the world? In spite of the nearly boundless respect I now have for them, no. But they are some of the best motivated troops in the world and likely the best troops in the world relative to the amount of time and money that can be invested in their training before they are sent out to fight. Still, they may lack the equipment necessary for a major combined arms offensive on a scale like WWII or 1991.
Russia had the raw numbers men and weapons to do this back in Feb 2022 , but not the doctrine or logistics, and the average quality of their soldiers was also arguably too low even when they relied primarily on contract troops and their pre-war training cadres were still intact. Combined arms is hard (especially if you want to co-ordinate with air assets in a meaningful way). It requires lots of expensive, complex training that isn't always exciting to watch, and even experienced troops sometimes screw it up. As a result Russian units tended to avoid it. Plus the type of individual initiative required to make it work is not emphasized by Russian doctrine. This means that we have likely already seen Russia's best attempt at this last year (and that 40 mile long convoy to Kiev that just sat out on the roads for days getting sniped at by the Ukrainians was the result).
I think there's not enough focus on troop quality at the moment. Right now, Russian troop quality, on average, is dog-doo. There are still a few elite units - Wagner, for all its brutality, is generally viewed as effective, though it only has the ability for small scale operations (it's not going to be the one to lead a mass armored attack, for instance). There are still some VDV units and Russian marines, and even thought they're degraded, they have some combat effectiveness. But the average soldier is now a mobik, and they suck. In fact, there are even mobiks in those "elite" units. But when Binkov talks about a higher density of Russian troops given the shorter lines, a countervailing issue is the quality of the troops is a lot lower.
Another indication that they suck is Russia's current disinclination to generate more mobiks. Instead, Russia's trying to recruit 400K new kontraktniki, which seems like an exercise in futility, given that Russia tried to do the same thing on a smaller scale last year, and the resulting unit, the 3rd Army Corps, was a lot smaller than 400K and disappeared without a trace, completely ineffective. It's unclear why Russia thinks that it can do on a bigger scale this year what it failed to do on a smaller scale in 2022. But it's an indication Russia realizes it needs not just more troops, but better troops.
Surovikin probably had the right idea - preserving the best RU troops in the Kherson by pulling them back across the water, then going into a defensive posture for as long as it took to *properly train* RU mobiks. Draftees can be effective - most soldiers in WWII were draftees. But they need a lot of training. Russia gave the mobiks hardly any training at all and then told them to attack. Insanity. But attack was a political imperative because underlying Putin logic is Ukraine isn't a real country, and that it only needs a good hard push and it will collapse. Going into a defensive stance for many months (because Russia also needs to reconstitute training assets before it can properly train mobiks, having thrown its trainers into the meat grinder long ago), doesn't fit that narrative.
So Russia kind of seems to be where it was in September 2022 when Putin called for mobilization - not enough troops, except (1) avg quality of troops is worse (2) avg quality of equipment is worse (3) used up a lot of ammunition relative to what it had in Sep 2022. They do have a lot of trenches they didn't have before. Presumably they have a lot of minefields they didn't have before. But the avg quality of RU troops - it sure as heck isn't *better* than it was in Sep 2022.
Slight problem with your analysis. German victory is artillery superiority where the airforce acts as a long range artillery. Zelensky has mobilized a million men as he had claimed while russia is using around 300,000 soldiers in ukraine. The reason for russia's continous success in offensives is artillery superiority an indication if good logistic capabilities of russia. NATO logistic is just terribly bad. The nato secretary general just said that ukraine is using more shells than NATO can produce. Which means they are running out of artillery stockpile reserves. NATO cannot increase production despite a year into the war. That is why NATO only promised a million shells to ukraine for the year or less than 3000 a day much lower than what ukraine uses.
The reason ukraine suceeded in their offensive is russia lacks manpower to hold the front , artillery needs infantry to pin down enemy offensive that is why it has to mobilize new troops and shorten the frontline.
In the siege of azovstal steel plant 1600 russians surrounded 3000 ukrainian soldiers who surrendered because russia has fire superiority. Ukraine cannot establish superiority except in manpower so i have low hope in achieving anything in this offnsive. The lancet drones would be the equivalent of germanys stuka destroying enemy equipment and ukraine has nothing to counter the drones. Tanks and ifv are just too vulnerable. Combined arms has now shifted to artillery assisted by drones and infantry for defense. Air defense has made aircraft to act like mobile artillery. Why use an aircraft when a cheap drone can do the job.
@@JL-tm3rc Russia's continuous success? Put down the vodka, comrade...
@@cv990a4 the way russia is handling this conflict is better than what the US performed in vietnam and afghanistan. The US takes city centers and ignore villages that is why there is no clear frontline. Russia takes villages then take the city center that is why there are almost no insurgency in occupied territories. The last time the US did actual battle is the korean war with clear frontlines. the taking of city centers only is a stupid strategy no wonder the US cannot control helmand province in 20 years.
I love how the auto subtitles for Uranus is YourAnus lol
6:10
That's not the auto one, that's the custom one, the auto one correctlt says just "Uranus"
Subtitles: Operation YourAnus
Bro the subtitles at 6:12 💀
😂
Youranus!
6:10 Auto-captions: "Operation YourAnus"
I like how the subtitles in 6:10 tell us about "Operation YourAnus" 😂
Beware of Probing Attacks...
There is a great ammount of difference between
YourAnus /jouranus/
Uranus /uranus/
@@kmech3rdand the penetration from behind.....
Russia did send a lot of tanks forward earlier on in the war. Problem was their turrets kept flying off.
😂
The main problem was Putin not expecting Ukrainian resistance and therefore giving the Russian army almost zero notice. The Russian military was over-estimated pre-war, but to be a little bit fair to them, their biggest handicap has been the absurd decisions taken by politicians - i.e. Putin and his minions. Had Putin given the Russian generals even a couple weeks notice and the chance to prepare a reasonable contingency, they could likely have done a lot better than they did, but that didn't fit Putin's narrative of Ukraine being a rotten edifice that would collapse if you kicked down the door (as Hitler said in WWII about the USSR - he wasn't right about that either).
Putin got high on his own supply, and that screwed the Russian military right up the poop chute. Ukraine couldn't have done this without Putin's gross incompetence.
Yeah Americans too fly away like dogs in Afghanistan
Want the answer but don't wanna watch? Portable anti-tank weaponry.
Viewership 📉
Portable anti-tank weaponry was widespread throughout WW2. Yes it was worse, but so where the tanks. It is probably the least significant factor (that might be worth mentioning) on making it harder for tanks betwean the two wars.
6:13 "during Operation Uranus" I couldn't stop laughing at this point, while I was reading the captions provided by UA-cam 😆
😂😂😂😂
I thought it was funny too.
For the same reason we no longer see infantry advancing in dense firing lines. That kind of mass makes sense when weapons are limited in range/accuracy/rate, but as weaponry improves in those areas, massed attacks become less effective. A platoon of modern MBTs hull-down in prepared positions can demolish 10x their number advancing across an open field. Throw in modern ATGMs and you're looking at slaughter.
Because we have the equivalent of the machine gun that neutralized cavalry in WW1. They are called Man portable guided missiles. Also neither side really has the logistical tail to keep a tank column moving.
Tell me more about operation “youranus” 😂
There was no element of surprise on September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland. Poland had mobilised its troops in the spring of 1939 and moved them to the border. It expected war to break out and to be won swiftly since, both the UK and France had promised to invade Germany from the west, if a war broke out with Poland. However, Poland was betrayed by its allies, since the French merely started a symbolic attack in the Saarland and halted the advance after a few kilometers.
Didn’t help either that the Soviet Union as well invaded from east side of poland
@@TheRandCrews True, the Allies try to forget that as best as they can, since it would cast a dark light on the USSR. But, history teaches us that the good guys always win the wars... what a coincidence? ;-)
IIRC wasn't there a dispute between the generals and politicians. The generals wanted to put the Polish troops behind better geographic defenses but the Polish government didn't want to leave any parts of western Poland undefended? I remember reading this somewhere but it was a long time ago. Poland probably could have held on even longer.
@@kilianklaiber6367 did you forget the cold war that painted the soviets as being terrible? Fuck off with the "History is written by the victors" wehraboo cope, its not true in the slightest.
@@kilianklaiber6367 The only one of the Allies to try to forget that is Russia, because it muddies the story of the Great Patriotic War. The fact that the USSR helped Hitler before fighting against him is one that Russia does its best to suppress. In fact it went back to shortly after WWI - Weimar Germany had a German air force base in the USSR, for instance.
Three reasons why we didn't see a WWll style large tank battle in Ukraine.
1: Portable anti-tank weapons are very effective.
2: Most, if not all, Russian armor vehicles and tanks got ambushed and destroyed.
3: There is no cohesive battlefield strategy from Russian armed leadership. Throwing tanks in the field will yield nothing.
again, total nonsense. do a modicum of research into Russia's tank storage and numbers. look at some documentaries from pre this cobflict to reduce the propaganda effect. their number are simply enormous. many of the most updates t80s got deployed last. the t14s are in Ukraine now, evidenced. just stop making things up, we will always call you out.
6:09 heh, the captions read Operation YourAnus
Thats what you got out of this video?
hehehe it said anus
Are we going to ignore the english subtitles at 6:08?
Nah he definitely did that on purpose 😭😭
Operation your anus
OML the auto subtitles changed operation "Uranus" into operation "YourAnus" I CAN'T
They are not auto subtitles, they have commas, periods and capital letters.
@@tariver1693 I'm going in youranus
@@tariver1693 are you sure about that? I haven't seen any UA-camr make their own subtitles in years. But if the Binkov crew did, this must be intentional. xD
@@nervsouly If you go to the subtitles menu of this video you'll see two choices: "English" and "English (automatically created)".
And a lot of creators make manual subtitles, I'm not a native English speaker, so I turn them on from time to time.
Just looked at it, the automatic subtitles are actually correct writing "operation Uranus".
Before you had to run up to a tank with a mine to kill it or have a heavy truck drawn anti tank gut weighting 40-100ish kgs.
Then you got Panzerfausts, Bazookas, Piats and Panzerschrecks to fight tanks further away from covered positions.
Now you have dedicated anti tank missles that are easy to transport, easy to setup and easy to fire at a tank with a high chance to knockout or destroy the tank.
Please also dont forget that airpower while impressive was still in its boots by the time ww2 kicked off compared to what we have nowadays. The doctrine of crushing the enemy with airpower alone as the us use it is a prime example while tanks cant move around and do what it wants anymore.
Hell the last thing was true even at 1944 where allied bombers forces german tanks divisions to only move at night or get bombed off the streets.
6:17.. love it that the automatic subtitle says 'Operation YourAnus'
Is it supposed to be Uranus? 😂
@@Nanaucat yes.
I loved that split second pause after "Uranus" letting me fill in the joke
The auto generated subs literally say "YourAnus". Wtf :D
The ability for infantry to fight back against a tank I think it's the biggest game changer.
Brody: Biggest tank battle.
Kursk: Big battle with the most tanks present.
The very same reason why Napoleanic-era mass infantry offensives failed during WW1: weapons technology has advanced exponentially, even entire military doctrines are rendered obsolete.
They tried something like that. It failed spectacularly.
One time they drove a whole brigade into minefields.
Went straight into the comment section looking for this.
Saw the thumbnail and instantly thought: didn't they try multiple times and ran face first into the same minefield all of them?
"Operation Youranus." Very funny.
Do you know what the real name is?
@@JawaThePwn Yes, and the captions spelled it the fun way.
@@JawaThePwn Uranus
Short answer: Massively Unusual Disabilities - M.U.D.
The tank isn’t dead. Combined arms warfare just isn’t taken seriously
or because combined arms is incredibly difficult and few militaries can pull it off
@@pear-zq1uj that’s not the tank’s fault
The subtiltes at 6:11
That's one for the censors
😂
Little known fact: mass tank battles largely did not happen in WW2 either.
Happened... ofc if not mentioning operation/battle taking place over couple thousand kilometer long front, for weeks or months and sizeable force did not participated in real action (maintenance, R&R, support, reserves etc)... just squeeze it into few paragraphs, small spreadsheet or short video...
6:07 Lol at the captions here!
I thought they were trying to say "asshole" without cussing.
I had to rewind it a few times to realize that they meant the gas planet.
The popular belief is in WW2 that all the mechanized German division where tanks and half track(or other transport) German propaganda made sure of that, a lot of it was not armoured, even relying heavily on horses for logistics. The Blitzkrieg tactic is just fast, violent and coordinated attacks throwing all your troops at specific targets and objectives and keep going creating havoc in enemy logistic and supply lines.
Yes, they called it Bewegungskrieg.
Germany's logistic was a nightmare, they also lacked oil to have a real bewegungskrieg
@@mafiafankyl they where making synthetic fuel because they had a hard time getting some, North Africa and the Bulgaria campaign was to capture oil fields.
@@ferociousfil5747 Yes, and also from Romania.
Actually the campaign against the Soviet-Union was for oil, in the Caucasus. And for Lebensraum and other recources.
Part of the problem with tanks, is mass amounts of them aren't easy to hide from satellites. If you see the enemy massing tanks, you also know where you need to mass your anti-armor units. You can easily tell where the enemy is planning on making a push.
Or just use mass artillery
While I don’t always agree with Binkov’s conclusions and assertions, they are generally logical and have a solid factual basis.
Binkov’s comment section on the other hand is generally an astonishing collection of copium huffers and mouth breathers who neither understand the topic at hand or are just completely delusional.
Exactly. It's best not to read that garbage
Let the Russoboos spread...
Please remember that the German incursion into Poland was largely driven by horse carts and bicycles. The machine guns and a few tanks destroyed the polish heavy horse cavalry. The German Airforce was superior in number and tech to Polish forces that was partially avenged by Polish military "defecting" to the Allies in England
Correct, a big Hollywood myth is that the German army of WWII was this highly armored and mechanized forced. The truth is that the German army of WWII was largely horse drawn.
1. Mud.
2. Risk of getting too far away from your supply lines. German failure in Russia was largely the result of supply line problems.
German failure is russia was mainly a problem of having multiple fronts. This and american lend lease helping the russian war economy. But mainly having 2 fronts. The timing for DDay was one of the best military oparations done in our time. Waiting until the germans attack in the east to launch an invasion in the west was just brilliant. Especially since america waited until the germans had not enough ppl left to fill their battalions anyways. Basically in both world wars germany lost because it fought the rest of the world more or less alone. Wich is why russia will loose too. Altho russia has the advantage of having only 1 main front.
@@klausklautklopapier4679 General Frost made a big difference in Russia. The troops didn't have winter clothing because the boss had expected a short campaign.
6:11 with CC enabled: "Later in the war but also a year earlier in 1942 during Operation YourAnus"
Turn on subtitles at 6:09
Bruh😂😂😂 thats some nasty eyes you got.
Binkov: Operation Uranus
Subtitles: Operation YourAnus
Well quite literally what happend to German forces in Stalingrad
6:11 Operation YourAnus (automatic subtitles)
I think it should be Uranus
I think it's fine the way it is
lolol the auto-cc stated Operation YourAnus
its not auto-CC ;)
The biggest reason that Russia never had a large tank offensive is that its logistics suck. They sucked at the start of the war and have gotten worse since.
6:55 Golan hights and flat terrain? Man, they even have ski resorts up there, yes with snow in the Middle East! This is the opposite of flat terrain.
Why isnt anyone talking about operation youranus - play the subtitles
Interesting observation 🧐
hahahaha 6:12 "Operation YourAnus" hahahaha even said it in the subtitles written like that too.
Operation Uranus was notable for it's deep penetration tactics.
Hahah this was inevitable
LOL 🤣
@@captintinsmith3774 bruh😂
Watch subtitle at 6.11 :D
6:08
Subtitles should last forever
Video: operation Uranus. Subtitles: operation YourAnus😂
We all know minor nations who get invaded during the first year of WWIII games benefit more on Grand Battleplan Doctrine.
Russia on the other hand is still on their level 2 in Mass Assault Doctrine so their bonuses just arent there yet.
In World War One, troop concentrations were rendered suicidal by the advances in artillery and machine guns.
Today, sensors and PGMs make those same concentrations suicide.
As such, ground forces must operate heavily dispersed and have sufficient organic mobility to enable concentrations for defensive or offensive operations. Alternatively, firepower of smaller units and subunits needs to be dramatically increased to enable it to punch well above its weight on the defensive.
6:11 maybe I'm childish, but I chuckled there.
He pronounced it perfectly. Operation Ur Anus. Swooping in to kick some butt, right?
6:10 - Stalin was a real bad ass in naming his operations😂
because he named it after the greek good Uranus?
@@Dies_Das_Ananas no switch on the subtitles 😂😂😂
@@fk4410 ...you mean Nazi Germany's colonoscopy ?
"Hmm I wonder how Blinkov's comment section is doing"
*Checks comment section*
"Yep, the usual CoD lobby that I like to see."
I really hate how this war brought out the “Analyst’s” and keyboard warriors, people who’ve never picked up a rucksack, done a march, cleaned a rifle, eaten MRE’s, plotting coordinates /locating them on a map, run through an obstacle course, wake up at 4:00 AM, worked with others in a team setting, or even just learning basic tactics or doctrine.
Ukraine's recent but relatively much smaller attempt proves why.
Operation YourAnus in the subtitles 😅😂
6:11 excuse me, what operation?
"Your Anus" Russians know how to give out code names to their military operations. Just look at the Ukraine war code name "Military Operation".
The answer is man portable AT weapons before WWII infantry was absolutely fucked if they came across a tank on their own now both sides can readily deploy infantry portable anti tank missiles
I wouldn't go as far as that. Tank still have the massive disadvantage of poor visibility. Depending on terrain, mobility (motorized or foot infantry) and weapons (anti-tank guns, mines, AT rifles/launchers) infantry can wreck even larger tank formations. As seen in the Winter War of 1939/1940 between Finland and the Soviet Union. The Soviet advance of tanks alongside roads allowed the Finnish to cut off the formations, close in and destroy those vehicles. The Soviets lost between 1200-3543 tanks according to wikipedia. The Finnish themselves had only 32 tanks, few artillerie pieces, virtually no airforce. But they had guys on skies with molotov cocktails.
In world war I infantry also had good chances against tanks as they were still underarmoured and slow and could be taken out by tank rifles, field guns and even regular grunts - combined tank and infantry tactics was in its infancy.
Because infantry have more portable anti-tank weapons?
@Nicolai Myshkin however, they are effective agaisnt the Early Tanks (MkII's & MkII's) but as time past on, Those weapons began losibg their effect gradually, except the Artillery & simply swarming the tank & throwing a grenade
Subtitles at 6:10 😳😳
Even in ww2 tanks were lost in large number anytime the army operating said tanks lacked air superiority, the germans had fewer tanks than france and britain or russia but had air dominance for both campaigns, but later when the allies established total air dominance germany suddenly couldnt advance even with local supremacy in numbers of tanks and so on like at kursk or the battle of the bulge
Lol, even video games got this right. Your biggest threat isn’t another tank, its the infantry man hiding in a bush with a guided missle launcher. Russians need to play battlefield.
Why do i read operation YourAnous in the subtitles
The original name was operation Up Your Ass,
Because neither side has sufficient armor numbers and there’s more counters to armor than there was in the Second World War.
If Poland had RPGs, Jets, Drones and Himars then Nazi Germany's Blitzkrieg would have failed BADLY back in WW2!!!
@@christiandauz3742 If Germany also had those weapons in equivalent numbers and relative technological advantage as it did in WW2, I doubt the blitzkrieg would've failed. The germans had a big army, and in 1939 they had high morale.
@@unocualqu1era
Actually it would since Poland, historically, had very few planes and anti-tank weapons
Half the artillery/anti-tank guns and only 600 planes (Nazis had 4k)
Giving both sides equal numbers benefits the defending Poles much more than the Nazis. Neither side dominates the sky and German Panzers are forced to be slow so they don't get ambushed by Polish RPG troopers!!!
Something that is frequently overlooked is the whole logistics quandary for Russia. Russia did not spend money on it's military logistics capability, The "unsexy" concept of spare parts, repair/recovery and maintenance was a very low priority. Add on top of that the lack of motorized supply (Off road trucks etc.) capable of keeping up with an armored thrust to keep the ammo, fuel and food coming is a key factor. Not to mention mobile hospitals to alleviate casualties taken. Most people don't think about that kind of stuff when considering military power. Logistics is king when the shooting starts.
Repair/Maintenance is _super sexy_ it's the only time you get to be all up in them guts and intimate with how your ride/occupation works (the thing your life depends on working). I could always spot a good pilot when they were genuinely interested in the inner-workings of their aircraft. I work medicine now, same goes for Doctors and their craft. My brother in logistics, I do believe that culture of "self-reliance" for Russia is fine if you're a lone frontiersman or guerilla force, but if you wanna invade another nation you better be praying to the church of logistics.
where did you take your info, because it's quite the opposite, russian design is way better suit for supply and repair, most western tank are a nightmare to repair, in the case of Ukraine they got many different tank with many different spare part that they need to import from many different country and some of them don't even use classic fuel
@@gizel4376 Sorta but not quite. Western armies emphasize robust supply repair and logistic networks that try to keep a "shadow version" of the equipment always floating around nearby just in case. Russian armies? The logistics come from the vehicle next to the vehicle you're tryna fix... when the work order comes through to fix the cannibalized platform.... well, you get the idea.
Edit/TLDR: Western forces have developed armies based around the expeditionary fleet model. China and Russia have armies not built for such rapid invasion.
@@attemptedunkindness3632 tldr, i understand the issue now, must be one of the worst chanel...
6:12 beautiful alternate spelling for operation Uranus in the captions [cc]!
Cracked me up!😂
Thank you - I think there's a tendency for 'experts' to say the tank is not dead it's just because a failure of combined arms that they haven't been successful. I think you have shown why it's not as simple as that. It has to do with detection ranges and surveillance that disadvantages the tank vs simple infantrymen. I don't think anyone with a rifle is going to be able to snipe someone with an ATGM from 7-10 kilometers away. And you already explained why supporting tanks with air support is not as easy as it once was.
Tbh I think the war has shown exactly what the 'experts' are saying. ATGM's are left uncontested because of the lack of infantry support that would normally be tasked with hunting them down and clearing a path for the tanks, or at least spotting the things for air support or artillery to take out. Without that support, tanks are left largely unaware of their surroundings and are prone to being cut off and surrounded or destroyed by an enemy they never saw, with no infantry to relieve the pressure and give them the breathing room necessary to do their work.
@@SuperCrow02 Your point is well taken and I think there is still a role for infantry and artillery (and drones), to clear infantry, so on that we agree. If you consider that combined arms then perhaps your definition is different than those who might have traditionally defined it around infantry tanks and aviation. My question to you then is if the infantry and artillery (and drones) can clear the infantry then why do you need the tank at all? It seems that the others do the job more successfully and at lower economic cost.
@@csdrt20 It's not that the tanks are necessary, it's that they are extremely helpful. Destroying enemy tanks, destroying enemy fortifications, outpacing and surrounding enemy lines, tanks are extremely useful. You can survive without them, but you're going to take higher casualties and won't be able to make many speedy maneuvers against enemy lines.
@@csdrt20 Infantry and drones can’t really penetrate dug in positions on their own. That’s what tanks are most useful for.
Yes, tanks will often take casualties doing that, but they can also thereby enable decisive maneuver, like what we saw at Kharkiv last September.
6:10 with subtitles Uranus becomes YourAnus ong 💀💀💀
He was talking about YourAnus
6:10 OPERATION URANUS - Closed Caption says YourAnus ...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ok, what asshole wrote the captions!?!?
Subtitles are really really great! Operation "YourAnus"!
losses are normal in war, the last real war was fought in a place called vietnam, where the Americans lost 3700 planes and 5600 helicopters, against north vietnam.
As a major history nerd, I never looked into the specifics of aircraft losses of Vietnam.. I knew there would be a lot, but this comment made me look up some shit….
Bro,,,,,,,, USA alone lost around 10,000 aircraft…. Vietnamese military lost around 200…. Wow. That’s a ratio that’s NEVER discussed. Yeah, there is a lot that goes into it, but that’s the general numbers. USA had more aircraft so yeah they’d lose more,,,, but those MiGs and AA really did a number. AA took down 6 AC-130s 🤣 that’s wild….
Why does no one talk about this?!?
@@shakazulu301 the USA was essentially limited to bombing campaigns to undermine the North's war support, a direct military invasion was impossible due to the fear of a repeat of the Korean War. Instead of invading the North, the USA instead decided to destroy the North via bombing, which meant that many planes needed to be used, which allows the vietnamese to focus on anti-aircraft defenses since the Americans were never really going to invade northward
@@shakazulu301 Russian pilots were directly piloting those MIGs in the Korean War, the reason we don't want to talk about it is because it's grounds to turn the Cold War hot and attack Russia.
@@shakazulu301 the North Vietnam never had a lot of jets.
@@shakazulu301 because Vietnam does not have 10,000 aircraft to loose
The answer is simple. With the proliferation of drone and sensor technology. Large tanks offensives are easily identified and preempted. The defenders are able to access and analyze the enemies formation and implement counter-measures before the tank offensive can make meaningful gains.
Therefore, combine arms attacks are more successful due to multiple elements having a greater battlefield significance when use in conjunction with Tanks for example.
I actually expect that tanks will get lighter and faster again. Enough armor to stop a 50-cal and a gun that isn't much bigger.
I also expect either drone tanks or tanks designed to be part of a "swarm" of vehicles, drones, and infantry. Imagine a tank towards the back, controlling 4 drone tanks, 8 drone aircraft, and supported by a platoon of infantry with two APCs. Yes killing a drone tank will cost money but the pilot and gunner are safe in the rear.
@@aaronbaker2186 So I believe you are correct that the battlefield will become more integrated. I suspect tanks will receive more complex defense measure and become ECW centers. The heavy firepower will likely evolve the way battleships evolved into the modern cruiser.
6:10 operation my what?
Uranus
@@meitelis In the subtitles it says YourAnus
You forgot a key thing Binkov!The German army in 39-41 was way more skilled than todays Russian army and this capable of conducting proper mobile warfare. The Wehrmacht was way way more skilled , especially in its NCOs
So competent that it ended with the Red Army flag flying over the heart of Berlin... don't talk nonsense
@@goodlife6277 Read comment carefully before replying or do I need to get you glasses?
@@goodlife6277 "The German army in 39-41", flag flew over Berlin in 45, so again before commenting and talking rubbish take a few moments and ......Read. R-E-A-D.
@@EL20078 You're the one who has to think before commenting nonsense, those Nazis were only effective against weak, unmotivated countries, as soon as they had the audacity to face the USSR they sealed their fate, these are historical facts, deal with it. 2 years of effectiveness... against mounted Poles and French depressed...
@@goodlife6277 Mate, He's not a Werhaboo.
The German Army of 1939-1941 was probably the single best land army in the world at the time. This was the army that smashed Poland, France, the Low countries, Denmark Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece. All before it went into Russia.
Was it perfect, No, did it make mistakes, yes of course.
But compared to the Red army of 1939 to 1941. Its was no contest.
The Red army would slowly ecplise and surpass the Wermacht in the coming years, certainly by 1943.
But prior to that, No.
Objectively speaking, operation Barbarossa for the Soviets, despite the Germans ultimately failing to achieve their final goals, was utterly disastrous, the casualties sustained by the Red army were just horribly lopsided.
And keep in mind, the Red army for all their problems at the time, were not bad, they were one of the best in the world, despite the perception of west, they gave the Imperial army of Japan a very bloody nose in Khalkin gol in the year prior.
Which is why had any other army tried Barbarossa, they would have not nearly been as successful.
Which is why, the way history played out in 1941 is a testament to both the sheer quality and power of the wermacht and its fighting soldiers and the resilence and fortitude of the Red army, the Soviet soldiers and the Soviet union as a whole.
Operation "Uranus" UA-cam subtitles as operation "your anus" xD
Why haven't we seen WWII style tank battles, because it's not the 20th century!
The Blitzkrieg is no longer possible because
1) 1940s Germany had 20 years to reverse engineer WW1 British Tanks (which were just armored cars), and nobody thought anyone wanted to go trhough WW1 again, (element of surprise)
2) Modern Roads, Bridges, & Fuel (is expensive) The Heaviest Tank in WW2 was Germany's Tiger 2 (78 tons) and it was not successful outside of Europe. Yes Tiger 2 can hit hard and survive anything, but can't go to where the battles are, just stuck in the mud. Light Tanks exist for a reason.
3) Finland (who just joined NATO) has spent the last decade becoming NATO ready, & NATO requirements are basically a checklist to defend against invasion, and every NATO ally knows what their wartime economy will look like, so the invader can't threaten a NATO member with anything
So long story short: massed armored warfare is hard to pull off and Russians are deficient in almost every aspect of operational art, so there's no way they could have done it. The much more interesting question now is whether Ukraine can do substantially better. We will see when the ground firms up there.
The next Ukrainian push will probably be mobile Infantry again. Not enough western tanks delivered yet and the Russian tanks are not up for a fast push.
Short answer: Thanks to advancements in man portable high explosive missile technology, the Blitzkrieg is no more.
Thats not true. I dont know of you would actually categorize it as that but for me the ukrainian counter attack was basically blitzkrieg. They took back in weeks what russia took in months. And they did so with combined Arms. It doesnt rly matter if you have better ATGM when a wave of animals rushes towards your position you maybe get of 1 or 2 shots with the ATGM until your position is gone. I think of this was nato vs russia youd see mobile warfare way more its just not russian doctrine.
@@klausklautklopapier4679 you do have a point of them regaining ground, I just dont see it as decisive advantage though. Its still a tug of war between controlling one area and losing some. This war/conflict is dragging on even before it was full blown over media..but what do I know im just a nobody over the internet.
it would be important to point out that the first time blitzkreig failed in ww2, as it foreshadowed a change in tank warefare would be the siege of Tobruk, where Australian infantry tactics made unsupported armoured thrusts obsolete
Didn't you hear? Russia ran out of ammunition a year ago and is throwing potatoes instead.
Yeah, that's why they ran out of food and are starving now.
06:08 while turning on english subtitles - thank me later^^
Exactly😂
Somewhere, someone is developing a heat seeking, flying, drone anti-tank mine. One that doesn't need communications, can't be jammed, and attacks both tanks and sappers.
Integrated warfare doesn't work like the old wars. Troops don't clash on the battlefield or tanks. Enemy is destroyed before they see each other often many miles apart.
It's ,mostly urban street fighting, not 3rd World desert combat. The muddy ground and damaged infrastructure can't support 70ton tanks.
Seems no Putin General ever read Sun Tzu when he said that cities were armies's graveyard, because they were very unprepared for urban fight
@@MultiCJ45 Actually Wagner is outkilling Ukrainians 10:1. The slow pace is to Russias advantage, not the impatient, unprepared West (out of ammo, crumbling economies, no industrial base).
@@ViceCoin Cope harder 😂
@@guyman1570with what ukraine deaths
@@guyman1570 You got proof to counter his argument? If not, sit down.
6:11 the subtitle really wrote Operation YourAnus?
clown world