They should have listened to what the generals said, Percentage : -70% This plan is considered our disadvantage Inferior enemy : 10% Large river crossing : -10% Some divisions are not in their positions yet : -50% Division still preparing : -20%
The number of times I've seen UA-camrs declare war with their maintenance still at minimum, and only figured out the problem 6 months in after their armies are wrecked. Ah, fun times.
"German successes seem decisive at first Glantz" I already loved this channel for its wealth of well-researched, insightful and easy to understand information but the puns and hidden Easter eggs make it even better! :D
"David M. Glantz (born January 11, 1942 in Port Chester, New York) is an American military historian known for his books on the Red Army during World War II, and the chief editor of the Journal of Slavic Military Studies" says WIkipedia
Look up his book on the Battle of Smolensk, 1941. His version runs counter to pretty much anything else you will find. However, he does back up all his hypothesis with previous top secret documents now released.
TO THE zookeeper in 1978 who replied "I'll tell you when you're older" when I asked him why one of the monkeys stuck its tongue up another one's arse: I'm 46 now and still waiting for that explanation
@@Crankiebox99 what about zinoviy kolabanov he took out 22/24 panzers in 1941in one/two days (can't remember if it was 22 or 24 or how many days it took)
This particular thing is mostly a myth, as this channel states. There would usually be no shortage of rifles, the Soviets even used a much higher portion of SMGs than the Germans, it was the ammunition, communication equipment and often food that were the problem.
Jirka, I agree, the cause for this myth was the situation in Stalingrad which was one of the rare cases where the soviets had plenty of ammunition and not enough guns so everyone had ammunition but only like 80% had guns
Jirka Zalabák that myth was also started in ww1, when russia was not as industrial, so they had to rely on imported firearms, and because people dident like the USSR very much, they believed that the first world War situation applied to this war
Michael Gäfgen perhaps a collaboration is in order, with soviet womble & Co demonstrating some of operational and strategic shortcomings of military history described in this channel
Check out "When Titans Clashed" by David Glantz, the analisis of the Red Army´s reorganisation and the inteligence failures previous to Barbarossa are spot on, and makes a fair assesment of Stalin as a miltary leader. A breath of fresh air after all the lazy historiography that simply blames Stalin for every mistake and downplays the achievements of the Red Army.
Carlos I I hate It so much when some nazi from reddit tries to tell me that the German army still remains as the worlds best fighting force, they say that the red army was nothing but peasants that were starving, and that they "held off the entire world" like bitch your army got defeated in pitched battle, the second the Germans stopped advancing was the second the Soviet army rose to the rank of "world's strongest army"
Carlos I anyway system of Staline knocked out system of Adolf so saying simply was more effective cause "German" system was different to "Russian" system. war communisme war system was more effective inthe total war
Well the throwing shit on Stalin and thinking of the Red Army as a bunch of human waves is something from the Cold War anti-communism propaganda which came from the US and took hold in Europe as well. But what you see in those movies simply isn't true and is quite contrary to the truth. Luckily we have historians who are shedding light to this and there is a lot of information available if anyone else is interested in the subject for their own research.
@@maciejniedzielski7496 Did you ever try to see it as a math task? How much more efficient must the German system be to overcome not only the Soviet System but the English Empire and the USA at the same time?
yeah, easy to remember 6th of January, which is exactly 6 months before / after D-Day :) Yeah, more than 150 videos, is also quite a substantial output and I started basically with no books and very little knowledge.
Damn! That's a pretty cool date to have started the channel. Right in-between There are very few videos I haven't watched. It is pretty insane to have put out that many videos and still have kept up with the quality and only improved. Speaking of videos there's one thing I've been thinking about. I don't know if its video worthy or not but, how did Germany continue to produce tanks, vehicles and weapons as late as April 1945? We're there underground factories and if there were where were they? By that time the Soviets and Americans had taken most land from the Germans so where could they have been? Not to mention Germany had been bombed to hell. Just something that's been floating in my mind.
that question will be certainly covered, since I have a good source on it. I think I glanced over it and if I remember correctly most was from stocks at that point.
Fantastic videos. I considered myself pretty well educated on WWII (compared to the layman) but you changed my understanding of the war quite a bit. Thank you your videos!
I enjoyed that explanation a lot. It's easy to criticise and please forgive me for my one minor gripe: "to beg the question" is a very very frequently misused expression. It actually means that someone has given an answer that doesn't add any information - often it is just a restatement of the question. It's a trick that e.g. politicians use to avoid answering. I think you want something more like "which raises the question".
The Red Army bled heavily, but did not break. Unlike the German general staff, the Soviet counterpart anticipated a war of attrition and prepared mobilization plans accordingly. So, in 1941, the Soviet Union had the mobilizable pool of 14 million men. According to David M. Glantz, the Soviet general staff concluded that during the heaviest fighting, an army-sized unit will have to be replaced in its entirety within 4-6 months. It turned out that the Soviet general staff had a more realistic strategic assessment. Between June and December 1941, the Soviet Union mobilized over 40 armies! (A Red Army army-sized unit was roughly equivalent to a German army corps.) In 1942, 10 reserve armies were formed and several of them contributed to the eventual Soviet victory over Stalingrad. Another interesting evaluation from Glantz centers around simplifying the command structure of the Red Army in the wake of the German onslaught. The size and the composition of the pre-war Soviet army-sized units were similar to their German counterparts. However, starting in July, the Red Army disbanded its corps-level headquarters, thereby allowing more experienced army commanders to directly control their divisions. Furthermore, the pre-war mechanized corps were also disbanded. New Red Army tank formations consisted of independent tank brigades and batallions. The Red Army motorized rifle divisions were similarly disbanded. This extensive simplification made a perfect sense -- most Red Army commanders lacked experience to command complicated units in the first place, coupled with scarcity of equipments and logistics. However, it helped the Red Army to survive. (A side note: As the Red Army gradually accumulated experience and improved its inventory, it reestablished the corps-level headquarters and rebuilt larger tank and motorized units.) Finally, notice how the Red Army evolved over the course of the war. Although it had the advantage of considerably larger mobilizable pool, it faced increasingly severe manpower shortage due to accumulating horrendous casualties. By 1944, most average Red Army rifle divisions were functionally equivalent to weak Allied regiments -- 2000 men, which was a far cry from 9000-10000 men. However, by 1944, the Red Army created umpteen number of tank, anti-tank artillery, field artillery, mortar, multiple rocket launcher, and other combat and logistical support units.
stalin sent much equipment and armor to the border for invasion,most was lost because hitler caught it in disarray,much was still on trains and in piles,easy targets . the globalist bankers wanted stalin to win so they forced USA to send mountains of replacements, from boots to planes and tanks. and 100's of thousands of trucks. they called it lead/lease to fool the american public, no money was ever paid back. also stalin sent a good portion of this used gear to mao tse tung who used it against us in korea a few years later(i have talked to guys who were there). you will not find this in the fake media. smedley butler(most decorated soldier,in USA) was correct war is a racket. read it.
"Unlike the German general staff, the Soviet counterpart anticipated a war of attrition and prepared mobilization plans accordingly" There's a logical error in that, however. Germany knew it would not win a war of attrition. They were starving for oil, and as soon as it ran out, they knew they'd be in big trouble. Therefore, if they were to fight, they had to win fast. Planning for a war of attrition was planning for certain failure. This may also be a factor in the enormous initial soviet losses: Stalin probably understood the same basic principle. In his position, manpower was cheap; time was valuable. So losing a million men in order to buy a few weeks of time, can then be a good trade.
"anticipated a war of attrition " are you brain damaged ? Even Ctalin it is surprised by the counter strike, they just not believe for 3 days and 3 nights.
Completely unrelated to the Video, but a good job none the less MHV, An Extra Credits video has caught my attention when scrolling through the comments, A video on the D-Day landings, and holy fucking shit do they need to open a history book.
Entertaining job! The German accent is perfect for the narration and the little graphic icons are hilarious-- esp. the 'Worse Yet Get Ambushed' little skull popping out of the jack-in-the-box! Great explanations presented in a compelling and straight-forward manner.
Since psychologist Petersen was quoted, let me mention one factor which is overlooked by many historians: mentality of Red Army personnel and attitude within the ranks. Hundreds of thousands marching in captivity, tons of equipment abandoned without any contact with the enemy (over 6 mln rifles written off as "lost" in 6 months of 1941). Not feet of clay certainly but complex phenomena which is hard to understood without the knowledge of the Soviet history in 1920s-1930s. This topic was studied by few Russian language authors, among them Mark Solonin who once compared summer 1941 situation as a barrel with hoops broken (one of his books was called "Barrel and hoops"). One of the darks secrets of that time which was suppressed for several generations: too many people did not want to fight for their country.
>Hundreds of thousands marching in captivity, tons of equipment abandoned without any contact with the enemy How'd you explain why British, US and French troops surrendered without a fight and abandoned equipment?
Good point. There are testimonies about red army soldiers who taken as prisoners in 1939 asked Poles for weapon, because they wanted fight against Soviet Union.
Many thanks - this is great!!! I am curious though - to what extent were the losses due to the inadequacies you gave here vs. just the initiative being with Germany? Interesting to compare Soviet vs German losses in 1941 vs 1944. Also (unrelated): any ideas on how the medical services compared among Germany vs USSR vs USA? (ie, WIA : KIA ratios, based on good case studies obviously)
Not trying to shit on the German fighting man; they have proven themselves to capable fighters, but the fact of the matter is that the high Soviet losses mainly because of 3 things 1) The Soviets were in a transition period; not prepared for total war on the defensive. 2) They were caught flat-flooted by a surprise attack, the Soviet air arm, large as it was, was mostly destroyed before even leaving the ground 3) The German led coalition of axis forces initially outnumbered the standing Soviet army, nearly by a 2:1 ratio.
Grondorn but by that time Soviets lost the strategic initiative, so it didn't matter that much as the total number of divisions entering battle simultaneously was always on the German side. Which was also due to the fact Soviets had to stretch their defences along the long front line, while Germans could concentrate massively overwhelming numbers in local operations.
+Him Pim the problem this army had was Soviet leadership doing everything possible to make sure there is absolutely no way Hitler can present this war as defensive for him, as some sort of retaliation for Soviet agression. It had to be without the slightest shadow of a doubt an invasion in attempt to conquer Soviet land and enslave Soviet people. Practically no promising officers were eliminated in the so called purge in 1938 - on the contrary, the percentage of officers with proper military education increased significantly. The lack of officers was due to the quick growth of the Soviet military at least 5-fold over 1939-1941, there was simply no way to train enough officers to fill all the new commanding positions. All that "paranoid Stalin killed his best officers" is a silly myth by Goebbels.
When is the video on the fall of France coming out? And will you do videos on wars not affiliated with, but still related to WW2, like the Chinese-Japanese war, or the Spanish civil war? Maybe a one on The Peru-Bolivian war?
Perhaps you might consider it off topic, but I have had difficulty finding reliable information on the IMPACT of American and British military aid to the Soviet Union. Would you consider speaking on this topic? Thank you. I enjoy your lectures.
and with whom do you compare losses? What losses could the Americans, the British or the French have in their place? could not have such losses because even in Italy they could not defeat 17 German divisions for 2 years. What does it mean to fight against several millions? You cannot compare, because the western front is the front of German old and disabled people with outdated weapons. Only some German units "were a bright spot against a gloomy general background," according to Westphal.
yeah in all major battles the soviets have way more losses than the germans. Both in defensive and offensive battles. The germans put up a decent fight, but got heavily outnumbered.
Roman Töpel noted that the Russian army only trained attacking manoeuvres and not defensive ones. Even with all these shortcomings the red army still was the largest army the world has ever seen
There is one fact that so many history pundits overlook. What distinguishes soldiers apart is training, expertise, experience that makes a veteran of war but the difference between a raw recruit, a trained troop, and an experienced veteran. When the Nazis invaded Soviet Russia in 1941, as time went on the German losses were not just in simple numbers of men, but of trained experienced veterans of Poland and France, etc. Loosing these troops we’re irreplaceable to the German war machine. It really showed in the Luftwaffe. Most German aces flew till injuries stopped them or they were dead. Eric Hartman was the all time Ace with 251 kills. American pilots were rotated out, sent back to give raw recruits a hands on teaching of air tactics. When the Germans lost a veteran pilot, they lost irreplaceable experience.
Actually, not a bad video. Concise, fact filled and fits with the narrative of Germany's initial success in Autumn, 1941. Love the example given by the presenter about the quoted radio trans after Barbarossa was in motion. "Are you insane? And why arent you using code?" No one wanted to bring the boss bad news. Imo, Stalin got smarter after june, 1941 by letting Zhukov and the generals run tactics and deployments where as Hitler grabbed more control of military tactics and deployments to the detriment of all that was in the sphere of his influence. Amazing how one man's own ego can negatively influence so many lives. Again, I liked the video.
That's not his words, so that's lie. In 1941 red army was actively modernisated and this modernisation should be ended in 1942. Big loses of USSR are connected with the fact, that nazis were destroying Soviet soldiers in camps. Gas chambers were first time tested on Soviet soldiers.
German civilian losses: 1 million Total civilian losses in Eastern Europe: 30 million. The German army was simply a murdering machine. When it was not fighting, it was wiping out Soviet villages to create Lebensraum.
@@Jinny-Wa well no. Stalin "just" sentenced around 700.000 people to death. The loses were by the German Wehrmacht and SS. They slaughtered the slavic people.
@@f.l.3978 There is also a thing called starvation. Military Deaths 6,329,600 KIA 1,283,200 POW Deaths 550,000 Other 8,160,000 Total Civilian Deaths 7,420,379 Direct Violence 2,164,313 Labor Camps 8,500,000 Famine 18,100,000 Total 26,250,000 Grand Total
Actually there was one part wrong. Stalin knew an attack was coming. The knowledge came from the Soviet spy agency, most notably, Richard Sorgei. Numerous reports were flooding in weeks before the war. When news of the reports appeared, Stalin ordered the army to mobilise to "a state of readiness". Stalin attempted to prevent a war one last time diplomatically but failed. Hitler did planned and masked it as "an act if defense" and "a preemptive strike) due to the high amount of Soviet border troops. Hitler only deployed tanks days before the start to conceal their intentions. So, preemptive act is a false. All in all: 1. The purge took out the most experienced of commanders, most notably, Mikhail Tukhachevsky. Most non-purged commanders were in their 40's. 2. Soviets were still "modernising" and expanding. Equipping new weapons (Example of which, the SVT, which was too hard to mass produce, resulting in the return of the Mosin-Nagant) 3. Poor maintenance, supply and logistics. (Numerous tanks broke down along the way and were left due to crews not being trained on simple repairs.) 4. Lack of proper training. (Frontline troops were mostly listening to propaganda and communist doctrines) 5. Poor leadership (the Stavka ordered numerous suicidal assaults resulting in huge losses, along with Order 227) If you want to know more, Star Media's "Soviet Storm" (documentary series) has great detailed stats and explanation from actions on how it escalated to Manchuria in 1945.
>The knowledge came from the Soviet spy agency, most notably, Richard Sorgei Sorge sent "interesting" reports, to be modest. > The purge took out the most experienced of commanders nope >Example of which, the SVT, which was too hard to mass produce that's why it was built in millions - thing, that of other countries only USA managed to do with semiauto rifle >Frontline troops were mostly listening to propaganda and communist doctrines such a bullshit >the Stavka ordered numerous suicidal assaults resulting in huge losses, along with Order 227 yes, it would be better to sit and wait for German tanks to roll over your positions. And you forget that order 227 was issued in 1942. For a reason
kollekzioner5 The Soviets actually destroyed ordnance and materiel most of the time in an organised retreat. Also, because of Order 226, most of the armies from the start were destroyed because the political commissars and Stavka were hesitant to allow a retreat. Also, another failure of the Soviet Army is because of the pressures of the Political Commissars on the army staffs. An example is the commander of the Kerch peninsula forces that were to save Crimea from the Germans and the forces trapped in the city of Sevastopol. The P. Commissar pressured the commander of the Kerch forces to attack and to stop digging trenches. At the last moment, they discovered an attack that was to happen the next day that was to attack them and force them to pull back to the Caucasus.
I have to agree with most of your comments. The Soviets had an overextended front, bad communications, lackluster air power, dated equipment, poor organization. I think a good comparison is the Polish-Soviet War. The Stavka tried to directly control the war from Moscow and due to this lag in communications and poor knowledge of the situation on the ground they failed horribly. The problem with lack of radios in tanks is quite evident as well. Quite often only the platoon commander had a radio in older Soviet tanks and communication with the other tanks was done with signals. The Allies had a similar issue in the Battle of France. As an example the T-34, although it was an excellent tank overall, had a cramped turret in initial versions with poor visibility which further reduced troop performance. This was fixed later with the hexagonal turret and eventually the T-34-85 turret which was originally designed for the T-43. Still, other than some hopelessly outdated designs like the T-26, I think the Russian BT series tanks should have compared decently with the smaller Nazi tanks. You have to remember the Germans back then still had a lot lighter armor than the one they used later in the war. No Panthers, no Tigers either. It was similar to the Battle of France but with more Pz IIIs. The Pz IV back then still had the howitzer, it was originally designed as an infantry tank, so it was basically useless for anti-tank warfare. The heavy KV-1 tank should have been a similarly shocking experience as the Char B-1s in France. Also you did not mention the Purges in this video. Everyone in the Soviet military was in a state of shock after the officers were purged. Any soldier which showed any sort of initiative risked being purged as well. So there was a general state of apathy as a result which led to this kind of performance in the initial stages of the invasion. While there are several reports that the Soviets expected a Nazi invasion in 1941 several factors made them think it was going to happen at another time as time progressed. Like, who would have expected the Nazis to not attack the Soviet Union in the Spring doing the same error that Napoleon did all over again?
I've never considered the decision of the start date of barbarossa to have been arbitrary, not only was Germany running into deficit spending of its oil reserve but after the disastrously bad performance of the Red army not only the germans knew how dysfunctional they were, but the Red army knew it to. My pet theory is the decision to, "go" was made to hit the Soviets before they had a chance to fix things
"The peculiarity of the country and the uniqueness of the character of the Russians make the campaign very specific. The first serious enemy". (Diary of Halder, July 25, 1941).
To expand on the point of not provoking Germans: there have been numerous border 'incidents' leading up to the summer. As the red army was preparing to attack the Germans under the flag of liberators, orders where given not to react to any provocations from the German side. At first everyone thought it was just another provocation, when it went on for longer than usual, they tried to reach Moscow and awaited further orders. Only the admiral of the fleet realized what's happening and, acting on his own authority, order to open fire on German Luftwaffe in the sky.
"As the red army was preparing to attack the Germans under the flag of liberators" - by hastly building defences and preparing massive industry evacuation to Siberia and Urals. This Rezun crap needs to stop, seriously.
Mocsk those came into action with German attack the hole reason it was vastly is that defense wasn't planned for. Even the airbases were moved very close to the front to have a better reach into enemy territory. However that became the reason why the Red Air Force was decimated in the first months of war.
Industry evacuation plans were started to be laid down at least in 1939, and throughout 1939-41 all necessary infrastructure was being built (factories need electricity, water, solid floors, roads and railroad, etc, machines can't be just dropped into dirt and start working - it takes months of preparation). Defenses were being built even before that. Only a fraction of airfields were built near the border (around 10 km from it) for immediate support of the front line and as advance airfields for cutting of enemy supply lines and for counter-offensives, which were the cornerstone of Soviet defence doctrine at the time. It's a very weak argument that ignores many important issues, constructed by Rezun (suvorov) in his propagandist work. Please don't cite this guy in places where people know something about history, it's bad taste.
+Chidis Skaniukas there's a certain technological process that takes time. It doesn't matter how many people you shoot, it won't make physics work faster. No, factories cannot be moved quickly, especially by threats of getting shot - it's a complex procedure that requires highly professional specialists, intricate planning and great organisational skills from top to bottom of the management chain. You don't achieve that from threatening people with guns, that's not how any of this works. Also, GULag camp inmates had nothing to do with evacuation of industry, the command wouldn't let them a thousand kilometres near anything this strategic. "how much gulag prisoners will die in the cold, starve or be shot to motivate others" - you're confusing Soviet penitentiary system with Nazi concentration camps. That's not how it worked. "12 years old kid could be sentenced to be shot" - that is incorrect, only adults could be sentenced to death. ", if he made a mistake in production line" - that is incorrect, only large scale theft or outright sabotage would grant a death sentence. And we're talking about adults here. 12 year old wouldn't be doing anything remotely important enough to cause any sort of real damage. You have a very distorted view of the Soviet Union, like it's some kind of fantasy land like Mordor. It wasn't. In fact, in terms of it's penitentiary system it wasn't much different from any other country on the planet at the time, including USA or Britain. You should probably adjust your view in accordance with reality instead of reciting Dr Goebbels.
Why would you quote Jordan Peterson for this??? He is not an expert in this area plus is a very questionable professional in his area of “expertise” anyway.
1:30 The Soviet first echelon was the called "Western Front", an army group led by colonel general Pavlov, who was later sentenced to death by incompetence. Also, documents from the Soviet HQ imply that a general order was given in june 20 1941 ordering every unit in Europe to take combat positions and be prepared to counter a German offensive... except that army group, since general Pavlov didn't follow that order. Since the iniciative in the Soviet system is given to the commanders of the army groups, not the main HQ, and since he had the authority to change the positions of his units and to follow that order (which he didn't, against the recomendations of the Soviet Staff) it's more his own fault that Stalin's fault. Also, they were two considered Soviet plans, the one what was followed (mostly) was the called "deep defense", which was based on attrition and strategic maskirovka. The plan consisted on using the first echelon (Western front in Belarus, Baltic front in Lithuania and Southwestern front in Ukraine) as expendable units whose task was to delay the German advance, until the whole Soviet reserves could be mobilised and then rushing with those reserves. However, and due to the debacle of the Western Front in late june, those army groups weren't able to delay the German forces the time expected (and needed) to do that, so the reserve army groups weren't fully operational when they went to battle in august/september (however they still managed to kick some asses).
Could you do about the Third battle of Kharkov and how Army Group South stopped and drove back the Vorenezh and South-western Fronts. And how Manstein counter attacked and destroyed the 6th Guards Army, 3rd Tank Army and stopped the 40th and 69th Armies plz. it is of course the prelude to the Battle of Kursk.
As much as I love this channel, it's really not a good look to quote Jordan Peterson. Don't give him a platform, it looks like a tacit endorsement of his political views he is best known for. I trust you are smart enough to know how and why he is a bad person.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Excuse me? I'm not trying to shame you, I'm recommending that you don't quote an idiot. I am sorry that I was a acting patronising toward the end ("I'm sure you know why..."), that was uncalled for. But what do you mean by "shaming?" I don't see how what I said could be seen as shaming unless you actually are endorsing Jordan Peterson, and you are calling me out for you doing so. I am missing something here, please help me out
Certainly the topography contributed greatly to the staggering losses on both sides. Once a soldier gets run out from their hole in the ground there's nowhere to run back to for cover.
Barbarossa alone effectively zapped most of the German Army's offensive capability in just a few months from which it never recovered. From then on divisions were understrength and any offensive capability came from stripping so called 'quiet sectors' of it's best men and armor just to build a regular strength division. General Halder noted how he was told of one Soviet attack in which the soldiers were '12 ranks deep' and mercilessly cut down. The slaughter was so horrific even Marshal Zhukov had to write a special order telling his officers to bypass German strongpoints instead of continually doing bloody frontal assaults against them.
@RifleEyez russia lost ww1 against Germany 🇩🇪 russia survive ww2 only because American landlease LOL 😂 russians are clown’s russians can’t even defeat Ukraine without american landlease forget about fighting against German 🇩🇪 military
The Soviet disposition in June 1941 was preparation for an offensive. They were not dug in for defence on the Soviet border or the edge of their zone of Poland. Some German sources noted that the Soviet disposition in mid- June was for an offensive. The Soviets had huge numbers of tanks, not just the T-34 but others and men close to their frontier, but no plans to use them in defence, as the intercepted signal shows. The Soviets managed to attack Romanian oil fields and then neutral Finland before 25th June (start of the Continuation War). With no plans for a defensive war, they had to work out how to defend, which they eventually did. Read Icebreaker by Viktor Suvorov. Stalin did not think that Germany would attack, as the Germans had no plans for winter (they had not started making oil for a Russian winter, and had not prepared winter clothing). Stalin's error was to assume that Hitler's war plan would be rational, it wasn't.
I disagree pre 41 the soviets had the KV-1 mbt, during the winter war while t34s where being taken out left and right it manage to retain it's effectiveness and break through the Finnish line, the T34 is a good platform in a open environment where it can exploit it's mobility and it's enemy's lack there of
Repeating silly ideas like 'oudated tanks' etc, a pity. One of your few failings as a researcher so far. Absolutely baseless comments on radios as well. 57% out of what ridiculous norm? Research and give real numbers.
Your tank numbers prove my point perfectly, even if only 9000 soviet tanks are counted, and not the whole 20.000+ cannon armed armored cars. Now compare to german tank numbers and 'datedness'. PzKpfw I 152 PzKpfw II 782 PzKpfw III (37mm)269 PzKpfw III (50mm)707 PzKpfw IV 439 PzKpfw 35(t) incl. PzBef 160 PzKpfw 38(t) incl. PzBef 660 PzBef 146 Flammpanzer 84 Captured Tanks(likely french)9 You dont compare tanks to anti-tank guns. You compare tanks to enemy tanks. These are exactly the tricks soviet historians were playing for decades, all copied by incompetent and unquestioning western ones.
TLDR. >And this list is all tanks in general. No, these are the tanks involved in Barbarossa from the German side. And yes, you are again going for the 'everything not of first category- out of factory- wont work' soviet lie. 1st category are the ones frresh out of a factory. In practice the first three cattegories were used and saw action. Any more propaganda you want to quote, BEFORE you compare it to the German side? Or those poor PZ-2s were fresh out of factories as well in 1941?
To save on your trouble, here is how you can prove Red Army had 0 tanks. All the non-new tanks are not combat vehicles, all the new tanks are broken, mishandled, and not tested by troops. There, 0 tanks.
The Workers' and Peasants' Red Army suffered heavy losses (46 divisions lost in combat) during Operation Barbarossa, because they're front-line armies were forward deployed and in offensive posture with the majority of its best trained and best equipped forces along a 1800 km border where they were never prepared for any defence of Soviet. None in the Soviet had even tried to guestimate at the Third Reichs ability to mass a large scale attack on very short notice which would result in such losses in being overrun and with deadly encirclements that it was no wonder Stalin went straight into hiding of his cabin...(Zhokovs admission)
Talk about inexperienced crews: A typical encounter occurred along the Stir River in Ukraine in the first days of the war during the advance of Schützen-Brigade.16 of the 16.Panzer-Division. A single T-34 emerged and drove toward the position of the German 37mm antitank guns. A German account of the incident recalled the event: In many ways, the T-34 was the Tiger I of 1941, not numerous nor very reliable, but very dangerous. Sadly, unlike the Tiger crews, early Soviet tank crews were terrible.
Thing is - due to design flaws the filed of view of a tankist inside a T-34 was very narrow. That's why they could not spot a 37mm firing 20+ times at them.
The Soviet Union had a lot of land to retreat to. The farther east the Germans went the longer the supply lines became. Then the rains came and bogged down the advance. The roads became a quagmire. The railroads were a different gage and width. No long term planning was done for a winter campaign. Germany declared war on the United States. The United States started sending food, trucks and other war materials to help the Sovit Union.
Let's not believe in myth that Soviet military losses were staggering only in 1941 but not later. In fact even their official downplayed loss figures are suggesting that worst period was from July 1943 to May 1944 and didn't go down much later. In fact during last 4 months of the war Red Army took average monthly losses even higher than in July 43 - May 44.
The offensive bias in Red Army military doctrine at the time of the German attack, which is mentioned in the video, played a major part in the debacle according to Soviet sources. It wasn't just Stalin who emphasised counter attack. Soviet war games before the war were conducted with early counter attack as a main goal. Soviet forces, particularly the armoured forces, were deployed in echelon and concentrated to allow this option, which fed the preemptive strike myth. In the event, all those deployments did was make it easier for the Germans to encircle Red Army forces particularly on the central axis. Soviet counterattacks simply drove their forces deeper into pockets. The concentration caused more trouble for the Germans in the South but even here the rush forward to attack eventually played into German hands. If you wargame with Soviet forces deployed to delay and slow the Germans using the natural choke points such as river lines and areas of forest or marsh, it is difficult for the Germans to advance so rapidly. It also helps to compensate for the weaknesses of Soviet forces. Stubborn defence was a Russian strength from the start. Where these tactics were applied such as around Smolensk, the Dvina/Dniepr gap, Kiev and the approaches to Leningrad, the German advance markedly slowed and caused alarm on the German side, leading to some time wasting redeployments which eventually told with the German failure to capture either Moscow or Leningrad, the essential hubs which must be taken if the German attack was to succeed.
To create a strong line of defense throughout the eastern front requires 8-9 million people. The USSR had a maximum of 6.5 million during the war. In June 1941, it had 3.2 million. This means that an active defense strategy (counterattack) was the only possible option for the Red Army, given limited forces.
Looking at the casualty ratio, the Red Army in Barbarossa actually performed better than Poland or the French and British did in the early campaigns of the war.
Do you seriously compare the naval power of Britain, which can evacuate its soldiers and the battle for Kiev? Are you seriously compare the Soviet Air Force with the Birtan Air Force which was 80% obsolete?
1. Throughout 1941, Germany had a numerical advantage over the USSR on the eastern front. She also had an advantage in mobility. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Soviet armies were surrounded in Kiev. 2. As I said, British planes were not as obsolete as Soviet ones. Plus, some Soviet aircraft were destroyed on the ground at the beginning of the campaign.
1. The Wehrmacht had numerical superiority at the beginning of the war on the eastern front and retained it until the beginning of 1942. 2. Germany had 610 thousand cars and 625 thousand horses.
1. The balance of power is determined by the number of people, not technology, which is just a tool in the hands of man. 2. Show me any period of 1941 where the USSR has numerical superiority at the front. 3. At the beginning of the war, the Axis had 5 million people against 3.8 in the USSR. At the beginning of 1942, the Axis had 5.1 million against 4.9 million in the USSR. The USSR more actively used its reinforcements, but during 1941 it did not have a numerical advantage.
Question, if there was no Barbarossa, how long you think it'll be till the Soviets were prepared for war with Germany? And if given the time would the Wehrmacht be able to handle a Soviet steamroller if say they attack in summer 1942 or so into Eastern Europe and East Prussia?
Hmm...I found several different theories about it, I'm actually writing an alternate timeline where there's no Nazi Germany but a still conservative Germany where World War I ended in a stalemate(Italy being knocked out after Caporetto, the 1918 Spring Offensive succeeding etc) and the Soviet Union still rises. I'm figuring the Soviets would want revenge on the Germans since they would have some influence in Eastern Europe even after World War I would leave them crippled as the rest of Europe. So I'm thinking the Soviet Union still attacks the Baltic states and Finland, and Romania over Bessarabia but Germany is busy so Stalin took what he could. So I'm doing research of perhaps the USSR would start a big war in Europe and thinking what year is most appropriate for that, I estimated summer 1942 but from what you're telling me it might be a bit longer.
I also assume that by 1942 and certainly by 1943 the soviets would have been capable, I do find their lack of radio equipment and trucks to be difficult to overcome however for offensive operations.
I'm thinking summer 1942 they'd be pretty capable but still have weakenesses like the radio, but by then the Soviet Army would be much bigger and able to toss in millions of men, thousands of tanks, artillery and aircraft into the fray, a sudden attack in Eastern Europe like that not sure how that would turn out how the German Army can deal with that especially if they didn't expect how big it would be.
+KelbAlrai1990 Then you must take into account that in real history the Soviet Union cooperated extensively with Weimar Republic. It wouln't be possible with 'conservative Germany'
I do not understand much of military history, but some of the issues you point that the soviet army had, actually most them, was present in the German army too. For example half of the German army was supply by horses. Correct me if I wrong of course. Second . I am not sure about the outdated tanks. Because even the most outdated tank in the soviet army had a bigger gun than his german equivalent and it was battle effective (at least on theory) . Of course the soviets had 25000 tanks it is normal some of them to be older models, but this is the same for the German army. This is true for every army in the world even today. When we are talking about the quality of the tanks we have to make comparison between the newest models. Third. To claim that something is lack of some army just because it did not reach the requirements is prematurely. What are the requirements and what are actual needs are two separate thing. There are many things I wish to say but to be honest I have more questions than answers. What I am trying to say is that all points here are factors, but I cannot except that these are the reasons for the huge enormous soviet loses. If the Germans lose their best units the soviets lose their entire army. The army from 41 is different from the army in 42, because the army in 41 is killed, captured or just run away.
It's easy, man. Germans were ubermensch and soviets are, as portrayed even nowadays in wester propaganda are ubermensch, a complete Mordor. Orcs tend to suffer horrible losses at all and any circumstance when fighting elves.
I am gratified that the narrator mentions Suvorov, but it is obvious he hasn't read or carefully read Suvorov's book "The Chief Culprit" with its massive case demonstrating Soviet aggressive preparations in the spring of1941. A million paratroopers, crash production of perishable gliders, enormous piles of artillery ammo abandoned on the ground close to the border, and much much more. A military force preparing to attack is poorly structured for defense. Also, the narrator doesn't mention Zhukov crushing the Japanese 6th Army at Khalkin Gol in 1939 without using radio communications. In June 1941, Stalin could afford to wait a few weeks longer, and Hitler couldn't.
1. Suvorov is not a historian. His theories have long been refuted. 2. USSR never had 1 million paratroopers. Suvorov confused these people with civilians who used the parachute jump as a hobby. 3. Find any information about the tactics of "active defense".
I'm more interested in why the Soviets had such high losses during the Battle of Kursk, where they had immense advantages in material and intelligence.
Gaming Collection They probably knew the use of the radio but didn't have the capacity to create as many as they needed until later due to capacity issues and bigger priorities
In an off topic I'm reminded of the Soviets having inaccurate maps for the purpose of trying to confuse invaders. For this reason their own maps were practically useless during military exercises and once when some American officers were watching one of their maneuvers they had to use the American's maps to find out where they were going.
I've just read Marshal K.K. Rokossovsky: by Dr Boris Sokolov and The Viaz'ma Catastrophe, 1941 by Lev Lopukhovsky, and they both support the thesis advanced in this video.
Seems to me that even in your other videos you are at odds with comrade Hill. If the Soviets did have 700-1200 T-34 and about 600 KV-1 to the borders, only that makes half of ALL German tanks. But they did have also those 8500 BT 26 and others that were more than on par with Pzkw 1 a 2. And if Suvorov is at least partly to believe, what military supplies Germans found in the border areas was more in favor of the 1941 fall Soviet offensive, not 1942.
![[Barbarossa] The Major Errors and Blunders - Or why Barbarossa Failed](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A_3R-Rkn_98/mqdefault.jpg)
They should have listened to what the generals said,
Percentage : -70%
This plan is considered our disadvantage
Inferior enemy : 10%
Large river crossing : -10%
Some divisions are not in their positions yet : -50%
Division still preparing : -20%
Adding to it.
-15% Not enough fuel
-50% It's fucking cold there
Well you guys are forgetting the great purge -50% division organization
Manchukuo really cucked my supply line when I reached mongolia as japan
João Pádua well great patriotic war negates it
also unternehmen barbarossa: %5 attack against ussr %5 defense against ussr
Never put your armies on a rivals border without maximising the maintenance slider, that's what I learned.
:D
The number of times I've seen UA-camrs declare war with their maintenance still at minimum, and only figured out the problem 6 months in after their armies are wrecked. Ah, fun times.
there is a wargame called "youtube" ?
ODDBALL SOK Europa universals 4
Demonde Laplace Unless you have Prussia as a vassal
Red Army Frontline: _“We’re being fired upon, what should we do?”_
Soviet High Command: _”He’s delusional, take him to the infirmary.”_
Sad but True)
Being attacked by 100 divisions.....not great...not terrible....
@@brianjungen4059 equivalent of one chest X-ray...
*smacks chest *
mrsanch1ful dies when German bombs hits his building.....
Trump-a-Tron 6000 more like the equivalent of a small riot.
"German successes seem decisive at first Glantz"
I already loved this channel for its wealth of well-researched, insightful and easy to understand information but the puns and hidden Easter eggs make it even better! :D
can you elaborate? glantz?
"David M. Glantz (born January 11, 1942 in Port Chester, New York) is an American military historian known for his books on the Red Army during World War II, and the chief editor of the Journal of Slavic Military Studies" says WIkipedia
Look up his book on the Battle of Smolensk, 1941. His version runs counter to pretty much anything else you will find. However, he does back up all his hypothesis with previous top secret documents now released.
TO THE zookeeper in 1978 who replied "I'll tell you when you're older" when I asked him why one of the monkeys stuck its tongue up another one's arse: I'm 46 now and still waiting for that explanation
+Sean Cook. Glantz's book on the Battle of Smolensk that he wrote a few years ago is so gigantic, it's scary. I bought it and it just gathered dust
Soviet Womble is apparently the definition of 'Plenty of problems'.
Seems about right.
Womble is a fa--
Nobody Watches Soviet Womble - That is NOT becoming a thing!
@@Crankiebox99 what about zinoviy kolabanov he took out 22/24 panzers in 1941in one/two days (can't remember if it was 22 or 24 or how many days it took)
@@AScottish-AustralianM-84 r/whossh
@@wnightmares2846 damn shame
I went in soviet russia once...now i am a logistical problem
Since when to Soviets care about logistics? Who needs a rifle, take one off a dead man.
Do you know what a Soviet duet sounds like?
A Soviet quartet after a trip abroad.
This particular thing is mostly a myth, as this channel states. There would usually be no shortage of rifles, the Soviets even used a much higher portion of SMGs than the Germans, it was the ammunition, communication equipment and often food that were the problem.
Jirka, I agree, the cause for this myth was the situation in Stalingrad which was one of the rare cases where the soviets had plenty of ammunition and not enough guns so everyone had ammunition but only like 80% had guns
Jirka Zalabák that myth was also started in ww1, when russia was not as industrial, so they had to rely on imported firearms, and because people dident like the USSR very much, they believed that the first world War situation applied to this war
Sad fact: 80% men, born in USSR in 1923 (1923 - exactly 18 years at the beginning of the war) didn't live to see the victory of WWII
Don't forget Joe Stalin sent many of those men to their early graves!
@@expo7112 this is one of some results of comminist policies
The same in Germany.
@Bob Watters It was the only way to win the war and get back the occupied territory. It was difficult to outsmart the Germans.
@@Nik-jq4tx it sad many young mans souls in Both sides germany and Russia wasted for nothing
Jordan Peterson advice to Soviet Army: "sort yourselves out, buckos."
Clean up your barracks
How can you go about restructuring the world if you can’t keep your STAVKA clean?
"Cold turkey is the only way to quit drugs, even if you have to be put in a coma"
WASH YOUR PENIS
@@crudboy12 What do you call a meat eater turned vegetable?
Jordan Peterson.
4:37 yay Sovietwomble :D
Michael Gäfgen He even managed to get to this dark corner of the youtube
Michael Gäfgen perhaps a collaboration is in order, with soviet womble & Co demonstrating some of operational and strategic shortcomings of military history described in this channel
yea soviet womble is a problem
PICK UP THE AWP WOMBLE! PICK UP THE FLIPPING AWP!!
**Cyanide Screaming**
First NerdCubed mentioned him yesterday and now MHV! :D
Check out "When Titans Clashed" by David Glantz, the analisis of the Red Army´s reorganisation and the inteligence failures previous to Barbarossa are spot on, and makes a fair assesment of Stalin as a miltary leader. A breath of fresh air after all the lazy historiography that simply blames Stalin for every mistake and downplays the achievements of the Red Army.
Carlos I I hate It so much when some nazi from reddit tries to tell me that the German army still remains as the worlds best fighting force, they say that the red army was nothing but peasants that were starving, and that they "held off the entire world" like bitch your army got defeated in pitched battle, the second the Germans stopped advancing was the second the Soviet army rose to the rank of "world's strongest army"
Carlos I anyway system of Staline knocked out system of Adolf so saying simply was more effective cause "German" system was different to "Russian" system. war communisme war system was more effective inthe total war
muh human waves
Well the throwing shit on Stalin and thinking of the Red Army as a bunch of human waves is something from the Cold War anti-communism propaganda which came from the US and took hold in Europe as well. But what you see in those movies simply isn't true and is quite contrary to the truth. Luckily we have historians who are shedding light to this and there is a lot of information available if anyone else is interested in the subject for their own research.
@@maciejniedzielski7496 Did you ever try to see it as a math task? How much more efficient must the German system be to overcome not only the Soviet System but the English Empire and the USA at the same time?
"Want to know more?" starships troopers reference? XD
It's awesome to see how much better and more detailed your videos have gotten in the past two years.
thanks, especially since this channel only exist for 1.5 years + 14 days ;)
Really? It seems like it's been much longer than that. My point still remains though!
yeah, easy to remember 6th of January, which is exactly 6 months before / after D-Day :) Yeah, more than 150 videos, is also quite a substantial output and I started basically with no books and very little knowledge.
Damn! That's a pretty cool date to have started the channel. Right in-between There are very few videos I haven't watched. It is pretty insane to have put out that many videos and still have kept up with the quality and only improved. Speaking of videos there's one thing I've been thinking about. I don't know if its video worthy or not but, how did Germany continue to produce tanks, vehicles and weapons as late as April 1945? We're there underground factories and if there were where were they? By that time the Soviets and Americans had taken most land from the Germans so where could they have been? Not to mention Germany had been bombed to hell. Just something that's been floating in my mind.
that question will be certainly covered, since I have a good source on it. I think I glanced over it and if I remember correctly most was from stocks at that point.
3:54 "Radio is like Dark Humor - Not Everybody gets it" -- Stalin.
LMAO. That is brilliant!
"Radio is like dark humor...." I wasn't ready for that!
"At first Glantz" hahaha. Surprising you didn't quote Stumbling Colossus for more juicy pre-war info.
I think this is the best Warfare information Channel I've ever found. to the point fast-talking beautiful
"There's lead flying at us from everywhere!"
"You did not see lead BECAUSE IT WASN'T THERE!"
Nice channel, subbed, well researched, well presented and very logical. !
Fantastic videos. I considered myself pretty well educated on WWII (compared to the layman) but you changed my understanding of the war quite a bit. Thank you your videos!
"... seem Decisive at First *Glantz*"
I See What You Did There!
:)
This J.B.Peterson chap sounds very sensible, I wonder is he is wise on other subjects too....
don't bother with the guy.
Indeed! He seems quite the erudite sort. We should consult him upon all manner of issues!
Eralun I suggest you look him up, watch a few of his videos, and decide for yourself
Leader of the resistance in Canada.
Thinly veiled. I like it ;)
0:54 Did not expect JP will be mentioned here,then again I am not complaining.
I enjoyed that explanation a lot. It's easy to criticise and please forgive me for my one minor gripe: "to beg the question" is a very very frequently misused expression. It actually means that someone has given an answer that doesn't add any information - often it is just a restatement of the question. It's a trick that e.g. politicians use to avoid answering. I think you want something more like "which raises the question".
+Tim Murphy thx!
Did I see a SovietWomble reference in this video somewhere? :)
Biji Mustard Gas 1988 So?
The Red Army bled heavily, but did not break. Unlike the German general staff, the Soviet counterpart anticipated a war of attrition and prepared mobilization plans accordingly. So, in 1941, the Soviet Union had the mobilizable pool of 14 million men. According to David M. Glantz, the Soviet general staff concluded that during the heaviest fighting, an army-sized unit will have to be replaced in its entirety within 4-6 months. It turned out that the Soviet general staff had a more realistic strategic assessment. Between June and December 1941, the Soviet Union mobilized over 40 armies! (A Red Army army-sized unit was roughly equivalent to a German army corps.) In 1942, 10 reserve armies were formed and several of them contributed to the eventual Soviet victory over Stalingrad.
Another interesting evaluation from Glantz centers around simplifying the command structure of the Red Army in the wake of the German onslaught. The size and the composition of the pre-war Soviet army-sized units were similar to their German counterparts. However, starting in July, the Red Army disbanded its corps-level headquarters, thereby allowing more experienced army commanders to directly control their divisions. Furthermore, the pre-war mechanized corps were also disbanded. New Red Army tank formations consisted of independent tank brigades and batallions. The Red Army motorized rifle divisions were similarly disbanded. This extensive simplification made a perfect sense -- most Red Army commanders lacked experience to command complicated units in the first place, coupled with scarcity of equipments and logistics. However, it helped the Red Army to survive. (A side note: As the Red Army gradually accumulated experience and improved its inventory, it reestablished the corps-level headquarters and rebuilt larger tank and motorized units.)
Finally, notice how the Red Army evolved over the course of the war. Although it had the advantage of considerably larger mobilizable pool, it faced increasingly severe manpower shortage due to accumulating horrendous casualties. By 1944, most average Red Army rifle divisions were functionally equivalent to weak Allied regiments -- 2000 men, which was a far cry from 9000-10000 men. However, by 1944, the Red Army created umpteen number of tank, anti-tank artillery, field artillery, mortar, multiple rocket launcher, and other combat and logistical support units.
stalin sent much equipment and armor to the border for invasion,most was lost because hitler caught it in disarray,much was still on trains and in piles,easy targets .
the globalist bankers wanted stalin to win so they forced USA to send mountains of replacements, from boots to planes and tanks. and 100's of thousands of trucks. they called it lead/lease to fool the american public, no money was ever paid back. also stalin sent a good portion of this used gear to mao tse tung who used it against us in korea a few years later(i have talked to guys who were there). you will not find this in the fake media.
smedley butler(most decorated soldier,in USA) was correct war is a racket. read it.
Moving the factories far away from the front was also a very smart move.
"Unlike the German general staff, the Soviet counterpart anticipated a war of attrition and prepared mobilization plans accordingly"
There's a logical error in that, however. Germany knew it would not win a war of attrition. They were starving for oil, and as soon as it ran out, they knew they'd be in big trouble. Therefore, if they were to fight, they had to win fast. Planning for a war of attrition was planning for certain failure.
This may also be a factor in the enormous initial soviet losses: Stalin probably understood the same basic principle. In his position, manpower was cheap; time was valuable. So losing a million men in order to buy a few weeks of time, can then be a good trade.
"anticipated a war of attrition " are you brain damaged ? Even Ctalin it is surprised by the counter strike, they just not believe for 3 days and 3 nights.
@@organicdudranch The US wanted Stalin to win so they could turn against the battered USSR without Nazi Germany in their hair.
Completely unrelated to the Video, but a good job none the less MHV, An Extra Credits video has caught my attention when scrolling through the comments, A video on the D-Day landings, and holy fucking shit do they need to open a history book.
Entertaining job! The German accent is perfect for the narration and the little graphic icons are hilarious-- esp. the 'Worse Yet Get Ambushed' little skull popping out of the jack-in-the-box! Great explanations presented in a compelling and straight-forward manner.
Can't argue with any of this. I think it is well explained and I really enjoyed it. Thanks great vis.
In Soviet Russia, logistics direct you! :D
Punny and true lol.
Since psychologist Petersen was quoted, let me mention one factor which is overlooked by many historians: mentality of Red Army personnel and attitude within the ranks. Hundreds of thousands marching in captivity, tons of equipment abandoned without any contact with the enemy (over 6 mln rifles written off as "lost" in 6 months of 1941). Not feet of clay certainly but complex phenomena which is hard to understood without the knowledge of the Soviet history in 1920s-1930s. This topic was studied by few Russian language authors, among them Mark Solonin who once compared summer 1941 situation as a barrel with hoops broken (one of his books was called "Barrel and hoops"). One of the darks secrets of that time which was suppressed for several generations: too many people did not want to fight for their country.
>Hundreds of thousands marching in captivity, tons of equipment abandoned without any contact with the enemy
How'd you explain why British, US and French troops surrendered without a fight and abandoned equipment?
Of course. And you could add German, Italian, etc. But please compare the numbers. And circumstances.
Good point. There are testimonies about red army soldiers who taken as prisoners in 1939 asked Poles for weapon, because they wanted fight against Soviet Union.
Many thanks - this is great!!!
I am curious though - to what extent were the losses due to the inadequacies you gave here vs. just the initiative being with Germany? Interesting to compare Soviet vs German losses in 1941 vs 1944.
Also (unrelated): any ideas on how the medical services compared among Germany vs USSR vs USA? (ie, WIA : KIA ratios, based on good case studies obviously)
Not trying to shit on the German fighting man; they have proven themselves to capable fighters, but the fact of the matter is that the high Soviet losses mainly because of 3 things
1) The Soviets were in a transition period; not prepared for total war on the defensive.
2) They were caught flat-flooted by a surprise attack, the Soviet air arm, large as it was, was mostly destroyed before even leaving the ground
3) The German led coalition of axis forces initially outnumbered the standing Soviet army, nearly by a 2:1 ratio.
The real ratio in men was 1,3:1
3,200,000 Germans + 600,000 Finns, Romanians and others vs 2,9 soviet troops in the Western districts.
That was only initially, as early as August Soviet troops numbered around 5 million.
Grondorn I said initially didn't I?
Grondorn but by that time Soviets lost the strategic initiative, so it didn't matter that much as the total number of divisions entering battle simultaneously was always on the German side. Which was also due to the fact Soviets had to stretch their defences along the long front line, while Germans could concentrate massively overwhelming numbers in local operations.
+Him Pim the problem this army had was Soviet leadership doing everything possible to make sure there is absolutely no way Hitler can present this war as defensive for him, as some sort of retaliation for Soviet agression. It had to be without the slightest shadow of a doubt an invasion in attempt to conquer Soviet land and enslave Soviet people. Practically no promising officers were eliminated in the so called purge in 1938 - on the contrary, the percentage of officers with proper military education increased significantly. The lack of officers was due to the quick growth of the Soviet military at least 5-fold over 1939-1941, there was simply no way to train enough officers to fill all the new commanding positions. All that "paranoid Stalin killed his best officers" is a silly myth by Goebbels.
When is the video on the fall of France coming out? And will you do videos on wars not affiliated with, but still related to WW2, like the Chinese-Japanese war, or the Spanish civil war? Maybe a one on The Peru-Bolivian war?
excellent video as always! looking forward to interacting with you in the coming weeks on that idea i proposed over twitter.
You got ignored
"Radio is like Dark Humor - Not everybody gets it." xD classic. This is similar to how dark humor is like food, not everybody gets it.
Perhaps you might consider it off topic, but I have had difficulty finding reliable information on the IMPACT of American and British military aid to the Soviet Union. Would you consider speaking on this topic? Thank you. I enjoy your lectures.
definitely coming in 2018, pretty big topic.
"on the IMPACT of American and British military aid to the Soviet Union."
Do you have in mind the contribution of the Allies for their own salvation?
Heavy sovjet losses continued until the very end of the war. Please look at the losses in the battle of Berlin.
and with whom do you compare losses?
What losses could the Americans, the British or the French have in their place? could not have such losses because even in Italy they could not defeat 17 German divisions for 2 years. What does it mean to fight against several millions? You cannot compare, because the western front is the front of German old and disabled people with outdated weapons. Only some German units "were a bright spot against a gloomy general background," according to Westphal.
yeah in all major battles the soviets have way more losses than the germans. Both in defensive and offensive battles. The germans put up a decent fight, but got heavily outnumbered.
Actually, Soviets suffered some 80k kia and missing, Germans had around 170k dead and ~440k captured during the battle for Berlin.
@@alekviktor7822 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin
@@alekviktor7822 no soviets kia: 350k
Germans: 92k
Roman Töpel noted that the Russian army only trained attacking manoeuvres and not defensive ones.
Even with all these shortcomings the red army still was the largest army the world has ever seen
There is one fact that so many history pundits overlook. What distinguishes soldiers apart is training, expertise, experience that makes a veteran of war but the difference between a raw recruit, a trained troop, and an experienced veteran. When the Nazis invaded Soviet Russia in 1941, as time went on the German losses were not just in simple numbers of men, but of trained experienced veterans of Poland and France, etc. Loosing these troops we’re irreplaceable to the German war machine. It really showed in the Luftwaffe. Most German aces flew till injuries stopped them or they were dead. Eric Hartman was the all time Ace with 251 kills. American pilots were rotated out, sent back to give raw recruits a hands on teaching of air tactics. When the Germans lost a veteran pilot, they lost irreplaceable experience.
Erich Hartmann- 352 aerial victories, not 251............
I appreciate the objective approach of your videos.
Is there something like a soviet group tactics video like you did for the germans. Who carried what gun, how many where is one group etc.
You’re scholarly presentation is excellent.
Actually, not a bad video. Concise, fact filled and fits with the narrative of Germany's initial success in Autumn, 1941. Love the example given by the presenter about the quoted radio trans after Barbarossa was in motion. "Are you insane? And why arent you using code?" No one wanted to bring the boss bad news. Imo, Stalin got smarter after june, 1941 by letting Zhukov and the generals run tactics and deployments where as Hitler grabbed more control of military tactics and deployments to the detriment of all that was in the sphere of his influence. Amazing how one man's own ego can negatively influence so many lives. Again, I liked the video.
"clean up you own room"
ifonlyicouldstop get yourself together bucko and fight those nazis.
mpags sorry, too busy slaying the dragon and rescuing my father...I'll get right on it after that.
I like how this video is essentially a continuation of your earlier video on why Nazi-Germany decided to invade the Soviet-Union.
Radio is like dark humor, not everyone gets it. Brilliant
That's not his words, so that's lie. In 1941 red army was actively modernisated and this modernisation should be ended in 1942. Big loses of USSR are connected with the fact, that nazis were destroying Soviet soldiers in camps. Gas chambers were first time tested on Soviet soldiers.
Jordan B. Peterson is Gwyneth Paltrow for incels.
German civilian losses: 1 million
Total civilian losses in Eastern Europe: 30 million.
The German army was simply a murdering machine. When it was not fighting, it was wiping out Soviet villages to create Lebensraum.
You know that Stalin was big part on those civilian deaths right? You do i hope lol
@@Jinny-Wa well no. Stalin "just" sentenced around 700.000 people to death. The loses were by the German Wehrmacht and SS. They slaughtered the slavic people.
@@f.l.3978 There is also a thing called starvation.
Military Deaths
6,329,600 KIA
1,283,200 POW Deaths
550,000 Other
8,160,000 Total
Civilian Deaths
7,420,379 Direct Violence
2,164,313 Labor Camps
8,500,000 Famine
18,100,000 Total
26,250,000 Grand Total
Actually there was one part wrong. Stalin knew an attack was coming. The knowledge came from the Soviet spy agency, most notably, Richard Sorgei. Numerous reports were flooding in weeks before the war. When news of the reports appeared, Stalin ordered the army to mobilise to "a state of readiness". Stalin attempted to prevent a war one last time diplomatically but failed.
Hitler did planned and masked it as "an act if defense" and "a preemptive strike) due to the high amount of Soviet border troops. Hitler only deployed tanks days before the start to conceal their intentions. So, preemptive act is a false.
All in all:
1. The purge took out the most experienced of commanders, most notably, Mikhail Tukhachevsky. Most non-purged commanders were in their 40's.
2. Soviets were still "modernising" and expanding. Equipping new weapons (Example of which, the SVT, which was too hard to mass produce, resulting in the return of the Mosin-Nagant)
3. Poor maintenance, supply and logistics. (Numerous tanks broke down along the way and were left due to crews not being trained on simple repairs.)
4. Lack of proper training. (Frontline troops were mostly listening to propaganda and communist doctrines)
5. Poor leadership (the Stavka ordered numerous suicidal assaults resulting in huge losses, along with Order 227)
If you want to know more, Star Media's "Soviet Storm" (documentary series) has great detailed stats and explanation from actions on how it escalated to Manchuria in 1945.
>The knowledge came from the Soviet spy agency, most notably, Richard Sorgei
Sorge sent "interesting" reports, to be modest.
> The purge took out the most experienced of commanders
nope
>Example of which, the SVT, which was too hard to mass produce
that's why it was built in millions - thing, that of other countries only USA managed to do with semiauto rifle
>Frontline troops were mostly listening to propaganda and communist doctrines
such a bullshit
>the Stavka ordered numerous suicidal assaults resulting in huge losses, along with Order 227
yes, it would be better to sit and wait for German tanks to roll over your positions. And you forget that order 227 was issued in 1942. For a reason
+kollekzioner5
read some good books, will you
kollekzioner5 The Soviets actually destroyed ordnance and materiel most of the time in an organised retreat. Also, because of Order 226, most of the armies from the start were destroyed because the political commissars and Stavka were hesitant to allow a retreat.
Also, another failure of the Soviet Army is because of the pressures of the Political Commissars on the army staffs.
An example is the commander of the Kerch peninsula forces that were to save Crimea from the Germans and the forces trapped in the city of Sevastopol. The P. Commissar pressured the commander of the Kerch forces to attack and to stop digging trenches. At the last moment, they discovered an attack that was to happen the next day that was to attack them and force them to pull back to the Caucasus.
Excellent analysis. Subscribed
Excellent video, as always.
I have to agree with most of your comments. The Soviets had an overextended front, bad communications, lackluster air power, dated equipment, poor organization. I think a good comparison is the Polish-Soviet War. The Stavka tried to directly control the war from Moscow and due to this lag in communications and poor knowledge of the situation on the ground they failed horribly. The problem with lack of radios in tanks is quite evident as well. Quite often only the platoon commander had a radio in older Soviet tanks and communication with the other tanks was done with signals. The Allies had a similar issue in the Battle of France.
As an example the T-34, although it was an excellent tank overall, had a cramped turret in initial versions with poor visibility which further reduced troop performance. This was fixed later with the hexagonal turret and eventually the T-34-85 turret which was originally designed for the T-43. Still, other than some hopelessly outdated designs like the T-26, I think the Russian BT series tanks should have compared decently with the smaller Nazi tanks. You have to remember the Germans back then still had a lot lighter armor than the one they used later in the war. No Panthers, no Tigers either. It was similar to the Battle of France but with more Pz IIIs. The Pz IV back then still had the howitzer, it was originally designed as an infantry tank, so it was basically useless for anti-tank warfare. The heavy KV-1 tank should have been a similarly shocking experience as the Char B-1s in France.
Also you did not mention the Purges in this video. Everyone in the Soviet military was in a state of shock after the officers were purged. Any soldier which showed any sort of initiative risked being purged as well. So there was a general state of apathy as a result which led to this kind of performance in the initial stages of the invasion. While there are several reports that the Soviets expected a Nazi invasion in 1941 several factors made them think it was going to happen at another time as time progressed. Like, who would have expected the Nazis to not attack the Soviet Union in the Spring doing the same error that Napoleon did all over again?
I've never considered the decision of the start date of barbarossa to have been arbitrary, not only was Germany running into deficit spending of its oil reserve but after the disastrously bad performance of the Red army not only the germans knew how dysfunctional they were, but the Red army knew it to. My pet theory is the decision to, "go" was made to hit the Soviets before they had a chance to fix things
"The peculiarity of the country and the uniqueness of the character of the Russians make the campaign very specific. The first serious enemy". (Diary of Halder, July 25, 1941).
Holy hell you quoted JPB! From his final M&M lecture too!
Holy crap. You quoted Jordan Peterson. You, sir, have earned my highest level of respect.
What footnotes and bibliography does Alexander Hill & David Stahel use about Suvorov's work(s)? Do they reference _only_ 'Icebreaker'?
fantastic video!
To expand on the point of not provoking Germans: there have been numerous border 'incidents' leading up to the summer. As the red army was preparing to attack the Germans under the flag of liberators, orders where given not to react to any provocations from the German side. At first everyone thought it was just another provocation, when it went on for longer than usual, they tried to reach Moscow and awaited further orders. Only the admiral of the fleet realized what's happening and, acting on his own authority, order to open fire on German Luftwaffe in the sky.
"As the red army was preparing to attack the Germans under the flag of liberators" - by hastly building defences and preparing massive industry evacuation to Siberia and Urals. This Rezun crap needs to stop, seriously.
Mocsk those came into action with German attack the hole reason it was vastly is that defense wasn't planned for. Even the airbases were moved very close to the front to have a better reach into enemy territory. However that became the reason why the Red Air Force was decimated in the first months of war.
Industry evacuation plans were started to be laid down at least in 1939, and throughout 1939-41 all necessary infrastructure was being built (factories need electricity, water, solid floors, roads and railroad, etc, machines can't be just dropped into dirt and start working - it takes months of preparation). Defenses were being built even before that. Only a fraction of airfields were built near the border (around 10 km from it) for immediate support of the front line and as advance airfields for cutting of enemy supply lines and for counter-offensives, which were the cornerstone of Soviet defence doctrine at the time. It's a very weak argument that ignores many important issues, constructed by Rezun (suvorov) in his propagandist work. Please don't cite this guy in places where people know something about history, it's bad taste.
+Chidis Skaniukas there's a certain technological process that takes time. It doesn't matter how many people you shoot, it won't make physics work faster. No, factories cannot be moved quickly, especially by threats of getting shot - it's a complex procedure that requires highly professional specialists, intricate planning and great organisational skills from top to bottom of the management chain. You don't achieve that from threatening people with guns, that's not how any of this works. Also, GULag camp inmates had nothing to do with evacuation of industry, the command wouldn't let them a thousand kilometres near anything this strategic.
"how much gulag prisoners will die in the cold, starve or be shot to motivate others" - you're confusing Soviet penitentiary system with Nazi concentration camps. That's not how it worked.
"12 years old kid could be sentenced to be shot" - that is incorrect, only adults could be sentenced to death.
", if he made a mistake in production line" - that is incorrect, only large scale theft or outright sabotage would grant a death sentence. And we're talking about adults here. 12 year old wouldn't be doing anything remotely important enough to cause any sort of real damage.
You have a very distorted view of the Soviet Union, like it's some kind of fantasy land like Mordor. It wasn't. In fact, in terms of it's penitentiary system it wasn't much different from any other country on the planet at the time, including USA or Britain. You should probably adjust your view in accordance with reality instead of reciting Dr Goebbels.
+Chidis Skaniukas "born in Lithuania" - sadly, this explains a lot.
Is there a video that details which issues the Soviet Army faced during the invasion of Poland?
Why would you quote Jordan Peterson for this??? He is not an expert in this area plus is a very questionable professional in his area of “expertise” anyway.
"Jordan B. Peterson."
Yikes.
1:30 The Soviet first echelon was the called "Western Front", an army group led by colonel general Pavlov, who was later sentenced to death by incompetence. Also, documents from the Soviet HQ imply that a general order was given in june 20 1941 ordering every unit in Europe to take combat positions and be prepared to counter a German offensive... except that army group, since general Pavlov didn't follow that order. Since the iniciative in the Soviet system is given to the commanders of the army groups, not the main HQ, and since he had the authority to change the positions of his units and to follow that order (which he didn't, against the recomendations of the Soviet Staff) it's more his own fault that Stalin's fault.
Also, they were two considered Soviet plans, the one what was followed (mostly) was the called "deep defense", which was based on attrition and strategic maskirovka. The plan consisted on using the first echelon (Western front in Belarus, Baltic front in Lithuania and Southwestern front in Ukraine) as expendable units whose task was to delay the German advance, until the whole Soviet reserves could be mobilised and then rushing with those reserves. However, and due to the debacle of the Western Front in late june, those army groups weren't able to delay the German forces the time expected (and needed) to do that, so the reserve army groups weren't fully operational when they went to battle in august/september (however they still managed to kick some asses).
sovietwomble singlehandedly won stalingrad
Jordan Peterson reference FTW
Abrodolf Lincler jfy
Could you do about the Third battle of Kharkov and how Army Group South stopped and drove back the Vorenezh and South-western Fronts. And how Manstein counter attacked and destroyed the 6th Guards Army, 3rd Tank Army and stopped the 40th and 69th Armies plz. it is of course the prelude to the Battle of Kursk.
I like the German way of reading 'St' whenever it occurs .
Yes, the lack of lubricants was terrible. Ask Eastern European women.
Also the reason why deep penetrations by the Germans caused so much damage.
damn... :D
We could say the same for Germans mothers you know?
Tyler Durden edgy
Klobi for President and german women later xd
As much as I love this channel, it's really not a good look to quote Jordan Peterson. Don't give him a platform, it looks like a tacit endorsement of his political views he is best known for. I trust you are smart enough to know how and why he is a bad person.
shaming tactics 101, just leave.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Excuse me? I'm not trying to shame you, I'm recommending that you don't quote an idiot. I am sorry that I was a acting patronising toward the end ("I'm sure you know why..."), that was uncalled for. But what do you mean by "shaming?" I don't see how what I said could be seen as shaming unless you actually are endorsing Jordan Peterson, and you are calling me out for you doing so.
I am missing something here, please help me out
Certainly the topography contributed greatly to the staggering losses on both sides. Once a soldier gets run out from their hole in the ground there's nowhere to run back to for cover.
Another thing that contributed was the fa ct that Stalin had most of his officer glass killed off.
Barbarossa alone effectively zapped most of the German Army's offensive capability in just a few months from which it never recovered. From then on divisions were understrength and any offensive capability came from stripping so called 'quiet sectors' of it's best men and armor just to build a regular strength division. General Halder noted how he was told of one Soviet attack in which the soldiers were '12 ranks deep' and mercilessly cut down. The slaughter was so horrific even Marshal Zhukov had to write a special order telling his officers to bypass German strongpoints instead of continually doing bloody frontal assaults against them.
@RifleEyez russia lost ww1 against Germany 🇩🇪
russia survive ww2 only because American landlease
LOL 😂 russians are clown’s
russians can’t even defeat Ukraine without american landlease forget about fighting against German 🇩🇪 military
The Soviet disposition in June 1941 was preparation for an offensive. They were not dug in for defence on the Soviet border or the edge of their zone of Poland. Some German sources noted that the Soviet disposition in mid- June was for an offensive. The Soviets had huge numbers of tanks, not just the T-34 but others and men close to their frontier, but no plans to use them in defence, as the intercepted signal shows. The Soviets managed to attack Romanian oil fields and then neutral Finland before 25th June (start of the Continuation War). With no plans for a defensive war, they had to work out how to defend, which they eventually did. Read Icebreaker by Viktor Suvorov. Stalin did not think that Germany would attack, as the Germans had no plans for winter (they had not started making oil for a Russian winter, and had not prepared winter clothing). Stalin's error was to assume that Hitler's war plan would be rational, it wasn't.
+EdMcF1
>Some German sources noted that the Soviet disposition in mid- June was for an offensive.
I think this source was Goebbels
I disagree pre 41 the soviets had the KV-1 mbt, during the winter war while t34s where being taken out left and right it manage to retain it's effectiveness and break through the Finnish line, the T34 is a good platform in a open environment where it can exploit it's mobility and it's enemy's lack there of
Barbarossa was a preemptive strike. I suggest study by russian Mark Solonion basically confirming Suvorow and much more.
Repeating silly ideas like 'oudated tanks' etc, a pity. One of your few failings as a researcher so far.
Absolutely baseless comments on radios as well.
57% out of what ridiculous norm?
Research and give real numbers.
Your tank numbers prove my point perfectly, even if only 9000 soviet tanks are counted, and not the whole 20.000+ cannon armed armored cars.
Now compare to german tank numbers and 'datedness'.
PzKpfw I 152
PzKpfw II 782
PzKpfw III (37mm)269
PzKpfw III (50mm)707
PzKpfw IV 439
PzKpfw 35(t) incl. PzBef 160
PzKpfw 38(t) incl. PzBef 660
PzBef 146
Flammpanzer 84
Captured Tanks(likely french)9
You dont compare tanks to anti-tank guns.
You compare tanks to enemy tanks.
These are exactly the tricks soviet historians were playing for decades, all copied by incompetent and unquestioning western ones.
TLDR.
>And this list is all tanks in general.
No, these are the tanks involved in Barbarossa from the German side.
And yes, you are again going for the 'everything not of first category- out of factory- wont work' soviet lie.
1st category are the ones frresh out of a factory.
In practice the first three cattegories were used and saw action.
Any more propaganda you want to quote, BEFORE you compare it to the German side?
Or those poor PZ-2s were fresh out of factories as well in 1941?
No,. it wasnt 1st category, learn to read.
Battle machines are 1-3rd category, 1st category are, to quote your own post '1st category - new weapons'
To save on your trouble, here is how you can prove Red Army had 0 tanks.
All the non-new tanks are not combat vehicles, all the new tanks are broken, mishandled, and not tested by troops. There, 0 tanks.
What sources? You cant read what you YOURSELF wrote.
The Workers' and Peasants' Red Army suffered heavy losses (46 divisions lost in combat) during Operation Barbarossa, because they're front-line armies were forward deployed and in offensive posture with the majority of its best trained and best equipped forces along a 1800 km border where they were never prepared for any defence of Soviet. None in the Soviet had even tried to guestimate at the Third Reichs ability to mass a large scale attack on very short notice which would result in such losses in being overrun and with deadly encirclements that it was no wonder Stalin went straight into hiding of his cabin...(Zhokovs admission)
Interesante video.
Gracias.
Saludos desde Argentina 🇦🇷
Shame Stalin purged many competent generals. It is because of him the red army was in such a bad shape.
Yeah my boi Jordan Peterson!!! Kermit the frog irl
Jordan B. Peterson is incredible.
Talk about inexperienced crews:
A typical encounter occurred along the Stir River in Ukraine in the first days of the war during the advance of Schützen-Brigade.16 of the 16.Panzer-Division. A single T-34 emerged and drove toward the position of the German 37mm antitank guns. A German account of the incident recalled the event:
In many ways, the T-34 was the Tiger I of 1941, not numerous nor very reliable, but very dangerous. Sadly, unlike the Tiger crews, early Soviet tank crews were terrible.
Thing is - due to design flaws the filed of view of a tankist inside a T-34 was very narrow. That's why they could not spot a 37mm firing 20+ times at them.
Könntest du ein Video übers Ritterkreuz machen?
The Soviet Union had a lot of land to retreat to. The farther east the Germans went the longer the supply lines became. Then the rains came and bogged down the advance. The roads became a quagmire. The railroads were a different gage and width. No long term planning was done for a winter campaign. Germany declared war on the United States. The United States started sending food, trucks and other war materials to help the Sovit Union.
"Štalyin".
I freaking love your english accent
He's German dude
Let's not believe in myth that Soviet military losses were staggering only in 1941 but not later. In fact even their official downplayed loss figures are suggesting that worst period was from July 1943 to May 1944 and didn't go down much later. In fact during last 4 months of the war Red Army took average monthly losses even higher than in July 43 - May 44.
The offensive bias in Red Army military doctrine at the time of the German attack, which is mentioned in the video, played a major part in the debacle according to Soviet sources.
It wasn't just Stalin who emphasised counter attack. Soviet war games before the war were conducted with early counter attack as a main goal. Soviet forces, particularly the armoured forces, were deployed in echelon and concentrated to allow this option, which fed the preemptive strike myth. In the event, all those deployments did was make it easier for the Germans to encircle Red Army forces particularly on the central axis. Soviet counterattacks simply drove their forces deeper into pockets.
The concentration caused more trouble for the Germans in the South but even here the rush forward to attack eventually played into German hands.
If you wargame with Soviet forces deployed to delay and slow the Germans using the natural choke points such as river lines and areas of forest or marsh, it is difficult for the Germans to advance so rapidly. It also helps to compensate for the weaknesses of Soviet forces. Stubborn defence was a Russian strength from the start.
Where these tactics were applied such as around Smolensk, the Dvina/Dniepr gap, Kiev and the approaches to Leningrad, the German advance markedly slowed and caused alarm on the German side, leading to some time wasting redeployments which eventually told with the German failure to capture either Moscow or Leningrad, the essential hubs which must be taken if the German attack was to succeed.
To create a strong line of defense throughout the eastern front requires 8-9 million people. The USSR had a maximum of 6.5 million during the war. In June 1941, it had 3.2 million. This means that an active defense strategy (counterattack) was the only possible option for the Red Army, given limited forces.
Very good video. Do more on the Eastern front - lend lease? Types of equipmet from lend lease to soviet union
Looking at the casualty ratio, the Red Army in Barbarossa actually performed better than Poland or the French and British did in the early campaigns of the war.
@John Cornell Better than the British at the battle of France
Do you seriously compare the naval power of Britain, which can evacuate its soldiers and the battle for Kiev? Are you seriously compare the Soviet Air Force with the Birtan Air Force which was 80% obsolete?
1. Throughout 1941, Germany had a numerical advantage over the USSR on the eastern front. She also had an advantage in mobility. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Soviet armies were surrounded in Kiev.
2. As I said, British planes were not as obsolete as Soviet ones. Plus, some Soviet aircraft were destroyed on the ground at the beginning of the campaign.
1. The Wehrmacht had numerical superiority at the beginning of the war on the eastern front and retained it until the beginning of 1942.
2. Germany had 610 thousand cars and 625 thousand horses.
1. The balance of power is determined by the number of people, not technology, which is just a tool in the hands of man.
2. Show me any period of 1941 where the USSR has numerical superiority at the front.
3. At the beginning of the war, the Axis had 5 million people against 3.8 in the USSR. At the beginning of 1942, the Axis had 5.1 million against 4.9 million in the USSR. The USSR more actively used its reinforcements, but during 1941 it did not have a numerical advantage.
Why was Lend Lease not included in this video?
You throw enough men at the enemy, eventually they’ll run out of bullets.
Question, if there was no Barbarossa, how long you think it'll be till the Soviets were prepared for war with Germany? And if given the time would the Wehrmacht be able to handle a Soviet steamroller if say they attack in summer 1942 or so into Eastern Europe and East Prussia?
Hmm...I found several different theories about it, I'm actually writing an alternate timeline where there's no Nazi Germany but a still conservative Germany where World War I ended in a stalemate(Italy being knocked out after Caporetto, the 1918 Spring Offensive succeeding etc) and the Soviet Union still rises. I'm figuring the Soviets would want revenge on the Germans since they would have some influence in Eastern Europe even after World War I would leave them crippled as the rest of Europe. So I'm thinking the Soviet Union still attacks the Baltic states and Finland, and Romania over Bessarabia but Germany is busy so Stalin took what he could. So I'm doing research of perhaps the USSR would start a big war in Europe and thinking what year is most appropriate for that, I estimated summer 1942 but from what you're telling me it might be a bit longer.
I also assume that by 1942 and certainly by 1943 the soviets would have been capable, I do find their lack of radio equipment and trucks to be difficult to overcome however for offensive operations.
I'm thinking summer 1942 they'd be pretty capable but still have weakenesses like the radio, but by then the Soviet Army would be much bigger and able to toss in millions of men, thousands of tanks, artillery and aircraft into the fray, a sudden attack in Eastern Europe like that not sure how that would turn out how the German Army can deal with that especially if they didn't expect how big it would be.
+KelbAlrai1990
Then you must take into account that in real history the Soviet Union cooperated extensively with Weimar Republic. It wouln't be possible with 'conservative Germany'
I do not understand much of military history, but some of the issues you point that the soviet army had, actually most them, was present in the German army too. For example half of the German army was supply by horses. Correct me if I wrong of course.
Second . I am not sure about the outdated tanks. Because even the most outdated tank in the soviet army had a bigger gun than his german equivalent and it was battle effective (at least on theory) . Of course the soviets had 25000 tanks it is normal some of them to be older models, but this is the same for the German army. This is true for every army in the world even today. When we are talking about the quality of the tanks we have to make comparison between the newest models.
Third. To claim that something is lack of some army just because it did not reach the requirements is prematurely. What are the requirements and what are actual needs are two separate thing.
There are many things I wish to say but to be honest I have more questions than answers. What I am trying to say is that all points here are factors, but I cannot except that these are the reasons for the huge enormous soviet loses. If the Germans lose their best units the soviets lose their entire army. The army from 41 is different from the army in 42, because the army in 41 is killed, captured or just run away.
It's easy, man. Germans were ubermensch and soviets are, as portrayed even nowadays in wester propaganda are ubermensch, a complete Mordor. Orcs tend to suffer horrible losses at all and any circumstance when fighting elves.
I am gratified that the narrator mentions Suvorov, but it is obvious he hasn't read or carefully read Suvorov's book "The Chief Culprit" with its massive case demonstrating Soviet aggressive preparations in the spring of1941. A million paratroopers, crash production of perishable gliders, enormous piles of artillery ammo abandoned on the ground close to the border, and much much more. A military force preparing to attack is poorly structured for defense. Also, the narrator doesn't mention Zhukov crushing the Japanese 6th Army at Khalkin Gol in 1939 without using radio communications. In June 1941, Stalin could afford to wait a few weeks longer, and Hitler couldn't.
1. Suvorov is not a historian. His theories have long been refuted.
2. USSR never had 1 million paratroopers. Suvorov confused these people with civilians who used the parachute jump as a hobby.
3. Find any information about the tactics of "active defense".
I'm more interested in why the Soviets had such high losses during the Battle of Kursk, where they had immense advantages in material and intelligence.
+Jean Lannes
> where they had immense advantages in material and intelligence.
it isn't true
Your accent is perfect for this channels genre
Why didn't they researched the effect of radio communication?
Would it have had made any difference?
Gaming Collection They probably knew the use of the radio but didn't have the capacity to create as many as they needed until later due to capacity issues and bigger priorities
Vodka makes research difficult.
Beginners discuss tactics, amateurs discuss strategies, professionals discuss logistics.
In an off topic I'm reminded of the Soviets having inaccurate maps for the purpose of trying to confuse invaders. For this reason their own maps were practically useless during military exercises and once when some American officers were watching one of their maneuvers they had to use the American's maps to find out where they were going.
I've just read Marshal K.K. Rokossovsky: by Dr Boris Sokolov and The Viaz'ma Catastrophe, 1941 by Lev Lopukhovsky, and they both support the thesis advanced in this video.
Is it true that Soviet tank repairs were recorded as tank losses?
Also Tanks returned to service added to the total number of tanks fielded?
glad to see you're studying maps of meaning also :)
Seems to me that even in your other videos you are at odds with comrade Hill. If the Soviets did have 700-1200 T-34 and about 600 KV-1 to the borders, only that makes half of ALL German tanks. But they did have also those 8500 BT 26 and others that were more than on par with Pzkw 1 a 2. And if Suvorov is at least partly to believe, what military supplies Germans found in the border areas was more in favor of the 1941 fall Soviet offensive, not 1942.