Deep Battle: The Soviet Answer to the Blitzkrieg

Go to sheathunderwear.com and use the code “Warographics” to get 20% off your order! Thank you Sheath for the sponsorship!
→ Subscribe for new videos at least twice a week!
kzbin.info...
This video is #sponsored by Sheath.
Love content? Check out Simon's other KZbin Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Casual Criminalist: / @thecasualcriminalist
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
XPLRD: / @xplrd
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler

[@warographics643]

Go to sheathunderwear.com and use the code “Warographics” to get 20% off your order! Thank you Sheath for the sponsorship!

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Love this channel ❤❤❤❤❤

[@jajssblue]

I definitely want to see more theory focused analysis videos!

[@Ihavpickle]

SHUT UP

[@secretagent5954]

nope, not allowed

[@futurechef08]

That would be awesome. I liked his breakdown of the Gulf War & Invasion of Iraq. I've been watching his videos for a few years. Love watching his Content geow

[@jajssblue]

@@futurechef08 Agreed. The Iraq invasion video was excellent! The detail they go into really helps to recontextualize those events.

[@--enyo--]

Yeah, definitely.

[@pedroberrizbeitia1231]

I, for one, quite enjoy these military theory videos! Please make more! Thanks, guys.

[@simonkevnorris]

I agree they are informative and interesting.

[@HypaxBE]

That attempt at "bewegungskrieg" got me good. Thanks for leaving it in the video, loved it.

[@cameronferguson7145]

Tukachevsky was also pioneering in the definition of Operations, as a layer of military planning between tactics and strategy. Bagration is a textbook example, multiple armies of varying arms composition were integrated into Fronts - not dissimilar to the Wehrmacht's Army Groups during Barbarossa - and the fronts were deployed simultaneously in a feigned thrust into Ukraine, to draw off German units, and in the main assault in the north. The Germans were denied rear area security by Soviet artillery to such an extent that they couldn't rush second line units to the front, and by the time the rockets and shells let up, the First Belorussian Front's breakthrough units were beginning the encirclement of Vitebsk. The units holding the line in Vitebsk were thus isolated from any reinforcement, while the flanking units to the north and south began engaging the second level of the German defensive line, denying Busch the luxury of sending his reserves to relieve the garrison. Operations, in the Soviet order of battle, aimed to seize initiative over a broad front using coordinated breakthrough efforts, and simultaneously to paralyze the enemy's ability to mount a flexible defense-in-depth.

[@hewhoshallnotbenamed5168]

While it's true the concept of "blitzkrieg" had been around for decades the reason it was so revolutionary, and something largely forgotten when the subject is talked about today, was the implementation of shortwave radio into German tanks and other armored units, something no other army had. Couple this and the well trained and disciplined nature of German units at the time comparative to the other major powers and it's no wonder that the "lightning war" was so effective in the early stages of the war.

[@Vandelberger]

Agreed, but please start using the term “war of movement.” No German Officer would ever say Blitzkrieg. That term was invented by the Allie’s and is mentioned in ONE German manual late in the war.

[@jonhall2274]

Or we can use Blitzkrieg, because anyone that had middle school history knows what you are talking about, where as an extremely small percentage of the population would associate "war of movement" with the Germans tactics during WW2! 🤷🙃

[@pantherace1000]

It could be argued that the Prussian concept of "maneuver war" had been in use since the 1600s. Robert Citino's The German Way of War is a fantastic book that delves into such concepts.

[@ex-navyspook]

A friend of mine was in 'Eagle Troop' during the First Gulf War. He told me that, when they captured some Iraqi tankers after (during) the Battle of 73 Easting or Medina Ridge, one of the Iraqi officers noticed a picture of Rommel in the Bradley. He apparently asked how the Americans could have a picture of their sworn enemy in their tank, someone said, "If you had studied him, you wouldn't be sitting in my tank."

[@secretagent5954]

you forgot laboratory grade crystal meth

[@elonmuch491]

I’d love to see you guys cover more military theory! I think your format is actually better suited to wider overviews (like the „special operators“ series, „art of war“ series, and videos like this) than anything else. I’d love to see you continue doing stuff like this!

[@Jayjay-qe6um]

Ever since the 1960s when the Sino-Soviet alliance came to an abrupt end, the Soviet High Command considered invading China by deep battle offensive operations, envisaging a rapid drive deep towards the latter's main industrial centers before they could have a chance to mount a credible defense or even stage a counterattack. However, the extremely vast numbers of Chinese People's Liberation Army and their knowledge of the terrain, coupled with their then-recent possession of nuclear weapons, made such a drive the Soviets were to execute extremely unlikely.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

The Soviets would have used tactical nuclear weapons to destroy PLA concentrations, fortifications and cover the flanks of Soviet tank armies driving to operational depths.

[@occam7382]

@@michaelsnyder3871, yes, because it's not like using nukes on another nuclear power would ever possibly trigger M.A.D.

[@suckyourdeadnan4805]

@@occam7382invading a nuclear power would mean MAD it’s insanity you drag there army out and destroy them that way if war the only way but you avoid attacking territory at all

[@JDDC-tq7qm]

​​@@occam7382Soviets didnt give F just like they were close to nuking America with a sub Russians are different beasts 🐻😂😂

[@mpersad]

It's very impressive that the channel has the research to cover the "Deep Battle" doctrine of the USSR. Terrific video!

[@jmgonzales7701]

what is deep battle doctrine?

[@secretagent5954]

@@jmgonzales7701me in yer maws bedroom 😂

[@jmgonzales7701]

@@secretagent5954 dayummmm

[@gatonegro187]

It's just chatgpt boi

[@JDFloyd]

Good video, and please create more military theory ones in the future.

[@just_a_turtle_chad]

Wow you mean the Soviets didn't just throw thousands of people without weapons at the enemy?! surprising !

[@stc3145]

They still lost twice as many men as the enemy despite having 2 to 1 in men and material. Sometimes the ratio was higher

[@santymartin7383]

​@@stc3145yeah, that tends to happens on offensive action

[@stc3145]

@@santymartin7383 At defensive as well.

[@phuntshodorji3903]

​@@stc3145might sound weird but at the beginning of operation Barbarossa the Germans along with their allies outnumbered the Soviets.

[@stc3145]

@@phuntshodorji3903 Only at the beginning. They suffer 4 millions casualties to the 1 million Germans. The Red Army was inferiour to the German one that is why they lost so many. Even at Kursk were the Germans were attacking.

[@raylast3873]

The major problem of the 1941 Soviet Tank Corps is that they were pretty much only tanks. By comparison, the German Panzer Divisions had as many or more infantry batallions as they did tank batallians (the exact proportion changed throughout the war). Concentrated tank formations, yes. But always with generous amounts of supporting infantry (and obviously artillery and assault guns as well) which always played a vital role in either directly supplementing the armored attacks, defending against counterattacks, eliminating pockets or putting pressure on the enemy frontline to create weakspots for the tanks to exploit. This was vital. Tank formations with tanks were a catastrophe waiting to happen. The unsupported (and inexperienced) Soviet Tank crews were frequently annihilated by the German infantry and artillery. The British incidentally made a very similar mistake against Rommel. They had no experience with combined arms warfare, and the tank proponents they listened to for advice were operating under the assumption that the tanks could punch through enemy lines by themselves. Which they could not, at least not if the enemy put up a credible defense, which the Germans at this point invariably did.

[@Bubble998Grunge]

Seeing Isserson get a well deserved shoutout is blowing my mind--Evolution of Operational Art was translated by the US Army Command and General Staff College at Ft Leavenworth and is a crisp, cogent 110 pages. Really does a good job of highlighting how the traditional ends-means concepts of strategy and tactics crystallized in the early 19th Century by the likes of Clausewitz and Jomini started to get confused and blurred as land operations grew in scope, scale, and frequency.

[@Sorunia]

I have a video suggestion! On Biographics, you did a video on Jane Goodall, in which you briefly mentioned the 1974-78 Gombe Chimpanzee War. I think the Warographics audience would especially appreciate a more detailed video on that conflict - especially considering its novelty as a war occurring between animals. I think anyone interested in the history of warfare would love to hear more about this obscure animal conflict!

[@elonmuch491]

I really hope that you guys make more videos about general concepts like deep battle, urban warfare, etc. Overviews like this are great!

[@ex-navyspook]

This was an excellent video on military theory. It was well-researched and, more importantly, well-distilled for the non-military people who watch your channel. Well done!

[@daveanderson3805]

Great video. I definitely would like to see more of this type of subject. You did an excellent job of compressing a complicated subject into a relatively short time span and making it easily understandable 👍

[@Scientist118]

Honestly, thisis a great video on the subject. It is quite difficult to find videos that go to the in-depth detail with such a time frame.

[@CacklingAntagonist]

Loved this and would love more! One of the best explanations of deep battle I've heard

[@krustytoast]

I definitely would love to see more military theory discussed here please!

[@leobezard5998]

this is awesome, please talk more about specific modern and ancient doctrines, how they emerged, how they were perceived, thought of, and implemented

[@dinsdalemontypiranha4349]

Yes Simon. I would like to see more videos like this one. Great video. Thanks!

[@jackpugh4168]

Wonderful video! Please do continue making content about military theory and tactics, I found this very interesting.

[@thejudgmentalcat]

Yes, these war theory/tactics videos are very informative 👍

[@peterknudsen3490]

Excellent video, please continue on this path.

[@raptor7547]

Love the video! A suggestion that would make it even better with something like this would be a map illustration with arrows on how this plays out against enemy lines. I’d love if you incorporated some of that in your war video. Great work Simon!

[@anibalbautistaacosta2876]

Love military theory and doctrine videos, keep them coming

[@jamesbyrd8907]

Would love to see more videos like this!

[@aymonfoxc1442]

Deep battle, as seen in WW2, was essentially a concept from the interwar years and came before the almost accidental lightning war in France. Deep battle however, had been quashed (several times) by the Soviet leadership and military bureaucracy amid power plays and the battle for influence. Stalin eventually realised the error of his ways but deep battle was still implemented in a somewhat haphazard way and the records were sanitised for history. The Soviets developed their combined arms approach integrating armour after observing exercises in Britain. Whilst the US and the USSR learned the lessons of these exercises, the British floundered and their procurement of armour suffered.

[@gmalsa]

Awesome video. We want more military theory videos

[@blabbergasted4380]

Gr8 format! Thanks!

[@akevabanshee3632]

More of this please.

[@bradlevantis913]

I do enjoy the theory. Hope to see more of this type of video

[@javiermoya2801]

Loving this channel so much. A recommendation if possible, the Sino Vietnamese war of 1979

[@kevinmahecha9969]

Love the military theory stuff 🙏 thunder run and this video was dope.

[@hansvermeir4949]

please continue this serie 🙂

[@TheBin-fc8gh]

Definitely liked the subject and the video, and would like more of this. Maybe also something about the psychological factor in battles, since I think a lot of (ancient) battles were won/lost bc one side panicked and routed while not necessarily in fact losing

[@bretthyde3874]

Well written video, with great analysis

[@edwardgilmour9013]

I like the analysis, thankyou

[@futurechef08]

Thanks for ALL your content. Ive been watching for YEARS. I like how he always trys to give his opinions in a centrist view.😁😁😁

[@michaelsnyder3871]

"Deep Battle" was developed by a number of Russian Soviet officers with professional education in the Tzar's army and exposure to the German concept of operational art during the 1920s and tested through Red Army exercises in the early 1930s, in parallel with such concepts in the German General Staff based on the application of WW1 experience and technology to the operational level of war. Stalin's Purges and the return to a form of war more politically acceptable to Stalin's cronies like Voroshilov and Budenny ended any official consideration or education on "deep battle" within the Red Army's senior leaders, yet Timoshenko, Shaponishkov, Vatutin and Zhukov understood and exercised "deep battle" (or tried to) from Kalkhin Gol/Nomohan to the Operation Bagration.

[@FrontLinePub]

Love this indepth analysis

[@collidinggamers4348]

More videos like this would be great.

[@raylast3873]

There are a couple of key components that enabled the Red Army to successfully force breakthroughs almost at-will during the late war (post-Kursk): 1. Extreme concentration of forces. The Soviets took this much further than the Germans or Allies ever did, often concentrating entire divisions in tiny sectors of the front to achieve overwhelming numerical superiority against the smaller formations defending those sectors. This led to the Germans believing they were being attacked by endless human waves of enemy soldiers. This was only true for the breakthrough areas and they had to weaken other sectors of the front to do it. 2. This made it even more important that the Red Army was also able to achieve total surprise by way of Maskarovka, successfully deceiving the enemy as to where and when an attack was coming. Entire armies were able to move into position in total secrecy, with German reconnaissance being completely unaware. 3. The Red Army was usually able to infiltrate forward German lines before the offensive began, often without the defenders taking notice. In doing so they took advantage of the German elastic defense doctrine, which called for thinly manned forward defenses; this was exacerbated by the German manpower shortage, leaving even more gaps in the defensive lines. When the offensives were launched, the Germans were attacked from their own trenches with no time to prepare. All this is in addition to massiv artillery support and usually having air superiority as well.

[@silmarilya]

great video, i'm glad i subscribed

[@Rob-ou5pl]

I want to see more of this kind of content.

[@timambridge2545]

I would definitely like to see more on military theory and doctrine..

[@isisnmagic1812]

This is a mind blowing video, please please do one on the Zulus.

[@theironblitz]

YASSSSS! MOAR!!! Thanks, Simon.

[@StayPrimal]

You are a beast man, I enjoy your channels

[@johnscrimgeour6505]

well done

[@zulfchoudhary2746]

Great video

[@beefybreaker]

Very interesting stuff

[@ebredenberg]

Loved this!

[@prestonchrisman7382]

Enjoyed the theory video!

[@stevedaenginerd]

This is facinating stuff! More please! 🤓

[@dasberk4971]

Excellent video I love military theory

[@garyb9167]

Yes please. I love this channel

[@dansicklesmissingleg1841]

Loved the video! I chuckle whenever I see Kutuzov come up again because I always remember how revered he is in various Russian written works, yet the real deal made his fair share of mistakes, a few of which arguably allowed Napoleon to escape Russia in 1812.

[@JDDC-tq7qm]

Kutuzov did play a huge role in the French invasion

[@321-Gone]

great Video

[@blastpast4642]

I love all your videos and channels! I do wish you would add a more visual element. Being a visual learner, I feel like maps of the area you’re talking about, maps of the progress an army made or the ground the army lost, would help me better understand and keep my attention. In the meantime, thank you for the current content!!

[@MarcoC.130]

War of attrition, a good war tactic that costs time as two nations have to out produce each other.

[@indybruining]

Would like to see more like this. :)

[@Attofoxy]

Yes please to more military theory videos. I liked that you didn't pick the more famous German blitzkrieg doctrine as that has been covered many times before. I would also love a more detailed video on the Russian campaign in Manchuria, mentioned at the end of this video.

[@pamelamays4186]

I'd like to see more military theory videos, please.

[@johnwood5150]

this is great

[@matthiaspfisterer2066]

Please more of this! The only thing I was missing is the story how the German Reichswehr and the Soviets worked together in the years before 1933 in trying and developing tank warfare doctrine.

[@batticusmanacleas510]

All hail Whistler's Beard. Just a little bumpity bump and a request for more military theory vids. I'm not aware of any series done on that topic

[@R0bobb1e]

I, for one, really enjoy learning about this. It has very little prospect of ever being helpful in my day to day life, but that is half the point isn't it? To learn for the sake of learning!? :) Please continue to make these kinds of films.

[@timstylinski9061]

I'd have to agree. I like the theory side of the house. Continue to do more. Maybe you want to talk about the US's multi-domain battle doctrine

[@Bubble998Grunge]

Please do more military theory! Clausewitz's On War could be a series episodes all its own. Mahan and Corbett and their influence on 20th and 21st Century naval and amphibious thinking and operations could be another episode/series of episodes!

[@rtonib2103]

Great man

[@bryanseguin3943]

Big fan of the theory videos Simon

[@lewiswestfall2687]

thanks

[@shturmovik3033]

Very Informative! More! аплодисменты!

[@troystaunton254]

I’d love a look at the doctrine Sir John Monash came up with for Hamel that was later used for the 100 days offensive.

[@PitboyHarmony1]

Actually ... I like this kind of deep look into specific battle movement design. Makes for a nice divergence from the usual war like stuff.

[@coreykendrick6302]

Absolutely - more theory, please. Bring on the red X's and dotted lines.

[@marktinsley1477]

Yes more Please

[@brianazcona458]

Yes I do like military theory stuff

[@jeffganz2681]

I do like it. It’s interesting.

[@321-Gone]

I searched youtube for - History of bomb Smelling Dogs. I didn't find much. Maybe you guys could do a video.? How long have dogs been used to smell for explosives or just gun powder in war? I'd also be interested in types of Siege used throughout history.

[@lewissmith1148]

This should 100% be an Art of War Topic

[@Gradysmokestoomuch]

@warographics would you put links to your previous videos on related topics when you reference them please.

[@ajb229]

I nickname my little boy ‘glubokay’ after this.

[@johnscott107]

yes, like, more please

[@rxt1366]

Hey. Could you guys make a video about wargames. How does wargames work in military? What do they do and how? What is the history of wargames?

[@BrotherDark]

This was legit, tactical theory is under represented

[@kurtflint64]

More!

[@Baldevi]

Did anyone else notice that the pattern on Simon's sample of Sheath underwear is the pattern of the carpet seen in The Shining? No/ Just me? Is that why Simon chose this pair for the ad-reads? I feel pretty certain Simon has not seen the Shining tho... because he's quite Movie Deprived, or so he has admitted. That pattern alone would have be buying Sheath for a Boyfriend or Partner, except I am blissfully single. [No, not sarcasm, I am FREE Baby! Ahh the space! The clean house! The small laundry loads! The silence when I sleep, undisturbed by snores!]

[@jesurenbnb]

Do another biographics video simon!

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

Do a video on Operation Compass, Richard O Connor applied German tactics in the North African campaign.

[@bigdaddyburchy]

5:19 Sneeze in the background Simon didn’t edit 😂

[@tileux]

The first example of defence in depth is, arguably, Alfred the Great's system of defensive fortified burghs, which created a web that Vikings found difficult to penetrate and which allowed the saxons (i'll use that general description for the non-scandinavian people of england) to concentrate against their invading armies. Contrary to myth, the Poles used defence in depth to counter the germans armoured offensives in 1939 and consistently gave those german armoured columns bloody noses, only really withdrawing to the east as a result of being outgunned and outsupplied (and being totally outclassed in the air). The shock of taking such losses may have contributed to the decision to avoid marching directly on the british forces at dunkirk (plus those forces had consistently given the germans a new set of bloody noses in various small spiteful fights. In any case, the myth of the 'blitzkrieg' was always a myth.

[@tripod222]

Well, I'd argue it depends on the definition. These offensives (Poland, France, Barbarossa, Yugoslavia) were not grinding advances won by overmatching the enemy forces in general. France was defeated in 6 weeks, Poland didn't last that long either, nor did Greece or Yugoslavia. The huge losses were caused by encircle units being destroyed or capture after having been cut of, not by simply being overmatched by German units on their front. One might dispute the term, but compared to the last great war, WWI, it was most certainly a Blitzkrieg in terms of spped of success.

[@tileux]

⁠@@tripod222o. Poland was not defeatee by germany. As i pointed out, thats a myth. The truth is the Poles set up defences in depth using what they had and they gave the germans a bloody nose. In fact, multiple bloody noses. However, being outgunned and outnumbered they retreated eastward. At that point they ran into invading SOVIET forces. Many polish units actually mistook the soviet forces’ intent and greeted them - thinking they had come to support the Poles. Instead, the Soviets opened fire on them, destroying many polish units more or lesx without a fight. It was THAT double invasion that defeated the Poles - not the germans. The german invasion of France is not an example of ‘blitzkrieg’ or defence in depth. The argonne forest was the one point the maginot defences did not cover - because no-one thought anyone would be stupid enough to come through there (case in point: EVERY senior german general was against this in 1940 and when hitler tried it again in 1944 it was the disaster it should have been in 1940. Why did that succeed? Because the best airforce at the time was the british airforce. But lucky for hitler - and to the deep annoyance of the french - the british airforce had a theory that mass bombings of civilian population centres would be decisive in ww2, so they held their main, and best, air assets in britain. As a result hitler got his tank divisions through the argonne undetected and then brushed aside the third rate french cobscript divisions holding the line there. That put the first rate british and french forces in belgium in great danger of being cut off from their supply line and forced an immediate fighting retreat of those forces. Despite being strategically outmanoeuvred those french and britsish retreating units consistently bloodied the noses of the german pursuing forces, even terrifying Rommel into inaction at Arras. At no stage were so called ‘blitzkrieg’ tactics particularly successful for the germans. Where the germans succeeded in the early days it was ALWAYS because of other factors that disadvantaged their opponents. Its not a co-incidence that once the allies got their acts together the germans consistently lost, although they also consistently inficted higher casaulties on the allies due to their better command and control doctrine. A large part of german success in 1939 and 1940 - and in the opening phases of barbarossa - was down to german special forces, including the Brandenburger brigade, which frequently broke the laws of war to take and hold bridgeheads for advancing german columns. It also didnt hurt that the poles were outgunned, outnumbered and had inferior communication, the red army was a complete mess in 1941, and france and britain were strategically outplayed in 1940 that could have gone wildly wrong for hitler if the british airforce had been fully committed to france - as the french wanted - in 1940. Ironically, hitler used the success of that massive gamble against his generals for the rest of the war. As for yugoslavia and greece, again, no. The speed of the german advances there were the result of the very poor quality of the opposition they faced there (and when the british arrived in Greece the situation was already too chaotic to do anything but mount a foghting retreat - it didnt help that the germans blew up most of their ammunition in a catastrophic port explosion)

[@pierren___]

I dont understand deep defense

[@tileux]

@@pierren___ defence in depth? It means a series of lines of defense that ae mutually supporting and have strong points that are usually mutually supporting. The idea - in theory and practice - is to wear down the attacker until by the time the attacking side gets to the third line they dont have enough men and equipment in good enough shape to complete the breakthrough, or, if there is a breakthrough, to exploit the breakthrough.

[@caseymacdonald878]

Simon, Can you do an episode on the Vietnamese tactics against the US.

[@bradhartman1097]

yes, yes, yes......more military theory!

[@darkhobo]

This is kinda funny knowing the Soviets and Germans developed the tactics we would call "Blitzkrieg" in union while working together to subvert the treaty of Versailles. A lot of the tactics were ones the Soviets developed fighting the White army in the Russian Civil war. Short but concentrated artillery fire closely followed by Armored assaults supported by infantry. That was a halmark of the Red Army. (Western armies still liked to rain artillery down for days at a time thinking that was "softening defenses" or whatever) Until it became the preferred tactic of Germany and became the "Blitzkrieg"

[@HERPDe]

I am here again to ask that Warographics also be put out as a podcast

[@isisnmagic1812]

I did not know the Soviets had troops in the Spanish Civil war, thanks fir that heads up.

[@bigbadfella]

I do like it