Soviet "War-Winning" Tanks in 1941? The Role of Tanks on the Eastern Front WW2

Lots of people say that the Soviets had war-winning tanks from the beginning of the war. There's also claims that the German panzers did really well to take out these tanks. And that the Germans couldn't produce enough tanks so they couldn't win against Soviet tanks. I explore these ideas in this video.
See pinned comment for sources, and more information.
Stalin's Purges video • Stalin’s Purge of the ...
Don't forget to subscribe if you like history or gaming! And hit the little bell icon to be notified when videos like this are uploaded.
Please consider supporting me on Patreon and help make more videos like this possible / tikhistory

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Disagree? Would love to see your counterargument. No timestamps because it’s not that type of video. It requires you to watch it from start to finish. Would also recommend you don’t read this comment fully until AFTER watching the video… but I know some of you won’t wait for that, so don’t say you weren’t warned :) *Notes -* For those that will no doubt come back and say that “nobody ever says the T-34 and the KV’s were war winning tanks”. No, people do. I’ve had quite a few comments claiming this, and there are sites out there that do say this. For example, medium.com/war-is-boring/the-t-34-was-a-war-winning-tank-662ba112774f www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/soviet-t-34-tank.html Some very interesting quotes from Iseav on the Dubno battle you guys may find interesting - “Anyone who has not limited themselves to merely studying the initial period of the history of the war would be struck by the abundance of infantry divisions on the site of the tank battles in the triangle formed of Brody-Lutsk-Dubno. This was never subsequently repeated. In the advance outside Kursk in the summer of 1943 German tank divisions were forced to plot the route in front of them independently and from the first few days, or even hours of the battle, they were ‘gnawing through’ the Soviet defence. In this same location outside Kursk there was no amiable breaking in the defence as had happened in the case of the ‘Molotov Line’ in Ukraine in the first half of the day on 22 June 1941. Between 1944-1945 the operational support for tank formations by infantry was very poor and unregulated. Moreover, as the number of infantry formations decreased that had fought in the battle, between 1943-1945 the quality of the infantry deteriorated considerably.” -From Isaev, P192-193 “Naturally such a multifaceted phenomenon as a week-long battle of a large number of tanks is not just limited to a clash of tanks and infantry. The enemy divisions that were armed with tanks unavoidably clashed on the battlefield. Complex factors determined the winner in these battles, but first and foremost it was the organisational structure of the tank forces on both sides. Here the Wehrmacht’s infantry and artillery, though this time they were motorized, were a match for the tanks of the Red Army. This enabled the pulverisation of enormous numbers of light tanks and the attacks by T-34s and KVs to be countered.” -From Iseav P193-194 This next quote is from the Staff of Strategy and Tactics Magazine. Page 122 (see sources below) “1942-45 Soviet Motorized Anti-Tank Regiment - “This is the unit that destroyed the German "panzerblitz" in the East. Based on their experience, the Soviets calculated that 12 rounds of 45mm or six of 76mm gun fire were needed to destroy one medium tank. Based on the calculation, each 76mm gun was expected to put 2 or 3 medium tanks out of action before being destroyed. Heavier tanks (Panther and Tiger) cut the 76mm gun's effectiveness by about half. But the Soviets were producing more 76mm guns than the Germans were producing tanks. In the 1944 the Soviets produced 23,800 76mm anti-tank guns (some 20 percent more than 1943) as well as 16,500 45mm guns (then being replaced by the 57mm gun). The Soviets employed their 76mm guns in batteries of four guns, all concentrating their fire on one target at a time.” From the Rommel Papers talking about tanks in North Africa - “[The Mark II Matilda tanks] were also only supplied with solid, armour-piercing shell. It would be interesting to know why the Mark II was called an infantry tank, which it had no H.E. ammunition with which to engage the opposing infantry. It was also, as I have already said, far too slow. In fact, its only real use was in a straight punch to smash a hole in a concentration of material.” What’s interesting is the Rommel’s main concerns about the British tanks were their speed and guns. He notes that the Matilda had heavy armour, but was too slow and that it’s gun was not capable for firing HE, meaning it wasn’t a very effective infantry-fighting machine, and was easy to take out with the 88mms. Heavy tanks therefore can be vulnerable. He also praises the Crusader tank for being very fast, but says its gun (2-pdr, the same gun as the Matilda) had too short a range. He says if only it had a heavier gun “it could have made things extremely unpleasant for us.” He even says this gun therefore did not make up for the “heavy armour it carried”. For Rommel at least, armour protection alone is not as important as speed, maneuverability, and firepower. “The armoured units which they threw against our striking force in the area north of Sidi Omar failed to prevent the advance of the 5th Light Division and 15th Panzer Division, and thanks to the excellent co-ordination between our anti-tank, armoured and A.A. forces, were themselves destroyed.” - again from the Rommel Papers. Last week, GM4ThePeople said “For this reason, mass-produced light vehicles, with a de-emphasis on protection, & an emphasis on mobility & firepower were indicated. Doctrine should have more closely adhered to the strategic reality. Motorised infantry, not armoured halftracks. The Pz II chassis was the solution, not the problem.” The Panzer II part aside, as shown in this video, the role of the tank does not require it to have overly thick armour. Therefore it could be argued that medium tank designs are the most suitable sort of tank. I do think that Panzer IIs were a little too weak in this, since they couldn’t fit a decent enough gun in their turret. Panzer IIIs also have limited turrets - which is why the StuG design was very good. But the Panzer IV is a great tank which, perhaps with the adoption of sloped armour, could have been focused on, even in the late war. It could, and often has, be argued that the production of Panthers and other heavy tanks (Tigers were good for morale purposes, but beyond that, there were too few to make a difference) was a waste. If you consider tanks to be used as exploitation vehicles, then heavier tank designs are a waste. Then again, the Germans didn’t have the fuel to fight the war of movement anyway so perhaps it’s a mute point. Perhaps heavier tanks were the best option for the Germans, given the circumstances. Would love to know your thoughts on these points. I also want to point out that the Soviet mortar numbers are the only weapon number that increases by that much. Most other weapons either increase somewhat or decrease somewhat, but not multiply by that amount. The conclusion in this video will play an important part in explaining both the Crusader and Stalingrad battles - both of which I’m still working on creating “Battlestorm” documentaries for. Next week’s video will be Stalingrad-related… *Selected Sources* Butler, Daniel Allen. Field Marshal: the Life and Death of Erwin Rommel. Casemate Publishers, 2015. Clark, L. “Kursk: The Greatest Tank battle Eastern Front 1943.” Kindle, Headline Publishing, 2013. Mawdsley, E. “Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War 1941-1945.” Second Edition, Kindle, University of Oxford. Glantz, D. When Titan’s Clashed. University Press of Kansas, 2015. Kavalerchik, B. The Price of Victory: The Red Army’s Casualties in the Great Patriotic War. Pen & Sword Military, 2017. Liedtke, G. Enduring the Whirlwind: The German Army and the Russo-German War 1941-1943. Helion & Company LTD, 2016. Isaev, A. Dubno 1941. The Greatest Tank Battle of the Second World War. Helion & Company, 2017. Healy, M. Zitadelle: The German Offensive Against the Kursk Salient 4-17 July 1943. Kindle edition, 2016. Hart, L. The Rommel Papers. 1953. War in the East, Staff of Strategy and Tactics Magazine (this section on order of battle by James F. Dunnigan), Simulation Publication s Inc., NY, 1977. Page 122 Link to Purges video - kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJ-6f6F_a76fh7M Please consider supporting me on *Patreon* - www.patreon.com/TIKhistory Thank you all for watching!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

You could be right with that. It does make a lot of sense. But then, why not just produce a lot more anti-tank guns, which could do the same job?

[@attilakatona-bugner1140]

at guns were extremely vulnerable to mortar and artilleryfire, and in these things soviets usually had a huge advantage over the germans

[@jordybatters7030]

@TIK David Stahel states in his series that before operation barbarossa kicked off the SU did have more artillery than the German Wehrmacht and that in any case the Germans should have by all means themselves used more artillery in the start of operation barbarossa..now you are correct in that the SU armies although high in numbers and man power they lacked full strength in terms of equipment..but as David Stahel states that they did in fact have the higher numeber of artillery and as the SU wasnt expecting an attack at that time i guess it wasnt fully distributed throughout the armies as of yet..and also in David Stahels series he stated how the Germans had a very hard time in the first few months of the war when they were encountering T-34s & KV-1s..There are German battle reports of single KV-1s or T-34s getting behind the German lines and wrecking havoc..it took them a little while to learn how to destroy those tanks with the weapons they had and totally took the German High Command off guard.. @Secret Moon The Tiger I and Tiger II were designed to lead the Pincer Movements during the Blitz..Picture a Tip of an arrow " /\ " The Tiger I or II would be at the Top of the tip leading the way to break through enemy lines followed by Medium tanks in the middle of the Arrow Tip and having light tanks at the end of the arrow tip.. But you are right that they were used mainly for defense but that was because by the time they were built the Germans were mainly on the defensive(although there were offensives just not many).. But yeah the main purpose of the Tiger I and II on the offensive was at the front of the Pincer Leading the attack..Tiger I and IIs in Perfect condition and Perfect/Decent terrain could run between 20 and 28 mph and on pavement could reach up to 30 mph...

[@fazole]

The 109 could out climb and had a higher ceiling than the 190. Allies reported that 190s performance dropped off severely above 20,000 ft. Of course, the 190D was the exception, but too few of those. Also, the 190 was purposely designed to use a radial engine as those were more available than the DB inline engine used in the 109. This radial did not have the high altitude performance, so the more robust 190 was assigned low-med altitude and ground attack missions.

[@neil3488]

Great video. I'm really enjoying watching all of your WWII videos. Can you do a 'what if' video? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the optimal time for Germany to begin Operation Barbarossa. Based on the statistics presented in this video, would Germany have had more success against the Soviet Union if they had invaded a year earlier (and not engaged in the Battle of Britain)? Thanks.

[@KonstantineMortis13]

I was a tanker in the Marines and I can assure you: modern tanks break down constantly. There is so much maintenance to perform, and that's with well trained crews and competent mechanics with supplied maintenance areas.. I could not imagine being with under supplied logistics and not enough fuel in the middle of Russia. Screw that.

[@alcoholfree6381]

So there’s no maintenance free tanks? If Toyota made tanks with precision components would the tanks do any better? I believe you as my dad was a bombardier with the B-17 planes and he said they needed folks fixing them all the time.

[@KonstantineMortis13]

@@alcoholfree6381 Every vehicle in the military needs more hours of maintenance than operation, if following the book, but no vehicle can be built that requires no maintenance at all. Parts break, gaskets blow, intakes clog, track pads wear out, end-connectors need to be tightened, oil and grease needs to be regularly applied, and that's only basic things the crew themselves have to handle(not including gun, breech, periscopes, and a hundred other things) without pushing it to higher echelon maintenance (support platoon mechanics), and the crew doesn't even touch the engine, that goes straight to the mechs. Something always goes wrong, no matter what. I wish we had tanks that never broke... Constant, absolutely constant.

[@sam8404]

It's like General Bradley said. Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics.

[@InspiriumESOO]

@@KonstantineMortis13 how do cars manage to do the opposite?

[@KonstantineMortis13]

@@InspiriumESOO Cars aren't usually driven cross-country, don't weigh almost 70-tons (61000+ kg), don't burn 2 gallons (7.5 l) of fuel per mile driven (yes), and have far fewer components. Track links alone are 60 pounds (27 kg) each, and one track has 70 of them. 14 road wheels on each side, sprocket, and idler wheel, with all the power and weight of the tank moving all of this at 40+ mph (64+ kph). Lots of hard wear, hardware, and hard care put a toll on a block of thousands of pieces of metal, and then it make big boom and the thing that does that is it's own story. In a nutshell.

[@meanmanturbo]

Of course you can't win the war with only tanks, if you have only tanks in your divisions you don't have any org!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Got to have that org, man. Got to have that org

[@SagaraUrz]

And not enough soft attack!

[@essexclass8168]

but you can win a war with only paratroopers, nukes, and the airforce...unless you're fighting Nepal...then you might as well surrender

[@stormerz8605]

i was searching for this comment

[@waszkreslem9306]

Maybe put a scout brigade

[@danielsilhavy930]

I always thought i get the general picture of ww2. But as im learning it seems that 90% of that are misconceptions. Cant stress enough how interesting and well made your videos are to me

[@georgyekimov4577]

im extually proud and dissapointed in myself i always coulndn t get why infantry isnt taking that many tanks out since they totaly look vulnerable ( oh this was a misconception) so i allways seen that there is a flaw but i never elaborated further

[@villagemagician1320]

Do not listen to Tik. His goal is to make the German army look like an incompetent, blundering, poorly led, amateur army who had every advantage in their favor but squandered it. TiK is as biased as the Englishmen come.

[@kurt5490]

I'm eternally embarrassed by how little I know. And how much of that is actually misconception. Learning about the eastern front is an excellent example of this.

[@charlieb.4273]

It cannot be over emphasized. Logistics, fuel, spare parts, crew maintenance and specialized maintenance is more important than “the art of war.”! As it had been said, amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. A tank is nothing more than an expensive pile of metal unless it’s crew has the resources and training to keep it operating. The Russians can’t overcome this so resort to infantry attack. Although the tank is in the mix, it is not alone the battle winning element for either side. Great video.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Great comment, and I agree :)

[@MrBandholm]

"amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics" I have started to think that there are missing one bit in that comment... "and experts study strategy". You can have the best logistic organasetion in the world, if you don't know how to end the war or contain it, then logistics will ultimately be wasted... And so few people actually knows strategy on a grand level.

[@etiennesauve3386]

I agree and disagree at the same time. It is true that flawed logistics often result in loosing a battle but perfect logistics doesn't insure victory. The art of war is not only the tactical or strategic decision in a battle but also controlling everything that leads up to a battle and logistics is part of that. The phrase: amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, makes us reflect on the importance of it, which is often overlooked but I think that both should work in synergy.

[@charlieb.4273]

You make a good point, it might not be everything but Logistics is at least a prerequisite, and is very hard to get right. Even today, what it takes to keep units in the field is astonishing. “Logistics in the Falklands War” is a good study on the difficulties even in the modern era.

[@MrBandholm]

Etienne Sauvé And that is Strategy in essens.

[@snookums01]

And to prove that the infantry support of tanks is vital, the Turks are losing their Leopard IIs in Syria because they continually fail to support them with infantry.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Wow, is this true? They need to study a little more history

[@snookums01]

Yes. The Turks are so upset with their "lemon" Leos, they are holding a German journalist as hostage and wanting to force the Germans to up-armour their Leos to the latest spec so they will survive ground attacks. Infantry is obviously for peasants. If I can post a link...point 4 . www.quora.com/Why-is-Turkey-losing-so-many-tanks-in-Syria Also this - middle of page 2 reports they were being used as mobile artillery without ground support protection. Saudis are losing M1A1s in Yemen using the same "tactics". nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/germanys-leopard-2-tank-was-considered-one-the-best-until-it-24234

[@Toni112007]

Ye, but back in WW2 allies or axis didnt had a guided weapon (in this case ATGM) which can go to few kilometers of range and hit the tank. So it was harder dealing with heavily armored tanks like Tiger from the range in WWII, and eastern front was especially good for ranged combat on open plains. I guess it was good for Soviets that only 1000 of Tigers were built.

[@Vlad79500]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/d3jNe5ZjmbVol5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/qovXc6uYga2ViNk Modern anti-tank weapons allow you to do this. One-two people can destroy a tank at a distance of 5 km by an anti-tank missile or even an old Soviet RPG. In most cases, infantry support is powerless. Modern means of protection are necessary. kzbin.info/www/bejne/p2malZaprb-tnc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4Kce4OKi6l5m8k kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5upnGSfmrGSr6s kzbin.info/www/bejne/qnaamH9rrtSFqsU

[@chillinchum]

Vlad79500 I've never fought a real war. But it's things like that, that make wonder, is armour with a big gun even worth anything? Or would I much rather just have a truck, or maybe....a scout/recon vehicle or tankette/IFV if I want a gun on my transportation still?

[@Kintabl]

I learn something new with every video you post. And I thought I know everything about Eastern front. Good work.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Question everything and you'll never stop learning!

[@ciprianflorin2615]

Nice video sir , I interesting post made by german tank specialist regarding the Est front, I have the complete report if you are interested , it is about the romanian tank destroyer Maresal : 3. Various information. a) Russian armor. The 2 German officers declare that both in technical quality and in quantity, the Russian armor is superior. The Russian T.34 tank cannot be matched by the German industry because of its light engine, of aircraft type, built of light metals. Germany does not posses such metals therefor she cannot build light yet powerful engines. The German tanks are trying to counter this inferiority by employing a more powerful gun, improved interior installations and a better trained, conscious and disciplined crew. Regarding the value of the Russian 76.2 gun that arms the T.34 tank, the German officers admit that, having a shorter barrel and no muzzle break, its power is inferior to the 75 mm German gun. But it has the advantage to fire the same shell as the field cannon or as the anti-aircraft gun, an advantage of capital importance in this war. The unification made by the Russians in the armament, engineering, aviation, is of an unimagined utility besides the diversity of models that the German army fights with. Considering this, Lt.-Col. Ventz expressed his concern that our anti-tank gun wouldn’t be able to accept German ammunition. The Russians produce only the T.34 tank. The K.W.1 and K.W.2 stopped being produced. The Russian prisoners talked about 100 tons tanks, but they weren’t seen and their tonnage seem to limit their utility. Regarding the production capacity of T.34 tanks, no figure can be given. It is known only that the Russian specialists, arrived in Germany in 1940 to receive the plans for the German tanks M.III and M.IV (in accordance with the agreement from august 1939) have asked to be shown the factories, not only the experimental workshops (which were in fact minuscule compared to the Russian ones). The Russian self-propelled howitzer, put together by placing a 122-mm howitzer upon the T.34 tank chassis, is little valuable: too tall, few ammunition and rudimentary installation. On the other hand, a recent Russian assault gun is successful and dangerous. b) German armor. The latest modified M.IV tanks, Tiger and Panther, are superior to the Russian tanks, according to the German specialists, as a sum of their qualities. Among the German armored units it is noticed a preference for the assault gun (Sturmgeschutz), more than for the tank. The assault gun, having no turret, carries a gun of a caliber superior to the one of the tank of equal tonnage, offers a smaller profile and has fewer chances to be hit. The tank finds its typical utility only in the big armored units called to penetrate deep in the battlefield and fight in unexpected situations. In all the other cases, the assault gun, which resembles a bit with “Maresal” tank destroyer although it has a weaker armor, has a much large utility. c) Anti-tank ammunition. The unit reports from the German front shows that the Hohlladung shell loses its importance. The troop prefers the armor piercing shell that gives a more reliable effect. The divisional artillery has and uses the Hohlladung shell to protect itself when attacked by tanks at short range. d) The progress of war. Germany makes great efforts into the armor, new weapons (about which we have no knowledge) and aircraft areas. Although air raids hit some of the factories, the reconstruction began the very next day. Yet we can expect neither these weapons nor those assembled on the coast of the Channel to be decisive. It is only believed that the Russians won’t be able to continue the attrition war forever and that Germany will be able to defeat them only after the Russian’s shortages and straggling weaken the strength of its army. Lt.-Col. Ventz, without showing any concern for the German army potential, believes that if it hadn’t been so many German units scattered across Europe, the Russians could have been defeated in 4-5 months. Lt.-Col. Haymann, although thoughtful when told about the progress of war, says that, with the help of new weapons, the new light and heavy German bombers and with the reprisals upon England, the chances for Germany to win the war increase.

[@johnw3736]

Ciprian Florin I’m very late, but super interesting information. Thank you for that.

[@generalpatton7876]

He should seriously consider writing his own book on this subject!

[@user-ki4ms5jg7r]

Is that miracle? Somebody is quoting Alexey Isaev's books in English? You made my day! Many thanks for making this (and many others) videos!

[@alganhar1]

When it comes to the rapid expansion causing issues, you see a very similar situation in the AEF in 1917. Before the US entered the war in 1917 its entire army consisted of about 98,000 men, half of which were deployed abroad. By the Spring of 1918 the OFFICER corps of the AEF numbered well over 250,000, thats just the Officers. It led to huge issues in the training of the troops at all levels, so much so that AEF Divisions landing in France had to undergo a further 6 months of training before the British and French believed they were able to enter the line. This is NOT a dig at those young men, but it DOES illustrate the problems that a massive and rapid expansion of military force can have on the training and thus the ability of the troops in the field. The AEF had the luxury of time to retrain in France, the Red Army in 1941 did not....

[@laurancerobinson]

Great video, I shared it with the Tanks Encyclopedia team. Your point about infantry is spot on. Everything in the military is designed around the infantry, it is designed to support, protect and improve the infantryman. This includes tanks, guns, backpacks and all inbetween. Loving these weekly uploads and look forward to then every week.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

It's true, and I think a lot of people don't realise what tanks are there for. Can't do much without infantry. And yes, I'm doing my utmost to keep to these Monday videos. Can't promise they'll always be this long though :) and thanks for sharing btw! Means a lot. Hope the TE team find this as good as you did

[@Fuzzy_nutstein]

I absolutely love the way you incorporate multiple sources in your videos. That is the proper way and I am very impressed. Anyone can read one source and argue all day long about how they are correct. Keep it up!!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Multiple sources are the key!

[@Horesmi]

3:27 I'm stealing that graph for my hoi4 games.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Don't forget to have 9 security divisions as well (which weren't included in that graph and which didn't participate on the front line - at least not initially)

[@arthas640]

I dont think I've ever seen two people that both know about HOI together in one spot before :O

[@wessel2009]

Arthas Menethil are we talking about Hoi4 now?

[@pokenaut7803]

40 withe divisions are the best.

[@coolmanprankstergangsterfi5717]

Trevor 941 I just sit around and make the kaiserreich and use chaos ai so the soviets declare war on Romania and justify war goal on turkey so I can invade Austria and Czechoslovakia and puppet Czechoslovakia in Slovakia and also italy gives yugo istra and south tyrol to Austria idk why so I just annex Austria take Czech from Czechoslovakia and istra and Slovenia and the I rush the second weltkrieg then I wait till after the peace deal with the allies so when the soviets attack Poland that would call in the Central Powers. #6dchess

[@TheImperatorKnight]

I just want to give another big shout out to my Patreons for your continuing support. Thanks to you guys, one of the many books I have purchased recently was the (quite expensive) "Halder Diaries", which arrived a couple days ago. Oh yes, a video on Halder will be coming at some point and the planning for Barbarossa will be explored in greater detail. Perhaps it'll be more than one video... Got to digest it all first, but I do have some more videos planned in the meantime. Either way, your support has been critical to the research of these videos so honestly, thank you all very much. You're awesome!

[@Boric78]

I get the impression you are not one of Halders biggest fans - I shall look forward to that video. It does seem (which I realized only after you implied it during your oil war film) that his opinion on Barbarossa just seems to have been taken as gospel by western historians after the war. I shall be interested to see you challenge that.

[@Fuzzy_nutstein]

Wonderful video yet again!

[@louisianatechmaintenance9979]

Halder was the idiot who ignored the logistics professionals and told Hitler a Soviet Invasion was doable.

[@steveswitzer4353]

I know they are expensive but a good buy for tank info are jentz s books www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30042311849&searchurl=tn%3Dpanzertruppen%26sortby%3D20%26an%3Dthomas%2Bjentz&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-image1 and his other one 1943 - 45

[@vaibhavkulkarni2371]

Ok

[@iratespartan13]

Wargamers see all those tanks in games and get a false sense of scale. James Dunnigan did a scenario for Talonsoft's East Front, emulating the real East Front. It was an infantry fight. Great vid. Thanks again, TIK.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Glad you agreed, spartan! As a gamer myself, I too fell into this category. Been wanting to make this sort of video since some guy was arguing that the Eastern Front wasn't the main front of the war "because it was just a big infantry slog and therefore not important compared to the west" (paraphrasing). He kinda missed the point a little :)

[@briancoleman971]

Video games overemphasize tanks in the mix for sure.

[@nowthenzen]

Spot on Tik! Mortar/RPG formations is how the Taliban fought the Soviets in their Afghan war. Mortars stripped off infantry support leaving Tanks open to RPG ambush. To counter the Soviets had to assault mortar positions, who would pull back and set up new positions. That's how that conflict went. Air power and Helicopters were an added dimension.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

I know very little about that war, so it's good to hear similar scenarios from different wars. Thank you!

[@CroGamer002]

It's Afghanistan Sunni Mujahideen, not Talibans. Talibans wouldn't form until after that war and majority of Mujahideen forces would oppose Talibans in following civil war, which is still ongoing to this day.

[@nowthenzen]

Thanks for the clarification. Is my analysis of the tactics accurate? RPG/Mortar combined arms to combat Soviet Infantry/Armor?

[@TheGoodChap]

There are two very very good books on it (colleague of David Glantz) the first one is The Soviet-Afghan war: How a Superpower Fought and Lost by Lester Grau. kind of a goofy title the publishers used to try and draw ordinary people into the book, but don't let that fool you, it's actually a translation of the official Soviet General Staff report which are quite thorough and scholarly (Glantz published a number of soviet general staff reports of WWII like the ones for Kursk and Belorussia) which they made in order to learn absolutely everything possible about war to teach to their officers. It also has editor comments throughout, and it's not too long. You will also want The Bear Went Over the Mountain also by Grau *get the 10th anniversary edition! maps are 100x better* The book is made up of many vignettes which are short about two to four page reports made by officers detailing the entire process of their operations mainly at the battalion and company level with operational maps. It's a fantastic accompaniment or you can study it on it's own, many of the battles from the first book are in greater detail in bear went over the mountain.

[@evgenylaptev2534]

@@TheImperatorKnight I saw an interview of a Afghan War soviet veteran, he was a mortar crew member. He says that experienced mortar crew will lay second grenade in a circle of 2 meter at 2 km distance or so. So beside its cost and weight to a standart artillery, mortars have a much more accuracy. Since mortars hasnt changed much from WWII I think its all true to those times also.

[@pekkamakela2566]

As a artillery observer NCO in Finnish army, I would always choose mortars over artillery if they have same caliber. Mortars are more accurate and have higher explosive force due to thinner shell walls which allows for more explosives. Safety distances between infantry and the target of the bombardment is much smaller with mortars.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

I'd imagine mortars are also easier and quicker to move around than artillery?

[@pekkamakela2566]

Of course. Mortars weight about 10%-20% of same caliber howizer. Mortar ammo is also cheaper because it can be cast, when gun ammo must be machined.

[@nancybarnes29]

@@pekkamakela2566 bless your life's work,,,,,,,,,,,r.g.wachendorf usa

[@executivedirector7467]

All true, but, mortars generally have FAR less range than howitzers of similar bore. The truth is an army needs both.

[@thethirdman225]

@@executivedirector7467 In an infantry battle, mortars are essential.

[@rolandfelice6198]

Yet another mind blowing video. I can't imagine you have much time after research to do the ordinary things like eat, sleep and other mundane things to keep going!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

I'm working very hard behind the scenes, and time is very precious to me. I know I can't waste any, so I focus focus focus in every spare moment. Got to get things done in the bits between eating, sleeping and work. Sleep though is something I try not to skip. I've tried sleeping less, but can't concentrate the next day. So it's bed early most nights. That way I can focus and hammer out research the next day (also helps if I have a week off work - like this week just gone!)

[@rolandfelice6198]

Glad to hear, or should I say read, your response and I appreciate your taking the time to respond. What are you doing awake? With such a speedy reply and you, I presume being somewhere in Britain which is ten hours behind me in Australia and it's just 10:40 here you should be racking up the Zs. That's true dedication to a subscriber.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Yeah, since I started releasing videos on a Monday, I decided that this would be the only day I'd stay up a little later to reply to comments :) so pro-tip: if you want to be (almost) certain to get a reply, reply in the first few hours after a video is released

[@northof-62]

Good one - now I'm going to watch and listen to it at least one more time . There's so much info.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Let me know if it was worth a second watch :)

[@Raphael4722]

This video is probably one of the best documentary analyses of the Eastern Front military situation, ever done. Love all those graphs.

[@CroGamer002]

Yay, I'm in credits! Great video, I'm glad I'm supporting you financially.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

I keep saying it, but it's true. It is making a massive difference, so thank you :) Also, I do think the credits scrolled a little too quick in this video. I'll try slow it down in future because you deserve to be on the screen a little more.

[@arandomguy9]

I don't see your name in the credits :( did you change your youtube name after donating to his patreon? OR did you just decide to use your real name for the patreon donation? Cause that's very disappointing. Seriously when i watch Hbomberguy Patreon credits, they tend to be hilarious cause people keep using the silliest and weirdest names they can come up with.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

I pull the names off Patreon, so the names won't match those on KZbin (unless they decide to use the same username). I think many Patreons prefer to use their own names as usernames, possibly so they can appear in the credits 😊

[@AndreasConfirmed]

Very nice work TIK! Thanks! The best explanation of the Eastern Front I have ever seen. And I have seen a lot.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Wow, I didn't expect anyone to say that! Really glad you found it useful, thank you :)

[@davidolie8392]

Very well done once again. An excellent argument, well stated and backed by impressive stats. I agree it was primarily an infantry war (aren't they all?). This is one reason I put a lot of my time into documenting the Soviet rifle (infantry) divisions in Wikipedia. Those people did the heavy lifting. And I agree the mortars were crucial, although I will concede that the Germans had the technique down first. On the other hand, they recognized the superiority of the Soviet 120mm and copied it, so I guess it comes to a fair trade.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Hey David, yeah I'm glad you agree it was mainly an infantry war. Hopefully gives extra incentive for your work on Wikipedia, since that's the main part of the war :)

[@drowningcows7631]

Fantastic. Stumbled on this by accident and was really really impressed by how great a video it was

[@bg147]

I think there has only been a fascination and obsession with tanks, fighter planes, and battleships in WW2. People love romanticized machines.... rate of fire, range of fire, speed, armor thickness, gun caliber, etc. People visualize tanks running all over the battlefield fighting other tanks. It is what is seen in movies as well. Mines, directional charges, anti tank guns and handheld devices don't excite the senses.

[@VunderGuy]

Which is why almost every action movie ever mostly involves infantry scale engagements. ;P

[@thethirdman225]

Which is why people have such a poor understanding of the Eastern Front in WWII.

[@highjumpstudios2384]

Mines directional charges and handheld anti tank weapons don't excite the senses if you're doing it wrong. But yes, unfortunately we live in a world where not everyone is as well read with the Second World War as TIK is.

[@sam8404]

@@thethirdman225 the Eastern Front was full of tanks and planes though.

[@pedrofelipefreitas2666]

Tbf the warship combat is less misrepresented than tank combat. Warships were in skirmishes all the time, and a lot of the work was done by the big bois (aircraft carriers and battleships)

[@kevinpascual]

Fantastic work as always.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Cheers Kevin!

[@samj.s3132]

I just found your channel, very interesting and well presented, thought out and researched

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Thanks! I'm trying to make the most detailed videos possible (especially my Battlestorm series), so it's good to hear you like the style of the ones I've made so far :)

[@lonniemeredith4370]

Another perspective I haven't read or heard. Great. I like your next video, I'm subscribing. So many more layers to WW2.

[@Arjunvandemataram]

I love WW2 history. So much happened and was going on at the same time. I'm learning SO MUCH from you TIK. Things I never knew or understood before, you clarify in a very clear, understandable and logic way. You should have been my history teacher :D I love your vids my friend. Watching ALL of them :) Please keep up the great work !! Love, peace and respect from Holland !!

[@mixaporusski]

A side to side graph showing ratio of men each army had at the beginning of the war that have actual combat experience and/or over three years of service vs fresh conscripts/new officer grads with less than 3 years under their belt would be nice

[@robertalaverdov8147]

I read somewhere a while back and forgive me for not remembering the source. But it stated that during the onset of Barbarossa the soviet tank corps had half as many engineers assigned to them as the German ones. This being in addition to German tank corps having a lower number of tanks in total that needed to be serviced. This may have contributed greatly to the abysmal breakdown rate. Also initially the soviet tank corps lacked logistics companies and expected the commanders to oversee fuel needs. The Germans learned during the polish campaign about the needs for a separate logistics office.

[@DanRyzESPUK]

Love your channel, I just subscribed! Really insightful

[@armwrestlingsecrets]

Fabulous Commentary and Analysis TIK!! Your channel is jam packed with facts and figures and statistics and you make your points very convincingly. GREAT JOB BROTHER!!

[@martinoreilly3931]

Excellent analysis. You have clearly demonstrated the difference between superficial data and the deeper meaning. Logistics!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

It's all about interpreting that data :)

[@fpvillegas9084]

Wow, one of the most accurate and clearest videos I've watched about WW2. Armchair generals, video game makers, and movie directors should take note of these facts. It's about time people learn what really happened in the past.

[@glennsweet2908]

Brilliant.. in depth, and very well presented. Bravo!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Thank you!

[@edwardtroth8630]

Love these videos m8. Keep churning them out!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Thanks Edward! And don't worry, I'll certainly try my best to keep them coming :)

[@stugrady]

Great video again, thank you TIK! let's also not forget how devastating the Katyusha's were on the German Infantry, technically that'd fall under artillery but do think that cheap & easily mass produced weapon was another decisive factor :) look forward to the next video!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Surprisingly, according to the statistics I used (from Mawdsley's Thunder in the East) the Katiushas were listed seperately to artillery. They only had 3,600 Katiushas on the 1st of January 1943 (700 had been lost by this point too).

[@Toni112007]

Well, Germans had Nebelwerfers.

[@blinblin3267]

I just discovered your channel during historyclass, at first the teacher got mad after seeing me non stop on my phone. But the next day he told me it was fine and he is not mad at me, but mad that only 12k people subscribed to your channel. Keep up the good work mate!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Sounds like you have a good teacher :)

[@hosnyaviator826]

Brilliant! You have a genius way of presenting matters from a totally new angle, and I have just acquired priceless information. Thumbs up is not enough for your efforts.

[@michaelturnage8217]

Good stuff !! I enjoy all of your very informative WWII videos!!

[@Luredreier]

3:53 Hum, I didn't know about 1st Cavalry Division (Wehrmacht) Any chance of hearing more about them? =)

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Yes! This is a book review on the Death of the Leaping Horsemen, but I talk about them a bit in the video kzbin.info/www/bejne/qYGxmZ5te9Slhtk I also plan to do a follow-up video specifically on the 24th Panzer Division (the division that 1st Cavalry Division is converted into).

[@Luredreier]

+Steve Kaczynski But was it still cavalery when upgraded to a division?

[@leppox]

A great video. I always thought the role of tank on tank combat in the Eastern front was much more significant. Thanks!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Happy to put things into perspective for you :)

[@leppox]

What do you think is the reason why people like to think that tanks mostly fought other tanks? My guess is that people just like to compare different WW2 tanks so they think of these "which one would win, Sherman or Tiger?" scenarios. And of course games like War Thunder and World of Tanks where combat mostly happens between tanks.

[@Toni112007]

Tank vs tank battles did happen tho, because why would Germans made their tanks have stronger armor and have their tanks have a cannon which can penetrate more armor than previous one. Heavy tanks were designed to attack other tanks, bunkers and spearhead the attack.

[@leppox]

Of course they happened, but as the man in the video said, they weren't as common and significant as people think they were.

[@Toni112007]

They were quite common but they didnt have an impact as infantry had (i think thats what TIK is trying to say). For example durign the battle of Kursk, German tanks on southern pincer almost broke through Soviet defensive line and then Soviet had to send their tank reserve to stop the German breakthrought and that its known as Battle of Prokhorovka. Because if tanks achieved a breakthrought then infantry could follow. So in this case Soviets used their tank reserves to stop a breakthrough.

[@richardgraham-green6643]

Great to see, nice to watch. Thank you. Good history!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Glad you enjoyed it :)

[@robartlum]

This is a fantastic channel. You have tons of knowledge and present it very well. Extremely articulate and easy to listen to. Subbed!

[@CStriker421]

"Mortars can't take out tanks." The Italians on the North African front would disagree. Most divisions that had no direct AT capabilities had to get creative with satchel charges and mortars when they engaged British tanks.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

And there was that British guy at Arnhem (Robert Henry Cain) who ran around with a mortar trying to take out German tanks. Apparently he took a few out with it too

[@louisianatechmaintenance9979]

You don't need to knock out the tanks. If strip off the tanks supporting infantry and are hitting them with enough fire power, small arms mortars artillery etc. All you need to do is convince them to withdraw.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

Jeremy Clarkson's father-in-law. Clarkson did a documentary about him, worth watching. From memory it was a PIAT rather than a mortar and he did well enough that they awarded him a VC.

[@dentistguba]

With enough rounds you could make such a mess of the roads that enemy tanks couldn't advance along them, even if the tanks get through fuel trucks etc might not.

[@fulcrum2951]

Unless the mortar are equipped with heat, it would only presumably slightly damage the tank if possible

[@usaisthebestiockdownpoiice816]

the average world of tanks weeb seem to believe that real life is based on the game, and not the other way around

[@kohinarec6580]

Subscribed. Good, informative videos with sources cited.

[@shaker7804]

Great video mate. Very informative!

[@marcus7564]

I remember hearing at some point the number of German tanks that were actually operational at any one time on the Eastern Front (I think in 1942-43). I remember the number being shockingly low, like 100-200ish. I have always wished I could find that statistic again. If you come across any data like that I would be really interested to know.

[@TheKaptajno]

Great video.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

It's great that you think so :)

[@Sharnoy1]

Very nice in-depth video and some fresh points of view. You, sir, have a new subscriber.

[@johngates3844]

Nice presentation. I like the way you repeated info so I could absorb it.

[@bingus930]

Personally, I believe it’s more of an issue with the quality of Soviet tanks crews. The Soviets had rapidly expanded their army from 1938 to 1941, nearly doubling it from 1,513,400 men to about 5,000,000 under Shaposhnikov’s mobilization plan. That resulted in lots of inexperienced officers and men, which most certainly helps to explain the massive Soviet casualties during Barbarossa. I believe it is a case of Soviet disorganization rather than German excellence, especially on the tactical level. I’ve also read accounts that many fuel and ammunition were moved closer to the frontier, at least in the Kiev Military District (under the command of Zhukov if I remember rightly), which might explain the lack of logistical support for Red Army units in the field. Great video!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

I did mention this in the video ;) but I don't think that alone explains it.

[@louisianatechmaintenance9979]

Of the Soviet tank formations in the Border military Districts the one with the highest percentage of its logistic and support vehicles was at about 55% of TO&E for those categories.

[@russelledwards001]

Logan McGrath Soviets didn't have radios at the start of the war they used signal flags!

[@chooyongming110]

Your forgot the Red Army purges in the 1930s

[@user-me5oq3kl4h]

Many crews didnt know how to repair their tanks, which led to many cases in which they would abandon their machines in case of even small break down. My grandgranddad, having finished Stalin's academy of armored troops in 1941 and surviving first skirmishes in Belorussia ( tank-less, trainees fought as infantry), was sent to the factory, where he trained the crews while their tanks were manufactured there. This method greatly helped to teach the crews to repair tanks.

[@airborne31582]

Not really a counter argument, just a suggestion...do you think you could post the books/articles you used in the description box of the video? Would really be a big help. You pose some compelling arguments and would like to look it up myself. Keep up the good work.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

See pinned comment. Sources are in there ;)

[@airborne31582]

Ah, my bad. Thanks bro.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

No worries, I should have made it more clear in the video

[@TheGoodChap]

basically everything by david glantz is great

[@rsimson185]

Amazing and very insightful. Thanks

[@dzenis76]

Great video. Astonishing research of the eastern front in WW2. Well done.

[@Zeawsomee]

As the saying goes: "Infantry are the Queen of the battlefield, Artillery are the King. And everyone knows what the King does to the Queen"

[@jackvernian7779]

пщщв щту рфрф

[@qbenalzaeen2052]

That's not "a saying"

[@johnburns4017]

One of the best introductions of WW2 was the Kangaroo - the armoured personnel carrier which is so essential in modern warfare. A Canadian idea using a Churchill tank with the turret removed, a door inserted and armour on the top. I think it was done by Hobart and his Funnies. It took troops right to where the fighting was in relative safety from mortars and machine gun fire.

[@horus4862]

You are an amazing human being, thank you for these great videos and keep it coming, we love you man

[@flare9757]

TIK, your work is of incredible quality. You have earned my subscription. Keep up your superb work!

[@kdegraa]

That’s a lot of work on his part to get you to press that button.

[@user-tc9sk4ei9y]

Great video!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Thanks!

[@lyntwo]

A good video. The United States took about a year and a half to mobilize and train an effective large army force. Also note that the America provided the Soviet Union with tens of thousands of trucks and about 3,800 railroad steam locomotives. In the end, the German Army was mostly horse drawn, that of the British and Empire forces and American Forces almost completely mechanized, the Soviet forces mostly mechanized. The United States had two vast oceans to buffer us from the immediate pressure of the war efforts of the Japanese Empire and the German War machine. The Soviets did not, their armed forces in the field had to fight with the organization and weapons they immediately held, millions of men were lost buying the time necessary to to equip, develop, and deploy an army capable of throwing the invader back.

[@adamskinner5868]

Great video, very informative, interesting and well presented. I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the war in the East but as usual it is far more complex than most doco's on the subject would have you believe. I always thought infantry wasn't as important as the number of tanks, planes and tech and that was why vast numbers of Russian infantry was defeated in the first months of the war in the East. I'll definitely watch more of your vids and hope they are all this good. Thanks for doing them.

[@Ed-om9xy]

Love watching your vieeos boss. Excellent, excellent work.

[@HistoryClarified]

It may be an older source, but I am impressed with how how much of this Clark got right in "Barbarossa." The Soviet "advantage" in tanks is useless when, as you say, they are light tanks, thrown in piecemeal, if they even made it to the front, by inexperienced commanders, and then smashed against German AT guns. Great video.

[@hentaiknight2040]

Why did you forget about German dominance in the sky? Tanks without aviation support are simply coffins.

[@crhu319]

But the Soviets are not helpless in the air, they have the IL-1 Sturmovik, which is as much of a surprise to Germany as the T-34 and KV-1 & -2.

[@kkrummelrhs]

@@crhu319 The T-34 and KV-1 have been noted to be quite a surprise for Germans since most of their weaponry just had their shells bounce off the armor. But they didn't have these tanks and the planes in large numbers. Katyusha Rockets also made an early impression on the Wehrmacht

[@thethirdman225]

@@crhu319 At the time of Dubno, they were largely helpless in the air. This was 1941, remember and the opening attacks of Barbarossa were aimed at destroying the Red Air Force.

[@thethirdman225]

Quite right.

[@antonjoly9601]

FantasTIK job, keep up the good work!

[@battlements7649]

Love it, just found your channel. Very good content

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Well, welcome! I hope you enjoy your stay :)

[@magoskillzmagoskillz3540]

I have a question, is there any relevance to russian ak 47 having 7.62mm bullets to soviet artillery having 76.2mm shells? just noticed that when you were showing a picture of 76.2mm gun in your video. thank you

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Great question! And I have absolutely no idea! Hopefully someone else can shed some light on this for us because I'm curious too now :)

[@jboss0666]

Translate it to English measurements 3" gun. .30 caliber rifle (or .3 inch). Both were quite common around the world.

[@user-tc9sk4ei9y]

TIK It's because of Imperial Russian caliber system which used inches (there were no metric system back then), so 7,62x54R for Mosin rifle (so called "three lines" system, "line" term stands for 1\10 of an inch), 76,2 mm for field gun ("30 lines"\3-inch gun caliber), not to mention 152 mm and 122 mm howitzers are actually grandchildren of heavy '60 lines' (6-inch) and '48 lines' (4,8 inch) artillery pieces of imperial times. So it's kind of historical tradition of using 152\122\76,2 mm calibers nowadays (but still new guns can use older shells). 120 mm mortars developed in USSR times are more 'metric'. 7,62 mm caliber for AK-47 was also chosen because of current machining equipment needed to produce gun barrels in 40s (it would be too costly to switch from existing small arms production equipment to any other caliber than widely used 7,62 mm after the war)

[@johnburns4017]

Ground troops feared mortars as they were difficult to hide from.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Glad you agree :) I was honestly shocked to see how many they made compared to other weapons.

[@tomc2681]

Love your videos. Very informative

[@TheMerlinshawk]

Love all your videos ! great knowledge you have

[@chinny18]

Wow. That's the first time I heard that there's much more massive tank engagements outside Kursk. And that's when the Germans being outnumbered by the Soviets with vast light tanks.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

The Soviets didn't want to talk about it, because it was a major loss for them. But why the Germans didn't want to talk about it, I'm not sure. To hazzard a guess, maybe because many of the units that took part in this battle were the same ones that got trapped at Stalingrad?

[@chinny18]

It would be worth looking if the German part is true. This is like Japan forbidden to talk about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombing aftereffects from its citizens.

[@stevemcguba7069]

As far as I know a large portion (likely as much as half) of the Soviet tank losses in 1941 were operational losses: they were not actually destroyed by the Germans in battle, but by their own crews as they ran out of ammunition, fuel or just broke down. Many Soviet units were in a bad shape prior to the invasion, they lacked spare parts, mechanics for maintenance, and even basics like fuel or ammunition due to serious supply problems. Given that, it is plausible that the German tankers were not so proud of riding through piles of scrap metal, when even the tanks that they actually destroyed were only obsolete light tanks. It is not something that would make you feel like a tough guy. But destroying hundreds of those dreaded T-34s and KVs in a fair battle at Kursk is another story.

[@louisianatechmaintenance9979]

Many even lacked the manuals for the specialized officers (Armor, Artillery etc.) and the repair manuals for the maintenance sections.

[@andyjacobs7010]

The largest danger for tanks was operational failure for all major countries was breaking down. So how many German tanks were lost this way at the time? Actually, that reminds me of a Game Theory video about World of Tanks by MattPat. Something commonly brought up about the Western Front is that Germans did not have spare parts lying around and also just had vehicles much more complex to perform maintenance in the field when compared to tanks like the Sherman. The Germans were on the retreat and lost great numbers of vehicles similarly to the Russians a few years beforehand.

[@richardmiller3922]

Great video, as per usual. How is Stalingrad coming along? (Notice that I didn't say "When will it be out?")

[@TheImperatorKnight]

It's actually coming on quite nicely, although pace has slowed since I decided to do weekly videos. Next Monday's video will be on Stalingrad though (it isn't the main documentary, but a video you'll probably enjoy)

[@richardmiller3922]

Excellent!

[@Toni112007]

I want a full video only about Manstein :P

[@richardmiller3922]

That would be good and possibly one on Model. Any chance TIK?

[@strizhi6717]

TIK YESSSSS!!!! I cant wait:) If you could please mention the biggest fake hype of Vasily Zaitsev during initial assault that never happened when he was assigned to 62nd Army, 284th Rifle Division, 1047th Regiment (Enemy at the Gates) where Order 227 was obscenely portrayed and soldiers were handed one rifle and another clip of ammo. Biggest lie in western myth of the eastern front - you would do millions of Russians who were killed justice. I look forward to the video :)

[@gooldii1]

Very good, informating Video! Very impressive! Thanks! Thumps up.

[@SmallLebowskyakaManBrodude]

thank you for detailed overview of the numbers and explaining the causes of the soviet disaster in early war. This case have drawn my attention for a long time, I gained deeper understanding of this topic!

[@lancelot1953]

Excellent presentation TIK. When looking at any weapon (except perhaps the atomic bombs), most people do not understand that a weapon system (tanks for example) cannot win a war by itself, it does not operate in a vacuum, it has to be an integrated part of a coordinated unit. Germans had great successes (at least initially) because of the coordination of their motorized/infantry/artillery units with the support of the Luftwaffe and most importantly all the logistic support (ammo, fuel, food, repair units, etc.). Especially in a war where the enemy (including civilians) will not surrender because of the "mistreatment they got from the Einsatzgruppen units or their own Commissars/political enforcing troops, a limiting factor in the German's advance was the clean-up that the infantry had to undertake following the tank push. Other important factors: Germans are losing their experienced fighters to attrition that new recruits could hardly replace. German supply lines are getting longer (while Soviet lines are getting shorter) Conquered territories are still restless grounds (partisans, revolutionaries, resistance) something Hitler should have learned from Cesar's strategy in Gaul. Blitzkrieg is difficult on such a large scale as the Soviet Union and most of all, was the Soviet field commanders were learning (and getting better, developing their own war plans and tactics such as deep penetration/offensive,etc.), Great research and interesting delivery, Ciao L (Veteran, 3 wars)

[@BigDictator5335]

Who needs tank anyway? Milk truck will do.

[@gillespriod5509]

Tovarisch ZIS

[@user-vh2ei7hg9u]

Very good analysis! Thanks

[@the_9ent]

Great analysis. Thumbs up 👍

[@ijp789]

great video!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Thank you sir!

[@ijp789]

you make really interesting videos so I subscribed :D

[@inplumbumnosfides3883]

Imperial Japanese Pepe I

[@ncrveteranranger9126]

Imperial Japanese Pepe TENNO HEIKA BANZAI

[@Bob1942ful]

great video. You might look into the greatest battle you never heard of "Nomonhan". Soviets versus the Japanese between 1938 to 1939. General Zhukov cut his teeth here. The Soviet name is "The Battle of Khalkhin Gol." It is important because of how both countries covered it up to manipulate their other enemies. For the Soviets, Stalin was playing the Western Powers off of each other and did not want them to know how many divisions got sucked into this. The Japanese on the other hand did not want anyone to know what happened when they finally faced off against a world class opponent.

[@captaincoxwaggle6882]

A better battle you never heard of would be the battle of Lake Khasan, where the Japanese crushed a vastly superior and dug in Soviet armoured force with a tiny force. It was due to this stunning victory, after a series of several dozen border skirmishes where the Japanese likewise won, that the Japanese decided to up the ante and attack across a river with a single strengthened Division against 3 Soviet divisions.

[@ukrainevolynhistory6692]

Super great video! Thank you!

[@ragnarragnarsson6636]

Really great work, sir! I'm impressed ...

[@Veniczar_pa]

I don't even care that it's not "Romantic" It's a two god damn hundred thousand mortar army... Thats Awesome!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Honestly, I was shocked when I saw that number. They started off with 56,100 mortars on 22/06/1941, and 272,400 entered service between then and January 1st 1943. So that's 328,500.

[@Veniczar_pa]

While I don't know the total production numbers for specific models, one thing I know is that the soviets also employed 120mm heavy mortars who could almost be considered artilery pieces! I saw one at a museum at Volgograd/Stalingrad. The tube was nearly as tall as my body!

[@DJScaleModels]

If i recall correctly, the same 120mm heavy mortar was given to the Vietnamese during the USA-Vietnam Conflict. Would not want to be on the business side of that!

[@Anlushac11]

The Soviets pioneered the 120mm mortar. The Germans were sufficiently impressed by the Soveit 120mm mortar that they simply copied the design and put it into production. Since mortars are fired at lower pressures than artillery rounds the mortar shells carry more HE, along the lines of a 150mm or 152mm HE round. While smaller mortars can damage or disable a tank a 120mm mortar could destroy a tank with a direct hit.

[@dougHBK]

wow great video. had always thought Kursk was the largest tank battle. thank you for highlighting dubno-brody.

[@Hoserfishing]

amazing research and just as important excellent presentation of the research with many proofs to back up your points.

[@VRichardsn]

Another thought provoking video! This is why I love this channel. Lets jump right into it. Graph at 0:55 About the "superior" Soviet tanks. The graph is pretty clear in the abundance of light tanks over the other types. If one were to weed out the light tanks, we get some 500 heavy tanks and 900 T-34s as "real" tanks. So far, so good. But the German arsenal is also filled with less than ideal tanks: 152 Panzer I (hopeless), 179 Panzerbefehlswagen (great for command and control, but they artificially inflate the number of combat tanks), 743 Panzer II (poor), 155 Panzer 35 (t) (poor) and 85 Flammpanzer II. So those are some 1300 + light tanks (almost a third of the Panzer strength) that find themselves in the same spot as the Soviet lights. Also, I think stating that the Soviet light tanks wouldn´t be able to go toe to toe with a Panzer II is a bit too much. There are 7732 BT-7, 1688 BT-5 and over 10,000 T-26s, all equipped with different iterations of the Soviet 45 mm gun, good enough to tackle the Panzer II of the aforementioned statement. Of course, the end point of the video is that a lot of tanks went down at the hands of the infantry and not the Panzers (a statement to which I agree 100% and will elaborate further at the end of my comment) but I wanted to state that most of the Soviet light tanks could go toe to toe with the Panzer II (your words at 1:42). If they weren´t able to do it in the field, it was due to the logistics, command and control failing them, but in that event, they would have succumbed to a wheelbarrow mounting a Panzerbüchse 39, so the point is moot. 00:19 Ah, the T-34. "War Winning Weapon". Wholly agree with you in your assesment regarding that statement. I could probably spend hours criticizing the T-34 (which I personally find severely overrated) but I will just mention one thing: it is often argued that the T-34 was distributed in small numbers during Barbarossa and that is why it couldn´t make an impact, but numbers show otherwise. Barbarossa had started with almost 900 T-34s, that is, almost 1 T-34 for every 4 German tanks, including those way out of place (Panzer I, Panzer II, etc), and by December, the Red Army would have deployed 3000 T-34s. The Soviets had almost the same number of T-34s than the entire German tank strength in the East! So they were lost not because they were available in small numbers, but because of those factors you mentioned before: poor logistics, bad training, inadequate maintenance, lack of equipment, and a lot of "soft" flaws in the T-34s design. 3:01 Off topic here, but I have to comment on the impressive amount of rings on the 88. 7:20 "Is this because the Soviets are incompetent? No" Well, I would argue that they somewhat were. Of course, a lot had to do with the sudden influx of new recruits at pretty much every level, but even prior the Red Army was not in the same league as the Wehrmacht. And this is due to large array of factors that together produce the aforementioned disaster. I will quote David Campbell on this: "Officers were drawn from a far broader section of society than in Tsarist times; the best candidates were creamed off for the NKVD, the VVS and the RKKA’s engineer and artillery branches, with the infantry, as is often the case, at the back of the line. For the enlisted men, conscription came at 19 years old, and fed them into an army that was drawn mostly (around 80 per cent) from the peasant villages rather than the cities, men who came from a multitude of 15 ethnic backgrounds and who spoke in mutually unintelligible dialects or languages. The expansion of the 1930s wasn’t accompanied by an equally large growth in infrastructure or planning, and the RKKA rifleman of 1939 would often find himself with shoddy or missing equipment, living in dismal accommodations and eating poor food, subjected to daily lectures on the importance of the Party, and more used to being employed on ad hoc agricultural projects than as a soldier [...] The existing supply structure was complex, sluggish and corrupt; it failed at almost every level." Now, on the effect of the purges. Certainly the millions of men entering service might have had a more direct effect than the tens of thousands executed, but the purges had another effect, less direct, but no less damaging. Again, from Campbell: "For the officers and men in the rifle regiments the purges had little direct effect, as personnel at this level largely escaped the worst of the venom that ran through the higher echelons. The influence was more subtle, but pernicious. In such an atmosphere even relatively junior officers felt the creeping insecurity that was the natural result of such a trustless system. ‘Instead of taking pride in responsibility, an officer was well advised to dodge the limelight and to pass the buck. Cadets learned very little about inspiring their men in field conditions. The party hacks, the Politruks, were supposed to take care of that’. Mechanized forces were underdeveloped, operational knowledge stagnated, and freedom of thought and independence of action were positively discouraged in favour of strict adherence to detailed, written orders. Such inflexibility was married with political interference at every level due to the re-emergence of the Politruk; such men were ideological guardians of the Party’s message, who had equal rank with the commander of the unit to which they were assigned, from a division all the way down to a rifle company, and who could overrule that commander’s orders if they saw fit. Such ‘dual commands’ were an obvious disaster waiting to happen, but in Stalin’s RKKA the legacy of the purges ensured that all actions were mediated by loyalty to the Party and its leader." 12:41 This citation regarding the Germans having adequate anti tank weapons (and in line with the infantry doing most of the work, as mentioned above) is something I agree with with, and in no small part because I like settling scores. The PaK 36 has the infamous nickname of "door knocker" due to its performance in very specific actions (namely Arras) but it is easy to forget that those tank that the little PaK couldn't crack were but a small fraction of the enemy tank inventory. And the same is true for it's performance in 1941 in the East. 90% of the Soviet Union's tank inventory could be dealt with the PaK 36 from standard combat ranges. And it was small, light, easily concealable and suited itself exceptionally for infantry manhandling, weighing just over 400 kg.

[@thethirdman225]

Same old shibboleths.

[@stephen9869]

Brilliant presentation, I highly recommend a book about the Ostfront: *"The Forgotten Soldier" by Guy Sajer* , it really puts you in the middle of it all in a brilliantly written first hand account.

[@louisianatechmaintenance9979]

Yes a superb memoir. Just be aware it is a memoir and not a history. So some of the details may be wrong.

[@delacroixp]

Magnificently insightful !

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Glad you thought so :)

[@billythekid1038]

as usual, perfect video! thank you

[@juggalo184]

I don't like how you refer to the Soviet Eastern Front. Couldn't you say "against the Germans"? In a Soviet context the Eastern Front would be the divisions in Siberia standing guard against the Japanese.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

You're right, but don't forget that the reason it's called the "Eastern Front" in the west is because our history of the conflict has been written by the German generals. They called it that, so we now call it that. The Soviet archieves were not open, and the west did not trust Soviet accounts because of the politics during the Cold War. So we call it the Eastern Front. You're right though. Technically it could be called the "German-Soviet Front", although that's a little long-winded. I may have to come up with a phrase that's more suitable because a quick google search does not come up with many alternatives.

[@RouGeZH]

It's called Eastern front because for the Germans/French/British/American and all european countries the fight in Russia did happen in the east. It has nothing to do with German bias. Even in WW1 it was called "eastern front".

[@TheImperatorKnight]

RouG - Regardless, it isn't the eastern-front for the Soviets is it? So juggalo is right, it doesn't make sense to call it that

[@aleksaradojicic8114]

TIK For Soviets we talk about western front, while for Germany it is eastern.

[@RouGeZH]

So whats the solution? Call it the "Soviet-Polish-Bulgarian-Finnish-Hungarian-Croat-German-Romanian-andsomeothers front" for the sake of perfect neutrality? Or use a term that is firmly grounded in historiography, a term that was used in all over Europe and the Americas during and since WW2? It's a false debate: if the author/speaker has a western background it makes sense to use the term "eastern front"; if the author/speaker as a Russian/Soviet background it make perfect sense to use "western front" or "GPW".

[@leighfoulkes7297]

Wow, this video just destroyed my belief in the importance of tanks (well, by themselves).

[@TheImperatorKnight]

You'll probably enjoy this video as well, which goes into detail why tanks alone cannot win battles kzbin.info/www/bejne/hYLFnXZ5ZtebbZY

[@jameslawrence7896]

You illuminate angles in your videos that respected historians haven't mentioned once in their books on the subject. Interesting - keep up the good work.

[@Invicta556]

I think its important particularly the Germans excelled at combined arms and along with Befehlstaktik (Command and Control) of units throughout the war and there were many ocasions were some units didnt. Many russian units were under command of their HQ and would only take orders from them particularly early in Barbarossa and not be used to working in combined arms. German units particually trained together and would even go far as to never critic other branches of the Wehrmacht (i.e Singing or mocking) and were encouraged to respect each branch. The Russians later would become better at combined arms due to learning from the 41-42 defeats they would slowly but surely become very skilled at this, particularly with Tanks and infantry but this was not till 1944-45 that this was happeneing as planned. Source- Panzertactics by Wolfgang Scnieder Operation Barbarossa by David Glantz

[@Kriegter]

0:44 literally every eastern front meme in a nutshell

[@NJP9036]

Awesome video. Thx!

[@pccomputer1550]

Through Every video i learn something from a different aspect of wwII , keep up the great job .

[@ХРЕНОРЕЗ]

It should be mentioned that not only Germany fought against the USSR, but also the divisions of the French, Italians, Rumanians, Czechs, Fins. And if you think so, almost all of Europe fought against the USSR.

[@tom_skip3523]

UssR Troll Well most of these were Volunteer divisions. So they make up only a small part of the army.

[@impaugjuldivmax]

@@tom_skip3523 War is not about armies it is about logistic and military complex + some goods.

[@j.f.fisher5318]

Yawn. That information was included. For example, labeled "Axis" vs. "German."

[@jimmyuk007]

Americans would beat USSR

[@j.f.fisher5318]

@@jimmyuk007 that's highly debatable. America would have been fighting at the end of an even longer logistics chain than Germany was. And the Soviets had already prototyped the T-54 tank (called the T-44-100) which was basically a King Tiger, but with thicker armor that weighed less than 2/3 as much and was optimized for mass production. They didn't bother rushing the T-54 / T-44-100 into production because the war was ending, but if America had fought the Soviets they surely would have. Also, the IS-3 which is described as a "heavy tank" but was about the same weight as a Panther despite making the King Tiger look puny was in production by the end of the war. Across the board the Soviet Union was ready to make a war with the West a massively costly mess, and the Soviet Union was better able to bear that cost fighting for survival than America could fighting a war of aggression.