"Truth" about "Panzer Aces"

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

At 6:40 I made an error, I didn't mean "operations" but "combat days", was referring there to close combat clasps (Nahkampfspange). Thx to Stahlfaust for pointing that out.

[@legoeasycompany]

Hey I'm famous now

[@kermitderfrosch1704]

Comrade Pramod Dubey ツ patreon probably

[@legoeasycompany]

@@googleaccount93 throw some shinny coins at MHV and watch magic happen, or get to hear MHV criticize me for pioneer spam in CoH2 when he streams on twitch

[@DC9622]

Military History not Visualized, a lot of debate has raged around the Tiger unit kill ratios. Normandy it was quoted 510 Schneider, when the 21st army written off was 1211. It does not add up with the scientific reporting where the Tigers were the least effective. Is it correct to say these kill ratios are total rubbish or it is better to consider the unit, Division or Regiment logistic level. Would you consider discussing the tank kill numbers quoted for Kursk with the good Doctor, because some quoted numbers are greater than the total tanks involved.

[@overworlder]

clasps s/b clashes?

[@ericshelly2518]

My grandfather was a Panzerjager. When I was a kid I asked if he knew how many tanks he killed. This upset him. He angrily answered “Killing men is nothing to keep track of”

[@Ye4rZero]

That's the best thing I've read in a long time.

[@kylesanders9598]

I made this same mistake when I was a kid, too. I think back on it and cringe all the time.

[@normanberg9940]

It may not be right but it is a very ancient rite. Collecting scalps, ears, shrunken heads etc etc is as old as when the first primitive man picked up a rock and hit his neighbor over the head. In short, a dick measuring contest.

[@patrikcarga]

He is/was a good man

[@sakkiestoffberg4052]

No true soldier would ever talk about killings.

[@VT-mw2zb]

I think there is a very simple reason why tank commanders rarely ever count kills. They have more pressing things to worry about that will affect their survival the next day. Things like: how many AP or HE rounds they have left, how many MG rounds, what's the fuel and lubricant situation, where are they supposed to go next, what's the intel on the enemy in that place, how's the terrain, bridges, roads, where is the nearest supply dump, which REMF does he have to chase to get the supplies they need, etc ... How many they killed would have been the last on their mind: what was important was how many more and whether they have the means to fight the next battle.

[@adm0iii]

Even "kill" can be confusing. With airplanes, it's clear a "kill" is the enemy plane crashes. But for tanks, it's not so clear. Yes, if a tank blows up when you hit it, that's a "kill". But what if you just disable its main gun? What if you disable its tracks? What if the enemy crew abandons their tank after shots are fired, but you're not sure why? What if, in the noise and smoke of an intense firefight, the tank you've fired at in the distance doesn't seem to do anything after that, but that's all you know?

[@VT-mw2zb]

@@adm0iii I think the more pressing question for most commanders isn't that "how many of them we killed" but rather "how many of us can still fight". Is our "company" a company or is it a squad in strength.

[@gearjammergamer8560]

@@adm0iii On top of the fact visibility is absolutely terrible in most WWII tanks unless the commander is turned out. U know u score a hit but is it fatal especially at long distances with tank destroyers.

[@zeitgeistx5239]

@@adm0iii more like you see a dot 700 meters away and your not sure if it's a bush or a tank, you shoot at it and nothing happens and you can't approach it to inspect it since this is the battlefield and you have to continue to manuever and look for targets. Real life is nothing like a 18 year old keyboard warrior playing Battlefield can imagine. Things are never black and white. People like surviving rather than arguing on the internet.

[@adm0iii]

Oh, and I should add that even air "kills", which _should_ be obvious, were inaccurate. In the Battle of Britain, the German's total kill claims were about double the number of planes the Royal Air Force actually lost.

[@scc970]

It's like the German Veterans that I talked to in the '80's they didn't remember exact details, just interesting stories.

[@rancidpitts8243]

As a Vietnam and Gulf War vet I remember the first time I was shot at. The first kill, I bet he wished he had stayed at home. What I do remember best are the pranks we played , and the guys we lost. I can understand the Tankers not knowing how many successes they scored. Not something you think about as it could have been you instead of him. At those times in your life remembering, and actually, taking a dump in a flush toilet is heaven. Counting kills has no place in that dream.

[@johndowe7003]

too busy trying to stay alive than keeping count of how many "tank kills" they did

[@andrewwoodhead3141]

rancid pitts My respect to you sir. I also served in Croatia (ZNG), Bosnia and Kosovo (British Army) and , most recently, Syria (YPG). Lost ALOT of guys in Syria, wasn’t nice. Yep, keeping score of kills is primarily the remit of WOT gaymers , the target audience for these video. There’s no real interest in the experience of the soldiers involved, except when it comes to “debunking “ “ myths” ( because, y’know, that’s investigative journalism, right!?). Honestly , you’d think WW2 had just been discovered the way it goes on, I guess since they don’t read books anymore they have to get their information from somewhere.. Just be aware that all Veterans have PTSD, and are therefore unreliable witnesses. Also, soldiers always complain and whinge..You’d best leave it to the youtube experts to tell you how it really went down... Sarcasm aside, what I learnt was this,.. my Grandfather went through all four years of WW1 , reaching the rank of RSM in only four years. Now I have at least some sketchy understanding of what that might mean. He later suffered from depression of course, hardly surprising.

[@mpetersen6]

Quite possibly they did not want to remember details. Or they did too vividly and kept it to themselves. Bill Mauldin came up with a fictitious society in Up Front. The Society of Them's That Been Shot At. It had members from every army. Plus, be it tanker, dogface or pilot. You are only as good as your last engagement.

[@Siddich]

andrew woodhead youtube has nothing to do with being an expert or not. same with books. you can not say yourube is always wrong and books are always right. science is not that easy.

[@SNOUPS4]

I like Roman Töppel, because he's a fair historian. Some love "bashing myths" all day long, but he just tries to find the actual truth, and that's a good thing.

[@mpetersen6]

Which as a historian is his job description. If an author discards facts to fit his opinion he is a historical novelist at best. At least that's honest. But with history the truth is often muddled. Details get lost. The people who might have known what happened in a certain instance quite simply aren't there minutes or seconds later. The same event seen from multiple viewpoints can have wildly different descriptions.

[@SNOUPS4]

I know a lot of so-called historians who are biaised even though they claim they aren't and probably think so, too.

[@scottjoseph9578]

@@SNOUPS4 This guy's work is worth reading.

[@noodled6145]

@@SNOUPS4 All historians are biased, TIK talks about this.

[@samkhodabakhshzadeh7244]

@@noodled6145 all historians are to an extent biased but that does not disqualify their works because of the said bias. the job of a historian is to take a bunch of accounts and try to paint a clear picture as possible. as long as the historian is doing that and is being peer-reviewed then there is no need to mention bias.

[@PaulScott_]

Logic, common sense and "actually" talking with the people who were involved! What kind of madness is this on the internet! LOL Excellent work and attention to details - thanks to all involved for sharing their information and expertise!

[@christopherthrawn1333]

Well said

[@snipersl270]

@Mists & Shadows You're forgetting one thing or not mentioning it when you speak of the German kill ratios. By the time the US showed up Germany was fighting a defensive war. Its long been held that you need a 5-1 manpower advantage when attacking a defensive position to have a chance of success without horrific casualties. That fact alone can account for much of the German kill ratio. I do not take anything away from the German's success during Poland, France, or the first part of the Soviet invasion. They used tech and tactics and rolled them up.

[@kalvinhill5308]

David Irving did exactly this for several decades. His honest history got him labeled an anti-semite. Amazing how they treat him like a traitor for putting the truth out without spin.

[@thesep1967]

@@kalvinhill5308 Irving? He just lied a little bit. That should be acceptable to Nazis ...

[@ws8453]

@@snipersl270 wrong. military doctrine for mechanized and infantry at the time was 3:1 to overtake a defensive position.

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

Some decades ago I was in the local hobby shop (looking for an aircraft scale model) and got into a talk (on that model) with a German night fighter pilot from WW2. He served in the same unit as one Prinz Heinrich zu Sayn-Wittgenstein - a famous night fighter "Experte". His personal opinon on that dude apart (something similar to a rectal body opening), he told me that barely anyone in his unit counted kills - except from the prince. He told me the common crew just lived from mission to mission, more happy to survive than counting their scores. He himself was not sure if he shot down 3 or 4 bombers in total. But he was sure as death that many of the unit's kills where "donated" to the prince, boosting the score.

[@martinlee5818]

That's incredibly enlightening. Very believable and interesting too.

[@20chocsaday]

A single-seat pilot, when I asked him how many he shot down said I suppose I could claim one half, if I was pushed to it.

[@SARGE11963]

Then explain all the kill counts painted on WW2 aircraft by both Axis and Allied "Experte"?

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

@@SARGE11963 Just read again: a) in HIS unit because the prince got all the kill credits. b) he himself was no expert. As you might know, German pilots only became "Experten" at about 30-40 kills. Until that they were considered rookies or wingmen at best. Check out WW2 photos and look for kill marks on German aircraft. They were actually rare except for the "Experten".

[@aasphaltmueller5178]

@@ottovonbismarck2443 for all I know it was basically standing procedure in German fighter units to let the resident "Ace" have the kill shot, where tactically possible

[@paulvonhindenburg4727]

Sound like people in that situation didn't treat it like a sporting contest where they kept score.

[@andrebas1124]

of course not. they lost the war, lost pretty much 95% of tanks, produced during the war. they were beaten. who on earth would count fighting a lost war already from 1942?

[@paulvonhindenburg4727]

@@andrebas1124 wouldn't have mattered if they won. Did the Soviet tankers keep a running contest going? The Ace concept comes from early fighter jocks being semi-aristocrats or ex cavalry officers who have a cavalier and sporting attitude.

[@TheNavalAviator]

Yeah, it was WW2 is not WoT.

[@michalsoukup1021]

The only reason to "Keep score" in war is for the intel purpose.

[@mandalortemaan7510]

@@andrebas1124 they almost only keep score for Intel. On the rare occasions, sporting. War is not a sport It's an Art

[@nikitasgarnier71]

You are a formidable duo! I absolutly love the videos with Dr. Töppel and all the myths you are debunking

[@vladdrakul7851]

Me too! They make a lovely couple don't they. I can't wait until they get hitched!

[@vonhellfinger7540]

Your right the count was much much higher for the German tank aces. Well done debunking The Aces for the Bolshevik properganda machine comrads🚩! loyalty for loyalty, When all others become unfaithful.

[@schizoidboy]

Listening to this I'm reminded of something I heard about the Battle of Little Big Horn where the whites wanted to know from the Indians who killed Custer. Sensing whoever killed Custer might be targeted the tribes who fought had a council and decided which one of the warriors killed Custer. They picked Rain In The Face as the one who killed Custer. To his surprise there was no retaliation against him but he became something of a celebrity. Eventually on his deathbed or even before that he admitted that he didn't know who killed Custer because the situation on the battlefield was so chaotic you could have killed your own brother in the confusion.

[@napmanj9413]

The Chiefs agreed to not speak of the true killer of Custer for a hundred years to avoid retaliation. Can you imagine the uproar if the truth was told at the time, that Custer was killed by a woman. Buffalo Calf Road Woman was the one who ended Custer.

[@theawesomesixes]

This is an incredible resource hearing from someone who studied and contacted the veterans while they were still alive

[@Gwahlur]

Every time you interview Dr Töppel the end result is extremely interesting and informative. Please keep meeting with him in the future!

[@azoniarnl3362]

I really enjoy these conversations between the two you. Keep it up!👍

[@--Dani]

Only on your channel do we English only speakers "Americans" get this kind of real historical information, keep it coming pls

[@--Dani]

@thatkidwiththehair couldn't agree more, his battle storm stalingrad right now is great. David Glantz is a great historian as well, I really respect the man's work, and gives TiK even more credibility that he's used as a source. Try Stephen Kotkin if your intrested in the eastern front of WW2. Cheers

[@Elizabeth-0]

Look up Mark Felton Productions.

[@carlhicksjr8401]

From my reading and talking to a couple of Panzerschutze when I served in the US Army in 80's, I understand that the number of 'kills' wasn't all that big a deal to most Panzer crews. More important to them was succeeding in their missions [which grew increasingly impossible as the war went on] and bringing their tank home.

[@Yabuddy53]

I think many of them were regretful that they had killed so many men.

[@Gideonthestargazer]

I remember reading that a WW2 German sniper did keep track of his kills. However, when his spotter died he said that he found the habit bad and stopped. Throughout another reading of a WW2 German air 'ace', they admitted that units commanders would make up stories by adding numbers to pilots kills ratio. I have come to the conclusion that it's propaganda that is uses to motivate other people. This was another great video and Thank you for doing it. Keep up the good work.

[@baraka629]

Even if those specific examples are based on exaggeration there is no doubt tank aces exist, as the gaussian distribution applies to any activity that involves human skill. Just like there are exceptional sportsmen or exceptional chess players or exceptional drivers, there most certainly have also been exceptional tankers, pilots or marksmen.

[@etwas013]

What about Marseille? His claims got cross checked and found to have two unclear cases among over 100. How can you tell if that "adding" the kills wasn't a rare event?

[@nickmitsialis]

@@etwas013 Chris Shores, a well known aviation historian (and I might add THE comprehensive historian of the Western Desert/North African Air War) calculated that HJM's total vics were about 100 so around 70% accuracy which was incredibly good under the circumstances. In some cases he only damaged the fighter he attacked but called it a 'vic' because he felt he WAS 'that good' (and often he was but not always) and in other cases there were other JG27, or JG53 or even Italian aces involved in the fight who may have claimed the same aircraft-and under those circumstances who gets the credit? They ALL did.

[@etwas013]

@@nickmitsialis Hm. About 150 claims and about 100 accredited. You might be right. My estimate is wrong. Only two doubtful claims would be unrealistic anw.

[@hedgehog3180]

@@baraka629 I think you mean a normal distribution and that is absolutely not proven. You're assuming that this is the case but such assumptions are often made without any proof that they are real, it might be relatively simple to prove such a distribution maps athletic performance relatively well but first off that's a simple thing to measure, which tanking isn't, and thirdly we also have to ask whether or not we're actually just measuring how much time people put into say sport. Given that we live in a world where unless people willingly spend time training they wont get much physical activity and of course if you don't train as much as a professional athlete you wont be as good as them. But we might not obtain such data if we instead measured a group of hunter gatherers where everyone gets plenty of exercise. Basically the only reason why a normal distribution appears for stuff like this might just be because we live in a society where people specialize and you can't specialize in everything and not because such a distribution is inherent to humans. And well especially with war it's honestly probably a lot more likely that the people who did well at tanking were probably just lucky to survive for long enough not that they were inherently better.

[@TacoSallust]

"In dubio pro reo" would translate to the English phrase "to give the benefit of the doubt" but you did translate the meaning correctly.

[@cmdrflake]

Quite often tank “kills” were team efforts. This was most true for Sherman’s, panzer IV’s and other light to medium tanks. The best results came from multiple attackers focusing on a vulnerable enemy tank and then attacking another one. Pure tank versus tank battles were not as common as some historians believe they were. Then too, the tank units objective, I.e. taking a good river crossing or cutting off an enemy unit was more important than knocking out enemy tanks.

[@fredreinhard2091]

When you see the masses of T34 - T60's - KV1's shot down! I don't get the vulnerable kill. Yes maybe the 10 Shermans against one Panther!

[@Yora21]

Counting destroyed tanks apparently isn't very easy either, especially when you end up retreating from the battlefield. A broken thread can make a tank stop, but depending on the damage the tank could be back in action within an hour. There are even battles in which attack planes claimed to have destroyed more tanks than were present, and the other side recorded only minor losses. It might be easier to tell from the ground, or maybe not. But if it's in any way near that bad, it would be impossible to really tell for sure how many tanks were destroyed and who made the fatal hit.

[@3isr3g3n]

Danke, eure Beiträge sind Gold wert!

[@Mortablunt]

Genau.

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

Internet: the German Tank aces killed hundreds of tanks German Tank Aces: Excuse me! We were a little preoccupied at the time to bother with keeping count. Try commanding a tank in battle and you'll understand!

[@peka2478]

KZbin subtitles: "hello everyone, today, we understood god..." xD

[@fulcrum2951]

Thank god

[@briankearney5994]

TiK has some Kurowski ‘quotes’, but is pretty suspicious, with all the frankly better material out there now, it seems a bit obvious, but as a novice reader I’m not sure I would know enough to argue. Very interesting to hear that the veterans themselves tried to correct the record, good on them, hopefully better quality work will continue to be promoted in the future.

[@panzerreichusholzer9239]

Is TiK a reliable YT historian? Any comments?

[@briankearney5994]

Panzerreichus Holzer So on the military history stuff he’s pretty good I’d say, just keep in mind that he thrives on arguing points. MHV has a different tone and approach, but both seem committed to providing a clearer picture on (primarily) WW2 topics that are accessible to the masses. TiK has particular views on economics that come into his videos, and I sometimes feel these points don’t meet the same standards he has for the military history. That’s my opinion ofc. Still, he painstakingly breaks down battles with well drawn out maps, but it takes less energy for me to intellectually digest MHV’s content. Kurowski seems to be problematic in everyone’s view though.

[@attilakatona-bugner1140]

TiK really shines in his documentary series about battles like n africa, courland or now stalingrad, and made some interesting videos about other subjects (like people or past historians underestimating the importance of oil for germany) But don t watch his political videos. Like really. They are not good. He has more knowledge about the subject than your average voter but he isn t a reliable source for politics. His views can be really felt. He messes up with old debunked theories. He feels like he was "lied to" by the mostly incorrect public narrative about subjects and goes rogue. His documentaries? Amazing. His other videos? He speaks his mind for half on hour. If it is history it is usually correct if it is politics not so much.

[@joelmaynard3897]

@@panzerreichusholzer9239 is not rely reliable. He use mainly (only ?) secondary sources, that mean anyone who can read can have the same thought and argument. Sometimes, when the books he used are good his video can be good. But for exemple, his Kurland videos are full of error, the red army is pourly shown, not enough book on the subject i guess.

[@studismuffinis2032]

Panzerreichus Holzer don't listen to the haters, TIK is phenomenal and definitely worth a look, but as TIK would say check it out yourself and don't take others opinion of it as fact. TIK cares about the facts though FYI.

[@SgtMjr]

Fast forward to the '60s and you get 'body count' as a measure of success. In WWI it was yards gained and I bet in medieval times there were other examples. Warfare never changes.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

in medieval times it is likely they measured success on ransoms. they prefured to capture nobles and richer peasants (and sometimes even normal peasants) and ransom them back, which made alot of money. that and taking control of land, castles and being the one to hold the field of battle at the end of the day.

[@gordonaverageguy9556]

Great job, tidying up history. I appreciate this.

[@andyl8055]

I’m not a soldier and have no combat experience, but I can’t imagine all those German tankers making a note whenever they killed a tank; they’d be under way too much stress in many situations, and given the deteriorating strategic situation on all fronts would rarely be left in possession of the battlefield to confirm kills.

[@Mortablunt]

It's hard to reckon a tank kill. There are 3 different kill states. 1. Mobility kill. Track fucked up, tank is now stuck. Think you blew off a drive sprocket. 2. Mission kill. Tank is now too damaged to accomplish its goal. Think you jammed the traverse, destroyed the targeting system, hurt the crew members, or caught it on fire and forced its abandonment. 3. Catastrophic kill. BOOOOOOOOM! Turret popped off and bits strewn yards away. This is what is most people think is the archetypical kill. 2 out of 3 types of "kills" have a tank that is still technically functional, just damaged, and with a crew all or mostly alive. With repairs for the vehicle, and maybe some medical attention or a replacement if even needed, the tank and crew will be back at work in no time. So it's fully possible and very common for a tank to be "killed", but not killed as in vehicle and crew completely destroyed. Example: Kurtschen sees a hostile tank moving. His tank engages it. It's a hit. It stops moving. That's a kill, a mobility kill. The track's thrown, but the rest is fine and the crew is fine. Kurtschen and his guys drive off along on their mission. They could report a kill, but they don't know that the tank ultimately got patched up by the crew and was back in the fight later. Kurtschen reports a kill, the Germans report a kill, the Soviets either report nothing or a breakdown. And that's why it's pretty much impossible to tell real kill counts and losses with tanks.

[@piperp9535]

I was a soldier, and soldiers make after action reports, commanders used to record the activities of their units in combat, sometimes in a war diary, the US submitted actual reports. There are many military historians who have focused on specific units or commanders or battles, and dug through the reports that have been found, diaries or other books published, and put together the best records available. It would seem that some of these historians are less careful in their research.

[@hedgehog3180]

@@Mortablunt The Soviets would actually have counted that tank as a kill but that's more a technicality. They didn't differentiate between whether a tank was just temporarily out of action or if it was completely destroyed since to them either way it meant that in the tactical situation one less tank was available. That's also how you sometimes get over 100% loses for Soviet units.

[@peterson7082]

@@piperp9535 The Germans and Soviets had some level of it, but arguably they were less extensive, and in the case for the Germans some of the files have been lost to history.

[@--Dani]

Great article...read it when this video came out and forgot to comment on how well Dr. Töppels paper was written.

[@grogery1570]

This interview reminds me of a book I read by (allegedly) a German veteran fighting tin the seige of Tobruk while Australian troops were stationed there. He learns that his father has been imprisoned by the Nazi's and decides to desert. He steals the battalion pay roll, meets arab friends one of who's daughter trys to seduce him and he is finally captured by the British. I loved the story as a boy, as an adult I wonder how I was so naive?

[@georgekettler1896]

Thank you both for making this video!

[@johnhilton2509]

Excellent info. It actually sounds like the true reality of the situation when you take in to account human nature. Also a good reminder for when someone sounds unusually heroic.

[@moman2759]

Love your work and another great episode. Thanks for sharing

[@PapaBenjaminW]

Dr. Töppel is such a great interview that I wonder if you could incorporate him into some of your MHV stuff too. ♥️

[@ricardoandersomventura1596]

Excellent video. Congratulations.

[@ws8453]

I really like what you guys are saying. i love that you are explaining this in english also, so thank you for that. i totally believe what what you are saying and i completely agree with your rationale. I am an American Soldier, combat wounded, Purple Heart from Iraq, and what you say seems completely factually accurate. War is chaotic, and random, and a lot of people and equipment are firing down range and distance of max range of guns/cannons/artillery and during the chaos of war... it is impossible to know who actually killed the enemy. i know this first hand from my experience in the Iraq war. war is chaos, and everyone is firing and in all reality.. who the f**k knows who actually got the kill when numerous people and equipment are all firing AT WILL down range.

[@MGBandit75]

I’d love to hear more of those stories about Kurt Knispel

[@richbrice7465]

This was too short, the historian is very well informed and it would merit a much deeper interview.

[@gfdffdfg1102]

Thanks! More of this please! Danke gut!

[@canisxv9869]

Internet: the German Tank aces killed hundreds of tanks German Tank Aces: Eheheheheh to be honest after a while we kinda lost count :-D

[@101jir]

@Chris_Wooden_Eye Well and then tanks are even worse than planes in terms of even figuring out kills. If a plane strikes the ground violently, somebody killed it unless it was pilot error (which in all likelihood will still be considered a "maneuver kill, which may or may not be fair). If a plane goes straight down on fire, that's very likely a kill. If it is smoking and going straight down, probable. Even then, things get messy, as multiple pilots may have scored hits against the same plane, possibly knowing and possibly not knowing that other pilots had hit it, so the same downed plane might be counted as 3 kills but each pilot thought it was probably dead after they hit it but had to quickly focus their attention on another plane. But tanks are a mess. Unless the whole thing explodes, you don't know what's working and what is not, or how much crew is alive. So you can sit there pummeling the same tank, pretty confident it couldn't have survived, only for it to take a sneaky kill on one of your allies, and you have no idea they ever did that. Alternative, in fear of the prior situation, you can sit there pummeling a tank to be extra sure even though your first shot knocked out the crew. But you have no way of knowing. You can see if you took out the tracks for a mobility kill, but that's about as comfortable a kill as can be claimed short of the whole thing exploding.

[@paulthiessen6467]

101jir and the opposite is true as well. You might see an abandoned hulk at a distance, assume it is a mobile tank, put a round into it and see that is isn’t moving and consider it a kill

[@HDSME]

maybe the guy he called regrets killing 300 men ? it happens all the time

[@krisfrederick5001]

Ran out of chalk

[@noahsagutch8314]

M.W was shellshocked and he's men were shook up and he had to be point man with his tiger no doubt he was scared but be had a job to do

[@YourManifoldWorld]

Tank warfare is unbelievably hard. Even If Otto knocked out 100 tanks, that's amazing. It's true about fuzzy details. When I was serving, I don't remember much either. When you're not in it, you dream of being in war, but when you're in war, you dream of everything except war.

[@WarReport.]

With those guys fighting for years, well some of them, surely some did very well, but I imagine tanks would be shooting at the same targets. The more you learn, the more you realize it is all much more complicated. The numbers to the soldiers sound like young men counting how many women they have bedded, once you get past a certain number it gets blurry, but a rough idea or quantity would be known. Makes sense they wouldn't count kills like pilots, as they are a crew, and as mentioned the crews change tanks and personelle.

[@101jir]

Another good point about the crews. Counting kills by planes or tanks is messy, but in addition to the point you made about crews it is a lot harder to determine if a tank is destroyed than a plane in most cases.

[@WarReport.]

@@101jir Yeah, it seems like they would confirm or at least had info about the other sides plane losses, I might be confusing that practice in WW1 for one in WW2, but the planes have gun cameras as well where tanks dont. On the ground who takes the field matters

[@101jir]

@@WarReport. Gun cameras were indeed WWII

[@WarReport.]

@@101jir Yes I know, I meant the reports from the enemy losses

[@101jir]

@@WarReport. Oh, okay. Idk about that.

[@Mineav]

Love these discussions. Wonderful information, and love your accents. Please keep them coming.

[@signorellil]

This is great and thanks for all you're doing on this channel to inject some truth in a subject (Eastern Front of WW2) who has been literally "Lied to Death" over the years, but I'm afraid you're fighting a (mostly) losing battle. People, particularly in English speaking countries, don't want to hear the truth about this, because the truth about WW2 is always grimmer, murkier and more complicated than the myth. The "panzer aces" mythology is a perfect example. I've been doing serious research on the Italian experience on WW2 for many years, including lot of interviews to veterans (and we're speaking doing this in the early 80's, when the veterans were still not exactly decrepit) and the first thing you learn doing this is how fallible and complex is the memory of war and combat, how many times people remembers what they want to remember and forget the rest, and how when memory and documentary evidence are contradicting, often neither of the two is telling the complete picture. Telling your audience glorious, bombastic lies (and the SS panzerwaffe is a big excuse for telling lies) will always make better sales and more popularity than telling people "it's complicate".

[@Dreachon]

True that is the sad reality.

[@americanpatriot2422]

Outstanding video and presentation

[@LionofCaliban]

As a slight addition, I'd make one point on these 'kill' counts claims, what a unit counts as a kill can differ. If you've disabled a tank, so it's not able to move, that's a kill. It's a mobility kill. It doesn't need to have exploded, burned out, lost its turret. If you got a perfect shot into the engine and disabled a tank and the crew got away, that's a tank kill...... of sorts. They could repair it and get it back out there in the next few days if it's a Sherman. Or get back to a whole new tank if it's a Soviet T-34 variant. So you have people not counting the engagements in the first place, not that I blame them, a slight case of wanting to be not dead at the end of it keeps you distracted from such tasks. You have people who are miscounting, incorrectly attributing things to people who weren't in the area at the time and on top of that it's all only in memory? These kill tallies, lists of the best need to be questioned and frankly, hold little actual historical value. Call me strange, I'd rather being talking about Wittman in the scope of his unit and the effect he had on his unit than a time he blew up a few Cromwells. That's assuming I even want to be talking about Wittman at all.

[@Wolf-hh4rv]

Great interview 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[@TheNavalAviator]

It's important to mention that Kurowski was not a historian and the "Panzer Aces" series is not a historical dissertation for scientific purposes but a work of semi-fiction to propagate a valiant image of the panzerwaffe.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

never seen a statement that Kurowski claimed or stated that his stuff was "semi-fiction".

[@TheNavalAviator]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized He probably didn't but that's the scholarly consent, right?

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

no, one major problem was that quite many English speaking scholars used his books as sources.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

see the linked article btw. there it is mentioned

[@douglaswalker8563]

While I understand the veterans not wanting to remember details, how do you explain the white stripes painted on the barrels of the tank/anti tank guns?

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

As stated some did care, some did not care. Counter-question how many photos of tanks you see with no stripes? So I guess they never destroyed anything or how you explain that? Also keep in mind in many cases those photos are from propaganda units as well.

[@michaelhawkins7389]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Michael Wittmann was a tank ace who , would end up with a Tiger 1

[@garywebb8086]

Great discussion! I often wonder how reliable history is. I grew up in the 50'-60's and the Americans were ALWAYS the good guys. Imagine my surprise when as a young man working with WW2 vets they told me stories that could easily be described as criminal. I know now that there were good and bad in every army but history has to be examined carefully. 🇺🇸🇩🇪👍

[@weld546]

Well the USA were the "good guys" in this war. But it doesn't mean every single soldier in front of them is a war criminal. (But in the wermacht they were a lot)

[@aimformyheadplease]

Americans and French were barbaric to German POWs after the war. In their sectors over a million POWs needlessly died of exposure and starvation from the end of the war until 1948 until growing outrage and vehement protest from the British intervened. And that isn't neo-Nazi revisionist bs, it's well-documented by serious historians. Funny how you don't hear much about it. The Soviets weren't the only ones guilty of a brutal victor's justice. Killing prisoners in the heat of battle, or when men can't be spared to guard prisoners, or when you don't have resources, etc., though horrific, happened on all sides (Canadians after the Normandy shot any Waffen-SS or Fallschirmjaeger prisoners out of hand, and I heard that first hand from many, many Canadian vets just as an example). But after hostilities have ended, well, that's a war crime of a completely different nature.

[@weld546]

@@aimformyheadplease that's fake and gay

[@aimformyheadplease]

@@weld546 No, it isn't, though I'm not at all surprised you'd think so, as how could such a horrible crime not have ever hit our collective radars? If you want to find out for yourself rather than just saying "that's fake and gay", read Giles MacDonogh's "After the Reich", or James Bacque's "Other Losses", both highly respected and distinguished historians whose research is impeccable, probably the two best books on the subject of the systematic American and French war-crimes post-war all under Eisenhower's supervision (again, it wasn't just the Soviets that went on a post-war tear, though the 2,000,000 ethnic Germans they either killed or stood aside as others did were civilians, mostly women and children); as an aside, you have read what FDR had planned and what would have happened if he hadn't passed away, no? It would have made the deaths of those million German POWs look tame. BTW, no need to be rude just because you're confronted with information that challenges your preconceived notions. Do your own research, you will be shocked, I know I was.

[@stephenbriddon5065]

the blue penguin A former Fallschirmjager I once knew (Kurt Berg) and his friend were very lucky in this respect. They had been cornered in the cellar of an old lady somewhere in the Low Countries. He said, that if it had not been for her pleading for their lives they would have been shot there and then!

[@jjp0707]

Fantastic interview. Very interesting.

[@rikvanpaddenburg3495]

Might the exact number not being counted being a self protection method? In interviews soldiers sometimes say I shot at the enemy, maybe they died to get away from the idea of being a killer. If you don't count the amount of tank kills it might be a bit easier to sleep at night.

[@OutdoorNor]

These conversations with Dr. Roman are very informative! Keep it up!

[@stephend50]

So, combat veterans didn't want to focus on the number of people they killed just focus on the mission?

[@Shifter_Fitter]

Thank You both .

[@SouthParkCows88]

Aces, Aces as far as the eye can see!!!

[@vaclav_fejt]

And the best Soldat with a shovel was *THE ACE OF SPADES, THE ACE OF SPADES!*

[@AlexanderSeven]

Aces! kzbin.info/www/bejne/iaHReouwjbuSqsU

[@infantryattacks]

I found the comments on Franz Kurowski most informative. The conversations embedded in his books appeared too detailed to be believable. I'd be interested in hearing Dr. Roman Töppel's comments about the works authored by Rolf Hinze. From my amateur vantage, his books appear more factual, but I don't claim any expertise in this area.

[@MrWolfstar8]

Really interesting. I’ve never looked into the topic of tank aces.

[@BaronVonHobgoblin]

As an old soldier I view the whole "aces" thing, regardless of vehicle, as purely the creation of an observer-historian; an attempt by a non-participant to make sense of something they were never a part of. The term which, on the whole, generalizes the overriding context while highlighting indeterminate actions. The application of the term turns an object lesson, for the soldiers in the same context, into a subject one, for the wider public, where the ace's "character" explains all.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

> As an old soldier I view the whole "aces" thing, regardless of vehicle, as purely the creation of an observer-historian; I would change "observer-historian" to something more akin to "snake-oil salesman", "hog washer", etc.

[@fatmanbravo6]

around 11:30 i think the expression in English is: ' to give him the benefit of the doubt' its along the same lines as 'innocent until proven guilty'.

[@bigbananna1616]

Excellent, these are some of your most interesting videos

[@Hedgemonkey5]

The first guy you talk about: "they say you had 150 kills, if you had to guess, how many really?" "lol, *only* around 100" That's still a fuckload. I would expect 1:1 most times, and even 30 kills being a surprising number.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

most allied tank aces claimed between 10 and 30 kills. granted the germans were fighting shit tanks in russia in 1941, early russian and british tank tactics in north africa were rather dumb (bumb rushing any enemy tanks they saw) plus being on the defensive is always an advantage. so its to be expected that the germans should have higher kill counts (if they counted)

[@thedarksage328]

I feel their is some disrespect for Kurt Knipsel. In one statement Alfred Rubbel is quoted as saying that Kurt probably knocked out 165 tanks, then later Kurt is characterized as "not a good soldier" and not "officer material." In what I read about the guy he was well liked by his crew and the men he served with, and was pretty lax about his appearance. You can see him in pictures with a beard. He was definitely not a "True Believer" in the Nazi cause. Contrast this to Otto Carius. If you have read his book, "Tigers in the Mud" you get the distinct impression that Carius believed in the "just cause" of the mission and Germany's Destiny etc... I think this type of thinking is what Rubble thought was "Good Officer material." Kurt was also from Czechoslovakia. "Czechs and Slovakians, though considered a lower class than Germans in Nazi philosophy" which probably didn't help his chance for advancement. Kurt cared about his brothers in arms and could probably care less about glorious victories. Kurt Knipsel fought with valor and distinction for 4 years on the Eastern Front. Over 100 Tank kills is performance that speaks for itself. To say that he "wasn't a good soldier" is to besmirch the mans memory and deeds and is way out of line.

[@gringofett3944]

"It was not 150 its 100" Guys....that's STILL a lot of tanks! I know its not as precise as Germans like to be but its still Ace worthy and very impressive! Hat tip to you guys and all the men who fought.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

hell 30 is impressive

[@fulcrum2951]

Just being in the tank is even more impressive

[@thethirdman225]

@@fulcrum2951 To be a bit blunt: if you want to really understand, you have to stop kissing khaki. It doesn’t take a superman to get into a tank. Once you’re in it, where you end up is out of your control. I spent most of the first 30 years of my life talking to old soldiers. They told me things they never to,d anyone else and they were all carrying a massive sense of guilt.

[@jasonharryphotog]

Good to hear someone who took the time to speak with the people of the day who knew the events first hand, there is a lot of misinformation out there. Thanks guys

[@rustammamin5726]

Thank you for your video. Could you make a video about ratio of Soviet tank and SPG losses vs German Tank and SPG losses. Thanks.

[@DARK_NRG]

I think the book by Otto Carrius himself "Tigers in the Mud" is a great example of a panzer commander during WW2. Although kills play their part it's commanding the crew, working with other units, dealing with commanders such as Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz and respect to the Russians are truly enlightening.

[@nidhoggryggdrasil2489]

The other thing about it, which was briefly talked about, is how can you be an ace when you are part of crew? A crew that can change position or personnel. It's easier with fighters.

[@redcat9436]

But many fighters have had a two man crew. The top scoring American ace in Vietnam had six kills with two different pilots.

[@nidhoggryggdrasil2489]

@@redcat9436 I mean that's true but it's easier to justify with two people Like, is the radio man in a tank an ace? The driver? Is it the gunner or loader or the commander?

[@harveyhams1572]

Thank you for doing this interview in English. Also thank you for the information.

[@olivialambert4124]

Very interesting. I know it might not be the "done thing" but it was incredibly enlightening to hear that modern historians will make things up, lie, and get upset when a correction from the person involved comes through. I heard it was done in WW2, presumably by all sides but certainly by a handful of leading German generals who I'd guess regretted the turn of events. Still, I'm glad to have heard the reality rather than just the good aspects of history reporting. It might not be nice to do, but by calling out the poor behaviour it prevents that from seeming like the behaviour of all historians. Plus, of course, with accurate history we can not only remember the reality but apply lessons to modern problems without including needless errors.

[@wasilijsaizev1]

Kurowski was not a historian. He just wrote a lot of books. He got no time for making some researching.

[@thethirdman225]

Thank you for making this video. The damage done by Franz Kurowski is almost inestimable. The truth has to be told.

[@TammoKorsai]

At least Wikipedia now defines his books as historical fiction, so the damage is being slowly healed.

[@MrRenegadeshinobi]

So I take it that Franz Kurowski is not a reliable source.

[@Mortablunt]

The dude mostly wrote pulp, when he wasn't writing sensationalism or apologetics.

[@michealohaodha9351]

TiK's ears perk up

[@jamesgoldring1052]

How wheels and tracks got repaired? The REAL question

[@sjoormen1]

In war people die. Most of people involved try to forget.

[@andrewcoley6410]

Probably been told this already, but I believe the term you were looking for was ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ Fascinating video. Thank you for all your research and hard work, very much appreciated.

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

I have been an amateur historian for over 50 years, and never saw any claims about tank kill-counts until the the last ten years on the internet. I think a lot of it is a by-product the influence of gaming.

[@TK2692]

Yeah, definitely. I first noticed that on war gaming forums back in 2006 or so, and it's only grown from there.

[@michaeldunne338]

Wonder how attribution could be done when combined arms are deployed? Especially with the western allies, who had air assets, field artillery, tanks, tank destroyers, etc. ... and even the Germans - ok, not much of an air force by mid-1944 - still had artillery, antitank guns, mines, and eventually panzerfausts and what not. Seems with things going off all over the place that keeping count would be hard, unless a gunner managed a direct hit on an opponent and saw the tank get destroyed (by explosion, fire, etc.), and then survived to tell?

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

@@michaeldunne338 it is problematic for sure, but I will concede that the the Germans did paint kill rings on their guns....

[@michaeldunne338]

@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 But were they accurate in their accounting (and by guns, do you mean the field artillery folks, or those in AFVs)? Seems stuff around operations research was more an endeavor pursued by the Allies (because they were advancing and had access to battlefields?), and it seems such studies produced surprises (like the Typhoons not being such a nemesis of Panzers at Mortain).

[@hedylamar1668]

Thank you for this wonderful broadcast; I was almost shouting "sprechen auf Deutsch".

[@hedylamar1668]

Sorry, I did not clarify, I speak a dialect of German from 200 years ago.

[@420JackG]

I don't think you necessarily want things attributed to you, in fact I would say the real goal of modern mechanized combat is to kill as silently and anonymously as you can when killing needs to be done.

[@lpanades]

There are a logic problem involved here: the guy hadn't counted its kills do not mean that it could not be counted. They have combat reports. Someone could join each report and counted the kills reported. You do not discarded this. So, you could not say that is not right. Or you count the kills yourself and publish your number or you should prove that this matter is impossible to be realized, for example because of lack documentation.

[@samstewart4807]

Hi, Do you think they did not want to admit their kills because they were afraid of being criticized or attacked for being murderers ?

[@sevatar5762]

Does anyone know if Alfred Rubbels memoirs are available in English ? I can only find a versions in German and Lithuanian.

[@civilwar41]

Are we really going to act like 40 or 50 tank kills are nothing? Even if these aces didn't score those huge numbers, knocking out 50 tanks while you remain alive is one hell of an achievement. I still consider these guys aces. A fighter pilot who kills 50 enemy machines would be considered an aerial god.

[@2adamast]

Lazaro Galvez The Germans had more than 100 100-kill aces

[@YenLoWangx]

I think the summary of this video is: there are aces but most of the high score lists rumbling through the internet are based on false data.

[@AlphaXX8895]

Awesome video!!!!

[@nomcognom2332]

A Spanish blogger also interviewed Otto Carius and answered the same. Extract: Q: According to some historians and according to the press and Nazi Propaganda, you destroyed around 150-160 enemy tanks. Is that figure real? [A simple and straightforward question that also, of course, ended up deviating and talking about the best of the tankers (theoretically from World War 2), Kurt Knispel. Otto Carius was categorical and sincere. Despite his years, he still sees the passion in his eyes, and the purest sincerity that emanates from his lips:] A: Those are exaggerated figures. At most I came to destroy 100-110 tanks, and my figures were inflated by the German Ministry of Propaganda. Knispel's figures? Pure propaganda. I had the opportunity to meet members of his crew in Russia and they recognized me that they did not destroy more than 60 or 70 tanks. Source: heroesdeguerra.blogspot.com/2012/05/avande-de-entrevista.html

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

Which are still absolutely insane numbers, to be honest.

[@nomcognom2332]

Those numbers are "at most". They couldn't tell whether the enemy was destroyed, repaired or whatever.

[@trxnme2082]

Only 60 to 70 kills..... Is it me, or is that still a hell of a lot of tanks??

[@nomcognom2332]

60 to 70 is what they considered kills, not actual kills. They couldn't tell if that that was repaired in less than 24 hours and put into service the next day. It's impossible to know. And considering they didn't shoot a tank was already knocked out by somebody else.

[@D00MerJohn]

I mean honestly knocking out 60 or 100 tanks is still pretty impressive

[@johnwakamatsu3391]

I believe that most German Tank commanders did not count number of kills because it is difficult to count under combat. My father wrote a book about his time commanding a US Army infantry company during WWII and would line up soldiers killed on both sides to calculate the kill ratio. He would have this done after the fighting had finished. I have spoken to many veterans and most of them do not like to talk about who they killed during any war except for pilots and maybe snipers.

[@MrArtbv]

TRUE DEFINITION OF A HERO {From a combat vet} "A "Hero" is a live coward who got cornered". Likewise an "Adventure" is something as described by someone in front of a warm fire with roof over their head and a drink in their hand and a full belly who wasn't there long after the fact.... The actuality usually involves being lost, cold, hungry, wet and tired; and desperately wishing you were safe at home.

[@germen343]

Who is the tanker they are talking about at 4:58?

[@BeardPower666]

If you're commanding a far superior tank to your enemies, to the point where you can simply sit out in the open, not even having to worry about the enemy being able to penetrate your vehicle, whilst also not having to worry about whether or not your own shell will penetrate the enemy tank no matter the range or where you hit it, does that really make you an ACE, a good tank commander? Surely the crews of the "inferior" tanks who were always up against these "superior" vehicles were the true aces.

[@thefantasyreview8709]

That's sort of a myth. If you look at the tank ace Wittman, he went up against the British in the town of Villers Bocage. He, for the most part, destroyed about 20 tanks in 15 minutes. There were tanks that couldn't have penetrated the Tiger, but there were also Sherman Firefly's that could and he destroyed a couple of those. Brits had piat anti tank bazookas that could destroy a Tiger as well.

[@kevlarburrito6693]

I'd like to chime in having modern combat experience, In every engagement I was in, nobody was "counting kills", but that said, I think where a lot of the misinformation comes from is through after action reports. Commanders do try to get an idea of how many enemies they took out of action, including vehicles. It's important to shape an image of their assigned battlespace. Years later, some historian, professional or otherwise, will find a copy of said AAR(s) and quote those as being absolute, or as information that the everyday soldier, or field commander, would either have or keep track of. This is just not the case, and anyone who claims they did "count their kills" is more than likely telling stories. I should also add, that AARs can give us an IDEA of how many of X tanks were taken out, but they should never be relied on, solely, as the final say on the matter. A great example of this, in addition to stories about German tank aces, are the reports from British and American fighter pilots who claimed they were taking out Tiger tanks. According to those reports, so I've heard, there were more Tiger tanks claimed to have been taken out during Overlord, than there actually were in Normandy.

[@smartiepancake]

I don't believe they didn't count.

[@moesmirani8697]

Question if they didn't count the killS.. What about all these circles painted on the gun barrel?

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Pay attention, some did, some did not.

[@Pfsif]

Wouldn't tank teams be debriefed after a battle for intelligence reasons?

[@JayM409]

I think this sort of thing was very common. S.L.A. Marshall claimed after interviewing hundreds of US soldiers, that even in elite units, only 10% of the men ever fire their weapons. Historian Terry Copp states that attempts to find records of these interviews could find nothing. One of S.L.A. Marshall's assistants finally admitted that there were no such interviews. He made it all up. Marshall's book was very believed for decades. It even influenced training and weapons choices. Marshall's thesis was further contradicted by actual studies. In 'Canadians Under Fire,' Robert Engen makes use of a battlefield questionnaire filled out and returned by Canadian Infantry Officers to come to the opposite conclusion. There was no difficulty in getting Canadian soldiers to use their weapons. The problem was getting them to stop shooting.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

yeah, I think I read Engen's paper or at least a Canadian paper that put some serious holes into Marshall's stuff, wanted to do a video on it back in 2016/2017, but I moved one. My interpretation is simple, Marshall's stuff is a convenient lie, it is comforting to regular people "most people don't kill" and also to professionals, who can see themselves as a minor "elite".

[@creatoruser736]

Ah yes, Kurowski. TIK complains about him often.

[@Ikarias1]

TIK is a hack.

[@abecadlo15]

@@Ikarias1 Well it's good that you also provided sources to prove that

[@davidjarkeld2333]

Jan P. - I suppose you think these guys are hacks as well

[@silverdeathgamer2907]

@@abecadlo15 I don't know if he is a hack but I remember some video he went on a crazy libertarian speel and his knowledge of politicial theory was awful so I would be sceptical if things he says in that regard.

[@adrianj2666]

His history is OK

[@T33K3SS3LCH3N]

Sounds to me like Kurowski saw Knispel's huge reported kill count without receiving specific honours, and then just made stuff up to reconcile these seemingly contradictory facts in a way that fit his desire for "heroic" figures.

[@ciuyr2510]

I mean, if one has the tungsten balls to get in a WW2 tank to battle AND shoot down several other tanks, id say thats an ace :p

[@bololollek9245]

but if u are forced? :(

[@ciuyr2510]

@@bololollek9245 git gut

[@Redheadedsteppeson]

Yes, yes there was.

[@elrjames7799]

Just a moment: let's leave aside logical reflections on the data and actually regard battle field returns to O.K.H shall we?

[@scottboelke4391]

What would you say about aviation kill claims, especially how they were directly related to extremely coveted medals? Would you say those are accurate, or in the ballpark?

[@catified2081]

The famous Canadian historian Pierre Berton was caught later in his career flat out lying regarding quoting people and events used in his many books. His tactic was to make sure the people he used as sources for his fake quotes were dead, so they could not contradict him. He got sloppy in his last few books and and several people he quoted regarding events stepped forward and said publicly I never said that or this never happened. He forgot to make sure they were dead. He destroyed his life's career. LoL

[@Blue-ff2qv]

Informative and interesting, well done. Thanks