When Tiger's Fury Met the Soviet Steamroller: The Brutal Battle for Daugavpils, July 1944

[@MichaelOnRockyTop]

It's mind blowing how Germany was able to stay on the defensive from summer of 43 onwards. Almost 2 years of fighting against all odds.

[@gobalmighty7463]

It's mind blowing how in awe you are of the Nazis! Scum of the earth that started the whole thing in the first place!

[@ivantraminiev8470]

fear of retibution for teir war crimes

[@TorJohan-kj5cr]

@@ivantraminiev8470 or without distorting the truth with russian propaganda; fear of being blamed for soviet war crimes.

[@ErickMarcelloni]

The soviet turntable was way more impressive. In 3 years, the red army moved from a pathetic mess to the most effective ground force in the world.

[@oldschooldude8370]

More like a desperate use of resources. Hitler used these up quickly on the eastern front while the allied forces closed in.

[@Bigsky1991]

I was friends with Otto Carius ( ein Apotheker nach dem Krieg) have 2 signed KC photos as well. While visiting him, one of his 502nd Gunners were there and he have me his 502nd Black Panzer M43 hat for my extensive collection.

[@anthonycrumb5753]

I am envious I have never met a legend.

[@ChesterWortham]

Can I have the hat?

[@markl4673]

wow you're so special

[@splinter1767]

Sehr interessant :) ein stück geschichte, ich hörte er war ein sehr lustiger und angenehmer mann. Sein buch tiger im schlamm ist klasse.grüsse

[@ronbishop1068]

I have just finished building a Tiger as a paper model bought on Ebay it is a truly remarkable tank. I also saw Tiger 131 at Bovington in the UK. Along with a Panther another great tank,they have a T34 as well very rough welding just thrown together sheer weight of numbers proved successful for the Soviets.

[@kniespel6243]

Tiger was and it is a legend !

[@infolover_68]

The Tiger I was a formidable weapon of war: it could take high caliber impacts and destroy targets between 1 and 2 km away. But it was available in a few numbers; Germany never had enough of them tanks...

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

Do you have any idea what a T34 look like ar 2000m? It's literally a dot. Even if you can spot it, you wont hit it. Because your round will take at least 2 seconds to cover the distance, whilst its moving, and hence changing the range. Paper performance does not equate to real world equivalence.

[@RichardMackenzie-y4c]

They only produced about 1,500….

[@infolover_68]

@@FelixstoweFoamForge The Tiger I has better optics. And to think that a T-34/76 never had to stop..., or going around, yeah, right!!

[@infolover_68]

@@RichardMackenzie-y4cDon't you think they could destroy targets??

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

@@infolover_68 Did you read the comment? And do you understand that at 2000m the Tiger's 88mm projectile describes an arc, going up, then coming down, to land at 2000m. So if the target has moved forwards, the shot will go over the target. If the target is stationary, yeah you have a small chance to hit it. But not if it's moving forwards, and hence closing the range. All you've done is given away your position.

[@volvo1354]

interestingly enough, Otto Carius ended the war in a Jagdtiger. he developed an admiration for the machine, quickly familiarized its capabilities, and managed to turn its disadvantages into positive attributes

[@nickmitsialis]

Except Carius was soon pissed nobody wanted to fight too hard this close to 'the end'=the Americans were more than happy to bombard suspected Jagdtiger positions with air and artillery instead of coming at them head on 'like the Russians did'.

[@volvo1354]

@@nickmitsialis and those willing to continue fighting were so poorly trained that they did not last for very long on the battlefield

[@davidgoodfellow2384]

What a bad ass tank those tigers were they looked the business

[@blaze1148]

Much footage I have never seen before 😮

[@FactBytes]

Thanks

[@adriancamano777]

Panzer dominate

[@oliverorchard2296]

I know incredible, i almost wondered if it was ai at times, of course not, bit some very cinematic and gritty shots i never seen before

[@CamosAmos]

​@@FactBytesMasterpieces of war kino

[@ukasz-zm9qc]

@@oliverorchard2296 These are not f AI, just shots from Die Deutsche Wochenschau which have been available on the internet for a very long time.

[@kennethbarnard7667]

No tanks compares to the panther and tigers

[@McDago100]

I like the M-26 Pershing. Unfortunately there were too few, and they came out too late. It almost reminds me of a cross between a Panther and a Tiger 1.

[@ColdBrewLobster]

You know what's nice about the Sherman? We had a fleet of 50,000 of them.

[@bruceleewright886]

​@ColdBrewLobster Stop hating they weren't a match for the Tiger. Numbers win wars. Exactly the same would happen in a US ve China war right?.

@@bruceleewright886 look into the gulf war numbers no longer win wars

[@ivantraminiev8470]

Tiger crews had ordes to avoid one on ones with JSIIs

[@adriancamano777]

Germany had better optical range

[@DutchGuyMike]

And the better men

[@ramimahka4636]

The Soviet Union had an endless supply of men and material, latter largely because of the massive US / UK Lend and Lease programme. They just needed to throw stuff at the Germans, wave after wave, until there is no one left to oppose. And this is not to say the SU commanders were skilled and the common ranks heroic. But it always was a numbers game.

[@braxxian]

Actually the Soviet Union produced more tanks than the U.S during WW2. The U.S produced 75,000 where the USSR produced 100,000. This myth that Russia would have collapsed without western aide is only partly true. As the war progresses the Russians got stronger and stronger.

[@ВашместныйагентКГБ]

The U.S. and British were vital help, however, not at all in manpower, their help was primarily logistical, which was vital. Also it was not always a numbers game, early in the war the soviets were on par with the Axis forces in numbers and from some sources were outnumbered. Mid and late in the war the soviets did not throw waves of men at the Axis forces. At least, it was not as simple as that.

[@blackhornetf]

Hitlers biggest problem was he thought his military was invincible because they had dominated early in the ww2 against smaller military's that didn't have modern mechanised armies like Germany did at the time + the blitzkrieg was a new form of warfare compared to ww1 tactics and weapons. The German blitzkrieg was not effective when defending against a huge mobile army who now had modern tanks and artillery . If you were in the Soviet army, you couldn't retreat, or you would be shot. Plus, the Soviet soldiers had seen what the German army had done to Soviet citizens and had a score to settle. ( The German army and the SS had murdered and enslaved scores of Soviets and burned their homes to the ground and left dead citizens hanging from ropes, etc, and the Soviets wanted payback. Plus Hitler didn't believe in a tactical retreats because he made important military decisions based on anger and not brains and lost several hundred thousand troops due to been one of the worst military leaders of all time once he decided he should run the German military instead of letting his military run the war. Hitler was political leader ( who's only military experience was been a runner in ww1 lmao ) He thought he could take over the German military with no experience 🤣 😂 during Ww2...

[@jahmah519]

​Hitler remained an artist during world war 2, an inspirational blagg artist ​@@blackhornetf

[@ahhamartin]

@@braxxian ....which they could afford to make since the U.S. gave them (for example) 10,000 Studebaker trucks; so many that Soviet drivers simply abandoned them when they ran out of petrol. But you yourself admit the "myth" is at least partly true.

[@VC-THE-MAN_87]

I've read Tigers in the mud, and kill ratios at 1 for 12 is incredible. I mean the germans out fought every opponent, American, British, Canadian, and Russian. Our numbers simply overwhelmed them. But man looking at individual battles its amazing the low amount of Men and material could hold off 7xs that amount . 500 hundred tanks vs 50. Its literally crazy how effective the armored divisions were as well as the infantry divisions. We learned alot about war for them. They wrote the book on building a extraordinary Army! RIP Otto Carius, Walt Witman etc.

[@db321g]

lol, Michael Wittman was the Tiger Ace, Walt Whitman was an American poet

[@ChanoLeyva-hq2ci]

@@db321g😂😂

[@lastguy8613]

​@@ChanoLeyva-hq2ciI'm sure he meant Slim Whitman, the country and western singer😅

[@DoN-dl8om]

That didn't work in the Western, African, Italian front, since American, British and Canadian troops were well trained and equipped, but that worked in the Eastern Front where Soviet troops were poorly trained and just threw numbers. The K/D ratio in Eastern front was 1 to 8 In total casualties. Average was 1/30. 1 German Soldier to around 100 soviet troops in the start of war. A month later it was 1 to 75 Then 3 months later 1 to 50 Then 6 months later the K/D normalized to 1/20-35. Till 1944 the K/D ratio was 1 German Soldier to 20 - 35 soviet troops. In 1945 (start) it lowered to 1 to 8. In 1945 (middle) 1 to 5. In the 1945(end) 1 to 3. Overall K/D is around 1 German soldier to 6 - 8 Soviet Troops. Based on casualties: 2150.000 German Soldiers KIA (Eastern Front) 12.000.000 - 15.000.000. Soviet Troops KIA. Now in the western front Germany fought with as good troops as itself had or even better. 1 American, British, Canadian soldier to 2 - 3 German soldiers. Keep in fact that Germany sent their best of the best troops to the Western Front.

[@jodi1761]

@@DoN-dl8om This is wrong. Check out the book "Fighting Power" (van Creveld), which lists casualty ratios for many engagements on the western front. It clearly shows that the german units regurarly outfought (as in caused more casualties than they received) their allied counterparts, regardless of whether they attacked or defended, won or lost. If you also take into consideration that the german army had been suffering millions of casualties by the time the western front was opened up, one realizes that the german army of 1940 - 1942 was even more spectacular.

[@inspirationdynamics]

Ideology aside, one cannot deny the formidable power and engineering prowess of the Germans during this period of history.

[@fallschirmjager0000]

well said

[@123123baztard]

So why did they lose?

[@MichaelOnRockyTop]

​@@123123baztardNumbers and oil

[@trystanswansonart]

@@123123baztard Economy and lack of manpower competing vs the rest of the world

[@gobalmighty7463]

It was so amazing that they all ended up running west to surrender to the Americans afterwards.

[@antcaruso3465]

Just finished reading “Tigers in The Mud.” I see the book text was put into ChatGpt and repurposed for this video. Good job though

[@rgmm-pz3wi]

i have a link for that, online libary version, only as far as the luftwaffe division

[@braxxian]

One of the often unstated reasons Barbarossa failed was the sheer distances needed to be covered in Russia. German armour simply wore itself out going from one place to another with many tanks and armoured vehicles simply breaking down due to excessive use and wear and tear.

[@haroldfiedler6549]

No you are wrong about that. It was the poor logistic due to the enormous distances involved on the eastern front. That led to troops not having winter clothing or enough food. The winter of 1941 to 42 did more damage to the German Army then anything the Soviets did.

[@ahhamartin]

@@haroldfiedler6549 His point doesn't cancel out your's.

[@istvansovari4208]

Nagyapám mondta-ő szállított Gudeirannak lőszert-"kevés volt a tank,kevés a repülő,kevés az ember." Igaza volt.

[@heinwein421]

14:14...this is "Unter-Sturmführer" Michael Wittmann from the 101. SS- Schweren Panzerabteilung. He is lost famouse for his engagement by Viller-Bocage where he decimated the english 7. Armored division, called the "Desert Rats"...He was together with Otto Carius and Kurt Knispel, one of the most successful Tank-Commander during WW2

[@ukasz-zm9qc]

Do you see the rank of Untersturmfuhrer on his uniform? No, because he is a WH tankman and therefore not a Wittmann.

[@81HM]

I'd never heard of this battle. Thanks for teh video.

[@alexfromboston8303]

Greatly enjoyed Otto's book Tigers in the Mud.

[@Misiulo]

Now Germans can say they are ready to defend the Baltics again...

[@adriancamano777]

And fighting continues today

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Wonderful introduction and explanation of that several battles from complicated, furious, stubborn, defensive situations of German in Lithuania 🇱🇹 How active defensive operations saved Riga harbors from Soviet invasion in landscape sides thank you (Factbytes )channel for sharing....

[@BlessedFallout]

I appreciate the video, thank you. There are some gaps in narration and lots of it doesn’t make sense.

[@everymanesh2132]

Tiger Tanks are IMPORTANT!!!

[@gerarddelautel4354]

Thanks

[@blank557]

Less than half of the Tigers in the unit were available for combat? The Tigers greatest enemy was not the Soviet opposition, but lack of mechanical reliability and required maintenance. Germany was too resource poor to make enough tanks and also provide spare parts at the same time.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Breaking down en masse during long road marches were the rule, not the exception, for any WW2 tanks.

[@Atlas-hu9wk]

That's a popular misconception, the lack of numbers was the big factor followed by how expensive they were. Hence enter the Panther a tank that strike a good balance of cost and firepower. They were created in greater numbers than tigers but those did suffer from mechanical issues due to being rush, bombed factories for crucial parts.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Tigers not available doesn't mean they were all out with mechanical failure. There was also the need to repair serious battle damage that didn't destroy the tank, minor battle damage, wear and tear, general maintenance and tinkering etc. The Tiger's overall average operational rate in 1944 was over 70%. Very good for a heavy tank. It reached a high of 98% in September 1944.

[@123123baztard]

Excellent comment

[@MichaelOnRockyTop]

​@lyndoncmp5751 Interesting stats!

[@SeekerStardust]

wow thats a mad story. sadly reading these things as a kid i used to think they were things from the past.

[@anunzorigt2125]

Super cool I’m researching for a stop motion

[@Arnor2207]

The narva battle is in details in carius's autobiography. Him and another tank held an army korp's fate in their hands for 2 days. 10 dudes in 2 tigers without infantry support at first, against an entire soviet inf div and an heavy tank bat with t34's and kv1's, poised to cut the narva front in half then destroy the pocket. They destroyed a few dozens tanks, repulsed a regimental sized inf assault, around the clock bombardments and arty attacked, then retook the lost positions with only 20 german infantrymen.

[@TheYeti308]

German Efficiency at Work .

[@MrNaKillshots]

A nightmare for all involved.

[@AnnatarCarvour]

Very sad numbers aren't even exact believed alot more died then they actually thought

[@anthonydoyle7370]

@@AnnatarCarvour The slaughter went on after the surrender too. A book titled, "Other Losses" tells part of that story.

[@wazza33racer]

Otto Carius also wrote an excellent book. The Latvians were no friends of the Soviets.......when the Soviets occupied Latvia and the Baltic states in 1939/1940, the Soviet Commissars (mostly WEJ's) stole property,tortured and murdered Latvians. When during the war, 40,000 WEJ civillians were evacuated from Berlin during heavy British bombing........the Latvians refused to let them settle in Latvia with their goods and belongings.........and mass murdered them all. The local SS Algemein officer was recalled to Berlin, and had to personally explain to Himmler, why these liquidations had been allowed to happen.

[@marca.8081]

Watching war footage is easy, but actually fighting in war must be terribly hard and intimidating. I have nothing but respect for men and women who have the courage go into combat, regardless of which side they fight on.

[@haroldfiedler6549]

I’ve read Tigers In The Mud and am totally convinced of its accuracy. If anyone were to exaggerate it would be the Soviets. If you were a Red Army survivor of one of these attacks, you’d better come back with a good story or you’d better not come back at all. Early in the war Stalin was still executing high ranking generals when things didn’t go their way. One general had most of his teeth knocked out in brutal interrogations but was spared death. When he was given his old job back, he wore dentures made of stainless steel so that he could show how brutal Stalin had been to him. And finally, this doubt that is being cast on German commanders and individuals is an intentional allied deception to try to hide the inconvenient fact that the Germans, even in losing, were inflicting horrendous casualties on the allies. The Battle for Narva, Monte Casino, the Hurtgen Forest, Dukla Pass were all huge losses for the allies. In the Battle of Narva Alone, the Germans inflicted a staggering 800,000 casualties on the Red Army while the Germans suffered less than 25% of that.

[@michaelcodelmar9547]

Imagine if the Tigers and Panthers came during the start of the war...together with the ME 262, V2 rockets, Diesel runed U boats...

[@ASQUITHZ9]

You ask any tank crew what tank would you rather be in and the Tiger wins every time

[@wazza33racer]

In his book "Tigers in the Mud" Otto Carius said that it was better to send two tigers only, to attack large numbers of Soviets, instead of 4,6 or 8 Tigers. He reasoned that more tanks only created confusion and difficulties in keeping the group organized. With just 2 tigers, he had easy control of the of his 2nd number, without risking too many tigers. This is testament that German training,optics and quality of machine was more than a match for the bulk of Soviet manpower and equipment. This is all about confidence and wise use of resources. The Khazarian Mafia Soviets paid a hellish price for their so called "victory" in WW2, that did indeed taste as bitter as defeat. With 27 to 40 million dead, and many more wounded and traumatized...........Soviet society, was so damaged that it NEVER recovered, and communist ideologs are to this very DAY so bitter and hateful towards the stubborn and heroic resistance of Nazi Germany.

[@bertvsrob]

hitler reprimanded rommel for pushing too far throughout africa, then displayed the same audacity on the eastern front, costing germany the war

[@AnnatarCarvour]

Yep

[@AnnatarCarvour]

I don't think they could last in a war on 3 fronts though if that was to be the outcome they would have had to deal with Britain first to win

[@BlaBla-pf8mf]

it was his refusal to allow withdrawals that was the worst mistake like we see by the end of this documentary

[@blitzy3244]

cope and shit tier take

[@sthrich635]

Another "Germany Would Have Won if H man did X" myth. The deeper context was Hitler not against advancing itself, but against his generals keep making offensive further than logistics could supply, then expecting their supply lines to keep up. Rommel's Afrika Korps were running on captured British supplies and yet continue to advancing and expecting more logistics support from Germany while the Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine were already bleeding badly trying to supply Africa. Not to mention Germany was still focusing on Eastern Front offensive logistics. It was like ordering one steak but waiter ended up serving three and charging them anyway, of course Hitler said no. Had Hitler let his generals who rarely budget their operations to do what their "winning strategies", they still couldnt do it as Germany lacked the logistics and supply budget, and they would just lost the war faster.

[@robertwilkinson2232]

If kesselring had been in charge he would have made the Russians pay for every yard. Like he made the allies pay in Italy. Just kept retreating to shorter stronger defensive lines.

[@MrNaKillshots]

Only 1300 produced.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Knocked out circa 10,000 allied tanks, assault guns and tank destroyers. Less than 1,000 Tigers knocked out by the allies.

[@MrNaKillshots]

@@lyndoncmp5751 And the allies weren't in a rush to produce an improved tank, to reduce losses of personnel; a war of numbers.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

In his book Tigers In The Mud there is confusion regarding Soviet losses. In the chapter titled The Ambush it states 17 Stalins and 5 T-34s but in the actual after action report at the end of the book it states 17 T-43s and 6 Stalins. Very odd. T-43s were what the Germans called the later T-34/76 with the hexagonal turret.

[@invisibilitycriterion6782]

Wasn’t Otto Carius the gentleman while in full retreat in his Tiger 217, who shot down an Ilyushin Il-2 “shturmovík” using his 88mm main armament?

[@minot.8931]

One Tiger did.. but I can’t remember that it was Karius. Rings a bell thiu

[@Angeliter]

According to the German Wikipedia it was Carius' gunner Kramer who did (i.e. fire the gun in the right fraction of a second) after Carius had fittingly positioned the Tiger.

[@garymacmillan]

The Tiger was a fearsome tank, but it had a vulnerability. Fuel consumption was sky high and from time to time this factor became an achilles heel, particularly in the later stages of the war.

[@haroldfiedler6549]

What virtually no one on these posts seem to know is that both the IS-2 Joseph Stalin tanks and the SU-152 tank destroyers had a fatal flaw. You had to totally depress the barrels to load the next shot. Given the poor Soviet optics, you were likely to miss the first shot and would then be at the mercy of the German tanks.

[@avnrulz]

The Battle of Courland.

[@nickparkes8462]

Sick,are you listening 2014?

[@simonblake5563]

The Russians were saving many American lives. As the Normandy battles were taking place. It was only the dual attacks from east and west that defeated the Nazis.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The British and Canadians around Caen were facing more German armour than the Americans in Normandy and the Soviets in Bagration COMBINED. It was the British and Canadians who were taking on seven panzer divisions in June. This was the densest concentration of German armour ever deployed in WW2.

[@fallschirmjager0000]

@@lyndoncmp5751 the british rode on the backs of the americans and russians during the war, they were swept aside by Germany. Proof enough they were running out of trained infantry in Normandy even though they were concentrating almost their entire land army in a relatively tiny area. Not to mention they were fighting tired, worn out German units who had no air power, replacements, spare parts etc and the Germans still smashed them. Pretty embarrassing. The tactical and qualitative gulf in class was amazing.

[@DarkLordGR9]

With that logic, weren't the Americans(and Allies) doing the same for the Soviets, in the western front?

[@simonblake5563]

@@DarkLordGR9 Absolutely. But in the traditional narrative operation bagration is hardly ever mentioned. They helped each other's campaign.

[@frankvandergoes298]

​@@lyndoncmp5751It must also have been the biggest concentration of British armour. For at all stages the British, Canadians and Polish Armoured units outnumbered their German opponents. The Germans may have had 7 Panzer Divisions or 15 tank battalions but the Allies had 42 tank battalions deployed in the same area.

[@dancoman2568]

Tiger a fost un tanc foarte bun !!!

[@antcaruso3465]

“One thousand hours” lol

[@RBAILEY57]

They were too heavy for the roads and bridges in Russia, and had mechanical issues.

[@carrickrichards2457]

JS2, M26 and Centurion were all superior. Centurion being the best of them all. By wars end the doctrine of allied forces had improved and axis forces had degraded. It was perhaps most surprising that the german junior officer cadre retained its cohesion as long as it did.

[@ryleeculla5570]

HOLDING THEIR LAND AS THEY MADE THEIR STAND A DISREGARD IN DEMAND

[@nickmitsialis]

I remember those lyrics! What Sabaton song is it from again?

[@ryleeculla5570]

@@nickmitsialis I think last stand

[@liverpoolscottish6430]

Few can fight like Fritz.........

[@joerosen5464]

A really nicely put together & well told story for this video. Great footage! I didn't even mind the relentless overdubbing of exploding sounds that permeate the entire 24 minutes of it all.😐

[@FactBytes]

Much appreciated!

[@ronmason1710]

Read Tigers in the Mud several years ago. What I perceived from the autobiography of Otto Carius is that he was a regular army tank commander that had a distain for the Waffen SS. As well he was very skilled at his job. But I also felt that in the end, he was an ardent Nazi, and never acknowledged the atrocities committed by Himler. I think to admit that this happened and was caused by Himler would have meant that he was fighting a war under a lie. And that was never accepted by him as it would spoil his valiant efforts. IMO.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Yes he did seem to feel that he was fighting for a correct cause.

[@speckledjim_]

When the Tigers broke free

[@ranhat2]

Great video but sometimes weak connection with the narrative.

[@DavidLee-xi1of]

All this could have been avoided if Stupid Hitler hadn't divided the troops and taken the oilfields first.

[@ZachariahJ]

It was only for a split second, and probably propaganda anyway, but at 7:35 there is a clip of an assault by motorbike! Never seen that before. I think there were some pedal bike outfits in WW1, but I doubt they were used to attack the enemy front. ;-)

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

Every Panzer Division (and mot. Infantry Division) early in the war had a motorbike battalion as a recon unit and as part of the motorized infantry. Lots of use in Poland and France where you have decent roads. Mostly because they didn't have enough cars/trucks/halftracks to properly equip the battalions. Germany wasn't really a "car-nation" before WW2 because only few people could afford one. Motorbikes were indeed very prominent with common people and the industry could turn them out at a good rate. This footage must be from Poland, France or Russia 1941, because the so-called Kradschützen (motorbike riflemen) disappeared after re-organizing the Panzer Divisions. Motorbikes remained in service until the end, but only in secondary roles for dispatch riders etc. Recon units in Panzer and Panzergrenadier Divisions received Sdkfz 250 halftracks while one battalion of Panzergrenadiers was usually equipped with Sdkfz 251 if available, otherwise trucks. You'll see a re-birth of bike-riding tankhunters in late 1944, often with Volkssturm and Volksgrenadier Divisions, although actual fighting was done on foot. 🙂 Edit: Most WW2 footage was propaganda material anyway, no matter from which side. Some is from actual combat, some is from training.

[@ZachariahJ]

@@ottovonbismarck2443 Interesting stuff Otto - thanks! What I found amusing was the sight of a hundred motorbike-sidecar combos hurtling over the hills, guns ablazing! I know cavalry charged machine guns in WW1 (and possibly once or twice in WW2), but I'd never heard of motorbike/sidecar combos doing it. As you say, I assumed they were for reconnaissance and regimental communications, not as mass assault weapons. ;-)

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

@@ZachariahJ There is a certain similarity between motorized infantry and dragoons; both are riding to the action and usually dismount to fight as infantry. AFAIK there were no cavalry charges on an MG position in WW2. However, the famous Polish Lancers were caught by some German tanks in 1939, but they didn't charge them, they tried to escape. Btw, only moments before that event, same lancers smashed an unexpecting German infantry battalion with LANCES AND SABRES ! German propaganda failed to mention this ...

[@ZachariahJ]

@@ottovonbismarck2443 All good stuff Otto! I'd heard the Polish cavalry tank charge was not quite what we'd read about as boys in the UK during the 1960s. But it was a great yarn! I don't *know* of any other cavalry charges against fortified positions in WW2 - but you never know. ;-) I wouldn't put it past the Sikhs, for example, or the Gurkhas - if only they'd had the horses. And we all know there was a LOT more horse transport used in Europe during WW2 than is shown in the old movies. I can see some troops mounting up as a last desperate break out or suchlike. So it may not be documented, but I wouldn't be amazed to discover it happened somewhere during the conflict.

[@ljubomirculibrk4097]

Statistics after the war tell the reality in german army: -most tank kills where by AT guns and artilery, 88mm flack for most of artilery -second are tanks -third infantry whit satchel charges and AT launchers (panzerfaust and pazershrecks where marginaly effective) -aircraft

[@123123baztard]

Another amazing documentary. It’s magical that the Germans had the best soldiers, best tanks, best tactics. But they massively lost the war and had their asses handed to them on a plate. Who makes these documentaries? I thought that Goebbles was dead? 😂

[@MrWolfgangtube]

There is a reason for SU suffering millions of casualties and no amount of russian propaganda can change that

[@josefkopacz1144]

Yeah when there was America , England and empire Soviet union ,not Russia alone Kazakhstan Uzbekistan Mongolia, Armenia , Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan. Etcetcetcetc never ending hoardes of enemies

[@adriancamano777]

German panzer

[@Ealdorman_of_Mercia]

nein nein nein! Panzerkampfwagen!

[@stuglenn1112]

WTF, It's Otto not Oh-toe

[@gokalpcicek3486]

joachim peiper at 19:09

[@jessiewasson584]

I think I was a Nazi soldier in my past life

[@leonidfisher9410]

Eventually Soviets took Berlin !

[@christopherskipp1525]

The Panther had a 88mm cannon, no?

[@nickmitsialis]

VERY long barrel 75mm.

[@ronmason1710]

Panther had a 75mm High velocity gun, but the Jagdpanther had the 88mm gun.

[@nickmitsialis]

@@ronmason1710 Yes, I was thinking only of the 'regular' Panther. I heard that plans were afoot to create a Panther II that had an 88 mm gun and a turret and mantlet similar to the Tiger II, but I don't know if that' s true or not.

[@christopherskipp1525]

Ah, so the Panther was not equipped with the AA gun. Good to know.

[@nickmitsialis]

@@christopherskipp1525 In any case, it's not the AA version of the 88, but a 'PAK' in 88mm size.

[@colinsharman9888]

This video depicts the German army as heroes, devastating to those born post war years. There's no mention of all the atrocities they committed on the Russian population.

[@MrWolfgangtube]

There is also no mention of all the soviet crimes

[@gunthertoll1304]

​@@MrWolfgangtubethere is also no mentioning of Dresden, Hiroshima and so the list of Allied atrocities goes on.......

[@geraldhagen2989]

Seems you thought this video was about the Nurenberg trials.

[@MrWolfgangtube]

@@gunthertoll1304 Because the video is about a very successful german tank unit

[@gunthertoll1304]

@@MrWolfgangtube I am sarcastic re. the comments of colinsharman9888

[@Jakez408]

Soviets always broke though because the Germans only had Panzers 3 and 4,s as their main battle formations. The few Tigers they had were ineffective to stop the Russians and only a myth.

[@lenna6013]

I mean yeah Tiger tank was a formidable weapon at that time and Germans were very proficient in using them , they had best crews and battle awareness and I can see this things play out. Than again painting Soviets as just a horde at that time is disingenuous , they were in 1944 unbeatable war machine , learned all the best lessons and have lot of similar stories (roles reversed)..it's circumstantial

[@scottb6560]

Good video footage and historical information, but narrative is overly verbose. Need to stop the dramatic language and just give a straightforward account of the combat.

[@shaner9155]

Might want to work on your pronunciation it's Otto not Otoe.

[@gunnere-5936]

One thousand hours? 10 am. I can’t stand listening to people who do military videos but can’t pronounce anything correctly

[@gunnere-5936]

Otto is pronounced as auto

[@TeunisD]

Looking at the data the Germans needed at least a 1.000 fold more of these tank aces and heavy tanks, which they lacked. The same is true for their lacking air power. The badly timed peak of Germany's military production capacity of it's war economy in 1943/44 shows that the war intensified much faster than they had planned for. That amateurism is then explained by the madman, Hitler.

[@janp5880]

They had not planned for a 2 front war. The Luftwaffe was practically split in half. Germany lost around 40k aircraft vs the western allies and 45-50k on the eastern front. Without the western Allies the story would have been different in the east

[@AnnatarCarvour]

​@@janp5880yep hell it was a war on 3 fronts

[@TerryKnight-hw3pg]

​@@janp5880The second front definitely shortened the war .If no second front was involved the outcome would have been the same the Russians could out produce and field millions of more troops than Germany could ever dream of .The German army's fate was sealed when Hitler attacked Russia.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@janp5880 The majority of German fighters and all the German navy was lost in the west, and 2/3 of German wartime expenditure and material resources went on their air and sea forces.

[@DarkLordGR9]

@@janp5880 MUCH different! Constant bombing, of crucial factories in German, hindered production and technological advance, of vital weapons, spare parts, and other assets, for the German war machine, and this was excusively done, by the American and Brittish airplanes, since Soviets, didn't have any long range bombing capability.

[@davequaschnick2559]

Wrong it was 501st and North Africa

[@MrWolfgangtube]

First use of Tigers was near Leningrad

[@mike72769]

Chatgbt summaries antank driver memoir

[@erikracz4162]

This is what I call a Russian Barbecue! 👍

[@awol354]

Robot voice no good

[@jeroenbronger7327]

that constant clicking ticking tick tick most irritating the AI voice transcripting battle reports / weekly german newsreels rhetoric and grandpa GroSvati telling stories to his grandchildren... tick tick click from all different fronts even Wittmann gritty death race in France in grainy 3D yet a satisfying collection of heavy metal is that your mouse click tick tick ? peace

[@TheAleksm79]

It sounds like the announcer is sympathizing with the Nazis, referring to the Soviet troops as ‘the enemy,’ which is deeply disturbing. During that time, the Americans were allies with the Soviet Union against the Nazis. So, what has changed?

[@jamessmith-gw1vi]

O toe

[@paulwalker899]

Pronounced Uh-toe, not oh-toe. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@stevemcgee6394]

And where were the Ukrainians?

[@motherlesschild102]

Most were then fighting for the Soviet Union.

[@geraldhagen2989]

In Ukraine, maybe?

[@sportforall312]

Ukrainians was Russians in that time!!!

[@ayazziaqureshi6358]

❤❤❤❤❤ ❤🎉🎉🎉❤ ❤❤❤❤❤

[@DontThinkso-kb9tc]

All the tanks in the world didn't matter because they had no gas. Also your narration kinda sucks. Sorry.

[@sockburner4041]

AI narration sucks

[@jurgschupbach3059]

70 Tonnen

[@KC-GOD-IS.]

Can not prounce Otto, it is not "O toe", it's "Auto", ridiculous absolute ignorance !

Real Zero fanatics sponsored.Thumbs down.

[@fallschirmjager0000]

in other words, i dont like facts so i will stick my fingers in my ears and pretend i am offended. 👌

[@minot.8931]

I’m not a fan of using the modern names for towns. There was no Dunavpils in those days.. the battle was at Dunaberg, so we ought to refer to it as such.

[@remartiz]

Who cares ?

[@minot.8931]

@@remartiz Why, any *serious* student of history should care. It is entirely ignorant to refer to battles, or any other great event by referencing its location in modern terms. Did Alexander conquer Hillah, or did he conquer Babylon? Did the Greeks destroy Truva, or Troy? Did Rome fight decades of war with Carthage, or did it fight Tunisia? Indeed, what were Hillah, Truva, Tunisia in those days? Names that did not exist. It is merely ignorance or laziness to refer to the modern name..... and neither is more virtuous than the other sir.

[@soiah]

​@@minot.8931Greeks did not destroy Troy because neither the Greeks existed nor the city of Troy. It was a pelasg tragedy where achaeans with the palsg trator Achile conquered through treachery the city of Ilion.

[@adriancamano777]

And fighting continues today