WWII North African Campaign Every Day using Google Earth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Made using Google Earth.
WWII North African Campaign Every Day from start to finish.
___
Music:
- • Hearts of Iron IV Soun...
- • 🕕 6 Minutes of EPIC (F...
- • Unser Rommel (Instrume...
- • Hearts of Iron IV Soun...
___
Speeches:
- • Benito Mussolini Decla...
- • To All Free Frenchmen ...
- • 【日本語字幕】ヒトラー 演説 "振り向けばド...
- • Adolf Hitler Speech 19...
- • Churchill Speech To Co...
- • Australia's Prime Mini...
- • Mansion House speech b...
- • Total Victory - Says P...
___
(Not endorsed by Google, this video is completely made by me. This video is not sponsored by Google.)
This video is for educational purposes only. The author of the video does not promote Nazism, anti-Semitism or fascism.
![[Limbus Company - Teaser] Season5 - Oblivion](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8anKuEeZLeI/mqdefault.jpg)
The Germans did not know that the oil found in North Africa was much more than what they were looking for in the Caucasus
Even if they knew, they probably wouldn't have been able to use it. Since oil in Libya wasn't discovered until the 50s, there were not enough oil rigs, and it would've taken years to build some. There's also the navy problem. The Royal Navy was superior to the Regia Marina, and far superior to the Kriegsmarine. And both navies did not coordinate well and lacked proper radar technology, so the Royal Navy always kept superiority, and would've had no problem sinking tankers.
@@earlbinvicoI mean the royal navy was scattered everywhere so they could of had a. Chance
the Italians tried several times to look for it even with German help but the technologies of that time were not sufficient to do so, we are talking about before the war
@@earlbinvico The regia marina in the mediterrean had numerical superiority,with both france and britain combined,IF that wikipedia article i readed didn't lie to me,the italians could have probably rekted the british royal navy in the mediterrean if they had radar technologies,and had proper ships that were competent for the technology at the time atleast.
Hitler invaded the USSR out of pure hatred for Bolshevism if he had the goal of oil he would’ve seen Africa
Edit: Although he did see a little benefit in the oil
You should have added a speech of Winston Churchill
“Ibwemwashoupontetote Government”
Speech hits deep..
These statistics are deceptive. The British lost around 40000 through the entire N.A Campaign and took over 250000 Italian prisoners alone. This dude got his information from Mcdonalds.
The number of Axis troops evacuated from Tunisia appears to be wrong and the fighting continues for a couple of days after surrender. But new evidence seems to suggest fighting in the Balkans continued until May 18 1945. That is troops still fighting in German Wehrmacht uniform and U-boats still piloted in Kriegsmarine uniform to South America in July or even August 1945.
You don't understand. The video is sincerely only about the North African campaign war, the casualties are only in Africa since it is in Africa
@@nightmoon_zz I do understand. You didn't read my comment properly, especially since I specified it was the N.A Campaign, NORTH AFRICAN campaign.
The British can't just lose 40K during the whole 5 year North African campaign.
@@nightmoon_zz Lasted just under 3 years. The British had 30-40k KIA compared to Italy's 20-30k KIA + 250000 - 350000 captured. Not including German losses / captures.
Bro where did you get the numbers for the casualties from, pretty much all sources i could find reported that in africa the axis suffered almost 10 times that number
Союзники:
Итого:
44615 убитых,
209606 раненых, пропавших без вести и пленных[4].
Ось:
Итого:
33988 убитых,
546721 раненых, пропавших без вести и пленных,
8 тыс. самолётов,
6,2 тыс. артиллерийских орудий,
2,5 тыс. танков,
70 тыс. автомобилей[7][8].
И это в вашей Википедии, пропитанной пропагандой
I know your sources, they are very innacurate as they include the captured with the killed and wounded. Casualties dont include the captured
@@deibymartinez453If you just look up the captured and subtract it from the casualties listed, you can see that it’s still higher than Allied casualties. Unless my sources are incorrect.
@@deibymartinez453They are??? Anything that excludes a person from military service in war is included in casualties
GrandPa Jack fought in North Africa.
Looks like I'm lucky to be here.
here comes the champion
Casualty numbers are way off, and it can only be concluded that there is bias at work here since this stuff is very easy to look up. We can take some known dates on these.
- At the start of Operation Compass, on 9 December 1940, the Allies are listed as having lost 21,403 men while the Axis have lost only 3791. But there had been little meaningful combat anywhere at this point; the Greco Italian war was going but had not had huge casualties yet, and what casualties existed were roughly balanced between the two sides. Naval losses might account for some of it, but the Axis were taking naval losses too which don't seem reflected.
- By the end of Compass on 9 February 1941, the Axis should have lost at least 15,500 KIA/WIA just from that battle. I assume that POW are for some reason not counted in all this (they would be another 133,300 Axis losses if they were, since Italian 10th army was totally destroyed). Allied losses in Compass were about 1,900. The listed losses are 36,441 Allied (so an additional 15,038) and 6,454 Axis (so an additional 2,663). It's as if the casualty numbers are reversed.
- By the end of the first stage of the Greco-Italian war on 23 April 1941 (when Germany intervened), the Axis should have lost another 13,755 KIA, 50,874 WIA, and 3,914 missing (again ignoring POW), for an additional 68,500 Axis casualties. Allied losses were 13,325 KIA, 42,485 WIA, and 1,237 missing for a total of 57,047.
- So, adding up just Compass and Greco-Italian war, and ignoring naval losses and Rommel's counterattack in Cyrenaica, on 23 April 1941 Axis losses should be a minimum of ~90,000 and Allied losses a minimum of ~59,000. Allied losses are approximately close, but Axis losses are low *by a full order of magnitude*. and again, that's before 133,000 Axis POW are accounted for.
- At the start of Second El Alamein on 23 October 1942, Axis losses are listed as 33,499 with 189,072 Allied losses. On 11 November, when that battle ended, the Axis had lost somewhere between 6,800 and 24,000 men KIA/WIA, with a further 35,000-49,000 captured. Allied losses were 13,560 KIA/WIA/POW/MIA. Listed numbers on 11 November are 34,290 Axis, 193,600 Allied. So in the decisive Allied victory at El Alamein (and including numbers from Operation Torch), it appears the Axis have lost 791 men and the Allies have lost 4,528. Ignoring the upper range estimates that have Axis KIA/MIA/WIA *higher than Allied losses* during El Alamein (let alone the 40,000 POW), there is no sense at all to having the allies lose nearly 6 to 1 in their most major victory.
- This is apparently some sort of alternate reality where February has 30 days.
Very well said thank you. Worse video depicting the casualties numbers ever.
@@Tankproduction2022casualties dont include the captured. The axis casualties are correct
The casualties dont include the captured therefore you proved the video right.
@@deibymartinez453 No, I demonstrated that even if we don't include the captured, the video is way off, to the point of being nonsense. Refer to any of the bullet points above. Again, for example, by the end of Operation Compass - a point where we have very good data and can point to fixed dates at the start and end - Allied losses during that campaign are *ten times higher* than they should be, and Axis *non POW* losses are less than half of what they should be. The Allies simply didn't lose 15,000 men from 9 December 1940 to 9 February 1941 in Africa. The numbers are simply wrong, any way they're considered.
Let's add more data, shall we? The Battle of Gazala lasted from 26 May to 21 June 1942. Allied losses during that period are estimated at a total of 50,000 KIA, WIA, and POW, including 33,000 prisoners taken at Tobruk. Since the claim is that casualties don't include the captured, there should be no more than ~17,000 Allied losses during that window (maybe allowing for slightly more for miscellaneous air or naval warfare). On 25 May 1942, the day before the battle started, the Allies are said to have lost 152,294 casualties while the Axis are listed as losing 26,974 total to date (which again we can already demonstrate is low by a factor of ten). On 21 June 1942, the end of that battle, the Allies are now claimed to have lost 158,614, for an apparent total of 6,320 while the Axis have lost 28,093 for an apparent 1119. German losses during the battle were listed as 3,360 while Italian losses were estimated at about 3000, for a combined total of ~6,360: a number very close to the listed *allied* losses during Gazala. Meanwhile the Axis losses appear to be simply made up wholesale, with 1100 casualties simply having no resemblence to anything.
At Kasserine Pass, from 19-24 February 1943, the Allies lost 3,300 KIA and WIA while the Axis lost about 1000. At the start the Allies are shown losing 217,912 and at the end 219,349, for a combined total of 1,437 while the Axis go from 38,590 to 38,864, for a total of 274.
Again, these are *non-POW losses*. It's as if the Axis losses are assigned to the Allies, and then the Axis either just gets made up numbers assigned or there's something weird going on, like Allied losses are divided by 10 and then given to the axis.
And one, final, thing: Allied losses for the entire North African campaign are estimated by Zabecki as about 220,000 British Commonwealth, with other estimates adding 16,000 French and 18,500 US, for a combined total of 254,500. The final Allied total is reasonably close to this value. But the Axis value is 42,281 casualties. Fine, we're ignoring like half a million prisoners, but Axis losses *at the end of the campaign* are listed at about where they should be in like late 1941.
So, no, I didn't "prove the video was right," I proved the video is nonsense, at least in terms of the listed casualty figures. The spatial mapping is roughly right, but the numbers make no sense; hell, the numbers make no sense *compared to the losses clearly happening on the map*. It's like the person who made the movie gave the Axis losses to the Allies and then made up super low numbers for the Axis, maybe intending to portray them as some sort of super soldiers who were crudely swarmed by hordes of crappy Allied soldiers. But Axis losses overall for North Africa were huge and it was a major theater, a major drain on Axis manpower, and was not a place that resulted in a 10:1 kill ratio in favor of the Germans.
What are those Casualties? you sure they are not the other way around?
Nope
They arent innacurate at all. If you did a little more research about the campaign you will quickly find out most axis soldiers were captured than they were killed or wounded.
@@deibymartinez453 You clowns have got it all wrong, there is no way Britain and her allies lost more than Italy and Germany in this campaign, I've just checked the figure's and this video has them completely wrong.
@@ChrisCrossClash oh so youre a western nationalist, not an history entuthiast. Tells me all i need to know.
@@deibymartinez453How about, you look up the statistics yourself. Just because someone disagrees with your opinions, you cannot call them a nationalist.
Great animation, this deserves respect
underrated
Только я заметил что это видео делал русский человек
Что за бред
итальянцы во время рперации компас потеряли не менее 100000 там была уйма пленных.
Het, 15,000 casualties while they lost 100,000 pows.
EGYPT WAS INDEPENDENT
No they weren’t
@@AKaviation178 yes it was kingdom of egypt got its independence in 1922 (it was semi-independent but some say britian took it again in 1936 and after ww2 it got independence again)
Issue is British re took control so it was technically british for a short period
@@AKaviation178 ohhh
It was independent but it was still ruled by Britain
Imagine the German reaction when they found out about the oil discovered in Libya 10 years later
the Italians tried several times to look for it even with German help but the technologies of that time were not sufficient to do so, we are talking about before the war
@@internetexplorer3999even if they found it they wouldn’t have good enough infrastructure to exploit it
@@Bulbs_Productionsand the shipping of oil from libya would be prime targets for the british navy to sink from their base in malta
@@Nate14567 and also that there was no possible way to get the oil in the first place...
This is great but wtf happened with those casualty figures? Not even in the same solar system as accurate
It is accurate. Casualties dont include surrender. During the disastrous italian defeat, 15,000 were killed while 100,000+ were captured. Axis soldiers were overwhelmingly superior to allied soldiers. The axis lost north africa due to strategic failures putting their armies in a position where the only choice is to surrender.
@@deibymartinez453 My word it's you again, i swear you are a pathetic 🤡what's with this excuses and lies? "Axis soldiers were overwhelmingly superior to allied soldiers" 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@deibymartinez453 No the Axis casualties are inaccurate, the guy above is correct. From the start of North Africa (Oct. 1940 - March 1941), the British inflicted terrible casualties on the Italians (100,000 thousand). The British lost about half a hundred thousand because they were outnumbered greatly. The Axis also lost 250,000 troops in Tunisia. The video is great, however the casualties are inaccurate. 200,000 allied troops didn’t die.
Wrong casualties
As always
Wrong thoughts
They are not. The axis troops were captured far more than they were wounded. Casualties dont include captured
@@deibymartinez453 Yes they do Killed Wounded Missing or Captured, get it right you 🤡
@@deibymartinez453Casualties include captured, actually... casualties count for killed, missing, injured, surrendered and captured
To all people.Even the casualty look not that accurate,Dont blame or harsh him hard in the comments.It took hours to edit this video,This guy need huge respect 🗿🗿
Goo goo gaa gaa 😂😂
this is stolen
i think atleast
@@thebigflop3118shut up kid
@@TheNoobOfNoobyI cant find any thing
1:18 what's happening here. Italian casualties are not really moving but army strength is plummeting?
the fact that Italy had one of the richest colonies in the whole of Africa without knowing it hurts ...
fun fact: there is an italian youtuber "la biblioteca di alessandria" that have done a what if serie if italy stayed neutral in ww2, and very beautiful, above all for the fact that it shows an Italy as Mussolini wanted it, plus a nation that is the judge and balancer of Europe and without losing many territories as in our timeline Italy is richer.
We Africans don't like colonizers, so seeing the Italians get kicked out and replaced by a fragile empire that decolonised later, is quite good.
Either the casualty count is wrong or it counts most of the surrendered Greek army being made POW as casualties because the western Allies simply did not sustain 7:1 killed, wounded, or incapacitated in action against the Axis - even the Soviet Union didn’t sustain that
it's actually real. The italian soldiers got captured rather than killed
Allies casualties are not real. In dead there were nearly the same count as Italians had. But axis lost more as wounded and desapeared. Probably, there author counts only dead in Axis and I fon't know what in Allies..
@@АЛЕКСАНДР-ы7ф1х No allies got more deaths. Italian deaths : 22k but 250k captured
Allies : 220k and 50k missing or wounded
@@strake3484I don't see anything that says 220 k soldier died
@@mr.dudbud4551 I used the fastest one , Wikipedia
I saw a museum that said the Germans and Italians had 620,000 casualties and the allies had 220,000 casualties.
despite how the allies tried to glorify this battle, we can all see that the allied causualties are much more than axis
the allies won at key moments but overall the axis won that battle
@@littlecoma320 brother wtf are you talking about this allowed the saving of Malta and the invasion of sicily 💀
@@littlecoma320so are you telling me the axis won during operation barbarossa?
@@noritamiaa my brother in christ i meant that battle not the war the africa battle obviously they lost the war majorly
@@NapoleanBlown-aparte from a casualty standpoint they wont the battle from africa overall they lost the whole war lmao
Bro the allied casualty numbers are f*cked up
They are correct. So are the axis
@@deibymartinez453 not really
@@red-gp9ohh yes they are, because you are including the captured in a casualty. A captured soldier isnt a casualty.
@@deibymartinez453Captured is a casualty? Casualties are soldiers who can’t fight on the front (includes captured/POWs). Even then, the Allies did not have that many losses. The Axis lost more soldiers than displayed.
Where do you get the information about the losses? Something doesn't add up here xd
Right! Lets explaon it to you then. Most axis soldiers were captured. Casualties dont include the captured.
@@deibymartinez453 It literally does. I don’t how you can be so incredibly ignorant. Even without captured, the Axis still had higher losses than the Allies. Why are you defending something so clearly wrong for no reason?
Those Casualties are wrong. Operation Compass alone cost the Italian almost 140k loses and the Allies only 1.7 k
establishes a nation off the idea that their race is superior
literally believe they cannot lose the war because of their genetics
loses
3:30 That one Army who encircled and Hold the Area : 🤫🧏♂️
The Aussies in Tabruk
😂
the australians can hold tobruk for months yet they lost to emus
What the hell are number?
Did you realize casualties number are wrong? I learn number casualties? I need you see this?
🇺🇲🇿🇦🇬🇧🇦🇺🇨🇿🇬🇷🇲🇫🇵🇱 - 254,211 Allies
🇨🇵🇩🇪🇮🇹 - 577,658 Axis
Only people Wikipedia.
Average wikipedia user, unable to understand the diffierence between a casualty and a POW
@@deibymartinez453 A POW is a casualty. I don’t know how hard it is to understand this. You really shouldn’t be insulting people based on their knowledge.
I 1:30, italian army number go down from 150.000 to 70.000 while casualty numbers to from 4000 to just 4900 lol, casualty numbers are wrong
You dont know what a casualty is. Casualties dont include captured soldiers.
@@deibymartinez453Yes it does. You don’t understand the definition of casualty. Don’t talk about something you don’t know.
how can they have 30k casualties with 30k men??
Reinforcements? Duh
Mass reinforcing
@@deibymartinez453 They would not be able to do that in time
@@IFreezi-mm7bd maybe that part of the video is wrong, but at the end the allied casualties are correct.
Where were the Free French Forces who fought alongside the allies during the North African Campaign ? Especially during the battle of Bir Hakeim or Koufra ?
They surrendered. Most of the front where they fought is cropped out
Ignore my first comment, thought you said vichy
French 🇨🇵 @@deibymartinez453
about the casulaties you should check your sources from an encyclopedia and other souces I have this
" During the entire North African campaign, the Germans and Italians suffered 620,000 casualties, while the British Commonwealth lost 220,000 men. American casualties in Tunisia alone totaled more than 18,500. The Allied victory in North Africa destroyed or neutralized nearly 900,000 German and Italian troops, opened a second front against the Axis,"
Nah bro
Lol thats not even remotely accurate 🤣
🤫🧏♂️
Totally, according to the trustworthy wikipedia, Axis lost 2 gorillion troops in north africa/day
The nazis didn't invest that amount of soldiers in north Africa.
Didn't the Greek government-in-exile also contributed in the North African campaign? The map doesn't show the Greek banner.
USSR: make the 2nd front
Great Britain: we have more important things to do
Those very things are more important:
Stahlhelm please answer me, do these “soldiers” move the way they moved in real life or was it just done at random?
Im not stahlhelm, but I'm pretty sure it's how they moved in irl (real life)
What is the black flag in greece in 2:24 it looks like Heydrich
Waffen SS divisions
Funfact: Since 07.1941 there was also fighting polish Independent Carpathian Rifle Brigade
the three hundredth comment
🔥
The casualties don’t feel right unless it’s counting the war in Greece and early on the Italian army got demolished but the casualties didn’t reflect
Most axis soldiers were captured. During the first disastrous italian defeat only 15,000 italians were killed and wounded while 100,000 were captured
@@deibymartinez453 Yes, the video includes all casualties (even captured). The British did not have like 50,000 losses at the start. The sources for this video in non accurate.
It’s a cool map, but you got the casualties way off. The Axis suffered about 620,000 casualties compared the Allied 238,500. This is according to the holocaust encyclopedia.
The video take into account WIA and KIA, the allied suffered way more casualties under those 2 categories. But if we count also the POW yes, the count of the axis losses should be higher couse the italians POW in Total were something likes 250.000
@@SuperdiocaneladroYeah, but POWs matter just as much as KIA and WIA. All of those scenarios take a soldier out of battle, so I have no clue why it wasn’t included
Casualties dont include the captured.
Is the casualties showing how many casualties were inflicted by this side? Because it seems that way.
7:25 Why didn't they send these 350,000 soldiers when they were winning? to get to Suez...
Because logistics don’t work that way? Anyway the video has incredibly inaccurate casualties, so I wouldn’t trust it much.
تونس وليبيا يد وحده حتى في الحرب العالمية الثانية
The italians suffered many more casualties than the british did in north africa
They didnt. They were taking defeats through POWS
Se metteva qualche truppa a sud, poteva attuare un accerchiamento
Best video map for north africa ww2 frint.thank you
Under rated
A Libyan person was here ❤
Should definitely include POWs to get a better understanding of the situation.
Yeah people dont understand what the word casualty means
@@deibymartinez453Casualty means soldiers who aren’t/can’t fight on the frontline.
Make a video about the Paraguayan war
This video deserver more views and like 🔥🔥🔥🔥
Там видно ты наш! Ты русский! УРА!!! Хоть кто-то русский в этой теме.
да я да :)
Can you please do a tutorial or what app do u use?
The North Africa campaign would have been more exciting if it had lasted another year. Additionally, it would have provided more material for the gaming industry. Desert-camouflaged Panthers and King Tigers would have added a bit more color to the North Africa campaign.
French (hope not those from Nazi Vishy state) and Greeks in African campaign kekw sure whatever. But still you forgot to include thousends of Polish brave soldier who died on African land near Tobruk and other places in Libia from 41 until the invasion Sicili. Educate yourself before posting anything cause its not only hilarious but also offensive.
خسائر الحلفاء مقارنةً بخسائر دول المحور كبيره للغايه!
❤
Fun fact: the Brits sent to Greece so they could defend it instead of pushing further into Libya weren’t given their extra pay for serving outside of europe
The casualties completely off
They are not. Casualties dont include the captured.
@@deibymartinez453It does? But go on, keep spreading a lie. Dictionaries say casualties include everything from death to captured.
Макароны с колбасками против мяса и рыбы
Game. Name
That casualty comparison is the epitome of the coping Wehraboo😂
They never give Africa Attention 💀
Братан, это просто имба
Why wasn’t there any Egyptian soldiers fighting since they gained independence in 1922?
FR
Decent point but Anglo-Egyptian Sudan ended in 1922.
@@RangaTurk I mean Egypt was independent from the UK at the time and the axis attacked Egyptian lands, so there should be some Egyptian troops on the front
@@balerionsmith4038 well not independence, it got autonomy, like a dominion or sm
@@Skypaism nuh uh, they officially gained independence in 1922 but they remained under British influence (not occupation) until 1952
Keep on posting, your gonna get more subs one day!🔥🔥🔥
And that day, is today.
The Germans had the best fighters in the world.
no child porn no sex with minors no illegal drugs and no illegal firearms in any nation or violence against women or children!!!!!!!!!!
You’re supporting many great causes but this is a ww2 video
That one Australian flag:🗿🗿
rommel was the german general of this campaign!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Немцы и итальянцы:разламывают оборону союзников.
Австралийцы,окруженные в Тобруке:😐
Well made mate! Cheers
I numeri sono completamente sballati
Один я заметил что названия городов переведины на русский язык?Автор использовал карты на русском языке?Интересно
ЭТОГО НЕ МОЖЕТ БЫТЬ
в каком приложении делаешь такие анимации?
Adobe After Effects
@@StahlhelmMaps You seriously need to fix your casualties figures because they are all wrong.
хайфелл?
гондож
Casualties are wrong very wrong
Injuries are causuties
@@Germen_Empire i know but for example italian casualties in the 1940 italian offensive to egypt were 100 000 men and british were 2000 - 3000 men and there is shown that british casualties were 5 times higher
SO
Also the speeches had nothing to do with the time
@@timonurcikan8196the casualties dont include the captured. Italian casualties in the battle you mentioned were 15,000
Почему на этом шедевре так мало просмотров
The reason Erwin Rommel lost in the battle of El Alamein was cuz the Allies knew his tactic of going behind them and encircling them so they decided to get pushed to an area where you cannot go behind them (the mountainous area you see on the map) since Erwin Rommel couldnt go there with his tanks hes tactics didnt work and then Allies had much larger army much more tech and much more recources so he lost the weak army Hitler gave to him which resurted to the end of the Campaing for allies victory! (USA joining the war in Algeria was also something you should take in mind since it was Americas first operation in the European side of the war)
I'm not sure why everyone thinks that the casualties are wrong. They seem correct from my research.
"Casualties check out" -animation_reich
@@maplesyrupenjoyer7 Casualties from wikipeadia looks same as the video.
@@Animation_reich The axis casualties are missing on wikipedia which is why the number is so low
Vive la France et le royaume uni
you have seen that the cities are written in Russian maybe the author is Russian
yes, i'm russian
@@StahlhelmMaps It is because of that your casualties are totally false ? I means you only can get false sources about the casulaties because propaganda.
In reality the Axis sustained 40,000 casualties in Tunisia alone before surrendering a quarter of a million Axis troops as POW to the Allies
The Axis lost for a reason and that reason is that the Allies crushed them in battle
"During the entire North African campaign, the Germans and Italians suffered 620,000 casualties, while the British Commonwealth lost 220,000 men. American casualties in Tunisia alone totaled more than 18,500. The Allied victory in North Africa destroyed or neutralized nearly 900,000 German and Italian troops, opened a second front against the Axis,"