Deep Battle: The Soviet Answer to the Blitzkrieg
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- Go to sheathunderwear... and use the code “Warographics” to get 20% off your order! Thank you Sheath for the sponsorship!
→ Subscribe for new videos at least twice a week!
www.youtube.co...
This video is #sponsored by Sheath.
Love content? Check out Simon's other RUclips Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Casual Criminalist: / @thecasualcriminalist
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
XPLRD: / @xplrd
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
Go to sheathunderwear.com and use the code “Warographics” to get 20% off your order! Thank you Sheath for the sponsorship!
Love this channel ❤❤❤❤❤
I definitely want to see more theory focused analysis videos!
SHUT UP
nope, not allowed
That would be awesome. I liked his breakdown of the Gulf War & Invasion of Iraq. I've been watching his videos for a few years. Love watching his Content geow
@@futurechef08 Agreed. The Iraq invasion video was excellent! The detail they go into really helps to recontextualize those events.
Yeah, definitely.
I, for one, quite enjoy these military theory videos! Please make more! Thanks, guys.
I agree they are informative and interesting.
That attempt at "bewegungskrieg" got me good. Thanks for leaving it in the video, loved it.
"Bewegungskrieg". Small wonder Allied propagandists had to opt for fake but pronouncable words like "blitzkrieg".
It's very impressive that the channel has the research to cover the "Deep Battle" doctrine of the USSR. Terrific video!
what is deep battle doctrine?
@@jmgonzales7701me in yer maws bedroom 😂
@@secretagent5954 dayummmm
It's just chatgpt boi
Wow you mean the Soviets didn't just throw thousands of people without weapons at the enemy?! surprising !
They still lost twice as many men as the enemy despite having 2 to 1 in men and material. Sometimes the ratio was higher
@@stc3145yeah, that tends to happens on offensive action
@@santymartin7383 At defensive as well.
@@stc3145might sound weird but at the beginning of operation Barbarossa the Germans along with their allies outnumbered the Soviets.
@@phuntshodorji3903 Only at the beginning. They suffer 4 millions casualties to the 1 million Germans. The Red Army was inferiour to the German one that is why they lost so many. Even at Kursk were the Germans were attacking.
This was an excellent video on military theory. It was well-researched and, more importantly, well-distilled for the non-military people who watch your channel. Well done!
Tukachevsky was also pioneering in the definition of Operations, as a layer of military planning between tactics and strategy. Bagration is a textbook example, multiple armies of varying arms composition were integrated into Fronts - not dissimilar to the Wehrmacht's Army Groups during Barbarossa - and the fronts were deployed simultaneously in a feigned thrust into Ukraine, to draw off German units, and in the main assault in the north. The Germans were denied rear area security by Soviet artillery to such an extent that they couldn't rush second line units to the front, and by the time the rockets and shells let up, the First Belorussian Front's breakthrough units were beginning the encirclement of Vitebsk. The units holding the line in Vitebsk were thus isolated from any reinforcement, while the flanking units to the north and south began engaging the second level of the German defensive line, denying Busch the luxury of sending his reserves to relieve the garrison. Operations, in the Soviet order of battle, aimed to seize initiative over a broad front using coordinated breakthrough efforts, and simultaneously to paralyze the enemy's ability to mount a flexible defense-in-depth.
There are a couple of key components that enabled the Red Army to successfully force breakthroughs almost at-will during the late war (post-Kursk):
1. Extreme concentration of forces. The Soviets took this much further than the Germans or Allies ever did, often concentrating entire divisions in tiny sectors of the front to achieve overwhelming numerical superiority against the smaller formations defending those sectors. This led to the Germans believing they were being attacked by endless human waves of enemy soldiers. This was only true for the breakthrough areas and they had to weaken other sectors of the front to do it.
2. This made it even more important that the Red Army was also able to achieve total surprise by way of Maskarovka, successfully deceiving the enemy as to where and when an attack was coming. Entire armies were able to move into position in total secrecy, with German reconnaissance being completely unaware.
3. The Red Army was usually able to infiltrate forward German lines before the offensive began, often without the defenders taking notice. In doing so they took advantage of the German elastic defense doctrine, which called for thinly manned forward defenses; this was exacerbated by the German manpower shortage, leaving even more gaps in the defensive lines. When the offensives were launched, the Germans were attacked from their own trenches with no time to prepare.
All this is in addition to massiv artillery support and usually having air superiority as well.
While it's true the concept of "blitzkrieg" had been around for decades the reason it was so revolutionary, and something largely forgotten when the subject is talked about today, was the implementation of shortwave radio into German tanks and other armored units, something no other army had. Couple this and the well trained and disciplined nature of German units at the time comparative to the other major powers and it's no wonder that the "lightning war" was so effective in the early stages of the war.
Agreed, but please start using the term “war of movement.” No German Officer would ever say Blitzkrieg. That term was invented by the Allie’s and is mentioned in ONE German manual late in the war.
Or we can use Blitzkrieg, because anyone that had middle school history knows what you are talking about, where as an extremely small percentage of the population would associate "war of movement" with the Germans tactics during WW2! 🤷🙃
It could be argued that the Prussian concept of "maneuver war" had been in use since the 1600s.
Robert Citino's The German Way of War is a fantastic book that delves into such concepts.
A friend of mine was in 'Eagle Troop' during the First Gulf War. He told me that, when they captured some Iraqi tankers after (during) the Battle of 73 Easting or Medina Ridge, one of the Iraqi officers noticed a picture of Rommel in the Bradley. He apparently asked how the Americans could have a picture of their sworn enemy in their tank, someone said, "If you had studied him, you wouldn't be sitting in my tank."
you forgot laboratory grade crystal meth
Good video, and please create more military theory ones in the future.
I’d love to see you guys cover more military theory! I think your format is actually better suited to wider overviews (like the „special operators“ series, „art of war“ series, and videos like this) than anything else. I’d love to see you continue doing stuff like this!
Ever since the 1960s when the Sino-Soviet alliance came to an abrupt end, the Soviet High Command considered invading China by deep battle offensive operations, envisaging a rapid drive deep towards the latter's main industrial centers before they could have a chance to mount a credible defense or even stage a counterattack. However, the extremely vast numbers of Chinese People's Liberation Army and their knowledge of the terrain, coupled with their then-recent possession of nuclear weapons, made such a drive the Soviets were to execute extremely unlikely.
The Soviets would have used tactical nuclear weapons to destroy PLA concentrations, fortifications and cover the flanks of Soviet tank armies driving to operational depths.
@@michaelsnyder3871, yes, because it's not like using nukes on another nuclear power would ever possibly trigger M.A.D.
@@occam7382invading a nuclear power would mean MAD it’s insanity you drag there army out and destroy them that way if war the only way but you avoid attacking territory at all
@@occam7382Soviets didnt give F just like they were close to nuking America with a sub Russians are different beasts 🐻😂😂
@@occam7382 China wasn't one back then.
I really hope that you guys make more videos about general concepts like deep battle, urban warfare, etc. Overviews like this are great!
Yes, these war theory/tactics videos are very informative 👍
This was really interesting, definitely want to see more of these if possible. 😊
This is one of the best videos on your channel simon
I have a video suggestion!
On Biographics, you did a video on Jane Goodall, in which you briefly mentioned the 1974-78 Gombe Chimpanzee War. I think the Warographics audience would especially appreciate a more detailed video on that conflict - especially considering its novelty as a war occurring between animals. I think anyone interested in the history of warfare would love to hear more about this obscure animal conflict!
Please do more military theory! Clausewitz's On War could be a series episodes all its own. Mahan and Corbett and their influence on 20th and 21st Century naval and amphibious thinking and operations could be another episode/series of episodes!
please continue this serie 🙂
More of this please.
"long defensive wars of attrition". This is what Russia is doing to Ukraine today. Because it's not happening quick, we for some reason think it's weakness, but slowly Ukraine is being dismantled.
Exactly!
And there losing alot
I would definitely like to see more on military theory and doctrine..
I definitely would love to see more military theory discussed here please!
Seeing Isserson get a well deserved shoutout is blowing my mind--Evolution of Operational Art was translated by the US Army Command and General Staff College at Ft Leavenworth and is a crisp, cogent 110 pages. Really does a good job of highlighting how the traditional ends-means concepts of strategy and tactics crystallized in the early 19th Century by the likes of Clausewitz and Jomini started to get confused and blurred as land operations grew in scope, scale, and frequency.
Please more of this! The only thing I was missing is the story how the German Reichswehr and the Soviets worked together in the years before 1933 in trying and developing tank warfare doctrine.
Deep battle, as seen in WW2, was essentially a concept from the interwar years and came before the almost accidental lightning war in France. Deep battle however, had been quashed (several times) by the Soviet leadership and military bureaucracy amid power plays and the battle for influence. Stalin eventually realised the error of his ways but deep battle was still implemented in a somewhat haphazard way and the records were sanitised for history.
The Soviets developed their combined arms approach integrating armour after observing exercises in Britain. Whilst the US and the USSR learned the lessons of these exercises, the British floundered and their procurement of armour suffered.
I'd have to agree. I like the theory side of the house. Continue to do more. Maybe you want to talk about the US's multi-domain battle doctrine
I'd like to see more military theory videos, please.
Well written video, with great analysis
Loved this and would love more! One of the best explanations of deep battle I've heard
Love this indepth analysis
I like the analysis, thankyou
Honestly, thisis a great video on the subject. It is quite difficult to find videos that go to the in-depth detail with such a time frame.
Yes I do like military theory stuff
Actually ... I like this kind of deep look into specific battle movement design.
Makes for a nice divergence from the usual war like stuff.
Great video. I definitely would like to see more of this type of subject. You did an excellent job of compressing a complicated subject into a relatively short time span and making it easily understandable 👍
great video, i'm glad i subscribed
Soviets were a huge reason why Germans lost the Nazis threw much of their resources but the Russians never backed down
Great man
Yes Simon. I would like to see more videos like this one.
Great video. Thanks!
Invincibility lies in the defense and the possibility of victory in the attack -Sun Tzu
Well-researched but godawful delivery. No offense but it's grating. It sounds like he's trying so hard to sound sophisticated by leaning into the BBC presenter sound that it sounds like he's faking an English accent
Edit: also he keeps interrupting the flow of the narrative with jokes or asides and it's distracting and clashes with the attempt at speedy delivery. 7:30 "One to one-point-five miles *American friends*"
Cover the eventual conquest of Poland by the USSR?
"Deep Battle" was developed by a number of Russian Soviet officers with professional education in the Tzar's army and exposure to the German concept of operational art during the 1920s and tested through Red Army exercises in the early 1930s, in parallel with such concepts in the German General Staff based on the application of WW1 experience and technology to the operational level of war. Stalin's Purges and the return to a form of war more politically acceptable to Stalin's cronies like Voroshilov and Budenny ended any official consideration or education on "deep battle" within the Red Army's senior leaders, yet Timoshenko, Shaponishkov, Vatutin and Zhukov understood and exercised "deep battle" (or tried to) from Kalkhin Gol/Nomohan to the Operation Bagration.
I pay to block youtube ads, now most videos have their OWN ads in the videos on top that can't be blocked. Annoying!
Yeah but German introduced methanphe into their bliz which was a new thing and his they took so much territory without having to stop and sleep like allied troops.
Kursk is not the “Biggest Tank Battle in History”. Or the second! Please stop saying that.
Did anyone else notice that the pattern on Simon's sample of Sheath underwear is the pattern of the carpet seen in The Shining?
No/ Just me? Is that why Simon chose this pair for the ad-reads? I feel pretty certain Simon has not seen the Shining tho... because he's quite Movie Deprived, or so he has admitted.
That pattern alone would have be buying Sheath for a Boyfriend or Partner, except I am blissfully single.
[No, not sarcasm, I am FREE Baby! Ahh the space! The clean house! The small laundry loads! The silence when I sleep, undisturbed by snores!]
yes, like, more please
Warographics stepping up from GCSE to post graduate by tackling theory compared with other channels.
"You know what would have helped the Russians to win WW1? Sheath underwear"
I nickname my little boy ‘glubokay’ after this.
Used very successfully twice in Iraq I think, just re-labeled "shock and awe"
If it ain’t broke…
The objective of 'Shock and Awe' is to break the will of the enemy by making him realize he has no chance of winning. In ideal case the enemy will surrender before you even start dropping bombs. 'Deep Battle' is about punching deep through the defense lines and then disorganizing and encircling the enemy.
But of course you could start with Deep Battle and after some time the enemy may lose the will to fight.
Deep Battle and Shock and awe are not at all the same. Deep battle focuses on breakthrough and exploitation, the coalition in iraq pretty much just obliterated the iraqi army and then drove full speed ahead
What do u call when a prussian imitates tue russia?
Britiah call it blitzkrieg
Miss your TopTenz videos.
Randomly unsubed from all channels and idk why😢 re subscribed of course
this is awesome, please talk more about specific modern and ancient doctrines, how they emerged, how they were perceived, thought of, and implemented
This is kinda funny knowing the Soviets and Germans developed the tactics we would call "Blitzkrieg" in union while working together to subvert the treaty of Versailles. A lot of the tactics were ones the Soviets developed fighting the White army in the Russian Civil war. Short but concentrated artillery fire closely followed by Armored assaults supported by infantry. That was a halmark of the Red Army. (Western armies still liked to rain artillery down for days at a time thinking that was "softening defenses" or whatever) Until it became the preferred tactic of Germany and became the "Blitzkrieg"
All nations sooner or later came to their doctrine of maneuver warfare. Germany had Blitzkrieg, the USSR had deep combat, the US had Shock and Awe, which was also created in cooperation with the pre-war Reich. Britain and Japan had C3I.
Who would win one Bewegungskrieg or one Gluboky Boi.
Love military theory and doctrine videos, keep them coming
The major problem of the 1941 Soviet Tank Corps is that they were pretty much only tanks. By comparison, the German Panzer Divisions had as many or more infantry batallions as they did tank batallians (the exact proportion changed throughout the war). Concentrated tank formations, yes. But always with generous amounts of supporting infantry (and obviously artillery and assault guns as well) which always played a vital role in either directly supplementing the armored attacks, defending against counterattacks, eliminating pockets or putting pressure on the enemy frontline to create weakspots for the tanks to exploit. This was vital.
Tank formations with tanks were a catastrophe waiting to happen. The unsupported (and inexperienced) Soviet Tank crews were frequently annihilated by the German infantry and artillery.
The British incidentally made a very similar mistake against Rommel. They had no experience with combined arms warfare, and the tank proponents they listened to for advice were operating under the assumption that the tanks could punch through enemy lines by themselves. Which they could not, at least not if the enemy put up a credible defense, which the Germans at this point invariably did.
Gluboky boi!!!
War of attrition, a good war tactic that costs time as two nations have to out produce each other.
This was outstanding for both historical detail as well as prompting insights into how Stalin's paranoia tipped those first dominoes toward current Russian military dysfunction.
Weak minds finding threat in more those more competent?
Nah, that never happens THESE days...
More like this, please!
All hail Whistler's Beard. Just a little bumpity bump and a request for more military theory vids. I'm not aware of any series done on that topic
But that doctrine sucks in hoi4..
Loved the video! I chuckle whenever I see Kutuzov come up again because I always remember how revered he is in various Russian written works, yet the real deal made his fair share of mistakes, a few of which arguably allowed Napoleon to escape Russia in 1812.
Kutuzov did play a huge role in the French invasion
I wonder how Deep Battle would fair against Shock and Awe
These theories have different purposes. Shock and Awe focuses on destroying the enemy army by all means as quickly as possible. This works well with a weaker enemy, but not with a stronger enemy. Deep combat focuses on breaking through and going deep into the front to start chaos at the front and the enemy's inability to build new defensive lines. This works well with a stronger enemy, but not well with a weaker enemy, who will be oriented on a mobile invisible front, using guerrilla methods.
Do a video on Operation Compass, Richard O Connor applied German tactics in the North African campaign.
It's funny to follow the chronology how Soviets went back and forth, forming and disbanding mechanized troops. It's also really really scary to think what would've come of the 1930's and 1940's if Stalin wasn't so paranoid, if they had their military doctrine and experienced command to lead the war efforts. If the soviets managed to pull it off like that with almost completely decapitated military who was having identity issues.
Deep battle certainly yielded impressive results when used correctly, but at the same time, the Soviet army was incredibly inefficient in WW2, with massive loss of life.
Admittedly, one could argue that that was due wrong application of deep battle and the red army actually had lower casualties than their opponent in both Bagration and the invasion of Manchuria.
Absolutely - more theory, please. Bring on the red X's and dotted lines.
Hey. Could you guys make a video about wargames. How does wargames work in military? What do they do and how? What is the history of wargames?
Love the video! A suggestion that would make it even better with something like this would be a map illustration with arrows on how this plays out against enemy lines. I’d love if you incorporated some of that in your war video. Great work Simon!
Every episode that features Simon’s blue sweater just sound better.
Topic suggestion: The Russian Second Pacific Squadron's rather eventful voyage and final defeat at Tsushima.
Maybe best done as a cold read.
Love this channel! Do the battle of agincourt
I believe they already have, could be wrong but check through their catalogue
he's a CIA asset, they're trying SO hard to make this weird bald dude into a celebrity and it's not working 😂
@@radiofreeacabI used to enjoy his channel but he has definitely turned into a globalist pro Ukraine anti Russian mouthpiece
You do Stewies voice on family guy ! I knew it sounded familiar 😂
Can we just agree that with as much armor as the Soviets produced, as far as armor goes they just can't help but suck and still do even though they should be singing it by now? And it all comes down to poor/complete lack of communication.
You know that the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore?😅
The greatest comeback story in military history was the great patriotic war.
Love the military theory stuff 🙏 thunder run and this video was dope.
It's very difficult for me to follow the sequence of what is said... War talk in this channel is abundant, but the graphics part is non-existent!!!!
NOT FOR PPL WHO WANT TO SEE MAPS & ARROWS TO UNDERSTAND, as a video about tactics, operations and strategy should be!
Numbers were great but combat-ready figures were much much smaller.
At June 1941 it was a temporary zoo of tank variants within each regiment ranging from T-26 up to one or two KV-1. It was intended to replace obsolete and standardize.... Thus most of them were obsolete, not maintained and prepared to be scrapped.
The modern part was scattered for education purposes and was too immature in design (breaks often)
Thus most casualties were non-combat.
Awesome video. We want more military theory videos
Stalin's Great Purge spared one branch of the Red Army's leadership: Cossack Cavalry Corps and Division staffs leading tens of thousands of White Russians, Ukrainians and Native Soviet Republic troops. He killed just about every other Colonel and higher, including the entire Soviet Mech and Tank leadership. He had fought with Horse Cav during the Civil War and in Poland, and trusted, among others, Marshals Timochenko and Budyonny and Generals Belov, Pliev and Dovator, and their fully trained, highly professional staffs. Many other surviving senior officers were Cavalry branch at one time or another in their careers. Eighty, five-thousand-sabre Cavalry Divisions on tough, steppe bred ponies and panje carts for mortars and MGs, were paired with remaining armored car, armored train, parachute, partisan and other assets, then lend lease throw away tanks and precious U.S. all-wheel-drive trucks, then T-34, SU-76 artillery, organic AA, anti-tank and Katyushka rocket Brigades as these became available.
While they were tragically vulnerable to air attack (whole divisions machine gunned to bloody pulp from the air in 1942), Soviet Mech-Cavalry corps could penetrate the juncture of German Armies after Infantry assaults had worn down their lines, outmaneuver enemy mech and infantry reaction forces in the very bad weather, snow, mud, swamps and forests of Russia, surround them, fight them to a standstill, and raid rear areas sowing logistic and command chaos. Several times, their deep penetrations came near to cutting off entire enemy Armies in addition to Stalingrad where they played a prominent role against Manstein's failed rescue attempt.
Surprisingly, their doctrine took inspiration from strategic cavalry raids of the U.S. Civil war. They studied those carefully, and fought on horseback into mountainous Central Europe, while renascent Soviet Tank Armies bulldozed across the German-Polish Plain in a mirror image of old school Nazi Panzer thrusts, as you described.
John S. Harrel's Soviet Cavalry Operations during the Second World War is a fine read.
I love this channel and please keep it up! I like and subscribe to many of your channels, but this deeper dive into this subject matter, and it’s longer playtime really suits me. Keep them, and Brain Blaze coming!
History and underpants sale ........Our world is sooooooooo civilized that you have to be ashamed when strangers come and see it.
Your German pronunciation needs work. Maybe the Russian too but I can’t comment. Another great video though.
Not soviet amswer but rather the german adaptation of it
Battle of france in 1940 was even called german deep batte by germans themseves .
It goes even deeper Ib 1917 operation michael.aThis to was called the german Brussilov..
Recejttoy a book thatt
Was oublished calle
Russia and its war doctrines
this is great
more importantly what was Kutosov's choice of underwear?
His volume is annoying. I am trying to clean the garage and listen to him, and his volume is great and then he goes down to basically a whisper and I have to go replay it so I can hear what he said. Like a 17:55 By the time he ends, I have to have my ear on the speaker
Anyone noticed that Biographics and Geographics are basically extinct?
This was legit, tactical theory is under represented
Excellent video, please continue on this path.
I wish people would stop calling German warfare blitzkreig. That’s not what you call it fuck
I do like it
By the time the Germans reached the outskirts of Moscow they were spent. Not much gets said about this , most of the narrative focuses on the early triumphs but not even in their worst nightmares did German high command envisage such huge losses in manpower and armaments by this stage of the war. They were still optimistic though in thinking that regardless of this, the Soviets were beaten and had nothing left in reserve to muster any kind of defence . Boy were they wrong in their assumptions. Not only defend, the Soviets were able to mount a successful counterattack which pushed the stretched and weakened German forces on all fronts. General Von Bock was asked @ the Nuremberg trials , when did u realize the war was lost? His one word reply was Moscow.
ha, ha, ha; happiness, in slavery: fake+gaye=but,how now,get to Lambo?..