Soviet Logistics in World War 2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 дек 2018
- Logistics in warfare are of great importance, especially on the Eastern Front in World War 2 due the vast distances and low infrastructure involved. The question is how did the Soviets manage their logistics in such a "low tech" environment. This video discusses the various principles, organization and approaches of the Red Army to deal with logistics during the Second World War.
H.G.W. Davie on twitter: / hgwdavie
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - / mhv
» paypal donation - www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««
» shop - www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
»» SOCIAL MEDIA ««
» minds.com - www.minds.com/militaryhistory...
» facebook - / milhistoryvisualized
» twitter - / milhivisualized
» twitch - / militaryhistoryvisualized
» RallyPoint - www.rallypoint.com/organizati...
» tumblr - / militaryhistoryvisualized
Military History NOT Visualized is a support channel to Military History Visualized with a focus personal accounts, answering questions that arose on the main channel and showcasing events like visiting museums, using equipment or military hardware.
» SOURCES «
Davie, H. G. W. Logistics of the Combined-Arms Army - Motor Transport, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 31:4, 2018, p. 474-501, DOI: 10.1080/13518046.2018.1521360
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...
Davie, H. G. W. The Influence of Railways on Military Operations in the Russo-German War 1941-1945, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 30:2, 2017, 321-346, DOI: 10.1080/13518046.2017.1308120
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...
Hill, Alexander: The Red Army and the Second World War. Armies of the Second World War. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017.
Glantz, David M.: Colossus Reborn. The Red Army at War, 1941-1943. University Kansas Press: Kansas, US, 2005
Glantz, David M.; House, Jonathan M.: When Titans Clashed. How the Red Army stopped Hitler. Revised and Expanded Edition. University Press of Kansas: USA, 2015
War Department (USA): TM 30-340 - Handbook on USSR Military Forces, Chapter VII: Logistics, March 1946
Glantz, David M.; House, Jonathan M.: Armageddon in Stalingrad. The Stalingrad Trilogy, Volume 2: September-November 1942. University Press of Kansas: United States, 2009.
Glantz, David M.; House, Jonathan M.: Endgame at Stalingrad. The Stalingrad Trilogy, Volume 3: Book One: November 1942. University Press of Kansas: United States, 2014.
The Bear's New Wheels (and Tracks): US Armored and Other Vehicles and Soviet Military Effectiveness during the Great Patriotic War in Words and Photographs
» TOOL CHAIN «
PowerPoint 2016, Word, Excel, Tile Mill, QGIS, Processing 3, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Premiere, Adobe Audition, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe After Effects, Adobe Animate.
» DATA CHAIN «
Made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com.
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
#ww2 #RedArmy #EasternFront
"you leave a truck alone for a month it probably won't grow a spare part *citation needed*" just beautiful XD
He said need not grow. Lmao
Break a wheel on a truck and you need spare parts. Break a horse's leg you only need a bullet!
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547Break a horse's leg you only need a bullet, and a new horse.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 And you can eat the horse hungry soldiers can't be choosy meats meat.
@@muzzmac160 Choosy? Horse meat is a delicacy...
A short summary:
1. horses may be better than trucks in some cases
2. trains are very important in logistics, nobody touch their schedules
3. centralised logistics command with straight priorities help a lot
4. heck, put someone in charge of logistics near the guy in command
5. did I mention trains are important and nobody should touch their schedules?
Enemy spy: train schedule or battle plans? Ahh!! Which to steal!
High level generals are actually just paper pushers - look at Eisenhower. Organization is key.
@@Custerd1 and most US army staff offices in WW2 were recruited from business.
@Garrett Strauser You make a good case for the folly of treasonous rebellion by the "Confederate" states.
And you can produce more horses with unskilled labor, something you can't do with trucks or locomotives.
"but it just worked, unlike some Bethesda games."
Me: dies in public area
If Bethesda had been in charge of Soviet logistics, the Panzers would have been in Vladivostock in october 41!
They would have been released on time, but they would crash the next day.
No, they would tell their soldiers “sorry comrade, we ran out of guns. We found out it’s too expensive to ship them. We won’t do anything about it. We’ll send more cigarettes if you want. gOoD LUcK”.
the logistic would bug out and supply german instead?
The tanks would've done a 180 degree flip every few hours or who knows the legends would speak of phantom tanks that just disappear and reappear
I don't think the other replies really understood this comment.
Funfact about Verdun: To keep the only street intact there were units tasked with constantly shipping gravel on the road, because the immense traffic literally squelched the gravel to dust.
Yeah, I would imagine the numerous, massive artillery pieces with wheels would obliterate pretty much anything beneath them
Interesting fact that USSR received 500 000 horses form Mongolia - they were small by european standarts, but they could eat anything, basically living off land. On sometime they make up to 20% of all horses of the Red Army.
Long ago I met a man who had been in the German army in North Africa. He said if an Allied vehicle broke down the driver could often get out and fix it. A German driver usually had to wait for a mechanic.
Very true, Queen Elizabeth (or corporal Windsor) can set the points, ignition timing, change a tyre ( with her co-driver)and the spark plugs set the valve lash and the oil and filters on a truck.😁
@@andrewallen9993 "If one of my Guards troops can't fix it I will just have to show him how."
Red Army's guiding principle - "It just works"
P.S. "If it doesn't throw more men at it until it does"
@@randomdude4136 ps ps, dont mind the dumpster fire
"Why worry about something that won't happen- God, they should put that on our money" Dr. Valery Legasov, chernobyl response team.
Red Army's guiding principle - Rely on American Lend Lease
It should be noted that even the US Army had doubts about the concept of a horseless, completely motorized army until the appearance of the Willy's Jeep. The horse was truly an all-terrain vehicle and most countries did not produce such a vehicle that could serve as a suitable replacement. In general, I believe that American motorized transport during the war much more rugged and capable of cross-country travel than those vehicles produced in other countries, tracked vehicles excluded.
Consider the following statistics:
America produced ~640,000 Jeeps during the war.
Compare that statistic to the ~3,000,000 horses that Germany mobilized during the war.
One thing that should also be noted about Soviet usage of lend-leased trucks is that it provided much more utility for the Soviets to use trucks on the front, where speed and 'unscheduled' dependability mattered much more than in behind-the-lines logistics.
Horses could not be called upon day after day to move assets around on the frontline - when such action is often required by military necessity.
Horses fit well into logistics scheduling, where specific groups of horses can be scheduled rest periods and then be called upon again in a well-ordered fashion. Denying pack animals their required rest would have rendered them lame (and useless) very quickly. That horses require these rest periods after exertion was something that really limited the artillery arm of the German army in the artillery war on the western front against Anglo-American forces, as they were often forced to rest their horses for days at a time, rendering entire batteries largely immobilized.
Horses rest periods? Vehicles need maintenance periods too. I can only guess how long did it take to lubricate every single link of sdkfz251 track. The real workhorse of the German logistics in both world wars was a locomotive.
And in recon roles a horse got sometimes replaced by a bicycle.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_infantry
...great point ...thanks. I’ve always wondered the about logistics and support of that many horses. Who oversaw it..? I heard a story that a captured German officer in France said once he realized that the Americans were there in numbers and brought no horses that the war was lost.
Paciat ...still ....fielding 3 million horse has to be a logistical pain in the ass.
You have obviously never seen a British been or universal carrier! Knocks a jeep into a former hat!
@@andrewallen9993 ..now say it in English
One cart with horses is not the same as another. We have all seen the scenes of the large German carts and cart horses with their wheels and feet cutting the dirt roads to pieces. The Russians used light peasants carts with only 2 horses which could take a different route between the treas in a forest keeping away from the roads. The USA supplied the USSR with 500,000 tons of of steal rail track, 2000 steam locomotives and thousands of rail cars to replace equipment destroyed by the Germans.
>The USA supplied the USSR with 500,000 tons of of steal rail track, 2000 steam locomotives and thousands of rail cars to replace equipment destroyed by the Germans.
And all these locomotives arrived mostly in 1945.
+Alexander Seven false mostly arrived earlier
@@JakWhy1230 you are right, according to US official report 1200 of total 1900 arrived at the end of 1944.
First few locomotives arrived in the December of 1943.
@@TheWersum the americans maybe dont give the soviets finished maschines and stuff at the start of the war. this is was wikipedia say
The United States delivered to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the High-octane aviation fuel, 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic production. One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.
the 4.5 milion tons of FOOD were totaly not needed in soviet russia to STAY ALIVE! also the materials to build stuff. what did the soviets had in great numbers by 41-42? i would say wood and coal
@@TheWersum just because i use facts in a argument you tell me i am a salesman? try to change topic because your wrong and insult me personaly? xD
There's an old military adage: "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics". This becomes truer the higher up the command levels you go.
Yes, and the progression in priorities mirrors civilian organizations as well. When you start climbing the career ladder, you become less concerned with technical details.
@@tankolad Yes. This is the case in retail especially.
"Tacticians win battles, logisticians win wars"...
The US Army War college requres that you be a LT Col. or Col with 16 years experience or that you be a GS13. The US Army Command and General Staff college is more about supply, PR and what not, and you attend that throughout your career. Officers don't need large scale tactics and strategy until later in their careers. Supply they'll need to know from butter bar on up.
It does not mean you may skip tactics and study logistics only
I see a logistics video - I hit like, especially when it's an understudied topic like this!
The worst aspect with changing the train schedule is in time you quickly end up in a situation where some train depot get's stuck with lots of empty rail cars and no easy way to get rid of them . While every other depot is crying out for rail cars and delivery of everything slows to a stand still.
The animal work power still useful in areas where there is no enough roads. I leave in Patagonia and even when you have 4x4 trucks and atv some times aren’t the optimal choice so you go back to horses and oxes to carry loads to certain areas.
Jerónimo Cantón ehh try and get a divisions supplies through a narrow road that only animald can use, u will quickly turn it into a bottomless mud hole that not even the strongest ox can get though.
The man that you are talking about in the American Civil war was Herman Haupt. He was a West Point graduate who was chief engineer in the Pennsylvania Railroad and took the US Military RR at the beginning of the Civil war.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Haupt
This is obviously a Lend-lease coat, the quality is too high for Soviet wartime standards
Actually it looks like a Soviet coat...
Here we have the "Darth Vader" model for Imperial officers in transit to the Hoth system. As well insulated as a Tauntaun, and as light as a Lightsaber pulse, NOT blaster proof. Usable as a field shroud should the Rebels trip your AT-AT. Be the envy of shipboard officers, a mere 1,000 Imperial credits!
Missing the ushanka
He got it from Boris the Slav
@@Otokichi786 Storm Trooper blaster accuracy wouldn't pose any issues to this coat.
you can't eat a truck
Citation needed
You could eat leather seats.
thats deep man
You can eat locomotives
Watch me
The article at 19:31, for anyone who's interested.
1. Zamulin VN. ‘To Defeat the Enemy Was Less a Problem Than the Laziness and Indolence of Our Own Commanders … .’ J Slav Mil Stud. 2016;29(4):707-726. doi:10.1080/13518046.2016.1232563.
Short summary: the article deals with most the the Voronezh Front in spring 1943's rasputitsa, after the exploitation phase after Stalingrad and before the battle of Kursk. Voronezh Front was the one on the Southern shoulder of the bulge, commanded by Vatutin. Of the 2 shoulders, the Northern one commanded by Rokossovsky held firm and the German attack basically splatted against a wall. The Voronezh Front's operational defense almost got pierced.
How bad was the supply situation.
- A Guard Howitzer Regiment had to transport everything on foot; men dragging sleds along the road.
- The food situation got pretty bad: lack of fresh food and vitamins cause nocturnal blindness in troops (they can't see once the sun is down)
- Soldiers basically pillaged everything they could from the "liberated" citizens,
- Corruption among the "rear rats" stealing of supplies, making inedible, low quality food to be delivered to the front.
- Vatutin, a front commander, chewed out some of the division commanders for the "criminal negligence" in supplying the troops with the needed supplies. Vatutin went into pretty detailed stuff like the number of missing uniforms, mess kits, soaps, etc ... when a front commander is that irritated with such a low level commander, it must have been pretty shit.
- The issue was partially lack of supplies, partially due to the chronic lack of motor transport, and partially due to negligence. Vatutin pointed out that some of the sister division men had sufficient supplies: the supplies is there, but the rear service wasn't working as they should. Men at the front was digging trenches in hot spring weather in winter clothing. They had no soap, could not shave or bath, as consequently, infested with fleas. The men had no mess kit and had to eat straight from the pot, etc ...
- Part of the problem was, surprisingly talking about the Red Army, lack of manpower. I know; losing millions of men did put a dent in the capability of the Red Army. There was a shortage of labour and manpower at both the front and rear service. Now sometimes, the reserves were there, in the training battalions and formations, but inefficient staff works means that those replacements weren't sent to the depleted units to bring the latter up the strength.
It does shatter a few stereotypes: not all Red Army commanders was cold, uncaring, or ruthless. Red Army manpower and supply wasn't endless. Yet despite all of that problems, the Voronezh front did held out in the end. Vatutin, a rising star in the Red Army command, unfortunately paid the ultimate price: he was fatally wounded in an ambush by Ukrainian nationalist.
Would not hurt to mention European gauge and Russian gauge railway. So for the demands European gauge sometimes was altered to wider Russian gauge railway or trains must be refitted for narrow gauge.
The USA exported a huge amount of trucks to the Soviet union. It can be argued that this was one of the major reasons the Soviets won the war. They could put all their production into tanks. The USA also exported a ton of can foods to Russia. That is another factor.
Thank you for providing this bite-sized video about Soviet logistics because I've been curious on how they were able to conduct more than one massive offensives at the same time, but haven't got the time to research the topic myself!
"It just works, unlike some Bethesda games..."
That caught me off guard. hahahahahahahaha
Thank you for studying Logistics and making these videos!
As for limited amount of trucks in Soviet Union, it's simple - there was no mass production of trucks or tanks in Russian Empire, so during Soviet industrialization in 1930s they had a choice - build tractor/tank plants to make tanks (and tractors for agriculture) or build automobile plants to make trucks, they could not afford both. And since the war was coming, the choice was obvious.
@@simplicius11 Soviets captured 15000 German trucks during Moscow battle and more than 80000 in Stalingrad battle.
272 000 is the total number including cars, only 258 000 were trucks of which most were 1.5t GAZ-AA (Ford-AA copy).
And only 60 000 of that number were near western border in June, 1941 (many trucks were used in economy and had to be mobilized).
And trucks need roads.
Weren't the Soviets the second most prolific manufacturer of lorries in pre-war and early war period - after the US?
@@AlexanderSeven good point on captured trucks but how long did they serve without regular supply of spare parts...
@Alexander Seven, your comment on Soviet truck production is incomplete.
The Soviets supported significant truck production figures pre-war. However, most production ceased after Barbarossa, to as you intimated: build more immediately-necessary military goods, I assume tanks.
jump to page 6 for truck production figures: www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP83T00853R000100160002-7.pdf
Great video. The logistical aspect is very interesting.
Correction: "living off the land" = stealing supplies from the local population.
they gave them greenbacks.....
CtrlAlt Debug I was thinking the same thing. All of the land is owned and worked by the local population so there isn't anything that is available to live off of that isn't "stealing".
@Roughman
Every army ever did that. Not just Germans.
Sometimes armies would pay for supplies, since if they expect to occupy for a long time they would potentially need additional supplies the population would produce in the next harvest. However yes for 99% of history armies were fed by forcefully appropriating farm crops.
Don't forget, if you are fighting off an invader, as the Red Army was, you have the locals' "hearts and minds" on your side. Remember, in Viet Nam, often the locals would support the VC (who were relatives in any case much of the time).
Outstanding video again! Thanks.
Bernhard wearing winter-cloaths: this must be about Soviet Logistics.
Great analysis! One of the very best videos you made (and you have a pretty good standard) and one reason more to get Colonel-status as soon as I finish university and start working. If there is one main lesson one can draw from this video, which goes beyond the specific topic, then it is this: war is never fought in a vacum! The social and geographical circumstances not only matter, they are the stuff the war is made off (or at least fought with). This is the reason why the trainspotting attitude of comparing weapons leads nowhere, if you do not consider the environment the weapons were used. And the very same holds for doctrine, tactics and logistics (as Bernhard beautyfully worked out in this video): you develop them to fight a concrete enemy, with a concrete pool of manpower, with a concrete industrial capacity, with a concrete technological knowhow and in a concrete environment. War is not a sports event with more or less constant circumstances for every participant, but a struggle with and within the concrete circumstances every acteur lives in or encounters. This is the reason why the comparison of armies around the globe is actually very misleading.
A great video. I love this logistical stuff.
Thank you. You raised a point I had not thought about, how did railway management affect shipping in the war, UK very rapidly went over to total war scenario issuing travel warrants etc, with the whole of infrastructure moving to war first civs second. but on top of that we had a primary rail focus, and had a high density in shipping goods and civs.
I am very interested in the logistics of war, Eg, why was it imperitive to ship gold braid to the USSR to re-establish the esprit de corps, or handkerchiefs to the Free French. these little facts make up the attention to detail that people and chiefs were thinking about.
and thankyou again for enjoyable and digestible content
Furi Kitten that'll be the result of the Railway Executive, an inter-company committee that was set up to oversee the running of all railway companies so that maximum loads could be carried within the limitations of the British rail network, which during both World Wars was much greater than it is now.
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 I understand that during the national railway system that the UK had advantages within the internal logistic capability and that we valued them (don't get me me started on the privatisation of strategic public services) it is more of how the countries used their resources that were available, that I had never considered, I assumed that efficiencies were as as high across the board globally as they had been witnessed and infrastructure systems had been exported.
Such a great video!
"It just works" lol - Great Video!
very good informative video , thanks.
Sometimes the underdevelopment of a country can be a blessing in disguise in war like in the Soviet Union and Vitnam later on by making the populations abd armies more rugged and able to withstand misery and harsh conditions better and also by presenting less valuable targets overall.
This video resonates with a book authored by Lt. Col. (Ret.) William Baxter: "Soviet Airland Battle Tactics", Presidio Press 1986. Although this book was geared towards the Cold War era, it is still informative as it contains a chapter on Soviet logistics. His takes:
P. 204:
It should not be very surprising that the Soviet military logistics structure is very compatible with the Soviet economy as a whole. Simply stated, this means that Soviet military logistics is controlled from the top by:
-- Rigidly centralized authority
-- Detailed top-down planning
-- Strict accountability and control
Rather than demand-pull, the concept governing Soviet military logistics is supply-push. In a supply-push logistical model, logistics is closely controlled at every level, with resources being distributed to subordinate commands in accordance with priorities established in the operational plan...
P. 205:
As one might suspect, Soviet logistics operates on a priority basis. The first priority, of course, is ammunition . . . A close second in priority to ammunition is POL, petroleum, oils, and lubricants . . . The third priority is maintenance and replacement of the technology of modern warfare . . . Ration to sustain the troops are the fourth priority, and everything else fitsl into fifth priority ...
P. 246: (The author's view of the pros and the cons of Soviet logistics.)
An advantage of Soviet logistics is that it provides a favorable tooth-to-tail ratio, less of a logistical structure to support more of a combat structure. It also means that significant civilian assets can be diverted quickly to military use with a minimum of training and reorganization. At the same time, combat troops must spend an inordinate amount of effort in logistics-related functions. Troop maintenance of everything from uniforms--soldiers must even cobble their own boots--to vehicles is at the expense of operational capabilities . . . Rather than being focused upon supplying the needs of the troops, it is structured to manage shortages ...
great vids!
That Fallout burn 😂
I can feel the heat from that burn all the way over here!
Thank you for another good one.
Some trivia.
There were no real equivalent to term "logistics" in Russian language during the Soviet period. And when logistic as a function was introduced by foreign companies who opened their offices in the former USSR, the term "logistika" was given wrong interpretation too often. New born position of "logistik" (a logistics executive by definition) could mean anything, including personal drivers and warehouse labour.
In my opinion, there was no understanding of Logistics as a concept and as the "practical art" (Jomini) in USSR. Transport, rear service (sluzhba tyla), intendant service, transport infrastructure and rolling stock maintenance and repair, personnel departments - they played their part and were required and ordered to cooperate of course but were not considered as elements of one "supply chain" (or demand chain). Centralisation(mentioned in video) was probably another obstacle for understanding logistics as a concept , as top managers (nachalniki) kept ultimate powers and could intervene and reorganise flows on micro- levels.
Case studies...
One significant ( and somewhat understated) logistical achievement of USSR was redeployment of manpower and of equipment to the Far East in late spring and summer 1945.
As for negative cases, I'd point out to spectacular and tragic failures to provide Leningrad's population (besides the "elites") with basic staples in early periods of semi-blockade and to the inability to supply Sevastopol with fuel and ammunition before the 2nd and the 3rd German assaults.
Thanks again for your work.
@@TheWersum Yes, the closest equivalent to "logistics" in USSR would be common term "snabzheniye" extensively used in military field and in civil industries. But again, this term is more narrow than the logistics.
Leningrad is understandable as the siege started at the worst time for Leningrad, ladoga was frozen over and the ice road was yet to be fully established as a concept, plus I would say it’s a miracle they managed to supply a city of over one million people at all over routes that were closed for several months of the year.
@@deeznoots6241 Well... It's not so understandable if to consider the possibility to supply through the Ladoga lake coast (very narrow passage about 60 km long) and through the lake itself. There were some interesting studies around this topic in the last 10-12 years in Russian language historical community.
In the case of Leningrad, there's also the issue that it had several important Soviet military industries in it. Transporting raw materials in and manufactured armaments out used up a significant fraction of the transportation capacity. It was either accept mass starvation or risk losing the entire war due to lack of armaments. Population did get transported out though to reduce the number of mouths to feed and to put them to better use elsewhere.
"RaspUtitsa", not "rasputIsta" (распУтица). In subtitles it`s right.
it was funny
Продолжайте
It blows me away how understated your sense of humour is. The topics you cover are interesting, and your discussion of your sources and their reliability is as interesting as the subject matter itself. But the simple "unlike some Bethesda games" had me laughing out loud so much I had to pause the video just to appreciate that comment
Bros up, damn that's bad. Great channel!
Some times the Germans tried to penetrate on the back of Soviet forces to attack their logistics only to find...nothing. The support and logistics was so thin that, at the beginning, they could not believe that the Soviets could operate on such a narrow supply line.
You are wrong. Yes Soviets were not that demanding like western armies, but still they need tons of supply. Mobility in logistic was in 1941-43 reson that Germans were faster in concetration on resources and units. Stalingrad and Kursk were the first Soviet "logistic" victories. Lack of efficion quantity of trucks prevent bigger succes in Soviets offensive
actions.
Horatio82 I love when someone ditches the politically correct to plainly say "You are wrong"!
Which I don't think I am.
However I remember reading OKW meeting transcripts (translated in Italian, unfortunately, since I don't know the German language) which discussed, among other stuff, that the Soviets were using much less resources than expected to keep their forces on the battlefield so, if encircled, they could keep fighting longer.😜
@@Millennium7HistoryTech You assumption is wrong and that no way it's any way politically corectness. You claim is wrong in that Soviet can oparate in some logistical void. Most victories over soviet units were done by cutting them from supply chain, chain different than german or italian kinde. Just estimation of axis were based on axis standards, not soviet, that is your mistake. One of biggest difference is that Red Army bassicly operate only primitive medical service second is communist logistic is different in logic of implementation human needs in operations. Soviet citizens and soldiers never have level of needs like german or italian counterpart. More important for soviets were building tanks than feeding soldiers and workers. Just Germans didn't recognize weak points in USSR chains of supply. You look on soviet weakness as like that was some special strenght. Check soviet war production of weapons in contrast of basiclly lack of production logistic tools like trucks, locomotives or transport planes. Without Lend Lease big soviet push after 1943 can't be done. Also capturing enemy resources and equipment was one of soviet basic doctrins of mobile warfare. War first, everything else is irrelevant, that is soviet way of fighting, shortsighted but in some way effective.
@@TheWersum Yes, they produced plenty of trucks pre-war. However, most of Soviet truck production ceased during the war as those factories were relegated to other more pressing wartime needs. This is significant considering the amount of equipment lost in '41.
pg 6 - www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP83T00853R000100160002-7.pdf
You also seemed to miss the part of the video were MH(n)V mentioned that much of their logistics depended upon captured trucks as opposed to lend-leased trucks, implying they had a similar issue to the German mechanized circus (though what really did the Germans in was the artillery circus imo).
Your point about reliability contradicts most WWII history that I have seen on the subject and I would be pretty interested to see your sources.
Lend-leased trucks, such as the US6, were appreciated for their reliability and ruggedness, and thus were prioritized carriages for important cargo such as M8/M13 rockets. Of course you are probably familiar with the fact that the BM-13N Katyusha (also S) was merely a M-13 rocket launcher atop a US6.
Zhukov certainly appreciated American trucks atleast - "Without American trucks we wouldn’t have had anything to pull our artillery with."
@@TheWersum You are correct only in that the USSR produced massive qunantity of trucks before 1941. But after few months of 1941 only weapons were mass produced in USSR and that was biggest soviet handicap. Mass losses after 22nd June cut down Red Army mobility on tactical and operational level . Lots of tanks not enough tracks, that you can always see soviet infantry on foot behind tanks. No halftrack or track carriers. Even with Lend Lease it took 2 years to rebuild that mobility. Early offensive made by Red Army led to disaster because one of Wermacht advanteage was bigger logistic mobility. Also german car industry provide only few standard models of trucks, much better than soviet counterpart. Later in war shortage of industriual capacity force Germans to use mix of too many own and captured trucks. But if you look on strategic level in East trains were the biggest factor, on operational level mix of horses an trucks. But without trucks you were to slow in reaction time, look on german problems in antitank artylery mobility, lots of heavy pak was lost because of lack of tracks. You can't use horse as a pak transport in higher then division level. Too slow to react to enemy tank attacks. In case of standard of quality, maybe soviet trucks were simpler but less efficient in their main role, transport! Relabillity of produced goods was always big soviet industry problem. Before WWII noone sane outside USSR want to buy soviet trucks. You should read two russian authors Bieshanov and Solonin, they give tons of facts about soviet backwardnes in production quality.
American lend lease to the Soviets also involved locomotives as well as many duece & half trucks, jeeps, half tracks, aircraft & tanks. These materials were vital, especially for logistical solutions. The American trucks were essential for rail head transfers to form any attacks.
When you only have 3 AP rounds for each tank, you might feel like giving them all to those who actually fight. :P
Sounds simple, but as history teaches us, it's no way near.
I think a major logistical boost for the USSR was also receiving nearly 100,000 US built Studebaker 6x6 trucks through lend/lease. Even Stalin acknowledged how vital this was to their success. The Soviets had excellent and plentiful artillery, but almost no way to quickly deploy it. The 6x6 remedied that issue. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_US6_2%C2%BD-ton_6x6_truck
This will be interesting. My town was liberated bay the Red Army. The shortest path to my house would require that Red Army troops after Stalingrad fly in a straight line for 2,500 km.
Naturally i always felt that German "our supply lines stretching for 800 km" excuses sounded weak as f...
Not liberated. Occupied. Liberating means you are free to do what you want. When Russians "liberated" your country, they killed all political leaders and activists of all political parties except the communist one. As a result, your country turned into 'socialism' which dissipated after how many? 50 years? What is it? Czechia?
@@wizard-of-other-oz ok fascist dog, the soviets should have killed way more people
Another thing to note is Jonathan Parshall's (Author of Shattered Sword) lecture on the USSR's industrial organization during WWII where they consolidated production is a very vertical organizational way. I.e all parts for final assembly of a tank made in the same factory complex, resulting in a vastly less burden on their railway network. This results in slightly less throughput but insured the railway network wouldn't collapse.
Logistics important! Thnks!
11:59 this is why in World of Tanks, the Soviet food premium consumable is Extra Combat Rations.
This is why I love your channel. These kind of things are overlooked by most pro Soviet modern historians. So it's awesome to see this broken down in a way the layman can understand. Thanks so much for the great content
I watch a lot of your videos and I want to say, as an American who isn't even totally literate in American English, you do a fantastic job of explaining in a language that I am assuming is not your native language. Great job.
Thank you! 😃
Oh captions. Nice!
A pair of trucks can also self replicate like a pair of horses (a mixed gender pair, that is).
So like a ford and Chevy make a dodge.
@@cactusman1771 I owned two VW Rabbits and couldn't get them to reproduce. I hoped for some VW "Bugs" but just no luck. Maybe it was because one was a diesel and the other fuel injected gasoline?
But you know you need wait something like 7 years before horse is ready to action, and in that time you need feed, heal, train and take care of it
@@swietoslaw True. It's not instantaneous. And one of the horses is out of action for a while at least while you're waiting for your new asset to mature.
I remember reading a book (I cant find it on my book shelf right now so I don't have the name), but there were some US divisions that ended up with extra trucks then their TOE provided because the troops were generally more adapt at repairing captured German trucks. The level of motorization of a society is very important for the topics of horses v trucks when it come to logistics.
A little advice. Jump cuts are your friend. Don't be afraid to use them
very fascinating...hope you focus on tactical logistics as well...
Something else for further discussion on this topic.
Could you please do Horses vs, camels, Mules, donkeys? Thanks :-)
It’s funny how people still just basically assign a bunch of characteristics to a given nationality, like “these guys fought a landwar in Asia once so they are experts in Asian land wars”. Or, the Russians were just experienced with logistics because they were so underindustrialized.
The real reasons will usually be in the industrial and social makeup of a society. In the case of the USSR, the planned economy especially at that time was extremely effective, and allowed not only for rapid industrialization on a level otherwise unattainable, but also (probably) better coordination in wartime.
For comparison, when those, supposedly same, Russians (and Ukrainians, Armenians, Belorussians, etc) fought a much weaker Germany from 1914 to 1917, they got destroyed utterly, nothing worked right and the troops never had the supplies or ammunition they needed. So what changed? In short, the Russian societies that went to war in 1914 and 1941 were completely different from each other, in almost every way. Hence also their military performance.
A couple of comments, while the to&E for a soviet rifle division may have had much fewer vehicles than a British, this may be as a result of the centralization of vehicles. A US division in 1944 also had very few vehicles on its to&E, despite the fact that most US infantry divisions in Europe had ACCESS to more vehicles than a panzer grenideer division - the answer is that almost all truck units in the US army were held at Army level, vice division, and attached as needed (although in practice, this tended to be quasi permanent). Given the Soviet centralization of vehicles you described earlier, I would expect almost all trucks to be assigned to the front or above, and then allocated to support the advancing divisions while none supported the static divisions. With regards to lend-lease, the majority of vehicles supplied by the US would not have reached the front before 1944, probably not until spring, so in the first half of the war they would have been a non-issue. On the other hand, during most of that period, the Soviets were falling back, thus shortening supply lines, and making rail and horse delivery easier, while the early soviet offenses tended to be (although not exclusively) much more tactical and of limited penetration right up until the destruction of Army Group Center, when the Studebakers would have started to make their presents felt. This would mean both authors could be correct, just at different times and within limited areas.
Yes, during the UDS Civil War, the man that was put in personally by President Lincoln was Herman Haupt. He was the chief engineer of the Pennsylvania RR and was a guy that rebuilt destroyed railway with nothing but what he could get locally. Lincoln once admire a bridge he rebuilt and commented that it was made of "twigs and cornstalks"
He was also good at destroying them if the military situation required that. You can see a tunnel he made in Tunnel Hill, Pennsylvania that is a local attracyion that has a tunnel festival each year. A great man.
"stuttering sets in while I think about my HOI3 infrastructure values" Oh so relatable.
So you had the same issue with HOI3 as I, lack of supply to forward/attacking units. And here I thought it was my bad planning. I expected some problems with winter, but the lack of supply in the "good" seasons surprised me and I planned for it later as I moved east. It is too bad that this was not addressed in a more detailed fashion. The infrastructure improvement in HOI3, seemed inadequate during operations, so I would concentrate on infrastructure AFTER I had over run and assimilated the country(s) into the Greater Reich.
How good were the Soviet Logistics? Better than the German ones!
@deee327ify Never heard about the great "silence" in Ukrainia and Bielorussia ? Or the Feldmarchall Model ? I c an assure you that the soviet weren't the only one to destroy everything behind them...
@deee327ify Germans destroyed everything the could when retreating:
ruclips.net/video/FsUX82Q1fWE/видео.html
@@command_unit7792 vid's unavailable
I don't find this statement smart or based on facts. I think the German ones were better. Having the same resources as USSR Germans would definitely win hands down.
@@wizard-of-other-oz Without a western front or the need the deploy divisions in the west, id think so too.
I should note that in Russia the railway gauge is different from the European one, so the Germans couldn’t take and direct their trains along the Russian railway so easily. However, we at one time could not do the same in German.
Also, American equipment unfortunately was not well adapted to the Russian winter, but made a significant contribution to the victory.
Can you do a video about lodgeistics in the Pacific? US vs Japan. That would be interesting.
It could be extremely interesting to make a similar video on the war of logistics in North Africa, especially for the Axis
and also, you know, a horse makes a good stew
If the truck brings you fuel to cook it... :-)
You could still somehow cook it without the fuel.
Would be troublesome to consume tho
By single line do you mean a single track line with bi-directional running? Or are you meaning a single route with multiple tracks between 2 locations? There are going to capacity differences between the 2.
having been an OTR truck driver then coordinating logistics for companies i can tell you that here in America trains are still king. the USA has the most advanced freight train system (at the expense of the passenger system) and most people are not even aware of it
Yeah, I learned that last year in Ohio, when a train passed by and Chieftain was worried and then explained it to me. In Europe a train passes usually in seconds not minutes.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized lolll i think it was u who told us in your 20 minute video that the germans had faster trains but where not able to handle as much volume as the russian ones..(btw really liked ur video) btw would love to see you talk about american logistics chains during the war.
To see how Soviet logistics matured at the end of the war, read (if you haven't already...) Glantz's paper on Operation August Storm. Which is in itself a topic you should absolutely cover ;).
Capturing intact rail lines didn't help much as the Russian used a different gauge track for their trains.
It helped. You can just change wheels. It cost a lot of hours (even nowadays), but it faster, then to build new railways. However, new lines were builded too.
@@TheSunchaster the germas changed the gauge... of the railroads. Didn't they?
@@r.ladaria135 yes, but after time, not at once
@@TheSunchaster well, nowadays it takes less than 2 minuts...if you ride a TALGO. ruclips.net/video/uIRYnBjKpSU/видео.html
Has MHV talked about the servrons of the USN during WWII that enabled combat ships to stay closer to the front longer increasing their overall effectiveness?
nice vid
How did German logistics finally break down? German production in the last 365 days of the war seemed adequate, good even. I've heard about the "eureka" moment that I believe the Americans had in 1944: bombing the staging yards - the places where the Reichsbahn had rail turntables, cranes, depots, etc. I believe Speer mentioned something about this postwar. The Americans started bombing the arteries of the Reichsbahn as well as the track and trains themselves and this actually was more effective at cutting troop supplies than hitting just the factories, although I don't know if the Americans were aware of its success until the postwar. I think this topic is rather interesting seeing that German logistics changed a lot throughout the course of the war, particularly as the war grew closer to home. Cheers
The American who sorted out the Union's railway system was Van Horne.
He later oversaw the development of the _Canadian National Railway,_ the _CNR._
During the American Civil War. The difference between North and South railroads was there gauge. The northern railroads mostly had the standard gauge 4ft 8.5 in (1435mm) while the railroads of the southern states used a broad gauge 5ft (1524 mm).
Not only did the withdrawal of rail stocks east concentrate those resources for the Reds it drew the Reich in deeper to an area of less railroad access which at some point reached maximum of capacity while demands increased per mile. Did Soviet planners realize this ahead of time and did that help them determine defensive strategy and placement of armies?
they didn't have as much "static" front in WW2 as in WW1 but in WW1 light rail was very extensively used to get vast amounts of material to the front, quickly laid kit tracks going directly on top of the rough ground and wagons hauled by light weight engines or even horse drawn i think in some cases moved a lot of stuff forward... in some cases these techniques could have been applied even over the seas of mud!!
Our deep penetrations of late 42 till 45 were possible because we concentrated most of our trucks in our tank corps and armies. Infantry formations, guard or not, received far less. Captured German trucks, although of significant numbers, didn't play that much role. Also, Germans did all they could to destroy as much railways as possible; they even devised a special "hook" locomotive to do this.
Gratulerer
Хорошее видео. Отличная работа! Маленькое дополнение. Климат в России - это ещё и колебания температуры около нуля градусов. Лёд-вода, лёд-вода. И это - настоящий отбойный молоток, который разрушает низкокачественное дорожное покрытие. А вот уровень промышленность и инфраструктуры значительно вырос после Первой мировой. Конец Первой мировой - это 4000 грузовиков по всей стране самых разных фирм и модификаций. В период с 1928 по 1937 год количество автомобильной техники в Красной Армии возросло в 1050 единиц до 40 тысяч машин.
К началу Великой Отечественной войны в РККА состояло на вооружении 272,6 тысяч автомобилей, в том числе
257,8 тысяч грузовых и специальных. Главное различие РККА (и советской армии) в отличии от Вермахта (и армий НАТО) - это универсальность. Западная армия - это специализация (+снабжение и логистика). РККА - это скромная логистика и САМообеспечение... САМогон, САМосвал, САМовар. :) "Плечо снабжения" РККА в 1944-1945 году - это 100 километров. Каждый день "Захары" и "Полуторки" наматывали сотни километров и это было тяжело.
Я бы гордился этим, если бы советские грузовики могли ездить по грязи. Под советские грузовики весной и осенью нужно было стелить гать, то есть повторить подвиг египетских рабов, строивших пирамиды. Сталин не зря просил Студебеккеры - они ездили по любой грязи. Когда немцы вынужденно стояли, СССР воевал.
Кста, не забывай, что в общем случае универсальность означает худшее качество и меньшее количество полезной работы в единицу времени
Lemd lease definetely made a differens in Soviet logistics. You don t develop in the rear of enemy lines an offensive by railway. You do it with trucks or horses.
A minor point about US / Confederate railroads: rivers in the US southeast mostly run north-south, making east-west railroads harder to build and operate.
ETA that this is because river valleys are separated by mountain ridges, and railroads are terrible at running up ridges, so they have to go the long way around.
16:45... the red army always concentrated huge amounts of tanks, artillery, AT, SPGs, transport, engineers and assault troops in "Separate" battalions, regiments, brigades etc, temporarily"attached" to Divisions and Corps but under Army control. So the unit establishments are misleading -- unless you account for this operational reality
I wonder if it would be correct to assume that,in those days, more people knew more about caring for horses than for automobiles.
Yes
Modern day example of why you dont fuck with shedules. Look at the suez. A ship blocked it ONLY for some days. And it made a mess that needed to be entangled over the following weeks and months! Same if you just squeeze a train into your shedule and delay the others to make it fit.
Instead of using the word trinity for three of something, you could use the Russian word troika if you are discussing Russian logistics. :-) "A group of three people working together, especially in an administrative or managerial capacity."
Great talk. I always thought that the Allied supply of trucks was overrated. Also wonder about the claims of how important Lend Lease aircraft were. I suspect that fuel quality would be a big issue. Soviet aircraft would be much easier to maintain and much more forgiving on fuel and other POL items.
A bigger problem with the aircraft was the difference of doctrine and warfare on the western and eastern fronts. The Russians regarded a lot of western aircraft as basically useless, since it was optimized for high altitude combat to escort/intercept heavy bombers.
By the nature of the eastern front, Strategic Bombing wasn't really an issue, and the primary concern was low level ground support. This is one reason the Soviets loved the P-39 Aerocobra, while the Western Powers mostly hated it. Poor high altitude performance wasn't really a relevant concern.
Great video as always. It is funny that after watching your head alone in the screen for a while you start developing a sort of aura. The problem is that it is a rasputitsa kind of brown.
Have you ever talked about the Prussian railway system from the 19th into the 20th centuries? My impression is that the Prussian railway system was the spine of the 2nd Reich.
I'm glad you mention the American Civil War. You can't understand why battles were fought where they were (in many cases) without seeing where the railroads were. Railroads were the key to Confederate success in the fighting in Virginia, for example. It was only at Antietam and Gettysburg that Lee lost the advantage railroads gave him.
I think I talked a bit about it here: ruclips.net/video/iCmCeg9QVu0/видео.html
The Soviets didn't think much of the earlier US tanks sent by Lend Lease, and did not ask for more, but they took all the truck we sent. These were seen in Soviet service long after the war
It make sense tge Soviets would prefer US trucks over tanks.
Tanks are far more likely to require specialised spare parts than trucks. (for example: broken transmissions would be far more common on tanks than on trucks)
Tanks are a lot more expensive, so the US could probably sent multiple trucks for every tank, which also means more availability of parts recovered from destroyed vehicles.
Driving a US or a Soviet truck is not very different, meanwhile tanks require more vehicle specific training to use.
US tanks require US ammo.
Last but not least, let's be honest tanks like the M3 Lee aren't exactly masterpieces when compared to the already quite flawed T-34-76's, i heard the British Matilda tanks were well-liked among soviet tankers though, but those weren't common either.
But they were more than happy with the diesel M-4 76mm Sherman.(First into is Vienna and maybe Berlin and Budepest) No one , not the US Army , British Army or the Soviets , asked for more M-3's.
@@captainnyet9855 the reason is simpler. USSR had good tanks, so it took steel to produce its better tanks. USSR did not have good trucks and could not produce good trucks at all. So USSR took the trucks and steel for the tanks. That's all.
Do you know anythong about trophey weapons during WW2. For example what trophey managed to capture the germany during the french campaing, how it was used, what part of it was used in the soviet campain, what trophey was capture during the soviet campain and etc.
Something that was pointed out in a US TV documentary on the WW II Russian Front: The Wehrmacht didn't have a strategy with attacking the Soviet logistics behind the front lines; as the German Army always "slugged it out" on the battle front with the Red Army. Yet, if the German Luftwaffe had long-range bombers that could have attacked the Soviet logistics behind the front lines, it could have throttled the effectiveness of the Red Army.
Whereas in Western Europe, the British and American air powers regularly attacked the German logistics many miles/kilometers behind the front lines.
> Whereas in Western Europe, the British and American air powers regularly attacked the German logistics many
> miles/kilometers behind the front lines.
That is correct, yet it is out of context: compare the average front width on the Western Front with the Eastern Front in 1944.
> Yet, if the German Luftwaffe had long-range bombers that could have attacked the Soviet logistics behind the front
> lines, it could have throttled the effectiveness of the Red Army.
what you are talking about is interdiction, you don't need long-range bombers for that. You need long-range bombers for strategic bombing. For more information on interdiction etc. check out this video on my main channel:
ruclips.net/video/wvuu5yBK81c/видео.html
Also I have videos discussing the difference of the Air War on the Eastern and Western Front as well:
Short Version: ruclips.net/video/fV96qB3sGhI/видео.html
Long Version: ruclips.net/video/f1akJPwwbTk/видео.html
В 1937 году по выпуску грузовых автомобилей (180 тыс. за год) CCCР вышел на первое место в Европе,
Bro that's a nice Coat.
I cant agree with horse argument, you mention disadvantages of truck but dont mention them in context of horse.
Horses needed a lot veterinarians. They needed a lot of care after arriving to destination, they need a rest you cant drive couple days.
Horses cant be repaired and when wounded is mostly death sentence.
Also horse can pull very small weight. so you cant go more then around 150-250km becasue whole wagon will be packed with horse food :P
Breading horses is much harder in war time, you cant just increase production. you have pregnancy, maturing and training (i dont know how long for logistic)
Horse logistic need about 10 times more men to drive the damns wagons, so you have people who themself need food, clothes gun but they dont fight
In closer to combat logistic is even worse, horses must be look after, you can just leave horse but portion of drivers must stay with them instead of helping unload cargo.
Could you do videos on the Chinese theatre of WW2?
You said it took till the American civil war to find out population density is related to being able to live off the land but Clausewitz argues that in great detail in his book like 30 years before that.
Cold in your studio, innit?
more appropriate for the eastern front than a Hawaii shirt!
Reporting live from the Stalingrad pocket.
Studio located in the Siberian gulag
Nowadays-at least here in the U.S., you can count on almost every millitary recruit already knowing how to drive. The logistics divisions wouldn't have to invest as much time and fuel into training truck drivers as they would in a society where everyone grew up working with horses and had never even seen a truck before.