I just want to point out - some of the people who expressed their dissatisfaction were quite reasonable with their comments. But a lot were not. I'd prefer it if people didn't swear or call me names etc, or accuse me of lying or being "intellectually dishonest" etc. If you disagree with me, please just say something like "Hey TIK, could you elaborate more on this point?" Also, Patreons and Subscribestarians - I'm going to be posting an update soon on the sites, and replying to your messages in the next couple days. I'm a bit behind with things, so sorry about that. But thank you for your continuing support!
"Who cares, look at my user name. Imagine the amount of name calling I get from the Communist." It can't be that bad. Name: "FASCIST NATIONALIST MOVEMENT" Oh.
@Kenneth Knoppik - true, although to be fair, striking a balance is pretty hard. I think a lot of people are so used to people who blatantly side with one side or another that they assume everyone does it. In my case, I don't care for taking sides. I'm just trying to find the truth, which means I annoy almost everyone. Well, so be it :)
@@TheImperatorKnight Don't stop reading comments, because there are plenty of good comments which can be additional source of knowledge, at least 5% of them. And for the rest of comments... Well, don't forget you're making a publicly accessible content. So, I advise you to grow a bit of skin. I mean, after 5 years of youtubing, one should assume you already did. :p
I can't see any bias in your videos. Nobody makes better, more objective and detailed videos. I appreciate your work. People are people. Having no critics means living in a bubble. :)
"Having no critics means living in a bubble. :)" Yeah that's true. I just wish my critics would be a bit more polite about it, especially when it usually turns out that they're wrong!
Just like TIK, StalData is alternatively accused of having a Soviet or German bias. This alternative pattern confirms there's no bias in reality. The only objective is to achieve historical truth and accuracy.
@@TheImperatorKnight Always a pleasure, sir ! Also, I forgot to mention you by email: I've realized just a few days ago watching (or re-watching) your previous videos, that you already had one named "Breakout of Stalingrad"... I swear I didn't pick my title from there! Not that it would have done much if I did intentionnaly, anyway. But all the same, I just hate picking up from others. So I prefer to mention this, whatever :)
In case noone else mentioned it (don't have time to check all replies): the Command Panzers were mobile command centers. They had a lot more radios and to make room for all the extra communication equipment, usually it had no working gun. First Command Panzers used by the Germans could thus be marked by the enemy because it was the one tank with more antennas and no gun. Later Command Panzers, for that reason, featured wooden mock-ups of guns. It didn't help though that the markings on any command tank usually showed "001" (or maybe 000) pointing to any enemy this was a 'special tank/target' Anyway, since they didn't fire their guns at the enemy (hard to fire a wooden mock-up), it's not that important what tank type German Command Tanks were. I do believe they were most times the same type as the regular tanks in the unit because else it would not be able to keep up with the rest. But of course Command Tanks were vital to the cohesion and overall effectiveness of the tank unit.
@heilige Einfalt Not 100 % sure, but as far as I remember some Panzer I were command tanks but I guess mostly out of service at that point in the war. As far as I remember there were no command version of the Panzer II but a lot of Panzer III and again no command version of Panzer IV. So to speak all command tanks must had been Panzer III.
Thanks for the valuable replies. Still, even if the later Command Panzers had working guns and some ammo, surely they would be occupied with commanding and coordinating the rest of the tanks. I assume the gun was merely meant as a ways of defending itself should the need arise. On the whole, a Command Panzer was an extremely important asset without which, the entire tank formation would be much less effective. I don't know how the Soviet Army went about this but I assume they just had a command tank with regular radio, thus being much less effective.
heilige Einfalt The panzer 1 was phased out in 1943, and most definitely would have been the command tank mentioned in panzer units on the road to Stalingrad, but unlikely to still be used in the role months later in the retreat from Stalingrad
heilige Einfalt the Sd.Kfz. 265, Was still the tank of choice for command and control above the company level in panzer formations through 1942 and with the panzer artillery. A panzer regiment or brigade would likely have several of them on the road to Stalingrad en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Panzer+III+K&ns0=1 “The Sd.Kfz. 265 first saw combat in the Polish Campaign of September 1939. Afterwards, many were converted to Sanitätskraftwagen I (Sd.Kfz. 265) armoured ambulances which served in the French Campaign of 1940. Of the 190 produced, 96 were still in use in May 1940 at the start of the invasion of France and the Low Countries. Following a 15 mm increase in armor protection (to a total of 28 mm) that was hastily applied to the surfaces of the superstructure as a result of combat experiences in Poland[1], the Sd.Kfz. 265 command tank continued in use throughout the invasions of France and the Netherlands, and in 1941 many were shipped across the Mediterranean to participate in the North African Campaign. Sd.Kfz. 265 also saw considerable action in the Balkans Campaigns of 1941 before being replaced by larger command vehicles. Though replaced at the company level, many would continue to see service at higher levels of command through 1942. Some were also used as radio control vehicles for Minenräum-Wagen BI/BII (Sd.Kfz.300). A small number were also exported to Hungary. A few were still in service with the German Army when the war ended, though largely delegated to training roles.” The panzer III K was first produced in 42 completed production in 43, and only 50 were ever built it is unlikely most panzer I command tanks were replaced in frontline units that had overrun their supply lines and could not get enough fuel and ammo much less replacement battle tanks and certainly not mobile radio tanks. Without the complete ToE for the 2 panzer divisions it is really wild speculation on anyone’s part exactly what tank model these command tanks were. Although I think we can find common ground in it is highly unlikely the bulk of these command tanks were pz.3k’s and therefore were unlikely to have a main gun and be considered as part of “battle” ready tanks
heilige Einfalt you misunderstand me, likely my fault... Pz 1 command tanks did not leave the ToE in 1942, it unlikely pz 1’s with no turret or main gun were simply parked and perfectly working pz 3’s were held back to perform in that role on this point we disagree, however if they did because of how they were to be used they would not be charging across the Russian steppe and therefor should prolly not be counted when considering tank strength. I also did not say in Stalingrad but rather the road to it the forces trapped in the city were largely infantry and if anything armored force would be mostly assault guns not tanks. My point was panzer 1’s or 3’s ultimately makes no difference, command tanks were not battle tanks and shouldn’t be counted for tank strength. My second point was without the ToE we have no idea which model of command tank it was, so both of our assertions are merely wild ass guesses I content they were likely rear unit vehicles that survived because they were not fighting, you contend they were the more capable company units because they were “better” I’d say both points sound logical but without the ToE we really have no way to know.
@@TheImperatorKnight Yay you replied :D I love your videos and how neutral you are to everything. I got Ostkrieg, Myth of the Eastern Front, When Titans Clash, and others from your suggestions and I love them! Only The Armchair Historian and Potential History can come close to the entertainment and facts you do! 1 question, what's your opinion on Downfall? I have yet to see Downfall and I want to know your opinion
At that time, yes the Germans were stronger than the Soviets. If they were not, they would not have been able to advance against them, which was obviously not the case. The Soviets knew that they could never win a decisive victory at Stalingrad, so they just fielded enough troops to hold the city, engaged the Germans in hand to hand combat wherever possible to negate their technological superiority, then built up and cut the chicken's neck off.
@@_Abjuranax_ Germans never were stronger thatn the Soviets.What allowed the Germans to advance is the reorganisation of the entire red army,troubles in communication and the suprise element.Also how were the Germans technologically superior?I cant see that
Thanks so much for the videos, there's so much detail in them I'm on my second watching of the Fall blau video to make sure I'm not missing anything. The Stalingrad videos are great too! Whenever you see negativity remember there's gobs of us enjoying your work and grateful for it, it's just the nature of the online beast.
@@jussim.konttinen4981 TIK's a populist? He's for the Gold Standard. That was just about the first thing populism opposed; see William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech. He's an unabashed Austrian Schooler who put John Maynard Keynes together with Rosa Luxemberg. ` Unless, Mr. Konttinen, you live next to the man linked below. Then TIK would rightly be considered a populist: ruclips.net/video/QWalf3JNctU/видео.html .
@Vasian Vasianich 1: Devi's so hawt. Is there a Devist Party I can get in on? static-3.bitchute.com/live/cover_images/owgnsdTLXG2t/XwFlsTodBTNQ5pc9igiBcFJG_640x360.jpg 2: _This_ 'Adûnâi' ? The one whose view of world cultures suggests a universally unsatisfactory compromise between Putin and Erdogan's wet dreams? imgur.com/gallery/tCX4o4p
German Panzer production was already past the Mk II by then, but it was really a mute point as they would have thrown all operational tanks into battle. They were probably used as reconnaissance and quickly avoided situations where they would have been overmatched and would call up support to deal with the situation. After the fall of Stalingrad, the Panzer II's would have been almost non existent, as the German Military lost the greater bulk of its current equipment behind Russian lines. Hitler even delayed the subsequent Battle of Kursk so he could field the new Panzers being developed, but that delay allowed the Soviets to strengthen their fortifications in the salient and were ultimately victorious.
A few comments on some of your questions or unclear things: 1. command panzer: in general, the Panzerbefehlswagen at this stage of the war could either be the small ones on the Panzer I chassis or - more likely - the big ones on the Panzer III chassis. The latter had one or two MG for self defense and a wooden mock-up gun. They carried, however, additional radios. 2. the large number of Panzer II in 24th PD: as far as I know, the 24th PD was full strength or at least very close to it, the 16th was not. Therefore they had a full complement of Panzer II 3. low numbers of casualties of Panzer II: By this time, the Wehrmacht had finally figured out, that the Panzer II was completely obsolete as a first line combat tank AND they had the Panzer III and IV in such numbers to replace them in the platoons of the "light tank company" (replaced by Panzer III) or rather to convert them to a "medium tank company". Both are 1st, 2nd and 3rd company of every tank battalion, the 4th company was a heavy or support company, which fielded Panzer IV (originally only the short barreled) for long range HE fire. The Panzer II was kept, however, for the "light or recon tank platoon", which was part of the HQ section of every tank regiment and battailion. They were five to six Panzer II strong and - as recon - were the eyes and ears of the combat companies. Their mission was to see the enemy and get the f*** out. They were not to fire on tanks, as the would not have a slight chance. They fought soft targets like trucks infantry, but even these fights were short because of the ever imminent threat of AT-rifles and guns.
I find it really hard to believe people think TIK is biased. This Stalingrad series has me eagerly waiting for next episodes. I think most would agree that TIK argues for both sides and that "the truth often lies somewhere in the middle". Great job. Regarding east front Luftwaffe pilots, I read somewhere about some early helicopter variants used for search and rescue but cannot find the source(and if I did, it's more likely to be 43-44').
I know the feeling,Dad was at Midway on the Yorktown.Im nearly 60yrs old and have gone to Yorktowns reunions since 1977. I have thousands of signatures from the three sisters and all the escorts.A few tools and books off the ship etc.yet I'm no expert on Midway and Coral Sea nor do I claim to be.It bothers me when a 22yr old expert swears The Yorktown was never in the Atlantic on Neutrality patrol and tries to prove it standing in front of dad in the store.(Eye Roll).TIK love your Channel.Learn more every day.Keep doing what your doing👍
I believe that you are about the most fair and unbiased channel available. One thing I can see some people's point about the Pz3 being light vs being medium is that the weight of the tank is much less than the T-34. Roughly 23-25 tons vs 27-34 tons. Even the Pz4 is smaller than the T34 at 25-27 tons. Germany classified tank classes by cannon size so that the Tiger itself was called a medium correct? By the way I love the content!
I have been following your Stalingrad series and I enjoy the attention you pay to the detail of all factors that contribute to the outcome of these battles. I unfortunately have obtained most of my knowledge from the older writings which are filled with many inaccuracies. TIK you are very thorough and these type of videos are my favorite to watch. The tank debate is a complicated one. Yes the Soviets had a number of light tanks in their ranks, but the Panzer 2 with its armament and limited combat effectiveness must have played a very minimal role in offensive actions. As seem to be conveyed by your statistical information on surviving numbers at the various stages of the battle. This tank must not have been used in frontal attacks like Panzer 3's and 4's as reflected my the reduction in numbers of the later. While the Panzer 3 is a great tank design it does struggle against its class of allied tanks in firepower and protection. its ability to continue into 42 and 43 is a testament to the technological, training and strategic advantages employed by the Germans to minimize these shortcomings. Maybe at some point you could consider doing a video of the transition from the Panzer 3 over to the Stug 3 long barrel. A much more formidable fighting vehicle. Keep up the good work!
Anyone remember the mission from 'Call of Duty 2' where you have to fight the Panzer II in the ruins of Stalingrad? It was pretty unique at the time for having you fighting a tank on foot that wasn't completely scripted. It moved around the level and you had to chase it down and put a satchel charge on it. Good times.
Your content is excellent. It's sad that you feel you have to respond to the 0.1% but in a way I'm glad I get to see more content from you! Keep up the great work
Thanks Tik for all these in-depth videos. Don’t worry about the detractors. Keep doing what you’re doing and filling in all the blanks about the war on the Eastern front
i Have to say i always enjoy your videos and find them very interesting and revealing they deal with subjects most historians never look at the economic factors and i have never seen you be pro any side in your discussions you say it with a constructive reason as to why you have reached your conclusions keep on going most of us love your work
the German tank advantage wasn't mobility, armor, or gun. It was radios and optics. Better comms and can see and thus hit at greater ranges. Thisis true of all tank classes throughout the war.
and the greatest contribution of lend lease was radios and trucks. the US was glad to send radios since obviously if your enemy in the next war is literally using your radios... and trucks because you can't use trucks well as weapons (Diana mounting of ATGs on trucks might work in the desert but W.Europe isn't a desert).
@@karimchaffai5922 I believe T-34 85 had a proper four man crew which is the minimum you need to operate effectively (gunner, loader, radio, spotter, driver, it's 5 tasks you need at least 4 men)
@@QuizmasterLaw radio/hull machinegunner is a superfluous position, no modern tank has them, and if you can have a autolader then 3 is perfect. Btw the t-34-76 had 4 man crews and the t-34-85 had 5.
Concerning Hoth's name: The "th" is almost certainly a hard sound, like in "tank". The english pronunciations of "th", as in "think" or "father", both simply do NOT EXIST in german. Whether or not the sound is long or short I don't know.
I don't necessarily agree with your politics or how much of it you put into your otherwise excellent videos, but you are clearly not a supporter of either extremist side of the political spectrum. anyone claiming the contrary is probably blinded by being himself on the other extreme. I do find that you are slightly more critical of the Germans. I think as a reaction to all the love they get from certain history fans.
That is precisely it. I'm not "against" the Germans, I'm against the "bias" in the literature which favours the Germans. And also, I'm glad you don't agree with me on everything. I'd encourage you not to agree with me, because I want the people who watch my videos to think! But if people disagree, there's no need to scream in the comments and sling insults at each other. That's not thinking, that being childish
@@TheImperatorKnight What I like about your videos: 1. Extremely detailed. 2. Very thorough. 3. You use several sources, and list them all. 4. You point out the contradictions between your sources, and try to show where it looks like it's the author's opinion instead of the history. 5. You try to keep your opinions out of it, and you state when something is your opinion. 6. You tell the story without talking a side, other than as an observer. 7. You admit that you're human and make mistakes, and correct them. Your videos are the only ones that aren't movies, that are longer than an hour (I just finished Crusader, the long version) that I willingly watch on RUclips. That's a pretty good history lecture in my book.
I don't always agree with you Tik, but to be fair, you come across as an honest person with integrity who tries to present an unbiased view. From a non-idealogue.
Perhaps a little late, but, keep the great work up! I’m really impressed by the detailing that goes in to the video’s. If someone doesn’t like it, DON’T WATCH IT! Those are the people who are getting their info purely out of videogames🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️... greetings from Belgium
@@skodalaskoda8754 presumably at least some of them were, considering they designed classes better suited for anti-infantry and structure warfare as well as tanks that had better anti-armour performance and used them side by side simultaneously - for example the early-mid war long barrel Panzer 3 was more anti-tank and the short barrel Panzer 4 was more anti-infantry. It goes without saying that they would be deployed to use their strengths best, so at least some long barrel Panzer 3s would be deliberately set where the enemy likely had armour operating
@@RugnirSvenstarr I doubt it, they were too expensive and time consuming to produce to throw away that way.. Blitzkrieg and other german tactics specifically called for the avoidance of grouped armor. Sword and shield asked tank crews to draw opposition armor onto anti tank guns.. But Im no expert
pz2 would have been quite effective in this case, the 20mm could penetrate most soviet light tanks, even sometimes it could knock out t-34's as seen in the records, you don't need to penetrate a tank to leave it out of comission.
"This might cause that YT algoritms, can block this video in ... Germany xD" Actually, unlike many of my videos, this video has been accepted for full-monetization :/ makes absolutely no sense
Can recommend books by Artem Drabkin, as a source of veteran memories. He has done a lot of work talking to veterans. He also tried to prove their words by archive documents, where those were accessible.
There are more Slavs than just Soviet Union and Soviet Union isnt just Slavs. I would even bet that US Army in Europe had a higher % of white people than the Red Army.
@Audio Sugar Yes, thats what I assumed. And US were rarely using black people for combat. And if you count all Slavic people, Im guessing half of them wont be in the Soviet Union. And as a Slav I believe that communists were traitors of Russia in WWI, and communism was created by Germans (Marks, Engels). Lenin in WWI got permission to move from German speaking university i Switzerland, thru German lands to start an anti Russian government revolution. And after WWI Slavic nationalists were the Bolshevik biggest enemy.
If it wouldn't be too hard, perhaps putting the Wolf or the white red white stripes from the Ingushetia flag. Or the golden scroll from the modern Chechen flag in the Chechen cav unit's marker. That would be a little more recognizable then a generic green. The "mountain ASSR" crescent and stars could also work. Good work with everything thusfar!
Nice video TIK, good that brought that on the table. One extra bonus point would be how effectiv the sovjet light tanks were, because their weapons are in case of the t70 better than by the german light tank. So we have light tanks on the german side with light weapons and medium tanks on the german side with light weapons, panzer III short, and medium tanks with medium weapons. On the sovjet side we have light tanks with light weapons, t60, light tanks with medium weapons, t70, medium tanks with medium weapons and heavy tanks with meduim weapons. The numbers are as you have made clear in german favor, but i think is is more complicated and maybe a bit to much in detail. Thanks for your work and looking forward for the next video.
I think he also stated that the main combat that tanks would see was not tanks vs tanks, since the Germans tried to avoid these since the battle of France and early encounters with soviet T-34s and KV-s. The armaments is not really that important since both nations had tanks that could take each other out. The problem was the armour which gives breakthrough and holding capabilities. T-60s might have been able to snipe out some german tanks (altough highly unlikely), but they could not breach enemy positions because poor protection and they could not hold positions for the same reason.
Ugh TIK I feel bad for you mate. Anyone who presents simple facts in this modern world is called some unpleasant name by someone. Please understand the bulk of your audience isn't that dumb and we just love watching the stuff you put out due to your high production quality and extremely detailed sourcing.
I do realize that most of my subscribers aren't dumb, but there's still a significant number of people who are just waiting for me to slip up somehow so they can call me out on it. Not sure what they hope to gain from it, but everything I say is backed up by thr sources. Yes now and then mistakes are made, but they assume that I just make stuff up as I go along, and I'm not sure why they're like that
It's very professional of you to take the time to reply to these people in such detail when you are already committed to spending so much time on your videos. Problem is that those rude individuals to whom you are directing your replies will probably get bored after the opening scene! Keep up the good work and bollocks to the "retail customers" 😁
Hello TIK, I really appreciate your endeavor for the detailed, easy to understand and visualized ‘BATTLESTORM STANLINGRAD’ series, which I call them 'THE MASTERPIECE'. While I was watching your videos, could I ask a question about battle of Stalingrad for minor stuff that no one cares? During the operation Blau, how was the team-work among German 6th army high ranking commanders and is there any chance that team-work might affect the fate of operation, both internally among 6th Army (including 4th Panzer Army) generals and externally between 6th army and OKH General staff (or Army Group B)? Most German senior generals in WWII must come from Junker class, noble, traditional Prussian military family and should be accepted at General Staff (Großer Generalstab) in their early careers. Paulus’ family was not from Junker and he was not from noble nor military family. When Barbarrosa started in 1941, Paulus was even lower ranking general compared to most Corps commanders in 6th Army. Paulus became a commander of 6th army from chief of staff role in Nov. 1941 mainly because Rechenau recommended Paulus to his old position. Let me explain this; F. Paulus - VI Army Born 1890 Officer Cadet 1910 General major 1939 Gen. der Panzertruppe 1942 W. Heitz - VIII Army Corps Born 1878 Officer Cadet 1898 General major 1933 Gen. der Artillerie 1937 G. von Wietersheim - XIV Panzer Corps Born 1884 Officer Cadet 1902 General major 1934 Gen. der Infanterie 1938 K. Strecker - XI Army Corps Born 1884 Officer Cadet 1904(?) General major 1935 Gen. der Infanterie 1942 W. von Seydlitz-Kurzbach - LI Army Corps Born 1888 Officer Cadet 1908(?) General major 1939 Gen. der Artillerie 1942 It is said that there were constant conflicts between Paulus and Seydlitz and that even Paulus relieved Seydlitz’s command before the surrender. Heitz had almost same seniority level as M. von Weichs, however, it does not mean that Heitz was the most capable senior general and should command the 6th army. Based on the results of 2nd battle of Kharkov in May 1942, Paulus was a capable/smart military general how to defend, to re-shuffle the troops, then to counter-attack Red Army. The interesting thing is that the seniority of Paulus cannot be matched to most Corps commanders and even some division commander (Max Pfeffer) had more seniority than Paulus. Every commander of company, battalion, regiment, division, corps always tried to save his unit first, no matter what the situations are. For an example, Guderian was relieved during the battle of Moscow because he tried to protect his over-extended 2nd Penzer group and ordered his troops to retreat for better defending positions. During operation Blau and desperate miserable situation, I believe every German generals (division and corps) tried to minimize their unit casualties and would not blindly follow Army level orders or OKH’s order unlike Soviet Red Army generals did. I would like to know from historical records whether prestigious, noble, arrogant German corps commanders (Heitz, Strecker, Wistersheim, Seydlitz et. al) might ignore Paulus order, which were 6th army tactical orders to subordinate units during July - Oct. of 1942 or these generals might have different views how to attack city of Stalingrad from the beginning. These team-works, conflicts, disagreements among German generals were famously known between Leo von Schweppenburg and Erwin Rommel for the philosophical strategic difference how to defend the Atlantic Coast in 1944 and it did not work at all to German side. Thank you for reading this lengthy letter and all your excellent videos. Godspeed! PS: Please allow my English if it is hard to understand, not my mother tongue.
A good question - one which I hadn't considered before. To be honest, I haven't seen any 'conflict' in the early part of the battle (the bits we've covered so far). And I don't recall much conflict until right at the end, during the encirclement, which you mentioned in your comment. What you have to remember is that, Hitler was promoting non-Junker or non-elite generals into positions of power throughout the war, and especially as the war went on. He was against the "vons" and for the "lower" people who were fanatical "National Socialists". This was still an on-going process at this time, and wouldn't properly kick in until after Zeitzler took over Halder. We also have to remember that the German officers were trained to obey. So while Paulus may not have had 'seniority' over some of his commanders, they were trained to obey their higher-ups. Plus, Paulus was married to a Romanian noblewoman, which put him in touch with the Romanian premier. And he had planned parts of Operation Barbarossa, plus other campaigns, so he was a very experienced staff general. I don't know if I can answer your question fully today. But I will be on the look out for hints within the literature of the relationship between Paulus and his generals, and I'll include it within the series if possible. If you or anyone else has any suggestions for sources, let me know.
Pilots can survive a plane crash without a parachute too- particularly important for the bomber case, because it might have had the engines killed, dropped its bombs randomly to save up power, and glided wherever it could. Then either part of the crew was killed in action or managed to escape the capture before red army units reached the wreckage. this is harder for fighters I think, not an expert, but it's still possible enough, it's just way more unlikely that a fighter is intact enough to glide around decently after a burst, especially because everything is in the same place - while on a bomber with the engings off to the wings, one might explode and not kill the crew directly still.
@@leviath401 There was however one German Ace who only hit the silks once after being shot down, and the experience of parachuting scared him so much, that he crash landed his planes after that.
@@QuizmasterLaw theyre all good. TIK and mhv are for people looking into detail on ww2 etc whereas ww2 with indy are about the overview. none are bad. i watch them all
@Nasim Aghdam ouch well at least now i can understand Why he's eccentric :( Do you really think the man is going to tell you it was a horrible traumatic injury? Of course not. Just a scratch? Horses kill people all the time by kicking them to death. I never called him a coward or dishonest. I suggest you take his claimed non-injury with a grain of salt.
1) The Befehlspanzer were most likely Panzerbefehlswagen III Ausf. H with long-range radios but with a fake dummy gun. These are not combat capable due to the absence of a main cannon. Or they could be Ausf. J command tanks that actually did have a real main gun if I'm not mistaken. 2) A panzer kompanie at the time usually had three tank platoons with either Panzer III or Panzer IV's but it also had a light reconnaissane tank platoon with Panzer II's. There was another recon tank platoon attached to the battalion HQ and the regimental HQ. A total of 25-30 Panzer II's matches with a full complement of the recon tank platoons. (Pier Paolo Battistelli, Panzer Divisions: the eastern front 1941-1943 Osprey Publ.) 3) I can imagine that casualties for the light recon tanks would be lower than for the main combat tanks (Panzer III and Panzer IV). Their job was scouting not prolonged combat. 4) The Soviet T-60 light tank had light frontal armour and a 20mm autocannon. Roughly comparable to a Panzer II. The Soviet T-70 had a 45mm ZiS-19BM gun and 45mm of sloped frontal armour. So the T-70 had a reasonable gun and frontal armour but it was still a very bad tank due to the one-manturret. I would definately rate it as inferior to a Panzer III (both short and long barrel). However I would argue that the T-70 can be seen as roughly equal to the Panzer 38(t).
Wow TIK, i always wonder why you put so much effort in answering to the trolls! Like your channel very much because it's plain to see how much effort you put into every episode and it's a great joy to watch it even for a layperson like me because of how founded it is. Criticising your "Hoth" pronunciation is ridiculous! I think it's important to put some effort into right pronunciation but i've been living in Germany for like 20 years and speak german very well and it absolutely ok, and it is not a linguistic channel anyway. Keep up the good work and stay healthy! Thanks!
12:23 About the parachute issue: There might be an other possibility. Both the veteran and the lady can be right. Multi-Crew bombers normally fly so high that the crew has the HEIGHT to bail out. Parachutes need a certain time to fully open. The lady which saw Luftwaffe pilots bailing, might have seen them bailing from very low flying Stukas or other Jagdbomber. Even with a parachute those men would have hit the ground without any parachute "opening" visible. If you can actually make out a pilot bailing from his airplane, the airplane is not flying very high. Yet another possibility: The lady mistook parts of the disintegrating aircraft for "bailing pilots".
Thanks for this. I think it is a fair question to ask. Just some peoplehave no idea how to expresss their doubt without prejudice. I never doubted your creibility but had wondered what the german proportions were. Great video.
2:58 for the record on that picture the tank in the background is the Panzer III while the center one is the Panzer IV F2. When not sure count the road wheels, Panzer IV has 8 wile Panzer III has 6. Either way keep up the good work, Tik.
On the Panzer II, I just want to point out that its 20mm cannon could take out a similarly armed T-60 from any angle in combat range but could also take out a T-70 in the side or rear just as easily, but however I doubt it could take one out from the front, its 35mm armour I'm pretty sure was too thick. The point is that if half of the 300 Soviet Tanks are T-60s & T-70s, then that means that half of the total Soviet Tanks in the one to one ratio are going to also be vulnerable to those 20% or so of the German 300 total Panzer number which are Panzer IIs, at least in theory!
Not taking a parachute because you don’t want to be captured seems strange to me, because you might need it over your own lines. Damage sustained over enemy lines can later cause problems. I now lean towards rumors. Great vid btw.
This is actually the second time this week that I hear about soviet pilots not wearing parachutes. The first one was in a video by the History Guy about the soviet Night Witches, female pilots not wearing parachutes since they flow missions so close to the ground that a parachute would be useless. thanks for sharing.
The Panzer III was a medium tank, you are correct. You showed a Panzer IV in the picture, but that’s beside the point. 😂 Excellent videos, really enjoy them.
Loving the Stalingrad campaign analysis. Still need to see you strumming a few chords on that guitar, though, lol. It can be therapeutic after fighting off a few youtube trolls.
Another possibility on the parachute issue. Flight Sergeant Nicholas Alkemade, RAF. Rear gunner in in a Lancaster shot down in March 1944 by a Ju88. The rear turret in a Lancaster wasn't big enough to fit your parachute into so instead it was in the fuselage behind you, you had to get out of the turret, put your parachute on and then jump. When Alkemade got out of his turret he discovered his parachute was shot up and on fire so he was faced with staying in the aircraft and burning to death or jumping and hoping for a quick (relatively) painless death when he hit the ground. He chose to jump, at around 18,000ft. His fall was broken by pine trees and deep snow drifts on the ground. He survived with nothing more that a sprained ankle. My point being that if someone saw a German airman plummeting out of the sky, smashing into the ground and dying, he or she may come to the conclusion that "They Don't Issue Them With Parachutes So They Won't Get Captured!!!!" and be completely wrong. From my reading Alkemade was interrogated by the Germans as to what he had done with his parachute as they refused to believe he hadn't used one. It was only when a German officer with experience of RAF parachute gear examined his parachute harness and confirmed that it hadn't been used was he packed off to a POW camp. Personally I think given the choice of a) burning alive, or b) dying on hitting the ground at terminal velocity (from Google about 120mph), I'd pick b).
In re the parachutes: A 5th possibility to consider (1, rumor. 2, chose not to wear to avoid capture. 3, lack of parachutes / not enough to go around. 4, lying / guess / made up by "witness" ) is that the the Soviet actually saw a German flyer who bailed out of a damaged airplane hit the ground without a chute opening. BUT, the flyer may have had one, but it failed to function / open, which might very well look to a ground observer like a person without a parachute, especially from a far enough distance to not be able to see the parachute pack on the flyer. Great stuff all around TIK.
Hi TiK! Just to clarify "command panzer" for you. These are probably panzer 3 variants with additional radios and map tables. To allow the internal space for these fittings they had a fake main armament with a wooden gun barrel, but retained the turret m.g. Not sure if that helps, mate? Keep up the damned fine work, but can you do a bit more content covering N. Africa and Italian campaigns? My dad was in 1st army and was sent south at the time of Kasserine, and was also on Vesuvius in '44 when it went boom. Anyhoo, keep it up!
I belive that the command tanks were the sdkfz 265 Panzerbefehlswagen and, i belive, it was built from a panzer I. chassi. Thanks for great vids man, love your stuff!
I have an old book on tanks and a command panzer was a modified panzer I. If I remember correctly the turret was fixed like a tank destroyer. It had a machine gun but probably wouldn't have been in the front lines with panzer IIIs and IVs.
The Pz2 was significant in the early war due largely to the Blitzkrieg tactic, which is an operational level tactic. In that tactic you concetrate forces, punch through the line, and instead of consolidating (the old way) you continue on into the rear area (w/o worry too much about your supply line). For this role, it was a wonderful AFV. But the little tank didnt fair to well when there were enemy AFVs or AT guns around. As the war progressed, both sides quickly learned to deal with this tactic (by defense in depth), and the role of the Pz2 faded.
Ok I’ll try again after watching you’re videos on Stalingrad and Kursk and basically everything you’ve done on the Eastern Front which as a self proclaimed amateurish historian for whatever reason history has been my main sense of interest and enjoyment all my life you’re historical lecturer’s are without doubt the best I’ve ever witnessed both the presentation and investigational facts provided by yourself cannot be matched by anything I’ve ever seen and whoever reads this trust me I’ve seen just about everything presented on this subject “The second WW and the EASTERN FRONT “ keeping in mind just about. Having said this I cannot thank you enough for these most enjoyable and informative videos I’m still trying to figure out the procedure of payment for you’re programming I’m still trying to listen to you’re instructions concerning this. One of my biggest questions is “ Would Germany still have lost WW ll if the U.S. had not entered the fighting against Germany.”This question has dogged me for years and I would respect you’re opinion above all others so far...again thanks TIK for all your great work it is greatly appreciated and I’ll continue to pursue this damn payment procedure I can’t seem to figure out.
During 1942 Panzer IIs were mainly used as recce tanks, Panzer IIIs were the main battle tanks and IVs were support tanks, as more long barreled IVs became available they took over the IIIs role in the Panzer Divisions spear head role. German Infantry Divisions had close support from Stug IIIs which were part of the Artillery arm, hence the figures do not necessarily show the full power of a German Army groups capability, which included an assortment of other AFVs, such as the Panzer II chassis mounting a 50mm, later 75mm PAK anti-tank gun in Panzerjager units, or mounting a 105mm artillery gun (wasp). Other impressed tank chassis of Czech and French origin were also used for mobile artillery, anti-tank and assault gun mountings. The Germans were good at re-purposing older designs as new and up-dated equipment became available (Panzer V & VI in 1943). Keep up the good work, History needs to evolve as well...
Pz IIs in 1941 would be used for scouting and clean up. A Pz II is still superior to Russian infantry. The 2d "Light" divisions had lots of Pz IIs. The four "Light" divisions were converted to Panzer divisions after the Polish campaign. 1st Light had a good mix but 2d had lots of Pz IIs. 3d and 4th light division also had lots of Pz IIs. Only 1st light had a normal mix of Is, IIs, 38s. None of the light divisions appear to have had Pz IIIs let alone IVs prior to conversion. These divisions were intended to be particularly mobile, fast, not to be used to break through but in exploitation of a break through. The concept in Poland proved inadequate, unnecessary, and so rather than form entirely new panzer divisions they were used as the base for panzer divisions by adding two more tank battalions. see e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Light_Division_(Wehrmacht)
Without researching it, I made a similar assumption. At this time in the war they still had enough III's and IV's to send up against the Soviet tanks, so why not use the Panzer II's as recon units, or to deal with pockets of enemy infantry in the rear as the Germans were advancing? Unless they absolutely had to, it seems unlikely that German commanders would send their II's ahead in suicidal frontal attacks against T-34's. Later, in 1943 when they were being pushed back, this might have been necessary, but it doesn't seem like a responsible panzer commander would just waste his "inferior" tanks in such a way, using them for more appropriate roles instead.
@@QuizmasterLaw That's what I figured. It would also explain the much higher loss rates of the III's and IV's compared to the II's if they weren't being thrown into direct combat with enemy armor - much less likely to get fatally hit.
I remember reading somewhere a tank strength report of one the German panzer divisions just prior to the Kursk offensive in 1943 that it still had 7-10 Panzer 2 tanks. I figured they were probably being used at that point for command vehicles, reconnaissance, or security detachments, rather than being throw up against T-34s. Surprisingly, there was also another or the same panzer division that had 25 T-34s as part of it's reported strength.
I think the command panzer was some modified Pz I. Which for 1942 is slightly worse than a PzII, but not significantly... as by the time Pz II was a "manurenpanzer"
That was a golden into right there :) Also I have no idea how a person with half a brain would consider you biased towards the Soviets or the Nazis... :/ Keep up the good work :)
Extremists dont want facts, they want ideology instead. Hell I believe an Imperilist isn't a bad thing when its at peace with a strong military. Its bad when it uses said military to take over its neighbors
About making difference in soviet troops icons - use proper colors for regiments. Infantry - purple Artillery and Tank divisions - black Airborn divisions - light blue Navy - blue Support units - Green. This color diifferentiation was used in USSR until 1943. Or you can use shoulder straps color as background. In such case: Infantry - purple background, red and yellow stripes Navy - black background yellow stripes
Regarding the suggestion that the PzKpfW III was a light tank: One of the confusing things for anyone learning about this Soviet-German war is that nations had their own unique classification schemes. For the Soviets, whether a tank was considered light, medium, or heavy depended on the armour/weight of the tank. So, in 1942, a Soviet T34 with its 76mm main gun was classed as a medium tank. In contrast, the Soviet KV-1, which had the same 76 mm gun, but was much heavier & had much thicker armour, was considered a heavy tank. For the Germans, whether a particular design was considered a light, medium, or heavy tank depended only on the diameter of a tank's primary weapon. That meant that the PzKpf III with a short (L/42) 50mm gun or long (L/60) 50mm gun, the PzKpfW IV with the short (L/24) 75mm gun or long (L/42 or L/48) 75mm gun, and the Panther (*) with the long (L/70) 75mm gun were all considered medium tanks. Yes, even though the Panther's size, weight & thickness of frontal armour were all several times larger than the PzKpfW III (and the Panther's main gun had the same or better ability to penetrate armour as the 'heavy' Tiger's 88mm gun), the Germans considered the Panther a medium tank. (*) The Panther did not appear on the battlefield until the summer of 1943, but was includes in this discussion to emphasize my point.
Pz III was an early war medium tank which was obsolete by 1943 but its chassis was then used in lots of non-obsolete roles most notably the StuG which was a capable cost-effective AFV.
I saw a video by military history not visualized. And they said it was a heavy tank - because it is the weight that suggests what class it is. The gun has nothing to do with it. But it was designed and used for a medium tank company. I recommend watching the video for more information.
@@QuizmasterLaw Yes indeed, as 1943 wore on, the PzKpfW III with the 50mm gun was less useful & became obsolete as a main battle tank, so production was ceased in 1943 so that manufacturers such could focus on the Studio III. However, a number of L models & M models with the 50mm L/60 gun still existed, plus some of those versions had their 50mm gun replaced by 75mm L/24 guns that had been removed from PzKpfW IVs when they were up-gunned. The modified tPzKpfW IIIs were employed as support tanks for Tiger battalions, where they took on infantry & antitank guns while the Tigers dealt with enemy armour. As for the normal PzKpfW IIIs, I am pretty sure that the L & M versions of PzKpfW III (with the L/60 50mm gun & usually Schurzen) were used during operation Citadel. I have seen images & video on YT of long-barrelled 50mm PzKpfW III L & M tanks of the S.S. Totenkopf Division assembling & approaching the Kursk salient. Although the PzKpfW III was used for command tanks, the ones in the video I saw were not command tanks.
@@derekbaker3279 unfortunately we cannot rely on a youtube video to use actual footage of the actual event. Even Mark Felton sometimes uses inaccurate footage but to his credit says so each and every time he does. I can well imagine IIIs with the 50l60 and skirts at Kursk, and that footage of Totenkopf panzers of that style exists, but that doesn't mean it's footage from the battles at or near Prokharovka.
Hey TIK, I am very much enjoying your content. Relating to your question about Hoth, his name should be pronounced like the english word hot, but with a the letter o beeing like a little bit longer. The th should be pronounced as a t, not as an f. Greetings from Germany.
The lady voice in the episode in question was a very strong touch. It doesnt matter if the quoted lady was right, you got a feeling of how grim they must have felt in the battle - an almost apocalyptic feeling. Wish it in a way was for the Soviet soldiers as well as the civilians caught in the Stalingrad area.
Are the sturmgeschutz units not included here? Maybe a good topic or video would bring up the Stug3 units. I read somewhere that Stug3s were mainly the responsibility of artillery but that they were also a big part of tanks battles. So if the Germans and Soviets are at roughly equal parity in actual tanks, if there are a number of Stug3s in the area do these also tip scales in German favour?
"...also know by its proper name, The Panzer 2" - - - THIRD TIME THRU, I finally got over the kampfy chair joke quickly enough to catch this second joke in the intro. ROFLMAO!!
On the account of parachute part. Clould be that some pilots refused to wear it because BF-109 was known to be cramped with its small cockpit and somewhat difficult pilot position. Wearing parachute would make it even more uncomfortable and possibly have an impact on dogfight performance.
Other reasons for the pilot bailing out without a parachute: 1. Pilot didn't properly strap on his chute, so it stayed in the plane. 2. Chute got hung up on something, and while he was trying to get loose, came out of his chute. 3. Pilot was fatality wounded, bailed out, and died before he opens his chute. 4. Was high on PCP and thought he could just hop out.
Parachutes were often the seat cushion so not taking it with you would make flying more difficult. If pilot is shot dead, then plane crashes and burns, well silk burns very well so on examination there will be a charred corpse with no evidence of a parachute even though there was one.
'Then' refers to temporal sequence, thus: 'This happened, THEN that happened'. 'THAN' is a comparator: 'This is bigger THAN that'. Otherwise inspiring stuff!
In addition to medium/light tanks ratio it is important to know how many Soviet tanks were equipped with radios. I would argue that the lack of radios was a significant factor in low efficiency of early Soviet tank forces.
@TEXOCMOTP Not really.On average, only platoon leader's tank (1 out of 4) in Red army at the start of the war was equipped with radio set). Disasters of 1941 only made those odds even worse for the Soviet tank crews.On other side, although only platoon leader's tank in German army had two way set,it was still much better than no radio for roughly 75% of Soviet tanks.That was due to poor state of Soviet radio industry.
@TEXOCMOTP I understand all that,thank you.But where is the source for 75% Soviet tanks equipped with radio? Almost everywhere I read it's only 1 out of 4 that has radio set.
@TEXOCMOTP Thing is that you need to consider a few things, even though the radio wasn't the sole problem of red army mechanised forces at the time:one way radio is still better than no radio on about half of Soviet tanks on the Western border, and if things go awry in battle,it was much easier for German tank crews to receive order to retreat than for their Soviet counterparts.
Hey Tik, Great video and I really enjoyed it. You have a very extensive book collection. Any change publishing a pic or link to the titles you have? Some of your past videos mentioned books that I have never heard off and would like to track down. Steve
IT is also worth noting that even if we classify Panzer IIs are light tanks, they are quite different in quality from at least the T-60. If we look up the characteristics of the 20mm cannon it appears the weapon in the Panzer II is significantly more powerful, and the tank is substantially more massive overall. I would say the T-60 is a considerably lighter and less heavily armed vehicle. The T-70 not so but still, if some of those vehicles are T-60s it really widens the qualitative gap frther.
Another possibility re. German parachutes. Pilots wouldn't wear them because the straps could interfere with their movements in the cockpit. Saburo Sakai in his memoirs ("Samurai") said men in his Zero squadron were ordered to take their parachutes, but the didn't wear them to keep their arms free. They instead used their chutes as seat cushions.
We still get news connected to those events. On January 31 there was news about sisters who reunited 78 years later after they lost each other during the bombing of Stalingrad. The older sister worked in a tank factory before the evacuation.
@TIK a lot of our fellow historians here often forget or don't have the knowledge of is what was happening to the German light tanks in late 41 throughout 1942. They were being converted to Marder IIs and Marder IIIs. That's why the Panzerwaffe's light tank numbers were really low at the time of Fall Blau. I'm curious TIK, do your references have numbers of Marders that the Germans had on hand during these battles? I would think that they would play a major factor in the high numbers of Soviet tanks being destroyed.
"I'm curious TIK, do your references have numbers of Marders that the Germans had on hand during these battles?" Not at this stage, no. And they don't say how many StuGs there were either. So in reality, there were more German "armoured" forces than the tank numbers alone. Plus the fact that the Soviets didn't have many "Destroyer" units in the area at this time. 4th Tank Army had the 5th Destroyer Regiment, but that only arrived in time to be destroyed in Episode 7 ;)
With regard to the parachutes, there are two other possibilities. The first is that possibly some German aircraft had parachute stowage like some American aircraft and maybe some crews could not get to their parachutes. The second is that inevitably some aircraft will be on fire when shot down. There are recorded cases of fighter pilots being burned and releasing their parachutes mid air because wearing them was hurting too much and death was for those individuals preferable. I am not sure if the first would apply but I'm pretty sure the second is possible.
These "command tanks" I believe were specialized armored vehicles that were set up for unit commanders to use to communicate with their men in the field through radio communication and so on... And I believe they were built around the base frame of existing tank designs the Germans had, but much like the conversions from Panzer III to Stug III, the base frame doesn't necessarily mean that when completed it would look like the tank that its frame was taken from. And that weight designation (light, medium, or heavy) would then depend on which frame was used. I had a "World War II" magazine that included a picture of these models in service in the Polish campaign of 1939, but at present, I can't find the magazine... so I can't say for sure whether the frame was based off a light, medium, or heavy design. Some web links, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sd.Kfz._265_Panzerbefehlswagen and www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_kleiner_panzerbefehlswagen.html would give an indication that those specific models were based on the Panzer I frame and that at certain levels would remain in use into the last years of the war... but the latter article would say that it was falling out of use by 1941 and doesn't make any mention of a replacement vehicle ever being developed. Nor beyond the Polish and French campaigns does it mention any specific battles... So it is possible that these command tanks that were present at Stalingrad were based off of German light tank designs... but then because their general purpose was more for a unit commander to command his unit from while remaining mobile... counting them as "light tanks" wouldn't really be helpful as combat wasn't their intended role wasn't going to be the same as a light tank's... or a medium or heavy tank's role for that matter. These command tanks were more for communications and coordination than combat.
I just want to point out - some of the people who expressed their dissatisfaction were quite reasonable with their comments. But a lot were not. I'd prefer it if people didn't swear or call me names etc, or accuse me of lying or being "intellectually dishonest" etc. If you disagree with me, please just say something like "Hey TIK, could you elaborate more on this point?"
Also, Patreons and Subscribestarians - I'm going to be posting an update soon on the sites, and replying to your messages in the next couple days. I'm a bit behind with things, so sorry about that. But thank you for your continuing support!
Who cares, look at my user name. Imagine the amount of name calling I get from the Communist.
"Who cares, look at my user name. Imagine the amount of name calling I get from the Communist."
It can't be that bad.
Name: "FASCIST NATIONALIST MOVEMENT"
Oh.
@Kenneth Knoppik - true, although to be fair, striking a balance is pretty hard. I think a lot of people are so used to people who blatantly side with one side or another that they assume everyone does it. In my case, I don't care for taking sides. I'm just trying to find the truth, which means I annoy almost everyone. Well, so be it :)
Perfectly reasonable request. I can tell you it won't help, though.
@TIK Command Panzers were mostly converted Panzer I's, with a box armoured superstructure added and armed with one MG for defence.
"Das ist mein kampfy chair!"
Well, we're off to a great start... *Facepalm*
Classic German dad joke
I thought it was cute.
Warchat is leaking
Panzermeinkampfwagen...
Ngl that was pretty funny
woot he actually read comments. poor guy
I know. I should stop reading comments for my mental health
Wait till you see what happened last week lol
"Wait till you see what happened last week lol"
Why? What happened last week?
@@TheImperatorKnight Don't stop reading comments, because there are plenty of good comments which can be additional source of knowledge, at least 5% of them. And for the rest of comments... Well, don't forget you're making a publicly accessible content. So, I advise you to grow a bit of skin. I mean, after 5 years of youtubing, one should assume you already did. :p
@@TheImperatorKnight btw, I just had a look at your earliest videos... Blimey! O.o
I can't see any bias in your videos. Nobody makes better, more objective and detailed videos. I appreciate your work. People are people. Having no critics means living in a bubble. :)
"Having no critics means living in a bubble. :)"
Yeah that's true. I just wish my critics would be a bit more polite about it, especially when it usually turns out that they're wrong!
Just like TIK, StalData is alternatively accused of having a Soviet or German bias. This alternative pattern confirms there's no bias in reality. The only objective is to achieve historical truth and accuracy.
Mr Joly! Nice to see you, and I agree! Just so you know, I aim to reply to your email tomorrow morning :)
@@TheImperatorKnight Always a pleasure, sir !
Also, I forgot to mention you by email: I've realized just a few days ago watching (or re-watching) your previous videos, that you already had one named "Breakout of Stalingrad"... I swear I didn't pick my title from there!
Not that it would have done much if I did intentionnaly, anyway. But all the same, I just hate picking up from others. So I prefer to mention this, whatever :)
Agreed with op^^
Are your critics considering running for political office? They seem to share the same bizarre standards of sifting facts.
They'd make good politicians
In case noone else mentioned it (don't have time to check all replies): the Command Panzers were mobile command centers. They had a lot more radios and to make room for all the extra communication equipment, usually it had no working gun.
First Command Panzers used by the Germans could thus be marked by the enemy because it was the one tank with more antennas and no gun. Later Command Panzers, for that reason, featured wooden mock-ups of guns.
It didn't help though that the markings on any command tank usually showed "001" (or maybe 000) pointing to any enemy this was a 'special tank/target'
Anyway, since they didn't fire their guns at the enemy (hard to fire a wooden mock-up), it's not that important what tank type German Command Tanks were. I do believe they were most times the same type as the regular tanks in the unit because else it would not be able to keep up with the rest. But of course Command Tanks were vital to the cohesion and overall effectiveness of the tank unit.
@heilige Einfalt Not 100 % sure, but as far as I remember some Panzer I were command tanks but I guess mostly out of service at that point in the war. As far as I remember there were no command version of the Panzer II but a lot of Panzer III and again no command version of Panzer IV. So to speak all command tanks must had been Panzer III.
Thanks for the valuable replies.
Still, even if the later Command Panzers had working guns and some ammo, surely they would be occupied with commanding and coordinating the rest of the tanks. I assume the gun was merely meant as a ways of defending itself should the need arise.
On the whole, a Command Panzer was an extremely important asset without which, the entire tank formation would be much less effective. I don't know how the Soviet Army went about this but I assume they just had a command tank with regular radio, thus being much less effective.
heilige Einfalt The panzer 1 was phased out in 1943, and most definitely would have been the command tank mentioned in panzer units on the road to Stalingrad, but unlikely to still be used in the role months later in the retreat from Stalingrad
heilige Einfalt the Sd.Kfz. 265, Was still the tank of choice for command and control above the company level in panzer formations through 1942 and with the panzer artillery. A panzer regiment or brigade would likely have several of them on the road to Stalingrad
en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Panzer+III+K&ns0=1
“The Sd.Kfz. 265 first saw combat in the Polish Campaign of September 1939. Afterwards, many were converted to Sanitätskraftwagen I (Sd.Kfz. 265) armoured ambulances which served in the French Campaign of 1940. Of the 190 produced, 96 were still in use in May 1940 at the start of the invasion of France and the Low Countries. Following a 15 mm increase in armor protection (to a total of 28 mm) that was hastily applied to the surfaces of the superstructure as a result of combat experiences in Poland[1], the Sd.Kfz. 265 command tank continued in use throughout the invasions of France and the Netherlands, and in 1941 many were shipped across the Mediterranean to participate in the North African Campaign. Sd.Kfz. 265 also saw considerable action in the Balkans Campaigns of 1941 before being replaced by larger command vehicles. Though replaced at the company level, many would continue to see service at higher levels of command through 1942. Some were also used as radio control vehicles for Minenräum-Wagen BI/BII (Sd.Kfz.300). A small number were also exported to Hungary. A few were still in service with the German Army when the war ended, though largely delegated to training roles.”
The panzer III K was first produced in 42 completed production in 43, and only 50 were ever built it is unlikely most panzer I command tanks were replaced in frontline units that had overrun their supply lines and could not get enough fuel and ammo much less replacement battle tanks and certainly not mobile radio tanks.
Without the complete ToE for the 2 panzer divisions it is really wild speculation on anyone’s part exactly what tank model these command tanks were.
Although I think we can find common ground in it is highly unlikely the bulk of these command tanks were pz.3k’s and therefore were unlikely to have a main gun and be considered as part of “battle” ready tanks
heilige Einfalt you misunderstand me, likely my fault...
Pz 1 command tanks did not leave the ToE in 1942, it unlikely pz 1’s with no turret or main gun were simply parked and perfectly working pz 3’s were held back to perform in that role on this point we disagree, however if they did because of how they were to be used they would not be charging across the Russian steppe and therefor should prolly not be counted when considering tank strength.
I also did not say in Stalingrad but rather the road to it the forces trapped in the city were largely infantry and if anything armored force would be mostly assault guns not tanks.
My point was panzer 1’s or 3’s ultimately makes no difference, command tanks were not battle tanks and shouldn’t be counted for tank strength.
My second point was without the ToE we have no idea which model of command tank it was, so both of our assertions are merely wild ass guesses I content they were likely rear unit vehicles that survived because they were not fighting, you contend they were the more capable company units because they were “better” I’d say both points sound logical but without the ToE we really have no way to know.
TIK: Germany was stronger than the Soviets
People: You are pro-Sovieet in that statement
TIK: U Wot?
It makes no sense, but it's true!
@@TheImperatorKnight Yay you replied :D I love your videos and how neutral you are to everything. I got Ostkrieg, Myth of the Eastern Front, When Titans Clash, and others from your suggestions and I love them! Only The Armchair Historian and Potential History can come close to the entertainment and facts you do! 1 question, what's your opinion on Downfall? I have yet to see Downfall and I want to know your opinion
At that time, yes the Germans were stronger than the Soviets. If they were not, they would not have been able to advance against them, which was obviously not the case. The Soviets knew that they could never win a decisive victory at Stalingrad, so they just fielded enough troops to hold the city, engaged the Germans in hand to hand combat wherever possible to negate their technological superiority, then built up and cut the chicken's neck off.
C Ray Starling mobile operational warfare has nothing to do with how “strong” an army is.
@@_Abjuranax_ Germans never were stronger thatn the Soviets.What allowed the Germans to advance is the reorganisation of the entire red army,troubles in communication and the suprise element.Also how were the Germans technologically superior?I cant see that
Thanks so much for the videos, there's so much detail in them I'm on my second watching of the Fall blau video to make sure I'm not missing anything. The Stalingrad videos are great too! Whenever you see negativity remember there's gobs of us enjoying your work and grateful for it, it's just the nature of the online beast.
You can’t please everyone , the keyboard warriors will always have something to say.
How about some respect. Im not some keyboard warrior, Im a keyboard war chief.
Anyone calling TIK a "Marxist" has got to be trolling. And winning, it seems.
@@johnd2058 More populist than Marxist, which is understandable, but not always historically true.
@@jussim.konttinen4981 TIK's a populist? He's for the Gold Standard. That was just about the first thing populism opposed; see William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech. He's an unabashed Austrian Schooler who put John Maynard Keynes together with Rosa Luxemberg.
` Unless, Mr. Konttinen, you live next to the man linked below. Then TIK would rightly be considered a populist: ruclips.net/video/QWalf3JNctU/видео.html .
@Vasian Vasianich 1: Devi's so hawt. Is there a Devist Party I can get in on? static-3.bitchute.com/live/cover_images/owgnsdTLXG2t/XwFlsTodBTNQ5pc9igiBcFJG_640x360.jpg
2: _This_ 'Adûnâi' ? The one whose view of world cultures suggests a universally unsatisfactory compromise between Putin and Erdogan's wet dreams? imgur.com/gallery/tCX4o4p
Great Video! I appreciate the professional tone of your Stalingrad video's but this video had me dying. Keep up the great work man.
great channel. The Stalingrad video series is amazing so far. looking forward to see more of them
The Germans had a 30% advantage in 'tank bigness'.
German Panzer production was already past the Mk II by then, but it was really a mute point as they would have thrown all operational tanks into battle. They were probably used as reconnaissance and quickly avoided situations where they would have been overmatched and would call up support to deal with the situation. After the fall of Stalingrad, the Panzer II's would have been almost non existent, as the German Military lost the greater bulk of its current equipment behind Russian lines. Hitler even delayed the subsequent Battle of Kursk so he could field the new Panzers being developed, but that delay allowed the Soviets to strengthen their fortifications in the salient and were ultimately victorious.
Moot point, but the etymology is incestuously shared
A few comments on some of your questions or unclear things:
1. command panzer: in general, the Panzerbefehlswagen at this stage of the war could either be the small ones on the Panzer I chassis or - more likely - the big ones on the Panzer III chassis. The latter had one or two MG for self defense and a wooden mock-up gun. They carried, however, additional radios.
2. the large number of Panzer II in 24th PD: as far as I know, the 24th PD was full strength or at least very close to it, the 16th was not. Therefore they had a full complement of Panzer II
3. low numbers of casualties of Panzer II: By this time, the Wehrmacht had finally figured out, that the Panzer II was completely obsolete as a first line combat tank AND they had the Panzer III and IV in such numbers to replace them in the platoons of the "light tank company" (replaced by Panzer III) or rather to convert them to a "medium tank company". Both are 1st, 2nd and 3rd company of every tank battalion, the 4th company was a heavy or support company, which fielded Panzer IV (originally only the short barreled) for long range HE fire. The Panzer II was kept, however, for the "light or recon tank platoon", which was part of the HQ section of every tank regiment and battailion. They were five to six Panzer II strong and - as recon - were the eyes and ears of the combat companies. Their mission was to see the enemy and get the f*** out. They were not to fire on tanks, as the would not have a slight chance. They fought soft targets like trucks infantry, but even these fights were short because of the ever imminent threat of AT-rifles and guns.
I find it really hard to believe people think TIK is biased. This Stalingrad series has me eagerly waiting for next episodes. I think most would agree that TIK argues for both sides and that "the truth often lies somewhere in the middle". Great job. Regarding east front Luftwaffe pilots, I read somewhere about some early helicopter variants used for search and rescue but cannot find the source(and if I did, it's more likely to be 43-44').
I know the feeling,Dad was at Midway on the Yorktown.Im nearly 60yrs old and have gone to Yorktowns reunions since 1977. I have thousands of signatures from the three sisters and all the escorts.A few tools and books off the ship etc.yet I'm no expert on Midway and Coral Sea nor do I claim to be.It bothers me when a 22yr old expert swears The Yorktown was never in the Atlantic on Neutrality patrol and tries to prove it standing in front of dad in the store.(Eye Roll).TIK love your Channel.Learn more every day.Keep doing what your doing👍
I believe that you are about the most fair and unbiased channel available. One thing I can see some people's point about the Pz3 being light vs being medium is that the weight of the tank is much less than the T-34. Roughly 23-25 tons vs 27-34 tons. Even the Pz4 is smaller than the T34 at 25-27 tons. Germany classified tank classes by cannon size so that the Tiger itself was called a medium correct? By the way I love the content!
I have been following your Stalingrad series and I enjoy the attention you pay to the detail of all factors that contribute to the outcome of these battles. I unfortunately have obtained most of my knowledge from the older writings which are filled with many inaccuracies. TIK you are very thorough and these type of videos are my favorite to watch. The tank debate is a complicated one. Yes the Soviets had a number of light tanks in their ranks, but the Panzer 2 with its armament and limited combat effectiveness must have played a very minimal role in offensive actions. As seem to be conveyed by your statistical information on surviving numbers at the various stages of the battle. This tank must not have been used in frontal attacks like Panzer 3's and 4's as reflected my the reduction in numbers of the later. While the Panzer 3 is a great tank design it does struggle against its class of allied tanks in firepower and protection. its ability to continue into 42 and 43 is a testament to the technological, training and strategic advantages employed by the Germans to minimize these shortcomings. Maybe at some point you could consider doing a video of the transition from the Panzer 3 over to the Stug 3 long barrel. A much more formidable fighting vehicle. Keep up the good work!
Anyone remember the mission from 'Call of Duty 2' where you have to fight the Panzer II in the ruins of Stalingrad? It was pretty unique at the time for having you fighting a tank on foot that wasn't completely scripted. It moved around the level and you had to chase it down and put a satchel charge on it. Good times.
Your content is excellent. It's sad that you feel you have to respond to the 0.1% but in a way I'm glad I get to see more content from you! Keep up the great work
Thank you for being professional about your research and caring enough to clear up misunderstandings
Clear, detailed and impartial. As it should be. Excellent, TIK, keep up the good work.
I've following you since you were playing Close Combat Gateway to Caens. You are a careful studious and critical thinker. Keep up the good work.
I do like your Work and the Effort you put into the Videos since you always name Sources and explain why and how you come to your Conclusion.
Thanks Tik for all these in-depth videos. Don’t worry about the detractors. Keep doing what you’re doing and filling in all the blanks about the war on the Eastern front
Don't worry about those ppl who get offended dude, you are an excellent historian and very good youtuber. Keep up the good work ;)
i Have to say i always enjoy your videos and find them very interesting and revealing they deal with subjects most historians never look at the economic factors and i have never seen you be pro any side in your discussions you say it with a constructive reason as to why you have reached your conclusions keep on going most of us love your work
the German tank advantage wasn't mobility, armor, or gun. It was radios and optics. Better comms and can see and thus hit at greater ranges. Thisis true of all tank classes throughout the war.
and the greatest contribution of lend lease was radios and trucks. the US was glad to send radios since obviously if your enemy in the next war is literally using your radios... and trucks because you can't use trucks well as weapons (Diana mounting of ATGs on trucks might work in the desert but W.Europe isn't a desert).
Also the german tanks had more crew manning them which made their far more effectif
@@karimchaffai5922 I believe T-34 85 had a proper four man crew which is the minimum you need to operate effectively (gunner, loader, radio, spotter, driver, it's 5 tasks you need at least 4 men)
@@QuizmasterLaw First variant that had proper 5 man crew.
@@QuizmasterLaw radio/hull machinegunner is a superfluous position, no modern tank has them, and if you can have a autolader then 3 is perfect.
Btw the t-34-76 had 4 man crews and the t-34-85 had 5.
Concerning Hoth's name:
The "th" is almost certainly a hard sound, like in "tank". The english pronunciations of "th", as in "think" or "father", both simply do NOT EXIST in german.
Whether or not the sound is long or short I don't know.
Guess my post was redundant.
Good show.
I may have questions about your conclusions, but they are supported and reasoned
and filled with good stories.
For what its worth I don't see any bias in this series. I am enjoying it. Cheers.
I don't necessarily agree with your politics or how much of it you put into your otherwise excellent videos, but you are clearly not a supporter of either extremist side of the political spectrum. anyone claiming the contrary is probably blinded by being himself on the other extreme.
I do find that you are slightly more critical of the Germans. I think as a reaction to all the love they get from certain history fans.
That is precisely it. I'm not "against" the Germans, I'm against the "bias" in the literature which favours the Germans. And also, I'm glad you don't agree with me on everything. I'd encourage you not to agree with me, because I want the people who watch my videos to think!
But if people disagree, there's no need to scream in the comments and sling insults at each other. That's not thinking, that being childish
@@TheImperatorKnight
What I like about your videos:
1. Extremely detailed.
2. Very thorough.
3. You use several sources, and list them all.
4. You point out the contradictions between your sources, and try to show where it looks like it's the author's opinion instead of the history.
5. You try to keep your opinions out of it, and you state when something is your opinion.
6. You tell the story without talking a side, other than as an observer.
7. You admit that you're human and make mistakes, and correct them.
Your videos are the only ones that aren't movies, that are longer than an hour (I just finished Crusader, the long version) that I willingly watch on RUclips. That's a pretty good history lecture in my book.
I don't always agree with you Tik, but to be fair, you come across as an honest person with integrity who tries to present an unbiased view. From a non-idealogue.
Another great video Thank You for the hard work you put into these videos.
Perhaps a little late, but, keep the great work up! I’m really impressed by the detailing that goes in to the video’s. If someone doesn’t like it, DON’T WATCH IT! Those are the people who are getting their info purely out of videogames🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️...
greetings from Belgium
Great to get a break down on tank types; thanks!
Quite literally imagine unironically using the panzer II in head to head anti-tank combat after the year 1942
I agree - it is an OP weapon that Hitler feared using thinking it could defeat everyone too easily
doubt tanks were ever used head to head intentionally..
@@skodalaskoda8754 presumably at least some of them were, considering they designed classes better suited for anti-infantry and structure warfare as well as tanks that had better anti-armour performance and used them side by side simultaneously - for example the early-mid war long barrel Panzer 3 was more anti-tank and the short barrel Panzer 4 was more anti-infantry.
It goes without saying that they would be deployed to use their strengths best, so at least some long barrel Panzer 3s would be deliberately set where the enemy likely had armour operating
@@RugnirSvenstarr I doubt it, they were too expensive and time consuming to produce to throw away that way.. Blitzkrieg and other german tactics specifically called for the avoidance of grouped armor. Sword and shield asked tank crews to draw opposition armor onto anti tank guns.. But Im no expert
pz2 would have been quite effective in this case, the 20mm could penetrate most soviet light tanks, even sometimes it could knock out t-34's as seen in the records, you don't need to penetrate a tank to leave it out of comission.
The intro was epic. Probably triggered some people just by that.
Celebrating that people are "triggered" is kinda childish
@@Jatischar I disagree. It's one of the funniest things if you happen to witness it first hand. Always puts a smile on my face, anyway.
This might cause that YT algoritms, can block this video in ... Germany xD
@Lovecraft he refers to Mein Kampf with his joke, a book which is banned in Germany for obvious reasons
"This might cause that YT algoritms, can block this video in ... Germany xD"
Actually, unlike many of my videos, this video has been accepted for full-monetization :/ makes absolutely no sense
Can recommend books by Artem Drabkin, as a source of veteran memories. He has done a lot of work talking to veterans. He also tried to prove their words by archive documents, where those were accessible.
@TEXOCMOTP its also the "realest"; how war was _perceived_ by the individuals (minus the bias ofc)
The wehraboos vs. The Slavaboos in the eternal struggle
Да
There are more Slavs than just Soviet Union and Soviet Union isnt just Slavs. I would even bet that US Army in Europe had a higher % of white people than the Red Army.
@Audio Sugar Yes, thats what I assumed. And US were rarely using black people for combat. And if you count all Slavic people, Im guessing half of them wont be in the Soviet Union. And as a Slav I believe that communists were traitors of Russia in WWI, and communism was created by Germans (Marks, Engels). Lenin in WWI got permission to move from German speaking university i Switzerland, thru German lands to start an anti Russian government revolution. And after WWI Slavic nationalists were the Bolshevik biggest enemy.
If it wouldn't be too hard, perhaps putting the Wolf or the white red white stripes from the Ingushetia flag. Or the golden scroll from the modern Chechen flag in the Chechen cav unit's marker. That would be a little more recognizable then a generic green. The "mountain ASSR" crescent and stars could also work. Good work with everything thusfar!
Nice video TIK, good that brought that on the table. One extra bonus point would be how effectiv the sovjet light tanks were, because their weapons are in case of the t70 better than by the german light tank. So we have light tanks on the german side with light weapons and medium tanks on the german side with light weapons, panzer III short, and medium tanks with medium weapons. On the sovjet side we have light tanks with light weapons, t60, light tanks with medium weapons, t70, medium tanks with medium weapons and heavy tanks with meduim weapons. The numbers are as you have made clear in german favor, but i think is is more complicated and maybe a bit to much in detail. Thanks for your work and looking forward for the next video.
I think he also stated that the main combat that tanks would see was not tanks vs tanks, since the Germans tried to avoid these since the battle of France and early encounters with soviet T-34s and KV-s. The armaments is not really that important since both nations had tanks that could take each other out. The problem was the armour which gives breakthrough and holding capabilities. T-60s might have been able to snipe out some german tanks (altough highly unlikely), but they could not breach enemy positions because poor protection and they could not hold positions for the same reason.
You an honest historian. Keep up the good.
Ugh TIK I feel bad for you mate. Anyone who presents simple facts in this modern world is called some unpleasant name by someone. Please understand the bulk of your audience isn't that dumb and we just love watching the stuff you put out due to your high production quality and extremely detailed sourcing.
I do realize that most of my subscribers aren't dumb, but there's still a significant number of people who are just waiting for me to slip up somehow so they can call me out on it. Not sure what they hope to gain from it, but everything I say is backed up by thr sources. Yes now and then mistakes are made, but they assume that I just make stuff up as I go along, and I'm not sure why they're like that
love your videos...keep em coming..ty tik for everything you do
It's very professional of you to take the time to reply to these people in such detail when you are already committed to spending so much time on your videos.
Problem is that those rude individuals to whom you are directing your replies will probably get bored after the opening scene!
Keep up the good work and bollocks to the "retail customers" 😁
Hello TIK,
I really appreciate your endeavor for the detailed, easy to understand and visualized ‘BATTLESTORM STANLINGRAD’ series, which I call them 'THE MASTERPIECE'. While I was watching your videos, could I ask a question about battle of Stalingrad for minor stuff that no one cares? During the operation Blau, how was the team-work among German 6th army high ranking commanders and is there any chance that team-work might affect the fate of operation, both internally among 6th Army (including 4th Panzer Army) generals and externally between 6th army and OKH General staff (or Army Group B)?
Most German senior generals in WWII must come from Junker class, noble, traditional Prussian military family and should be accepted at General Staff (Großer Generalstab) in their early careers. Paulus’ family was not from Junker and he was not from noble nor military family. When Barbarrosa started in 1941, Paulus was even lower ranking general compared to most Corps commanders in 6th Army. Paulus became a commander of 6th army from chief of staff role in Nov. 1941 mainly because Rechenau recommended Paulus to his old position. Let me explain this;
F. Paulus - VI Army
Born 1890 Officer Cadet 1910 General major 1939 Gen. der Panzertruppe 1942
W. Heitz - VIII Army Corps
Born 1878 Officer Cadet 1898 General major 1933 Gen. der Artillerie 1937
G. von Wietersheim - XIV Panzer Corps
Born 1884 Officer Cadet 1902 General major 1934 Gen. der Infanterie 1938
K. Strecker - XI Army Corps
Born 1884 Officer Cadet 1904(?) General major 1935 Gen. der Infanterie 1942
W. von Seydlitz-Kurzbach - LI Army Corps
Born 1888 Officer Cadet 1908(?) General major 1939 Gen. der Artillerie 1942
It is said that there were constant conflicts between Paulus and Seydlitz and that even Paulus relieved Seydlitz’s command before the surrender. Heitz had almost same seniority level as M. von Weichs, however, it does not mean that Heitz was the most capable senior general and should command the 6th army. Based on the results of 2nd battle of Kharkov in May 1942, Paulus was a capable/smart military general how to defend, to re-shuffle the troops, then to counter-attack Red Army.
The interesting thing is that the seniority of Paulus cannot be matched to most Corps commanders and even some division commander (Max Pfeffer) had more seniority than Paulus. Every commander of company, battalion, regiment, division, corps always tried to save his unit first, no matter what the situations are. For an example, Guderian was relieved during the battle of Moscow because he tried to protect his over-extended 2nd Penzer group and ordered his troops to retreat for better defending positions.
During operation Blau and desperate miserable situation, I believe every German generals (division and corps) tried to minimize their unit casualties and would not blindly follow Army level orders or OKH’s order unlike Soviet Red Army generals did. I would like to know from historical records whether prestigious, noble, arrogant German corps commanders (Heitz, Strecker, Wistersheim, Seydlitz et. al) might ignore Paulus order, which were 6th army tactical orders to subordinate units during July - Oct. of 1942 or these generals might have different views how to attack city of Stalingrad from the beginning.
These team-works, conflicts, disagreements among German generals were famously known between Leo von Schweppenburg and Erwin Rommel for the philosophical strategic difference how to defend the Atlantic Coast in 1944 and it did not work at all to German side. Thank you for reading this lengthy letter and all your excellent videos. Godspeed!
PS: Please allow my English if it is hard to understand, not my mother tongue.
A good question - one which I hadn't considered before. To be honest, I haven't seen any 'conflict' in the early part of the battle (the bits we've covered so far). And I don't recall much conflict until right at the end, during the encirclement, which you mentioned in your comment.
What you have to remember is that, Hitler was promoting non-Junker or non-elite generals into positions of power throughout the war, and especially as the war went on. He was against the "vons" and for the "lower" people who were fanatical "National Socialists". This was still an on-going process at this time, and wouldn't properly kick in until after Zeitzler took over Halder.
We also have to remember that the German officers were trained to obey. So while Paulus may not have had 'seniority' over some of his commanders, they were trained to obey their higher-ups. Plus, Paulus was married to a Romanian noblewoman, which put him in touch with the Romanian premier. And he had planned parts of Operation Barbarossa, plus other campaigns, so he was a very experienced staff general.
I don't know if I can answer your question fully today. But I will be on the look out for hints within the literature of the relationship between Paulus and his generals, and I'll include it within the series if possible. If you or anyone else has any suggestions for sources, let me know.
Pilots can survive a plane crash without a parachute too- particularly important for the bomber case, because it might have had the engines killed, dropped its bombs randomly to save up power, and glided wherever it could. Then either part of the crew was killed in action or managed to escape the capture before red army units reached the wreckage.
this is harder for fighters I think, not an expert, but it's still possible enough, it's just way more unlikely that a fighter is intact enough to glide around decently after a burst, especially because everything is in the same place - while on a bomber with the engings off to the wings, one might explode and not kill the crew directly still.
@@leviath401 There was however one German Ace who only hit the silks once after being shot down, and the experience of parachuting scared him so much, that he crash landed his planes after that.
Keep up the good work! Love your channel.
It is always well documented, the best probably on YT together with MHV
TIK > MHV > WW2 w/Indy > Lindybeige
@@QuizmasterLaw theyre all good. TIK and mhv are for people looking into detail on ww2 etc whereas ww2 with indy are about the overview. none are bad. i watch them all
"TIK > MHV > WW2 w/Indy > Lindybeige"
Poor Lindybeige...
@Nasim Aghdam that sucks; i in fact hope not. he doesn't seem to be stupid or handicapped; things like that happen.
I hope you are joking.
@Nasim Aghdam ouch
well at least now i can understand Why he's eccentric :(
Do you really think the man is going to tell you it was a horrible traumatic injury? Of course not. Just a scratch? Horses kill people all the time by kicking them to death.
I never called him a coward or dishonest. I suggest you take his claimed non-injury with a grain of salt.
1) The Befehlspanzer were most likely Panzerbefehlswagen III Ausf. H with long-range radios but with a fake dummy gun. These are not combat capable due to the absence of a main cannon.
Or they could be Ausf. J command tanks that actually did have a real main gun if I'm not mistaken.
2) A panzer kompanie at the time usually had three tank platoons with either Panzer III or Panzer IV's but it also had a light reconnaissane tank platoon with Panzer II's. There was another recon tank platoon attached to the battalion HQ and the regimental HQ. A total of 25-30 Panzer II's matches with a full complement of the recon tank platoons.
(Pier Paolo Battistelli, Panzer Divisions: the eastern front 1941-1943 Osprey Publ.)
3) I can imagine that casualties for the light recon tanks would be lower than for the main combat tanks (Panzer III and Panzer IV).
Their job was scouting not prolonged combat.
4) The Soviet T-60 light tank had light frontal armour and a 20mm autocannon. Roughly comparable to a Panzer II.
The Soviet T-70 had a 45mm ZiS-19BM gun and 45mm of sloped frontal armour. So the T-70 had a reasonable gun and frontal armour but it was still a very bad tank due to the one-manturret. I would definately rate it as inferior to a Panzer III (both short and long barrel). However I would argue that the T-70 can be seen as roughly equal to the Panzer 38(t).
Wow TIK, i always wonder why you put so much effort in answering to the trolls! Like your channel very much because it's plain to see how much effort you put into every episode and it's a great joy to watch it even for a layperson like me because of how founded it is. Criticising your "Hoth" pronunciation is ridiculous! I think it's important to put some effort into right pronunciation but i've been living in Germany for like 20 years and speak german very well and it absolutely ok, and it is not a linguistic channel anyway. Keep up the good work and stay healthy! Thanks!
12:23 About the parachute issue:
There might be an other possibility. Both the veteran and the lady can be right. Multi-Crew bombers normally fly so high that the crew has the HEIGHT to bail out. Parachutes need a certain time to fully open.
The lady which saw Luftwaffe pilots bailing, might have seen them bailing from very low flying Stukas or other Jagdbomber. Even with a parachute those men would have hit the ground without any parachute "opening" visible. If you can actually make out a pilot bailing from his airplane, the airplane is not flying very high.
Yet another possibility: The lady mistook parts of the disintegrating aircraft for "bailing pilots".
Thanks for this. I think it is a fair question to ask. Just some peoplehave no idea how to expresss their doubt without prejudice. I never doubted your creibility but had wondered what the german proportions were. Great video.
It is a fair question, but some people are full of hate and don't know how to be polite
2:58 for the record on that picture the tank in the background is the Panzer III while the center one is the Panzer IV F2. When not sure count the road wheels, Panzer IV has 8 wile Panzer III has 6. Either way keep up the good work, Tik.
On the Panzer II, I just want to point out that its 20mm cannon could take out a similarly armed T-60 from any angle in combat range but could also take out a T-70 in the side or rear just as easily, but however I doubt it could take one out from the front, its 35mm armour I'm pretty sure was too thick. The point is that if half of the 300 Soviet Tanks are T-60s & T-70s, then that means that half of the total Soviet Tanks in the one to one ratio are going to also be vulnerable to those 20% or so of the German 300 total Panzer number which are Panzer IIs, at least in theory!
Not taking a parachute because you don’t want to be captured seems strange to me, because you might need it over your own lines. Damage sustained over enemy lines can later cause problems. I now lean towards rumors. Great vid btw.
You keep going, I think you are doing an excellent job.
You are very well read. I love the books behind you.
This is actually the second time this week that I hear about soviet pilots not wearing parachutes. The first one was in a video by the History Guy about the soviet Night Witches, female pilots not wearing parachutes since they flow missions so close to the ground that a parachute would be useless. thanks for sharing.
The Panzer III was a medium tank, you are correct. You showed a Panzer IV in the picture, but that’s beside the point. 😂
Excellent videos, really enjoy them.
Loving the Stalingrad campaign analysis. Still need to see you strumming a few chords on that guitar, though, lol. It can be therapeutic after fighting off a few youtube trolls.
Another possibility on the parachute issue. Flight Sergeant Nicholas Alkemade, RAF. Rear gunner in in a Lancaster shot down in March 1944 by a Ju88. The rear turret in a Lancaster wasn't big enough to fit your parachute into so instead it was in the fuselage behind you, you had to get out of the turret, put your parachute on and then jump. When Alkemade got out of his turret he discovered his parachute was shot up and on fire so he was faced with staying in the aircraft and burning to death or jumping and hoping for a quick (relatively) painless death when he hit the ground. He chose to jump, at around 18,000ft. His fall was broken by pine trees and deep snow drifts on the ground. He survived with nothing more that a sprained ankle.
My point being that if someone saw a German airman plummeting out of the sky, smashing into the ground and dying, he or she may come to the conclusion that "They Don't Issue Them With Parachutes So They Won't Get Captured!!!!" and be completely wrong. From my reading Alkemade was interrogated by the Germans as to what he had done with his parachute as they refused to believe he hadn't used one. It was only when a German officer with experience of RAF parachute gear examined his parachute harness and confirmed that it hadn't been used was he packed off to a POW camp. Personally I think given the choice of a) burning alive, or b) dying on hitting the ground at terminal velocity (from Google about 120mph), I'd pick b).
In re the parachutes: A 5th possibility to consider (1, rumor. 2, chose not to wear to avoid capture. 3, lack of parachutes / not enough to go around. 4, lying / guess / made up by "witness" ) is that the the Soviet actually saw a German flyer who bailed out of a damaged airplane hit the ground without a chute opening. BUT, the flyer may have had one, but it failed to function / open, which might very well look to a ground observer like a person without a parachute, especially from a far enough distance to not be able to see the parachute pack on the flyer. Great stuff all around TIK.
Video Time 3:00 tank 531 is a Mark IV, the second tank more in the background is a Mark III.
Hi TiK! Just to clarify "command panzer" for you. These are probably panzer 3 variants with additional radios and map tables. To allow the internal space for these fittings they had a fake main armament with a wooden gun barrel, but retained the turret m.g.
Not sure if that helps, mate?
Keep up the damned fine work, but can you do a bit more content covering N. Africa and Italian campaigns? My dad was in 1st army and was sent south at the time of Kasserine, and was also on Vesuvius in '44 when it went boom.
Anyhoo, keep it up!
I belive that the command tanks were the sdkfz 265 Panzerbefehlswagen and, i belive, it was built from a panzer I. chassi. Thanks for great vids man, love your stuff!
I have an old book on tanks and a command panzer was a modified panzer I. If I remember correctly the turret was fixed like a tank destroyer. It had a machine gun but probably wouldn't have been in the front lines with panzer IIIs and IVs.
The Pz2 was significant in the early war due largely to the Blitzkrieg tactic, which is an operational level tactic. In that tactic you concetrate forces, punch through the line, and instead of consolidating (the old way) you continue on into the rear area (w/o worry too much about your supply line). For this role, it was a wonderful AFV. But the little tank didnt fair to well when there were enemy AFVs or AT guns around. As the war progressed, both sides quickly learned to deal with this tactic (by defense in depth), and the role of the Pz2 faded.
Ok I’ll try again after watching you’re videos on Stalingrad and Kursk and basically everything you’ve done on the Eastern Front which as a self proclaimed amateurish historian for whatever reason history has been my main sense of interest and enjoyment all my life you’re historical lecturer’s are without doubt the best I’ve ever witnessed both the presentation and investigational facts provided by yourself cannot be matched by anything I’ve ever seen and whoever reads this trust me I’ve seen just about everything presented on this subject “The second WW and the EASTERN FRONT “ keeping in mind just about. Having said this I cannot thank you enough for these most enjoyable and informative videos I’m still trying to figure out the procedure of payment for you’re programming I’m still trying to listen to you’re instructions concerning this. One of my biggest questions is “ Would Germany still have lost WW ll if the U.S. had not entered the fighting against Germany.”This question has dogged me for years and I would respect you’re opinion above all others so far...again thanks TIK for all your great work it is greatly appreciated and I’ll continue to pursue this damn payment procedure I can’t seem to figure out.
During 1942 Panzer IIs were mainly used as recce tanks, Panzer IIIs were the main battle tanks and IVs were support tanks, as more long barreled IVs became available they took over the IIIs role in the Panzer Divisions spear head role. German Infantry Divisions had close support from Stug IIIs which were part of the Artillery arm, hence the figures do not necessarily show the full power of a German Army groups capability, which included an assortment of other AFVs, such as the Panzer II chassis mounting a 50mm, later 75mm PAK anti-tank gun in Panzerjager units, or mounting a 105mm artillery gun (wasp). Other impressed tank chassis of Czech and French origin were also used for mobile artillery, anti-tank and assault gun mountings. The Germans were good at re-purposing older designs as new and up-dated equipment became available (Panzer V & VI in 1943). Keep up the good work, History needs to evolve as well...
Just as a picture is worth 1000 words, well-sourced data is worth 1,000,000 youtube comments.
Pz IIs in 1941 would be used for scouting and clean up. A Pz II is still superior to Russian infantry.
The 2d "Light" divisions had lots of Pz IIs. The four "Light" divisions were converted to Panzer divisions after the Polish campaign. 1st Light had a good mix but 2d had lots of Pz IIs. 3d and 4th light division also had lots of Pz IIs. Only 1st light had a normal mix of Is, IIs, 38s. None of the light divisions appear to have had Pz IIIs let alone IVs prior to conversion. These divisions were intended to be particularly mobile, fast, not to be used to break through but in exploitation of a break through. The concept in Poland proved inadequate, unnecessary, and so rather than form entirely new panzer divisions they were used as the base for panzer divisions by adding two more tank battalions.
see e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Light_Division_(Wehrmacht)
Without researching it, I made a similar assumption. At this time in the war they still had enough III's and IV's to send up against the Soviet tanks, so why not use the Panzer II's as recon units, or to deal with pockets of enemy infantry in the rear as the Germans were advancing? Unless they absolutely had to, it seems unlikely that German commanders would send their II's ahead in suicidal frontal attacks against T-34's. Later, in 1943 when they were being pushed back, this might have been necessary, but it doesn't seem like a responsible panzer commander would just waste his "inferior" tanks in such a way, using them for more appropriate roles instead.
@@Raskolnikov70 by 1943 most Panzer IIs were used in rear area things like partisan suppression, airfield security etc.
@@QuizmasterLaw That's what I figured. It would also explain the much higher loss rates of the III's and IV's compared to the II's if they weren't being thrown into direct combat with enemy armor - much less likely to get fatally hit.
I remember reading somewhere a tank strength report of one the German panzer divisions just prior to the Kursk offensive in 1943 that it still had 7-10 Panzer 2 tanks. I figured they were probably being used at that point for command vehicles, reconnaissance, or security detachments, rather than being throw up against T-34s.
Surprisingly, there was also another or the same panzer division that had 25 T-34s as part of it's reported strength.
@@dongilleo9743 yes, there is lots of material about captured t-34s in German service but it's all in Russian.
I think the command panzer was some modified Pz I. Which for 1942 is slightly worse than a PzII, but not significantly... as by the time Pz II was a "manurenpanzer"
Yes, it was called a 'Panzerbefehlswagen'.
That was a golden into right there :)
Also I have no idea how a person with half a brain would consider you biased towards the Soviets or the Nazis... :/ Keep up the good work :)
Extremists dont want facts, they want ideology instead. Hell I believe an Imperilist isn't a bad thing when its at peace with a strong military. Its bad when it uses said military to take over its neighbors
About making difference in soviet troops icons - use proper colors for regiments.
Infantry - purple
Artillery and Tank divisions - black
Airborn divisions - light blue
Navy - blue
Support units - Green.
This color diifferentiation was used in USSR until 1943.
Or you can use shoulder straps color as background.
In such case:
Infantry - purple background, red and yellow stripes
Navy - black background yellow stripes
Regarding the suggestion that the PzKpfW III was a light tank: One of the confusing things for anyone learning about this Soviet-German war is that nations had their own unique classification schemes.
For the Soviets, whether a tank was considered light, medium, or heavy depended on the armour/weight of the tank. So, in 1942, a Soviet T34 with its 76mm main gun was classed as a medium tank. In contrast, the Soviet KV-1, which had the same 76 mm gun, but was much heavier & had much thicker armour, was considered a heavy tank.
For the Germans, whether a particular design was considered a light, medium, or heavy tank depended only on the diameter of a tank's primary weapon. That meant that the PzKpf III with a short (L/42) 50mm gun or long (L/60) 50mm gun, the PzKpfW IV with the short (L/24) 75mm gun or long (L/42 or L/48) 75mm gun, and the Panther (*) with the long (L/70) 75mm gun were all considered medium tanks. Yes, even though the Panther's size, weight & thickness of frontal armour were all several times larger than the PzKpfW III (and the Panther's main gun had the same or better ability to penetrate armour as the 'heavy' Tiger's 88mm gun), the Germans considered the Panther a medium tank.
(*) The Panther did not appear on the battlefield until the summer of 1943, but was includes in this discussion to emphasize my point.
Pz III was an early war medium tank which was obsolete by 1943 but its chassis was then used in lots of non-obsolete roles most notably the StuG which was a capable cost-effective AFV.
I saw a video by military history not visualized. And they said it was a heavy tank - because it is the weight that suggests what class it is. The gun has nothing to do with it. But it was designed and used for a medium tank company. I recommend watching the video for more information.
@@QuizmasterLaw Yes indeed, as 1943 wore on, the PzKpfW III with the 50mm gun was less useful & became obsolete as a main battle tank, so production was ceased in 1943 so that manufacturers such could focus on the Studio III. However, a number of L models & M models with the 50mm L/60 gun still existed, plus some of those versions had their 50mm gun replaced by 75mm L/24 guns that had been removed from PzKpfW IVs when they were up-gunned. The modified tPzKpfW IIIs were employed as support tanks for Tiger battalions, where they took on infantry & antitank guns while the Tigers dealt with enemy armour.
As for the normal PzKpfW IIIs, I am pretty sure that the L & M versions of PzKpfW III (with the L/60 50mm gun & usually Schurzen) were used during operation Citadel. I have seen images & video on YT of long-barrelled 50mm PzKpfW III L & M tanks of the S.S. Totenkopf Division assembling & approaching the Kursk salient. Although the PzKpfW III was used for command tanks, the ones in the video I saw were not command tanks.
@@rahvan1432 HI Rahman. Thank you for the info regarding that YT video. I will search for it & see what the author had to say. ☺
@@derekbaker3279 unfortunately we cannot rely on a youtube video to use actual footage of the actual event. Even Mark Felton sometimes uses inaccurate footage but to his credit says so each and every time he does. I can well imagine IIIs with the 50l60 and skirts at Kursk, and that footage of Totenkopf panzers of that style exists, but that doesn't mean it's footage from the battles at or near Prokharovka.
Hey TIK, I am very much enjoying your content. Relating to your question about Hoth, his name should be pronounced like the english word hot, but with a the letter o beeing like a little bit longer. The th should be pronounced as a t, not as an f. Greetings from Germany.
Command Panzers had no gun, just a wooden mock up. More radio room. Keep up the great work you are doing! Thank You.
The lady voice in the episode in question was a very strong touch. It doesnt matter if the quoted lady was right, you got a feeling of how grim they must have felt in the battle - an almost apocalyptic feeling. Wish it in a way was for the Soviet soldiers as well as the civilians caught in the Stalingrad area.
Are the sturmgeschutz units not included here?
Maybe a good topic or video would bring up the Stug3 units. I read somewhere that Stug3s were mainly the responsibility of artillery but that they were also a big part of tanks battles. So if the Germans and Soviets are at roughly equal parity in actual tanks, if there are a number of Stug3s in the area do these also tip scales in German favour?
"...also know by its proper name, The Panzer 2" - - - THIRD TIME THRU, I finally got over the kampfy chair joke quickly enough to catch this second joke in the intro. ROFLMAO!!
Keep going TIK, your work is first rate lad
Thanks for the video TIK, i think you do well to present the facts as non-bias as possibly.
What about the swarms of ELC 90 roomba? The 10 KV-2s with heat hiding on the same ridge all behind bushes with camo nets?
KV-2 does not fire HEAT. Not in WoT at least.
On the account of parachute part.
Clould be that some pilots refused to wear it because BF-109 was known to be cramped with its small cockpit and somewhat difficult pilot position. Wearing parachute would make it even more uncomfortable and possibly have an impact on dogfight performance.
Other reasons for the pilot bailing out without a parachute:
1. Pilot didn't properly strap on his chute, so it stayed in the plane.
2. Chute got hung up on something, and while he was trying to get loose, came out of his chute.
3. Pilot was fatality wounded, bailed out, and died before he opens his chute.
4. Was high on PCP and thought he could just hop out.
Good work TIK!
Parachutes were often the seat cushion so not taking it with you would make flying more difficult.
If pilot is shot dead, then plane crashes and burns, well silk burns very well so on examination there will be a charred corpse with no evidence of a parachute even though there was one.
You are doing good. Actually very interesting.
'Then' refers to temporal sequence, thus: 'This happened, THEN that happened'. 'THAN' is a comparator: 'This is bigger THAN that'. Otherwise inspiring stuff!
Tik you're amazing! Love the info!
In addition to medium/light tanks ratio it is important to know how many Soviet tanks were equipped with radios. I would argue that the lack of radios was a significant factor in low efficiency of early Soviet tank forces.
@TEXOCMOTP Not really.On average, only platoon leader's tank (1 out of 4) in Red army at the start of the war was equipped with radio set). Disasters of 1941 only made those odds even worse for the Soviet tank crews.On other side, although only platoon leader's tank in German army had two way set,it was still much better than no radio for roughly 75% of Soviet tanks.That was due to poor state of Soviet radio industry.
@TEXOCMOTP I understand all that,thank you.But where is the source for 75% Soviet tanks equipped with radio? Almost everywhere I read it's only 1 out of 4 that has radio set.
@TEXOCMOTP Thing is that you need to consider a few things, even though the radio wasn't the sole problem of red army mechanised forces at the time:one way radio is still better than no radio on about half of Soviet tanks on the Western border, and if things go awry in battle,it was much easier for German tank crews to receive order to retreat than for their Soviet counterparts.
Hey Tik, Great video and I really enjoyed it. You have a very extensive book collection. Any change publishing a pic or link to the titles you have? Some of your past videos mentioned books that I have never heard off and would like to track down.
Steve
IT is also worth noting that even if we classify Panzer IIs are light tanks, they are quite different in quality from at least the T-60. If we look up the characteristics of the 20mm cannon it appears the weapon in the Panzer II is significantly more powerful, and the tank is substantially more massive overall. I would say the T-60 is a considerably lighter and less heavily armed vehicle. The T-70 not so but still, if some of those vehicles are T-60s it really widens the qualitative gap frther.
Another possibility re. German parachutes. Pilots wouldn't wear them because the straps could interfere with their movements in the cockpit. Saburo Sakai in his memoirs ("Samurai") said men in his Zero squadron were ordered to take their parachutes, but the didn't wear them to keep their arms free. They instead used their chutes as seat cushions.
We still get news connected to those events. On January 31 there was news about sisters who reunited 78 years later after they lost each other during the bombing of Stalingrad. The older sister worked in a tank factory before the evacuation.
Hi Tik. Don't listen to these trolls. Most of your listeners appreciate and respect you and your work.
@TIK a lot of our fellow historians here often forget or don't have the knowledge of is what was happening to the German light tanks in late 41 throughout 1942. They were being converted to Marder IIs and Marder IIIs. That's why the Panzerwaffe's light tank numbers were really low at the time of Fall Blau.
I'm curious TIK, do your references have numbers of Marders that the Germans had on hand during these battles? I would think that they would play a major factor in the high numbers of Soviet tanks being destroyed.
"I'm curious TIK, do your references have numbers of Marders that the Germans had on hand during these battles?"
Not at this stage, no. And they don't say how many StuGs there were either. So in reality, there were more German "armoured" forces than the tank numbers alone. Plus the fact that the Soviets didn't have many "Destroyer" units in the area at this time. 4th Tank Army had the 5th Destroyer Regiment, but that only arrived in time to be destroyed in Episode 7 ;)
With regard to the parachutes, there are two other possibilities. The first is that possibly some German aircraft had parachute stowage like some American aircraft and maybe some crews could not get to their parachutes. The second is that inevitably some aircraft will be on fire when shot down. There are recorded cases of fighter pilots being burned and releasing their parachutes mid air because wearing them was hurting too much and death was for those individuals preferable. I am not sure if the first would apply but I'm pretty sure the second is possible.
These "command tanks" I believe were specialized armored vehicles that were set up for unit commanders to use to communicate with their men in the field through radio communication and so on... And I believe they were built around the base frame of existing tank designs the Germans had, but much like the conversions from Panzer III to Stug III, the base frame doesn't necessarily mean that when completed it would look like the tank that its frame was taken from. And that weight designation (light, medium, or heavy) would then depend on which frame was used.
I had a "World War II" magazine that included a picture of these models in service in the Polish campaign of 1939, but at present, I can't find the magazine... so I can't say for sure whether the frame was based off a light, medium, or heavy design. Some web links, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sd.Kfz._265_Panzerbefehlswagen and www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_kleiner_panzerbefehlswagen.html would give an indication that those specific models were based on the Panzer I frame and that at certain levels would remain in use into the last years of the war... but the latter article would say that it was falling out of use by 1941 and doesn't make any mention of a replacement vehicle ever being developed. Nor beyond the Polish and French campaigns does it mention any specific battles...
So it is possible that these command tanks that were present at Stalingrad were based off of German light tank designs... but then because their general purpose was more for a unit commander to command his unit from while remaining mobile... counting them as "light tanks" wouldn't really be helpful as combat wasn't their intended role wasn't going to be the same as a light tank's... or a medium or heavy tank's role for that matter. These command tanks were more for communications and coordination than combat.