Hitler to Model: Okay this is gonna be pretty difficult, but once we get past the first 20 km it should be smooth sailing. Other 90km of defences: *Allow us to introduce ourselves*
@@nguyenminh8240 That's legit. Stalin and Lenin lines can confirm that. The only reason they did not work as they were supposed to was Blitzkrieg. Same thing is for the Maginot Line. Stalin line was a bit more successful, providing successful defense during the battle of Kiev for months. Plus, it was far less obvious and did not scream "I AM A DEFENSE LINE!" in their attackers' faces.
@@antoinemozart243 if Hitler had kept his ass out of the war room altogether and let his generals run the show like Stalin did with zuhikov. Then they would've attacked much sooner and well before the soviet defense lines had been formed. But nope they listened to him again and waited until they had more panzer reserves before assaulting the positions. Man wasn't he great at making decisions. Bet the sixth army at stalingrad would agree. Such a brilliant commander.
Honestly I'm insanely impressed you took the time at the end to specify that any errors are your own errors and no one elses, very refreshing to see people actually take responsibility for somethig
if anyone is interested. I recently read Soviet manuals for tactical officers of the 1950s and 1960s, which are still being studied. I was very surprised by the fact that all the techniques in them are real examples from World War 2. Most often in 1944-1945, but also in 1941-1943. Those. these are records of real battles and analysis of them for the purpose of teaching a lesson. Back in that book in the preface, it was said in plain text that "we were very bad in tactics in 1941, but the war forced us to change, and now this book so that there would not be a second 1941." Very interesting reading for the fuck like me. For every possible situation a real example of a good experience was found there.
There's a book called the Partisans Companion which was a book given to Soviet civilians and militias on tactics to fight a superior foe, good read, there could be other such books in English..
I remember reading a quote from a german general, let me paraphrase: "The soviets are no longer the paesants we fought in 1941. They have learned the craft of war, and they learned it from us" Dated 42 or 43
My grandfather was killed in Kursk battle. He was a machine gun operator. When I visited those places (actual place of death is unknown) about 40 years later, one could pick a piece of shrapnel every step in the open field.
@Phil Hall He was a machine gun operator. According to the letters received, he was likely killed very soon after deployment, possibly in his first battle.
Soviet sappers moving Germans mines. This would explain the first day on the northern attack the Ferdinands ran into their own minefield and were delayed half a day.
I remember a Soviet veteran saying they would dig up and reuse the German mines because these were much more reliable and safer than the Soviet-made mines, which had a slight tendency to detonate when being dug-in!
@Roughman Sure, antitank mines aren't dangerous. However, digging up landmines meant for soldiers was still dangerous. Just look at the amount of captured German soldiers who died digging up mines in Denmark after WW2, and alot of those minefields were mapped and the number of mines were counted. I doubt that they had the luxury to do that on the eastern front. And knowing how willing the soviet army was to spend lives, I wouldn't be surprised the casualties were higher.
Its amazing how the Soviets got their act together by the summer of 43! We can argue about "turning points" all day, but I'd say Kursk demonstrated without a doubt the Red Army was ready to haul themselves across Eastern Europe. I hope to cover Kursk myself in a future video.
@@ДмитрийТрудов-х7к Это идиотская поговорка про врача. Есть лучше: дурак учится на своих ошибках, умный - на чужих. Хорошие врачи получаются после лет работы под руководством и присмотром других хороших врачей.
"Even after the war [General Breith - III Panzer Corps] was convinced that the III Panzer Corps had actually achieved the operational breakthrough [---] *In truth, the corps had only penetrated the second Soviet army defence line.*" I think this highlights the problem with so many history books dealing with the Eastern Front that heavily rely on testimonies from German generals given after the war. Even generals misunderstand conditions, especially in failure, understanding what happened will be very difficult to get to unless you carefully compare accounts and the circumstances these accounts were formed in.
Exactly so. This is a great video and so far, the best one I have seen on the subject. It's also worth mentioning that most people spend inordinate amounts of time talking about the Tiger v T-34 or the exploits of the Ferdinand.. This is invariably at the expense of a rational discussion of how the Red Army defences and tactics managed to separate the German tanks from the infantry.
Excellent point. Memoirs are subjective and are written in order to present the author in a better light (not necessarily consciously). The Western people tend to rely mainly on the German side, so it draws a distorted picture.
@@CrazyArcher2160 Very distorted. I am currently trying to find information on Operation Spring Awakening, one of the bigger armoured clashes of the war and the last major one. The only information I can find so far goes something like this: the Germans advanced between the two lakes and pushed the Red Army back. They drove a wedge 30 kilometres deep through the Red Army lines. Then it ends. No mention of how the Red Army managed to win a crushing victory over the Germans. They just went away. I actually have found out now the basics of what happened but you have to push a long way through to find it. You get all this stuff about what the Germans did and nothing about what the Red Army did, despite the fact that they won. The only videos I've seen on RUclips just stop when the Germans started getting hit. The battle just kind of ends. But the fact is that the 6th SS Panzer Army were decimated. They lost so much materiel that Dietrich said of them, "It's appropriate that we're called the 6th because we only have six tanks left." They received such a drubbing that it led to "The Armband Order". As you can see, information on the Germans is easy to find.
@@thethirdman225 It's going to get better at a certain stage. The Russian MOD has recently declassified a massive corpus of documents, and moreover - scanned them and made them available online. Russian researchers call this development no less than am "archival revolution". I guess sooner or later someone will get to this topic, research it and publish something, although it is surely going to take some time to have it available in English. Language barrier is a tough obstacle. It's probably surprising for people who are not directly involved that there are still many blind spots in the history of WW2. Researchers (such as Valery Zamulin) are still digging up new info on the Battle of Kursk, despite it being one of the most prominent battles of the war and it seems like it should be extremely well-researched.
@@CrazyArcher2160 Exactly. The unfortunate thing about Kursk is that it was just so big and most of the discussion circulates around Prokhorovka. That was a decisive German victory in a large scale battle they lost. People talk about Tigers vs T-34s and kill ratios without ever mentioning the outcomes or the fact that the push failed. No wonder people are confused.
I see your strategy comrade Popovski, but what if they break through our defense line? We put another defense line! But what if they break through that defense line too? We put another defense line! But what if they break through that defense line too? We put another defense line! But what if they break through that defense line too? We put another defense line! But what if they break through that defense line too? We put another defense line! But what if they break through that defense line too? We put another defense line! But what if they break through that defense line too? We put another defense line! But what if they break through that defense line too? We put another defense line!
Yes. But did the 2 sides utilize captured enemy weapons, supplies and trucks? It makes sense to me to use my enemies weapons against him but I've never read of it happening.
Mahatma Gandhi or rather “start a war you cant win, be delusional, throw overpriced toys at an enemy until your economy lies in shambles, roll in war crimes like a pig and then lose the WW2.”
@Mahatma Gandhi ==Probably because he's low on ammunition from killing all those rusty little soviets throughout Barbarossa .Keep throwing your own shit at the meat grinder till it jams ,classic communist doctrine lol .== Keep throwing your money into someone else's meat grinder until it grinds millions, a classic capitalist doctrine.
IRONIE INCOMMING btw yes. Not counting allies of Germany in WW2 losses is a scummy move employed by the reichofags to present their losses smaller then they were. While all those allies fought under command of german officers and should be presented as losses of the vermacht in general.
Darklysm its funny how reichofags defend a failed state that not only lost the war but couldnt even hope to win it in the first place but still started it out of delusion.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Yes the maps are really helpful, I have made some post-it's to easier access them as I constantly study the maps as I read. I really got some good insights regarding the build-up to the battle (Only read 1/4 so far). It seems to be well researched.
6:00 - Cooperation meant that all anti-tank guns targeted the same German tank. Once that tank was destroyed, all fires shifted to a single new German tank. This method was much more successful compared to the previous method of allowing each anti-tank gun to target a German tank that it had individually selected.
I recommend David Glantz's book on Kursk it gives detailed information on the offensive itself and the Soviet offensive as well. I found amazing how far the Germans and Sovietd were willing to push a division to utter depletion. I also find it amazing how intense the defense was.
Thats called a war for survival, you have no option but to win at all costs. Britian and america have an ocean between them and germany. The soviets had only their army.
I just wish his accent wasn't so god awful. So many sentences are mumbled and words are lost if not for the text visualizing the relevant parts. If this was an audio file only, I would have a hard time following half the stuff he goes through.
I have always said that the battle of Kursk was a battle of attrition where artillery and mines played a huge role (mortars : the red army had twenty more mortars than the Germans).
I am from Russia and I can say that this is a very good video. Of course, there are some inaccuracies. For example, our Mobile Obstacle Detachment was also called “sassy mining”.In addition, an incendiary bottle is incorrectly drawn on the diagram, because the "Tiger" could not be amazed at it. He had special means on the body, which diverted the combustible mixture into special containers.
Да, это из-за специфической реализации преодоления водных преград, МТО частично затапливалось. Но к Курску в частях уже были РПГ-43, хотя до их использования по прямому назначению доходило редко.
@@TheSunchaster что такое МТО? И причём оно тут вообще, я говорил про нахальное минирование. Если вы не из России и подразумевали опорный пункт, то у нас он называется "ПТОП". Вообще в боях под Курском ещё продолжали использовать РПГ-40, да и противотанковые ружья тоже были не редкостью, как и было сказано в ролике. К слову именно для защиты от противотанковых ружей немецкие танки оснащались тонкими бронепластинами на башне и бортах корпуса.
@@dmitriibyrin5405 такое ощущение, что я субтитры для непонятно кого делал. МТО - моторно-трансмиссионное отделение "In addition, an incendiary bottle..." - здесь про бутылку с зажигательной смесью. ПТР Тигра никак не пробивает, кроме поражения смотровых приборов и т. п.
@@TheSunchaster Извиняюсь, я не совсем понял, что там частично затапливалось, поэтому подумал о своём. Про пробитие Тигра ПТР я ни слова не говорил, на него экраны и не вешались по вышеуказанным причинам.
One of the major points that was missed in the video is following: soviets managed to build up several month worth the amount of artillery shells, while the frontlines were relatively stable. When you see a talk about artillery soviets had, people often miss that the amount of munition they had was limited (in 1942 extremely limited). Plus it is worth mention that soviet artillery was lighter than german, so the number of guns without caliber comparisson and the amount of munition amassed is quite useless. With artillery and aviation it' not the amount of guns or aircrafts that matter, but the total mass of the munition fired and bombs dropped. In the battle of Kursk SU had achieved parity in those numbers with TR, while exceeding germans in manpower. In Blau and Stalingrad SU fired had ~2 times less munition, while exceeding AGS ~2 times in manpower, thus firing 3-4 times less munition per person. I believe it would've been nice for MHV to make a direct comparisson in that area, because it is easily understandable once visualised.
Ценное замечание. Химическая промышленность у немцев в первой половине войны на голову превосходила нашу. И ключевой параметр - производство пороха, без которого война невозможно. До 43 года дневной расход снарядов у немцев на одно орудие мог быть больше на порядок, что является одним из ключевых параметров успешной обороны/наступления. Многие люди думают, что стоит захотеть какому-нибудь генералу провести операцию послезавтра, то он просто достаёт из неведомых запасов танки, авиацию и артиллерию и командует "В атаку!". На самом деле же это война ресурсов, а необходимые запасы топлива, пороха и провизии для летних кампаний заготавливались многие месяцы перед ними. А также было необходимо оценить обеспеченность противника данными ресурсами.
almost always, the Nazis had a numerical superiority the situation was corrected only at the end of the war . I am surprised by the stories about the comparative losses and the advantage in manpower of the Russian troops Chief of staff of the 17th army corps of the Wehrmacht, major General Hans Derr. In his book "the March on Stalingrad", he gives the following data for August 1942: According to the Eastern army division of the OKH intelligence Agency, by mid-August 1942. Russia had the following forces: 407 rifle divisions, equal to 287 German 178 rifle brigades, equal to 142 German 39 cavalry divisions, equal to 33 German divisions 165 tank brigades, equal to 63 German A total of 789 units, equal to 593 German units 1 division of the red army is not equal to 1 division of Germany
If you like in-depth military history videos, consider supporting me on PayPal, Patreon or SubscribeStar or PayPal: paypal.me/mhvis --- patreon.com/mhv/ --- www.subscribestar.com/mhv Be sure to check out the companion video with Dr. Roman Töppel here: ruclips.net/video/YWp1I_zGeow/видео.html
@@SepticFuddy I’m from Russia, originally. Why? And I didn’t say that “u” in bull is pronounced exactly the same way as in word cool (or bool” if it does exist). Read again my first message, please.
The curious thing about Kursk is German panzer doctrine was to avoid strong points yet at Kursk the panzers are used like battering rams against prepared positions with predictable results. It supports Dr Toppel's point that at that time the idea that massed high quality tanks could overcome prepared defences had gained support but this is really an infantry role. That experiment failed.
The panzers did still try to avoid strongpoints when possible. But the Soviet defence was set up so that neighbouring strongpoints would fire into the weak side armour of German tanks trying to slip through a gap
9:56 The Soviets had learnt the lessons from WW1, in which the Russian army lost important battles due to the superior German artillery, so they decided they needed to have more and better artillery than anybody else. And, through some people give more importance to the tanks today when talking about WW2, most casualties (70%~80%) were made by artillery: tanks were an useful weapon for breaking the enemy lines and encircling, but it was the artillery what dealt the sufficient atrittion and the constant butcher in the front. Also, not even a Tiger was safe from a direct hit by the heaviest howitzers.
Podemos URSS I think he's referring to the Germans postponing the attack on the Kursk by a few months to build up Tiger and Panther numbers, not them postponing Barbarossa to stabilize the Balkans. He's saying they should have skipped out on building up their tank forces and attacked the salient earlier. He may actually have a point, since the vast majority of tank destruction at Kursk was caused by mines, anti-tank guns, and reliability faults. That being said, even if the Germans had won at Kursk (which is still doubtful) they would have been stopped in winter and the battle would only postpone the inevitable.
I've watched quite a few of your uploads and only just realised when this popped up that I'd not subscribed. Sorted now! Love the research involved and I never fail to learn from them.
Wow!.......I had no idea how incredible the defending organization was in the Battle of Kursk. I had thought it was mostly armor on armor. Great Video!
In combat mission red thunder, (combat mission, very Good series of realistic armchair general games.) I find it already difficult to cross across 1 AT position without proper artillery to take it out, this Sovjet defences.. Jesus christ how can anyone ever break through that. (I know it is a game, still it made me realise it is more difficult then it seems to be in charge of a company.) Imagine being a general and have the task to cross it, the mines, AT positions artillery. Impossible
I use real life tactics in realistic strategy video games. It is really fun when you're playing against your friend and most of his troops die because of your artillery and mortal strikes without you even knowing exactly where he is. Strategy games are like chess. Only better.
Like real life if you don't spot you shoot blind. case in point D-Day shelled for ours and 2500 killed by 2 machine guns. Utah beach different the paratroopers took out the German artillery contrary the allies the Germans had the area properly referenced. In Vietnam Australian patrol bases had mapped reference points for the artillery. Result at Long Tan a company had a decisive victory against a NVA Regiment.
If you really want to learn a lot more about the details, here are my recommendations for reading. Zamulin's first two books offer a great deal of detail from the Soviet archives. I did not read his third book. He is a Soviet cheerleader at times but he discusses their failures and mistakes. Nipe's book offers so much detail on the German side. It was very interesting to read the German orders issued each night. They thought they were breaking through only to find more Soviet defenses. The 48th Panzer Corps' performance was really quite poor. Toeppel's book offers a lot of detail on the German planning. Very eye opening. Operation Ponyri has a very narrow focus but is excellent. Enigma only made a minor contribution. The Soviets had plenty of spies.
Although the details are pretty tedious they're necessary in the study of military history and it's good to see it featured here. Well-done vid, keep up the good work.
Mr OP, I don't know if you ever read Von Mellenthin's "Panzer battles" and what you thought of it but I have read the translation several times and he is brilliant. Mellenthin was one of the very few leaders able to describe battles in a way layman like me can comprehend instantly. And about Kursk, Von Mellenthin said to paraphrase, ".. instead of drawing out the larger soviet tank formations into the Russian plains, where the panzer units performed best and bleeding the enemy that way -All that our leaders could think of, was to batter our magnificent panzer formations against the Russian defenses uselessly..
Well done! I remember first learning about the Battle of Kursk back in the 70s when I read the book The Tigers Are Burning by Martin Caiden when I was in high school. I still recommend the book to those who might want or need an introduction to the battle.
Oh man someone dares to question the heavily overstated role of the USSR in WWII? OMGGGGGOGOGOGOGO REEEEEEEE RUSSOPHILE! WEHRABOO!!!1111!! MIGHT AS WELL BE AN ANTI-SEMITE TOO FOR GOOD MEASURE REEEEEEEEE!!111!!
@@beurteilung713 "heavily overstated role of the USSR in WWII" - Are you from a former Soviet block country? We were taught that Soviets won the war, while the Western Front was something of a sideshow. That's an overstatement, thought I wouldn't say it's a *heavy* overstatement.
Интересно. В книге "В окопах Сталинграда" автор рассказывает, как он с отрядом саперов ночью минирует нейтральную полосу на случай наступления немцев. Уже на следующую ночь им приказывают перенести поставленные мины на другой участок. И они за ночь это делают. Думаю, такая мобильность и скорость советских саперов сбивала с толку немецкую разведку.
One thing that always confused me about Kursk is the incredibly high Soviet casualties in comparison to the German casualties. The Soviets were prepared, had the defensive advantage, and held a huge numerical advantage, yet suffered something like 2.5X the casualties the Germans took. I'm not sure if the numbers we have are bogus or what was going on.
Most likely bad leadership. At the time Stalin was going through more generals then they had timely replacements. All in the name of loyalty to the ruling party.
Soviets suffered ~189 thousands irrecoverable (KIA and MIA) and 406 thousands recoverable (WIA) casualties during defensive phase of the Kursk battle. 254/608 thousands for the entire operation including counter-offensives. German losses were 103 thousands KIA and MIA + 433 thousands WIA. So if you look at the overall casualties then the number is relatively close (~860 thousand for the Soviets and 533 thousands for the Germans), the ratio is about 1,3 to 1 but Soviets suffered higher proportion of irrecoverable casualties. How that can be explained? The most plausible version that I encountered is that Germans still maintained their overall fire superiority in 1943 and Soviets only managed to keep up with them at Kursk by stockpiling munitions beforehand. To use as example - Red Army used about 3,2 million 76,2 mm high explosive shells in July 1943 (it was mainstay caliber of their divisional artillery and therefore it these guns were most numerous). In comparison Wermacht used 3,4 million of 10 cm high explosive shells in the same month (105 mm gun was main German division artillery piece and therefore also was most numerous piece). So Germans had less guns but they actually fired more (and much heavier, 10 cm shell was about 15 kilos while 76,2 mm one was only 6) shells. Situation with heavier guns was even worse for the Soviets - most common soviet 152 mm pieces fired 394 thousands shells in July while German 15 cm guns fired whopping 872 thousands shells. Summarzing this - Germans inflicted much more casualties on the Soviets by utilizing their firepower superiority which was based around better ability to supply much smaller amount of guns with larger amount of ammunition.
Берти Вустер That makes a lot of sense. It fits my priors since I remember reading somewhere that the Germans fired something like 3X the number of artillery shells at Kursk than the Soviets. It seems the Soviets wouldn't start to seriously outgun the Germans until Bagration.
A question - knowing the Soviet were well dug in with such deep defence, why didn't Hilter go somewhere else? Could they have reconsider their objective and attack somewhere north hence dislodging the Soviet plan?
Informative video, thanks. But you forgot to mention tactics of Russian tank attacks. By 1943 german troops had acquired tanks with excellent front protection and superior guns (Panthers). Russian troops has T34 (most of them represented the first modification with guns which had shorter distance of effective attack), but these tanks were highly mobile. So Russian tanks had attack very fast (in the very beginning of attack they were defenseless) in order to reach distance when they were able to effectively attack german tanks or they had to attack from the side: side armor of german tanks were not so good. During these battle Russian troops demonstrated honor and willingness to defeat aggressor
When the Soviets talk about 'artillery' they often mean AT guns, not just heavy artillery. Heavy artillery (indirect fire) was used more to disrupt concentrations of tanks and blunt their attacks as they advanced.
Yes. They added the same PR value. waited for the miracle Panzer, this time Leopard instead of Tiger and got bogged down in the maze of the Russian defenses.
Yes but the Russian Army doesn't have 2 million men guarding the defensive lines and they don't have 10k+ or more artillery unlike in the Battle of Kursk.
I know you don’t like to do videos of battles much, but I think one on the Korsun/Cherkassy rout(Ukraine) would be fantastic . The Soviets T34 armor, and Calvary horseman, caught up with the 2 German columns trying to breakout without heavy equipment , which they had been forced to abandon as they ran for their lives. Here’s a quote from a great book that gives you a idea Under the yellow sky of early morning and over ground covered with wet snow Soviet tanks made straight for the thick of the column, ploughing up and down, killing and crushing with their tracks. Almost simultaneously massed Cossack cavalry wheeled away from the tanks to hunt down and massacre men fleeing for the refuge of the hills: hands held high in surrender the Cossacks sliced off with their sabres. The killing in this human hunt went on for several hours and a new round opened on the banks of the river Gniloy Tikich, where the survivors of the first collision of the German column with Soviet troops dragged and fought their way. - John Erickson, in The Road to Berlin, p. 178.
"Is it really necessary to attack Kursk, and indeed in the east this year at all? Do you think anyone even knows where Kursk is? The entire world doesn't care if we capture Kursk or not. What is the reason that is forcing us to attack this year on Kursk, or even more, on the Eastern Front?" - Heinz Guderian to Hitler.
If their attack succeeded they would get a great encirclement, possibly destroying all soviet units at Kursk bulge, also massive iron blob that being mined to that day
Precisely. Guderian knew the limitations of tanks better than almost anyone. They should have fortified their own position west of Kursk in similar fashion, then driven hard either north or south (not both) of the salient, straight for Moscow or other softer targets.
@Georgi Var Right you are Georgi. General Nikolai Fyodorovich Vatutin (whom German generals nicknamed "The Grandmaster") was constantly urging Soviet High Command (Stavka) to attack first. Quote: "We must seize the moment, the enemy is not attacking, autumn is coming and all our planning would have been in vain. Let us stop digging and launch our attack first".
during vietnam war australia troop laid mine field from dat do town to the beach to cut of south vietnam liberation army line communication but at 9:23 part of video they use the same ww2 soviet army tactics is to dig up m16 mine to fight against saigon army and australia army by use enemy weapon against enemy (use australia m16 mine for ambush }
Even better might be Heinrici. His defensive successes against huge odds suggest that a properly executed defensive strategy in the East might have resulted in a stalemate in the long run, instead of the collapse.
My grandfather was 20 years old when he got awarded with the Order of the Patriotic War of the 1st class. There is, in Battle of Prokhorovka, he lost the faith in God (yes, despite the authorities' efforts many people kept the belief). That says enough.
As a suggestion for a video: Maybe the tactics of today's german Panzers? The tactics videos are always great to watch (probably because of the great visualization :D) and it could complement the Wehrmacht Panzer tactics video.
The Soviets had stripped their infantry Div of artillery by 42. Their typical strength was 7000. Tables of Org. and nominal strength rarely match reality for the Red Army. The Divisions actually had access to many more guns than shown. They were just assigned to higher formations and moved to sections of front where STAVKA wanted them. The Russian Diggers often had little indirect fire support. It just depended on priorities. This how they could muster 200 guns per miles on Offences with the Western allies sophisticated radio and fire control. US Army divisional artillery could and did fire on any target within range regardless of which Division. It was the German Army inflexibity with artillery that prevented them doing what the Red Army could do; bust a hole in a deeply defended zone.
Because their defense was ruthless. They did defense in depth, and did not care how many people got lost, they cared only about withering away the German Army chunk by chunk, because they new the Germans couldn't replace the losses very easily.
Hi Another great video. Would you consider a video talking about the German debate on whether or not to attack this fortress- but retreat and make them pursue- then attack them in the open
I find this analysis to be rather good and adequate. You have made a good choice to base your work on Glantz documents, as he is probably the only US/western author that delves exclusively in technical studies, without having to appease this or that congressional lobby with political/propaganda garbage. The usage of artillery is indeed the key to understand many of the Soviet successes in ww2. Contrary to the common western conception of it (a lots of guns that fire a lot, destroying everything in the process), the Soviets evolved the tactical/technical usage of this arm to an higher level than all the other ww2 combatants. Their ability to perform effective artillery missions at operational levels unimaginable for US and UK armies is evidence to that evolution
I find your posts extremely informative. One (very slight) criticism. At times you speak so quickly that its hard to follow exactly what youre saying. But keep up the great work!
I wonder if you could still find those target plates in the archives in Russia. It would be really interesting to see the actual plates that were issued for more than just the tiger. gives you an idea on what the Soviet Army believed their mean really needed to see.
Very good info, thankyou. One thing I expected to here of tho was the minefields positioned in such a way as to "herd" the Panzers onto the AT gun positions. I've heard this several times regarding Kursk. Is it just a trope?
As far as I know, your information is correct. It is not mentioned in this video, but the soviet defenses in this battle were conceived to canalize or to "herd" the panzers onto planned routes strongly defended by minefields and AT gun positions that could delay or stop them.
Their best defensive tool was that the allies told them what units were involved , where they were and what their orders were - all from Ultra decripts. If you know exactly what you're dealing with and when then you have few excuses for failure.
The Soviets planned and fought their battle magnificently and there are differing stories about how they gained the knowledge of the attack and the full details/limitations of that plan One thing that is almost never mentioned is that the Germans had produced under demands from Hitler a far more complex code machine than Enigma. Yet this new multi faceted machines many depths were broken by the British who then learned all of Hitlers intentions regarding Kursk and passed those details onto the Soviets.
What gets me is why the Germans, knowing full well how much work and material the Russian's had poured into that salient, didn't switch to attacking another section of the line and used Kursk as a decoy attack?
Wonder if they went so heavy on artillery because the Soviets got absolutely blasted by artillery with their invasion of Finland. Artillery played a very decisive role there, hammering down on choke points and causing major damage.
Bletchley Park had been intercepting the German comms for months and as a result knew the entire German order of battle and Churchill gave it to Stalin. Zhukov did his homework but it wasn't like he was Julius Caesar at Alesia.
German: "That mine is mine"
Russian: "Oh, yeah? No, it's mine. But ok, what's mine is yours"
Was that pun intentional?
@@GAtTheTop
No, that pun was not intentional. I planned it all along beforehand.
Edigy hilarious.
Socialism at work
What's mine is mine too
Hitler to Model: Okay this is gonna be pretty difficult, but once we get past the first 20 km it should be smooth sailing.
Other 90km of defences: *Allow us to introduce ourselves*
RandomTomatoSoup This is pretty much the whole Eastern Front in a nutshell
@@nguyenminh8240 That's legit. Stalin and Lenin lines can confirm that. The only reason they did not work as they were supposed to was Blitzkrieg. Same thing is for the Maginot Line. Stalin line was a bit more successful, providing successful defense during the battle of Kiev for months. Plus, it was far less obvious and did not scream "I AM A DEFENSE LINE!" in their attackers' faces.
@@yevheniishyshko7961 The Germans had patrols and aerial recon
@@partygrove5321 they were less effective than the russian ones because this area was protected by the russian air force.
@@antoinemozart243 if Hitler had kept his ass out of the war room altogether and let his generals run the show like Stalin did with zuhikov. Then they would've attacked much sooner and well before the soviet defense lines had been formed. But nope they listened to him again and waited until they had more panzer reserves before assaulting the positions. Man wasn't he great at making decisions. Bet the sixth army at stalingrad would agree. Such a brilliant commander.
Honestly I'm insanely impressed you took the time at the end to specify that any errors are your own errors and no one elses, very refreshing to see people actually take responsibility for somethig
Typically German imho. I'm not German btw.
This is what academics usually do
Boss shit
if he doesnt someone will lol
Isaac Vasquez agreed.
if anyone is interested. I recently read Soviet manuals for tactical officers of the 1950s and 1960s, which are still being studied. I was very surprised by the fact that all the techniques in them are real examples from World War 2. Most often in 1944-1945, but also in 1941-1943. Those. these are records of real battles and analysis of them for the purpose of teaching a lesson.
Back in that book in the preface, it was said in plain text that "we were very bad in tactics in 1941, but the war forced us to change, and now this book so that there would not be a second 1941." Very interesting reading for the fuck like me. For every possible situation a real example of a good experience was found there.
Really buddy, where did you get them in English?
I would also love to get my hands on this book you mentioned!
Any chance of posting a link?😎✌
There's a book called the Partisans Companion which was a book given to Soviet civilians and militias on tactics to fight a superior foe, good read, there could be other such books in English..
I remember reading a quote from a german general, let me paraphrase:
"The soviets are no longer the paesants we fought in 1941. They have learned the craft of war, and they learned it from us"
Dated 42 or 43
Lol like how you mentioned the artillery only hoi4 meme.
At what time?
9:55
@@kassthered8452 ^
Schmidty yeah me too
@@kassthered8452 thank you :D
When you have a lot of money in a tower defense game
Those bloons never stood a chance.
@@manictiger Hahah, I see someone is a fan of that as well!
Edit: Though, those Camo Lead Bloons were a nuisance!
A lot of POWs*
@@gregoriysharapov1936 What about camo regrow reds
> When you have a lot of money in a tower defense game
quite the opposite. When you have limit resources you have to outskill the enemy
My grandfather was killed in Kursk battle. He was a machine gun operator. When I visited those places (actual place of death is unknown) about 40 years later, one could pick a piece of shrapnel every step in the open field.
@Phil Hall He was a machine gun operator. According to the letters received, he was likely killed very soon after deployment, possibly in his first battle.
Soviet sappers moving Germans mines. This would explain the first day on the northern attack the Ferdinands ran into their own minefield and were delayed half a day.
I remember a Soviet veteran saying they would dig up and reuse the German mines because these were much more reliable and safer than the Soviet-made mines, which had a slight tendency to detonate when being dug-in!
@@Wien1938 Imagine the amount Soviet soldiers who died digging up German mines that would later be used by their army against the Germans.
@Roughman Sure, antitank mines aren't dangerous. However, digging up landmines meant for soldiers was still dangerous. Just look at the amount of captured German soldiers who died digging up mines in Denmark after WW2, and alot of those minefields were mapped and the number of mines were counted. I doubt that they had the luxury to do that on the eastern front.
And knowing how willing the soviet army was to spend lives, I wouldn't be surprised the casualties were higher.
TBH the Ferdinands would still be delayed anyway
German: "That mine is mine"
Russian: "Oh, yeah? No, it's mine. But ok, it's yours if you can find it. What's mine is yours"
Its amazing how the Soviets got their act together by the summer of 43! We can argue about "turning points" all day, but I'd say Kursk demonstrated without a doubt the Red Army was ready to haul themselves across Eastern Europe. I hope to cover Kursk myself in a future video.
@Pasha Staravoitau
как говориться, у каждого хорошего врача- свое кладбище...
даже не хочется думать, во сколько обходится один хороший полководец...
@@ДмитрийТрудов-х7к Так или иначе он обходится куда меньше посредственного политика.
@@Manuel_Fal_Conde
ваша мысль понятна...
лишь уточню, что между политиком и государственным деятелем- огромная разница.
н2 политиком не был...
Germany choose totally wrong coutry to teach it tactics and strategy. Japan Empire wasn't happy after it too.
@@ДмитрийТрудов-х7к Это идиотская поговорка про врача. Есть лучше: дурак учится на своих ошибках, умный - на чужих.
Хорошие врачи получаются после лет работы под руководством и присмотром других хороших врачей.
"Even after the war [General Breith - III Panzer Corps] was convinced that the III Panzer Corps had actually achieved the operational breakthrough [---] *In truth, the corps had only penetrated the second Soviet army defence line.*"
I think this highlights the problem with so many history books dealing with the Eastern Front that heavily rely on testimonies from German generals given after the war. Even generals misunderstand conditions, especially in failure, understanding what happened will be very difficult to get to unless you carefully compare accounts and the circumstances these accounts were formed in.
Exactly so. This is a great video and so far, the best one I have seen on the subject. It's also worth mentioning that most people spend inordinate amounts of time talking about the Tiger v T-34 or the exploits of the Ferdinand.. This is invariably at the expense of a rational discussion of how the Red Army defences and tactics managed to separate the German tanks from the infantry.
Excellent point. Memoirs are subjective and are written in order to present the author in a better light (not necessarily consciously). The Western people tend to rely mainly on the German side, so it draws a distorted picture.
@@CrazyArcher2160 Very distorted. I am currently trying to find information on Operation Spring Awakening, one of the bigger armoured clashes of the war and the last major one. The only information I can find so far goes something like this: the Germans advanced between the two lakes and pushed the Red Army back. They drove a wedge 30 kilometres deep through the Red Army lines. Then it ends. No mention of how the Red Army managed to win a crushing victory over the Germans. They just went away.
I actually have found out now the basics of what happened but you have to push a long way through to find it. You get all this stuff about what the Germans did and nothing about what the Red Army did, despite the fact that they won.
The only videos I've seen on RUclips just stop when the Germans started getting hit. The battle just kind of ends. But the fact is that the 6th SS Panzer Army were decimated. They lost so much materiel that Dietrich said of them, "It's appropriate that we're called the 6th because we only have six tanks left." They received such a drubbing that it led to "The Armband Order".
As you can see, information on the Germans is easy to find.
@@thethirdman225 It's going to get better at a certain stage. The Russian MOD has recently declassified a massive corpus of documents, and moreover - scanned them and made them available online. Russian researchers call this development no less than am "archival revolution". I guess sooner or later someone will get to this topic, research it and publish something, although it is surely going to take some time to have it available in English. Language barrier is a tough obstacle.
It's probably surprising for people who are not directly involved that there are still many blind spots in the history of WW2. Researchers (such as Valery Zamulin) are still digging up new info on the Battle of Kursk, despite it being one of the most prominent battles of the war and it seems like it should be extremely well-researched.
@@CrazyArcher2160 Exactly. The unfortunate thing about Kursk is that it was just so big and most of the discussion circulates around Prokhorovka. That was a decisive German victory in a large scale battle they lost. People talk about Tigers vs T-34s and kill ratios without ever mentioning the outcomes or the fact that the push failed. No wonder people are confused.
I see your strategy comrade Popovski, but what if they break through our defense line?
We put another defense line!
But what if they break through that defense line too?
We put another defense line!
But what if they break through that defense line too?
We put another defense line!
But what if they break through that defense line too?
We put another defense line!
But what if they break through that defense line too?
We put another defense line!
But what if they break through that defense line too?
We put another defense line!
But what if they break through that defense line too?
We put another defense line!
But what if they break through that defense line too?
We put another defense line!
When you think about it, the Soviet battle plan for Kursk could be considered a real-life example of the 'Xanatos Gambit'.
9:35 Digging out and laying Nazi's OWN mines is sooo badass
Yes. But did the 2 sides utilize captured enemy weapons, supplies and trucks? It makes sense to me to use my enemies weapons against him but I've never read of it happening.
The Bersaglieri also did it with the British mines in Africa during 1942.
A most clear and comprehensive explanation. If this was any other doc I would see over half an hour of dribble and inaccurate hyperbole.
Germans: We are masters of concentrated panzer breakthrough!
Soviets: This isn't even my final denfese belt!
Sees defence lines.
Panzer starts sweating profusely
@Mahatma Gandhi thing had happen cannot be changed.
Mahatma Gandhi or rather “start a war you cant win, be delusional, throw overpriced toys at an enemy until your economy lies in shambles, roll in war crimes like a pig and then lose the WW2.”
@Mahatma Gandhi
==Probably because he's low on ammunition from killing all those rusty little soviets throughout Barbarossa .Keep throwing your own shit at the meat grinder till it jams ,classic communist doctrine lol .==
Keep throwing your money into someone else's meat grinder until it grinds millions, a classic capitalist doctrine.
IRONIE INCOMMING btw yes. Not counting allies of Germany in WW2 losses is a scummy move employed by the reichofags to present their losses smaller then they were. While all those allies fought under command of german officers and should be presented as losses of the vermacht in general.
Darklysm its funny how reichofags defend a failed state that not only lost the war but couldnt even hope to win it in the first place but still started it out of delusion.
Be sure to check out the companion video with Dr. Roman Töppel here: ruclips.net/video/YWp1I_zGeow/видео.html
Still reading the book, like it. Well written (and translated as I read the English version),
English version is the best version due to better footnotes & colored maps.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Yes the maps are really helpful, I have made some post-it's to easier access them as I constantly study the maps as I read. I really got some good insights regarding the build-up to the battle (Only read 1/4 so far). It seems to be well researched.
Brother can you tell me from where i can buy your books i would love to read them
@cobra Scorpio they are all linked in the description.
6:00 - Cooperation meant that all anti-tank guns targeted the same German tank. Once that tank was destroyed, all fires shifted to a single new German tank. This method was much more successful compared to the previous method of allowing each anti-tank gun to target a German tank that it had individually selected.
I recommend David Glantz's book on Kursk it gives detailed information on the offensive itself and the Soviet offensive as well. I found amazing how far the Germans and Sovietd were willing to push a division to utter depletion. I also find it amazing how intense the defense was.
I can also recommend "The Battle of Kursk: Controversial and Neglected Aspects" by Valeriy Zamulin.
Thats called a war for survival, you have no option but to win at all costs.
Britian and america have an ocean between them and germany. The soviets had only their army.
Glanz is too dry and hard to read.
Interesting and informative video History, I always wondered how the Soviets stopped the Axis at Kursk and now I know. Well done mate.
no you don't
the Soviets stopped the axis by sheer power:
bring 2.5 times as many troops too the battle as your enemy isnt a "special defence tactic"
@@tommyjacobi2054
nonsense
@@tommyjacobi2054 True the biggest reason the soviets won the war
such a quality channel, I always leap with joy when the notification if your uploads arrive. great work!!
We Call that german Qualität
@@xxx6797 he is an Austrian
I just wish his accent wasn't so god awful. So many sentences are mumbled and words are lost if not for the text visualizing the relevant parts. If this was an audio file only, I would have a hard time following half the stuff he goes through.
@@krunske Yes, he hes a tinsy vinsy eccent. Good work though. 😉
I have always said that the battle of Kursk was a battle of attrition where artillery and mines played a huge role (mortars : the red army had twenty more mortars than the Germans).
I am from Russia and I can say that this is a very good video. Of course, there are some inaccuracies. For example, our Mobile Obstacle Detachment was also called “sassy mining”.In addition, an incendiary bottle is incorrectly drawn on the diagram, because the "Tiger" could not be amazed at it. He had special means on the body, which diverted the combustible mixture into special containers.
Да, это из-за специфической реализации преодоления водных преград, МТО частично затапливалось. Но к Курску в частях уже были РПГ-43, хотя до их использования по прямому назначению доходило редко.
@@TheSunchaster что такое МТО? И причём оно тут вообще, я говорил про нахальное минирование. Если вы не из России и подразумевали опорный пункт, то у нас он называется "ПТОП". Вообще в боях под Курском ещё продолжали использовать РПГ-40, да и противотанковые ружья тоже были не редкостью, как и было сказано в ролике. К слову именно для защиты от противотанковых ружей немецкие танки оснащались тонкими бронепластинами на башне и бортах корпуса.
@@dmitriibyrin5405 такое ощущение, что я субтитры для непонятно кого делал.
МТО - моторно-трансмиссионное отделение
"In addition, an incendiary bottle..." - здесь про бутылку с зажигательной смесью.
ПТР Тигра никак не пробивает, кроме поражения смотровых приборов и т. п.
@@TheSunchaster Извиняюсь, я не совсем понял, что там частично затапливалось, поэтому подумал о своём. Про пробитие Тигра ПТР я ни слова не говорил, на него экраны и не вешались по вышеуказанным причинам.
@@TheSunchaster прекрасные титры
I made a short dissertation about the Battle of Kursk a couple of years ago for my Military History class. I wish I had these sources back then!
One of the major points that was missed in the video is following: soviets managed to build up several month worth the amount of artillery shells, while the frontlines were relatively stable. When you see a talk about artillery soviets had, people often miss that the amount of munition they had was limited (in 1942 extremely limited). Plus it is worth mention that soviet artillery was lighter than german, so the number of guns without caliber comparisson and the amount of munition amassed is quite useless.
With artillery and aviation it' not the amount of guns or aircrafts that matter, but the total mass of the munition fired and bombs dropped. In the battle of Kursk SU had achieved parity in those numbers with TR, while exceeding germans in manpower. In Blau and Stalingrad SU fired had ~2 times less munition, while exceeding AGS ~2 times in manpower, thus firing 3-4 times less munition per person.
I believe it would've been nice for MHV to make a direct comparisson in that area, because it is easily understandable once visualised.
Hey, do you have sources for all of this? I would like to know more!
Good analysis. Plus the Soviets didn't have as many SPGs as the Germans had. All those SiG-33s, Wespes, Hummels was a pain in the ass.
Ценное замечание. Химическая промышленность у немцев в первой половине войны на голову превосходила нашу. И ключевой параметр - производство пороха, без которого война невозможно. До 43 года дневной расход снарядов у немцев на одно орудие мог быть больше на порядок, что является одним из ключевых параметров успешной обороны/наступления. Многие люди думают, что стоит захотеть какому-нибудь генералу провести операцию послезавтра, то он просто достаёт из неведомых запасов танки, авиацию и артиллерию и командует "В атаку!". На самом деле же это война ресурсов, а необходимые запасы топлива, пороха и провизии для летних кампаний заготавливались многие месяцы перед ними. А также было необходимо оценить обеспеченность противника данными ресурсами.
@@crowleyj_g54
You made some really unique comments, especially the one about the six foot dick!
almost always, the Nazis had a numerical superiority the situation was corrected only at the end of the war . I am surprised by the stories about the comparative losses and the advantage in manpower of the Russian troops Chief of staff of the 17th army corps of the Wehrmacht, major General Hans Derr. In his book "the March on Stalingrad", he gives the following data for August 1942:
According to the Eastern army division of the OKH intelligence Agency, by mid-August 1942. Russia had the following forces:
407 rifle divisions, equal to 287 German
178 rifle brigades, equal to 142 German
39 cavalry divisions, equal to 33 German divisions
165 tank brigades, equal to 63 German
A total of 789 units, equal to 593 German units
1 division of the red army is not equal to 1 division of Germany
If you like in-depth military history videos, consider supporting me on PayPal, Patreon or SubscribeStar or PayPal:
paypal.me/mhvis --- patreon.com/mhv/ --- www.subscribestar.com/mhv
Be sure to check out the companion video with Dr. Roman Töppel here: ruclips.net/video/YWp1I_zGeow/видео.html
“U” in “Kursk” reads like in words “bull” or “cool”, not like in word “curb”!!
And thanks for great job and detailed analysis of the battle!!
Why do you pronounce "bull" as "bool"? Where are you from?
@@SepticFuddy I’m from Russia, originally. Why?
And I didn’t say that “u” in bull is pronounced exactly the same way as in word cool (or bool” if it does exist). Read again my first message, please.
The curious thing about Kursk is German panzer doctrine was to avoid strong points yet at Kursk the panzers are used like battering rams against prepared positions with predictable results. It supports Dr Toppel's point that at that time the idea that massed high quality tanks could overcome prepared defences had gained support but this is really an infantry role. That experiment failed.
The panzers did still try to avoid strongpoints when possible. But the Soviet defence was set up so that neighbouring strongpoints would fire into the weak side armour of German tanks trying to slip through a gap
Once your enemy knows what you're doing,hope he uses lube
Positionally Kursk salient is one of the weakest positions in entire Russia front line
@@tructre1980 not really. Rzhev was weaker, but germans dont want to sart new meat grinder here
Excellent! Thank you very much!Greetings from the Czech republic.
Mode "Urrraaa!!!" activated.
Chiki brikki
Mow2 ?
CoH2
Mode "Rush B" activated
along with Mode C2H5OH
9:56 The Soviets had learnt the lessons from WW1, in which the Russian army lost important battles due to the superior German artillery, so they decided they needed to have more and better artillery than anybody else. And, through some people give more importance to the tanks today when talking about WW2, most casualties (70%~80%) were made by artillery: tanks were an useful weapon for breaking the enemy lines and encircling, but it was the artillery what dealt the sufficient atrittion and the constant butcher in the front. Also, not even a Tiger was safe from a direct hit by the heaviest howitzers.
It was also due to an Russian tactic, called artillery - god of war
@@aneesh2115 Well, not just Russian. I mean, Napoleon himself had said "God favours the side with the best artillery".
@@aneesh2115 peoples in the world depletes to 2 categoties: artillery crew and their targets
By having ultra fixed defensive positions that had multiple layers and mobile reserves. Germans should have attacked months earlier or not at all
This template was also used during november 1941, and to defeat the counteroffensive of late 1942 so, not really.
Dumbass
Podemos URSS I think he's referring to the Germans postponing the attack on the Kursk by a few months to build up Tiger and Panther numbers, not them postponing Barbarossa to stabilize the Balkans. He's saying they should have skipped out on building up their tank forces and attacked the salient earlier. He may actually have a point, since the vast majority of tank destruction at Kursk was caused by mines, anti-tank guns, and reliability faults. That being said, even if the Germans had won at Kursk (which is still doubtful) they would have been stopped in winter and the battle would only postpone the inevitable.
Dlüph Scheißemlok He said earlier, not later.
Better not at all
I've watched quite a few of your uploads and only just realised when this popped up that I'd not subscribed. Sorted now! Love the research involved and I never fail to learn from them.
Wow!.......I had no idea how incredible the defending organization was in the Battle of Kursk. I had thought it was mostly armor on armor. Great Video!
In combat mission red thunder, (combat mission, very Good series of realistic armchair general games.) I find it already difficult to cross across 1 AT position without proper artillery to take it out, this Sovjet defences.. Jesus christ how can anyone ever break through that.
(I know it is a game, still it made me realise it is more difficult then it seems to be in charge of a company.)
Imagine being a general and have the task to cross it, the mines, AT positions artillery. Impossible
I use real life tactics in realistic strategy video games. It is really fun when you're playing against your friend and most of his troops die because of your artillery and mortal strikes without you even knowing exactly where he is. Strategy games are like chess. Only better.
Like real life if you don't spot you shoot blind. case in point D-Day shelled for ours and 2500 killed by 2 machine guns. Utah beach different the paratroopers took out the German artillery contrary the allies the Germans had the area properly referenced. In Vietnam Australian patrol bases had mapped reference points for the artillery. Result at Long Tan a company had a decisive victory against a NVA Regiment.
Look at Eisenhower exactly what he did at Omaha Beach the MG 42's run out of spare barrels if you land 156000 men 2500 losses is acceptable.
One of your best Bernhard, great visualizations!
If you really want to learn a lot more about the details, here are my recommendations for reading.
Zamulin's first two books offer a great deal of detail from the Soviet archives. I did not read his third book. He is a Soviet cheerleader at times but he discusses their failures and mistakes.
Nipe's book offers so much detail on the German side. It was very interesting to read the German orders issued each night. They thought they were breaking through only to find more Soviet defenses. The 48th Panzer Corps' performance was really quite poor.
Toeppel's book offers a lot of detail on the German planning. Very eye opening.
Operation Ponyri has a very narrow focus but is excellent.
Enigma only made a minor contribution. The Soviets had plenty of spies.
замулина перевели на английский?
@@ДмитрийТрудов-х7к да, и на венгерский
diceroller555
, good
Although the details are pretty tedious they're necessary in the study of military history and it's good to see it featured here. Well-done vid, keep up the good work.
Mr OP, I don't know if you ever read Von Mellenthin's "Panzer battles" and what you thought of it but I have read the translation several times and he is brilliant. Mellenthin was one of the very few leaders able to describe battles in a way layman like me can comprehend instantly. And about Kursk, Von Mellenthin said to paraphrase, ".. instead of drawing out the larger soviet tank formations into the Russian plains, where the panzer units performed best and bleeding the enemy that way -All that our leaders could think of, was to batter our magnificent panzer formations against the Russian defenses uselessly..
Well done! I remember first learning about the Battle of Kursk back in the 70s when I read the book The Tigers Are Burning by Martin Caiden when I was in high school. I still recommend the book to those who might want or need an introduction to the battle.
Damn, right before Steel division 2 come out. Now I can have a new fighting scenario with my friends.
As always a brilliantly produced video. Thank you.
I noticed that quite some wehraboos and russophobes are pissed. Some guy said mhv might be working for Putin lol 😂😂😂
Oh man someone dares to question the heavily overstated role of the USSR in WWII? OMGGGGGOGOGOGOGO REEEEEEEE RUSSOPHILE! WEHRABOO!!!1111!! MIGHT AS WELL BE AN ANTI-SEMITE TOO FOR GOOD MEASURE REEEEEEEEE!!111!!
@@beurteilung713 how can they do that on a video covering nazis and soviets only?
@@beurteilung713 and one of the comments evidence came from generals memoirs (blamed hitler but not themselves)
@@beurteilung713 "heavily overstated role of the USSR in WWII"
- Are you from a former Soviet block country? We were taught that Soviets won the war, while the Western Front was something of a sideshow. That's an overstatement, thought I wouldn't say it's a *heavy* overstatement.
@@beurteilung713 "Heavily orverstated"... 75% of the German forces were commited to the eastern front, you idiot.
Fritz: Hans! I thought we destroyed that tank, why is it still firing at us?
Hans: That's a new one Fritz, and there are 2 new ones on the side!
Wow. I knew the Russkies had been able to fortify.. but they turned that ENTIRE salient into a fortress plus some.. Impressive.
Интересно. В книге "В окопах Сталинграда" автор рассказывает, как он с отрядом саперов ночью минирует нейтральную полосу на случай наступления немцев. Уже на следующую ночь им приказывают перенести поставленные мины на другой участок. И они за ночь это делают. Думаю, такая мобильность и скорость советских саперов сбивала с толку немецкую разведку.
One thing that always confused me about Kursk is the incredibly high Soviet casualties in comparison to the German casualties. The Soviets were prepared, had the defensive advantage, and held a huge numerical advantage, yet suffered something like 2.5X the casualties the Germans took. I'm not sure if the numbers we have are bogus or what was going on.
Most likely bad leadership. At the time Stalin was going through more generals then they had timely replacements. All in the name of loyalty to the ruling party.
every russian soldier who was deemed lost stood up and died again later
I have no doubt that the Germans massively inflated their numbers for morale purposes as he covered in another video.
Soviets suffered ~189 thousands irrecoverable (KIA and MIA) and 406 thousands recoverable (WIA) casualties during defensive phase of the Kursk battle. 254/608 thousands for the entire operation including counter-offensives. German losses were 103 thousands KIA and MIA + 433 thousands WIA. So if you look at the overall casualties then the number is relatively close (~860 thousand for the Soviets and 533 thousands for the Germans), the ratio is about 1,3 to 1 but Soviets suffered higher proportion of irrecoverable casualties.
How that can be explained? The most plausible version that I encountered is that Germans still maintained their overall fire superiority in 1943 and Soviets only managed to keep up with them at Kursk by stockpiling munitions beforehand. To use as example - Red Army used about 3,2 million 76,2 mm high explosive shells in July 1943 (it was mainstay caliber of their divisional artillery and therefore it these guns were most numerous). In comparison Wermacht used 3,4 million of 10 cm high explosive shells in the same month (105 mm gun was main German division artillery piece and therefore also was most numerous piece). So Germans had less guns but they actually fired more (and much heavier, 10 cm shell was about 15 kilos while 76,2 mm one was only 6) shells. Situation with heavier guns was even worse for the Soviets - most common soviet 152 mm pieces fired 394 thousands shells in July while German 15 cm guns fired whopping 872 thousands shells.
Summarzing this - Germans inflicted much more casualties on the Soviets by utilizing their firepower superiority which was based around better ability to supply much smaller amount of guns with larger amount of ammunition.
Берти Вустер That makes a lot of sense. It fits my priors since I remember reading somewhere that the Germans fired something like 3X the number of artillery shells at Kursk than the Soviets. It seems the Soviets wouldn't start to seriously outgun the Germans until Bagration.
A question - knowing the Soviet were well dug in with such deep defence, why didn't Hilter go somewhere else? Could they have reconsider their objective and attack somewhere north hence dislodging the Soviet plan?
They did, but soviet artillery (BM-13 and etc.) always destroyed those defence lines.
The Kursk salient threatened by surrounding other German armies, it was impossible to leave it as it was.
Russian were ingenious with their tactics, it's not only numbers that made them won the war.
Informative video, thanks. But you forgot to mention tactics of Russian tank attacks. By 1943 german troops had acquired tanks with excellent front protection and superior guns (Panthers). Russian troops has T34 (most of them represented the first modification with guns which had shorter distance of effective attack), but these tanks were highly mobile. So Russian tanks had attack very fast (in the very beginning of attack they were defenseless) in order to reach distance when they were able to effectively attack german tanks or they had to attack from the side: side armor of german tanks were not so good. During these battle Russian troops demonstrated honor and willingness to defeat aggressor
Answer, make the Germans run out of ammo. Just look at the casualties of the battle.
When the Soviets talk about 'artillery' they often mean AT guns, not just heavy artillery. Heavy artillery (indirect fire) was used more to disrupt concentrations of tanks and blunt their attacks as they advanced.
Here's a question, after major battles like Kursk, and the war in general, whose job was it to clean up all the minefields?
Cows
@@oceanhome2023 kek
Engineer/sappers
@@oceanhome2023 lul
Gulag inhabitants, probably.
the triangular formation on the front line is really interesting, reminds me of the way bridges are made of triangular beams
Cool video. Just a bit of feed back, I think that some times your animations go a bit too fast and are out-paced by you.
Wow... just wow. This is a very well constructed and clear essay.
The Soviet German Front is just... it's just bananas, man.
Honestly the country of Russia describing defensive warfare as a "temporary phenomenon" is a hysterical slap in the face to its history.
Yes...there goes their story about preparing germany attack for years
The best example of as Americans say “telegraphing your Punch”
Try to avoid doing what the enemy thinks are going to do
Telegraphs at least have the decency to be slow, this was sending an email, then waiting a half a year to visit your friend.
Is this taking place again in Ukraine ?
Yes. They added the same PR value. waited for the miracle Panzer, this time Leopard instead of Tiger and got bogged down in the maze of the Russian defenses.
Yes but the Russian Army doesn't have 2 million men guarding the defensive lines and they don't have 10k+ or more artillery unlike in the Battle of Kursk.
I know you don’t like to do videos of battles much, but I think one on the Korsun/Cherkassy rout(Ukraine) would be fantastic . The Soviets T34 armor, and Calvary horseman, caught up with the 2 German columns trying to breakout without heavy equipment , which they had been forced to abandon as they ran for their lives.
Here’s a quote from a great book that gives you a idea
Under the yellow sky of early morning and over ground covered with wet snow Soviet tanks made straight for the thick of the column, ploughing up and down, killing and crushing with their tracks. Almost simultaneously massed Cossack cavalry wheeled away from the tanks to hunt down and massacre men fleeing for the refuge of the hills: hands held high in surrender the Cossacks sliced off with their sabres. The killing in this human hunt went on for several hours and a new round opened on the banks of the river Gniloy Tikich, where the survivors of the first collision of the German column with Soviet troops dragged and fought their way.
- John Erickson, in The Road to Berlin, p. 178.
"Is it really necessary to attack Kursk, and indeed in the east this year at all? Do you think anyone even knows where Kursk is? The entire world doesn't care if we capture Kursk or not. What is the reason that is forcing us to attack this year on Kursk, or even more, on the Eastern Front?" - Heinz Guderian to Hitler.
If their attack succeeded they would get a great encirclement, possibly destroying all soviet units at Kursk bulge, also massive iron blob that being mined to that day
Precisely. Guderian knew the limitations of tanks better than almost anyone. They should have fortified their own position west of Kursk in similar fashion, then driven hard either north or south (not both) of the salient, straight for Moscow or other softer targets.
@Georgi Var Right you are Georgi. General Nikolai Fyodorovich Vatutin (whom German generals nicknamed "The Grandmaster") was constantly urging Soviet High Command (Stavka) to attack first.
Quote: "We must seize the moment, the enemy is not attacking, autumn is coming and all our planning would have been in vain. Let us stop digging and launch our attack first".
İ guess adolf wanted to reach baku and oil felds as possible as he could
@@grantjohnson5785 There was no chance of another drive to Moscow.
during vietnam war australia troop laid mine field from dat do town to the beach to cut of south vietnam liberation army line communication but at 9:23 part of video they use the same ww2 soviet army tactics is to dig up m16 mine to fight against saigon army and australia army by use enemy weapon against enemy (use australia m16 mine for ambush }
Please do a video about German defensive strategies (especially Walter Model - rzhev, kutuzov, 1944, etc.)
I think there already is one
Even better might be Heinrici. His defensive successes against huge odds suggest that a properly executed defensive strategy in the East might have resulted in a stalemate in the long run, instead of the collapse.
My grandfather was 20 years old when he got awarded with the Order of the Patriotic War of the 1st class. There is, in Battle of Prokhorovka, he lost the faith in God (yes, despite the authorities' efforts many people kept the belief). That says enough.
Russian army has a saying: Ok, so the task is to dig the trenches from this fence till lunch break
Germans basically gave them 4 months to dig a hell of a lot of trenches
As a suggestion for a video: Maybe the tactics of today's german Panzers? The tactics videos are always great to watch (probably because of the great visualization :D) and it could complement the Wehrmacht Panzer tactics video.
Sun Tzu would be shaking his head about the German intentions for Kursk.
Great video. Can you make one that describes the German hedgehog defense? Danke
Thanks for Russian subtitles! 🙏🏼
as always, really interesting
real life: reduces manpower in divisions and increases equipment
me in hoi4: 40 width go brrrrrrr
The Soviets had stripped their infantry Div of artillery by 42. Their typical strength was 7000. Tables of Org. and nominal strength rarely match reality for the Red Army. The Divisions actually had access to many more guns than shown. They were just assigned to higher formations and moved to sections of front where STAVKA wanted them. The Russian Diggers often had little indirect fire support. It just depended on priorities. This how they could muster 200 guns per miles on Offences with the Western allies sophisticated radio and fire control. US Army divisional artillery could and did fire on any target within range regardless of which Division. It was the German Army inflexibity with artillery that prevented them doing what the Red Army could do; bust a hole in a deeply defended zone.
If the Soviets had such good quality defensive lines why did they suffer so many casualties compared to the Germans? (177,847 compared to 54,182)
Because their defense was ruthless. They did defense in depth, and did not care how many people got lost, they cared only about withering away the German Army chunk by chunk, because they new the Germans couldn't replace the losses very easily.
Fanaticism of both side
Because the German army was better.
Germans had better equipment, better tactics and better trained soldiers at that point.
Someone else in the comment explained that the germans at kursk has more artillery than the soviets
Hi Another great video. Would you consider a video talking about the German debate on whether or not to attack this fortress- but retreat and make them pursue- then attack them in the open
I find this analysis to be rather good and adequate. You have made a good choice to base your work on Glantz documents, as he is probably the only US/western author that delves exclusively in technical studies, without having to appease this or that congressional lobby with political/propaganda garbage.
The usage of artillery is indeed the key to understand many of the Soviet successes in ww2. Contrary to the common western conception of it (a lots of guns that fire a lot, destroying everything in the process), the Soviets evolved the tactical/technical usage of this arm to an higher level than all the other ww2 combatants.
Their ability to perform effective artillery missions at operational levels unimaginable for US and UK armies is evidence to that evolution
Someone send this to isorrowproductions. He got low key name dropped.
David Glantz is THE Western expert on the Soviet Army in WW2 - especially Kursk and Stalingrad
yes and no, not for Kursk, unless there are a lot of articles I don't know.
Battle at Kursk decided WW II. Your glory will last forever.
Молодец! Даже для нас интересно! Делай ещё.)
Thanks for the research and the video topic!
I find your posts extremely informative. One (very slight) criticism. At times you speak so quickly that its hard to follow exactly what youre saying. But keep up the great work!
I wonder if you could still find those target plates in the archives in Russia. It would be really interesting to see the actual plates that were issued for more than just the tiger. gives you an idea on what the Soviet Army believed their mean really needed to see.
Very good info, thankyou. One thing I expected to here of tho was the minefields positioned in such a way as to "herd" the Panzers onto the AT gun positions. I've heard this several times regarding Kursk. Is it just a trope?
As far as I know, your information is correct. It is not mentioned in this video, but the soviet defenses in this battle were conceived to canalize or to "herd" the panzers onto planned routes strongly defended by minefields and AT gun positions that could delay or stop them.
I wish Paradox could program the AI like this.
No, instead the UK loses 500 convoys in the English Channel because they won't deploy their fleet
i am surprised that the soviet gen.report ..never said that Katyusha rocket launcher played a huge role in the artillery attack
You guys do a good job. I follow you for a year, now i subbed.
Their best defensive tool was that the allies told them what units were involved , where they were and what their orders were - all from Ultra decripts. If you know exactly what you're dealing with and when then you have few excuses for failure.
youre channel is one of the most interesting on youtube.
keep on doing the good job man!
Great presentation.
The Soviets planned and fought their battle magnificently and there are differing stories about how they gained the knowledge of the attack and the full details/limitations of that plan One thing that is almost never mentioned is that the Germans had produced under demands from Hitler a far more complex code machine than Enigma. Yet this new multi faceted machines many depths were broken by the British who then learned all of Hitlers intentions regarding Kursk and passed those details onto the Soviets.
豹式坦克是為对抗T34量身打造的，傾斜装甲若有10公分的厚度可達到17~18公分的抗彈力(或更高），這也是德設計師難得師敵的一次，其次載彈量79~82發可在战場上發揮火力，MG34机槍兩挺4200發对步兵連有掩護助攻之效，但引擎歯輪常損壞影响机动力，保修連疲於奔命，一個豹式营750人編制，補保工作就用到220人左右，可見很難伺候，作為進攻的尖刀，指揮官憂心忡忡，隨時会出狀況，若作守勢的小要塞，一輛当關，百車難敵，當然側翼要有精銳步兵班排掩護才可。
What gets me is why the Germans, knowing full well how much work and material the Russian's had poured into that salient, didn't switch to attacking another section of the line and used Kursk as a decoy attack?
Into the motherland the German army marched
There it is
@@Cityinlead I dont have any regrets although I probably should
Some one blundered.
Comrades stand side by side to stop the Nazi charge
Wonder if they went so heavy on artillery because the Soviets got absolutely blasted by artillery with their invasion of Finland. Artillery played a very decisive role there, hammering down on choke points and causing major damage.
I am seeing this for some tactics in warthunder
Wow, great video!
Thank you for video sir
👏🏼💐👏🏼💐👏🏼💐👏🏼💐
Great vid but would appreciate more napoleonic vids too
Bletchley Park had been intercepting the German comms for months and as a result knew the entire German order of battle and Churchill gave it to Stalin. Zhukov did his homework but it wasn't like he was Julius Caesar at Alesia.
Excellent video. A side note, at 2:08, "Kursk" is misspelled as"Kurks". Just sayin'.