The flimsy and ad hoc nature of these machines personifies the German lack of foresight in attacking the USSR. Like trying to climb Everest with ski poles and light rain jackets.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 it's a tragedy that Hitler wasn't bumped off before Stalingrad, he really handicapped the Wehrmacht. But they did make and hold enormous gains for some years, and the Red Army halted at the Iron Curtain and not the Atlantic.
@tylerhiggins3522 Package deal: no Hitler, no Barbarossa. There was no honor for the Heer there. Yeah they had cool looking kit and fought like wolves, but the good guys won (and not the USSR)
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 the only good guys who relatively won were the Finns, although they lost over ten percent of their territory and had an unwanted third war forced upon them. Or do you mean the good guys who terror bombed Germany and Western Europe, their troops in Northern Italy rivaling the Red Army when it came to mass rape?
probably not - german reports from the eastern front 42/43 reported (defensive) anti-tank guns being mostly not effecttive (75 cm) as they could not be towed by crews whereas the Marders always succed in this role - the JgdPz (tank-destroyers) had a very different purpose - as german language of this time was very precise - Marders were classified as "Panzer-Jäger" PzJ whilel the JagdPanther or Jagdtiger as Jagd-Panzer ... the marders were and stayed till the end - anti-tank-guns - as up from the 50cm-PAK - the mobile use of anti-tank guns became tactical obsolete ... a similar concept was made for the Hummel and Wespe - self-propelled artillery - surprisingly the high-quality udssr-artillery never went into this type despite they were the first nation to build complete (attack) artillery divisions, and wuld have had reliable chassis (later SU series)
English-speakers often pronounce the "ä" umlaut as in "Jäger" like a normal "a". If in doubt, it is far better to pronounce it like an "e" as in "pet". Great video, thanks for covering this often underrated vehicle series!
@@papaaaaaaa2625 I think if you build your channel of others peoples backs, getting most of your content from that channel, it's just common decency to give credit at one point.
One thing is for sure the germans were always practical and inventive on the battle field. Being able to hold off the entire world for as long as they did was an amazing act of tenacity. Remember they did not have the man power or manufacturing capability and still managed for a time this impossible feat.
Ah yet again the mythic onslaught of T34 and KV1. Neither of which fared well during Barbarossa, the great failure of Germany in the east in 41/42 was logistics and the lack of a plan, or more correctly changing the plan and dividing forces at the end of poor logistics. Look up soviet yearly production and loss by year
@@treyriver5676 "Poor logistics" was the result of poor Intelligence. COL Kinzel and his Intel staff F'd all of the planners with horribly bad estimates. You can't plan with bad information. Put the blame where it belongs. The operational plan was based on bad information, then that plan was given to the Logisticians and Personnel sections to supply and staff. They ran out of supplies, transportation, and people all at the same time. Not the fault of the planners.
Marder was a better idea than the Portee or the Matador "Stopgap SPATs were for the British in North Africa, at least the Gun wasn't bolted or chained to the bed of a Truck.
1. After Poland'1939 the Germans never recovered 300 tanks, and after France'1940 1,000 tanks were never recovered. The tanks were not the issue in the Soviet Union. The Germans were unprepared to provide logistics by train (railroads) all the way to the German forces by Leningrad or Moscow. There was a huge train traffic jam in Warsaw in 1941. The Germans had to prioritize weapons over cold weather clothing. And even the very weapons were initially not delivered in an efficient manner. So why did Luftwaffe have the clothing? They flew it in on their planes. The lack of the cold weather clothing according to an Italian reporter cost the Germans 50,000 dead soldiers and 50,000 soldiers who had to be hospitalized.
Great video, tho you didn't get some things totally right. The "First" tank destroyers were fielded in 1940's in the French campaign (& North Africa). The main version being the panzer 1 B with a 4.7 cm Pak cannon. After that campaign the Germans had hundreds of the Lorraine-Schlepper vehicles (and many other types of French light/heavy tanks), so this led to two types of 4.7 cm Pak gun being mounted on it as well as the 7.5 cm Pak 40(as well as 10.5 cm/15 cm howitzers), because of the narrow tracks this vehicle couldnt move well in the U.S.S.R. and was kept in French battle front. There are many anti-tank halftracks as well. And for the record -These Were a Great Use of Captured Vehicles. And the only reason for heavy loss's is when these were use as if they were turreted tanks. When used as designed (ambush) losses were not an issue. This subject is crazy big with so many different types of "Marders" you could make a series of 35 plus short videos to cover them all. Keep up the Good Work.
It's unbelievable how they went to take on Soviet Union with nothing. Just a huge morale. Completely unprepared and with fuel just for 2 months. They should have stayed on the same positions of the first winter and put their equipment in order. Luck is not going to strike twice in a row. Tactics and surprise made them to advance so far. They should have dug in and wait for at least 1 year and build better tanks. But they rushed again to Stalingrad empty handed but this time it didn't work. Lack of equipment cought up with them and morale eroded eventually. Only aviation was up to the task at that point.
I read a book about the campaign against the Soviet Union where the Wehrmacht's General in charge of logistics stated that, given the horrific state of the road network in Russia, as well as the narrower gauge of Russian train tracks, he could only supply enough guns and ammunition OR food and winter clothing - BUT NOT BOTH. Hitler knew that the German Army would get whacked by the Russian Winter if the campaign lasted more than a few months and he bet everything on a quick victory by Autumn of 1941. As we all know, he lost that bet - with disastrous consequences for the Wehrmacht and Germany at large.
I learned something new. Apparently both the German and American tank destroyers were similar in design with open top designes and deployment and tactics.
Not really. Allied TDs generally had rotating turrets. The open-topped German TDs were all stopgap measures, and their "designed" TDs all had enclosed roofs and non-rotating turrets.
I think you're confusing allot of things in this video, tank-hunters were called Panzer Jagers and were quick fixes for additional anti-tank capability for infantry divisions but were never meant to tank v tank with open superstructures. Sturmgeschütz were assault guns again meant for infantry divisions to provide heavy firepower (howitzers) to help deal with well protected fixed positions. Jagd panzers were tank destroyers, armed with atg guns that couldn't fit on the original chassis with fully incased superstructures and well protected on all sides but far easier and cheaper to make. Jagd panzers could go tank v tank but without a turret were limited in what they could do and when you read field reports of these afvs it was clear crews preferred a tank over a jagd panzer.
Marder je u prevodu bio antitenkovski top na gusenicama,tj.laksi i brzi za manevar,postavljanje zaseda,i pomeranja,i samo kao takvog bi trebalo posmatrati
It's weird to think about that nobody thought of putting longer more capable guns on tanks when the advantage seems so obvious, even against lighter tanks if you have a flat shooting curve, long range and something that has one shot capability you dominate. Firepower comes before everything else when it comes to tanks. Even the Panzer 3 was only mounted with a pak38 equivalent from 1941 and onwards it seems weird that snub nose tiny canons were mounted instead of the Pak38 on the Panzer 2 and 3 from the get go, it was aviable and light even a Panzer 2 chasi could have handled a Pak38. I mean you could have mounted it on pretty much anything that drives and designed the vehicle from the get go with this in mind. I mean hell you could have just tried to force an 88 on any chasi that can handle it way earlier. It's confusing that this wasn't tried in a war even as a prototype or something significantly earlier.
The 5 cm gun was simply not ready in time for the Pz III and the 3,7 cm was enough pre-war for the army, using combined arms warfare did negate their weaknesses to a point. By general designing, testing, producing, distributing new weapons take time, in this case, the socialist mismanagement of the economy did not help. Pak 38 reached the troops in '41, Pak 40 in '42 only.
"Firepower comes before everything else when it comes to tanks." -- That may be the current theory but it wasn't the way people thought back in 1939. British doctrine was to have fast, lightly armoured tanks for maneuver and slow, heavily armoured tanks to support infantry attacks. Most nations also had light tanks armed only with machine guns. Bear in mind that people were expecting the next war to be something like World War I, with massive trench systems, artillery barrages, barbed mire and minefields. Artillery was too heavy to put on the tanks of the day, so the main weapon for dealing with enemy infantry would be the machine gun. Anti-tank guns were adequate against the lightly armoured tanks of the day, and no-one had a gun which would fit on a tank which could penetrate the frontal armour of the heavy tanks such as the Matilda II or Char 1B. It was a time of rapid evolution of tank design, manufacture and tactics.
Combined arms. Better battlefield communication. Better training and tactics. Effective air and artillery support. In 1941, Russian tank doctrine was in its infancy and the tanks were not well used. Also, early T34s were not well made and had real reliability issues, plus poor optics and crews with very little training and few radios. These problems were addressed in time, but in 1942 the Germans had better equipment too.
Well, the Soviets kept sending their troops in piecemeal. Creighton Abrams in Patton's army destroyed the "superior" panzers time and again using tactics, maneurability, and combined arms fire. Do not take the matches between the Soviets and the Germans as the gold standard, watch how the western allies took out these "superior" tanks of the Germans.
The 88 flak gun was the only gun they had that could defeat the KV and T34s. Until they developed the pak 40 and long barrel 75mm that's all they had. The Marder was simply a stop gap
@@johneertwegh6261 The German 50mm PaK 38 could penetrate the T34 armour at short range. But was generally ineffective against the KV-1. There are cases where the 37mm inflicted damage on T34s with lucky shots.
No not at all its a genuine German anti tank film using captured T34s quite a few different films showing different weapons being used against tanks if you look for them.
Fighting power is down to training, organization and effective management of all aspects of warfare. The British and French had better tanks, but the Germans had a much more effective army overall.
Lousy leadership. Simple as that. The French General, Gamelin, ignored observers saying there was a massive traffic jam in the Ardennes. Britain proved just weeks later than the Luftwaffe was a paper tiger. Do you know that we had crop dusters that flew faster than the Junkers?
No. Germany was ultimately defeated by the overwhelming industrial production all the United States. The tanks and trucks as well as basic equipment supplied by the United States, enabled the Soviets to enjoy a mechanical advantage superior to anything Germany could produce.
Have to squeeze in a truce or victory before US supplies started turning up. At their most desperate, the USSR got 60% of their needs from the Allies. By late 44 this was down to 20%. At Kursk it was noted that Soviet forces were flush with some western aid. In particular I remember comments on their medical equipment.
Blitzkrieg was all about communications, which allowed commanders full control of army and Luftwaffe units. As you say, German equipment such as tanks and anti-tank guns were often greatly inferior to those of the enemy. The only way you could mount larger guns on small tanks was to mount them on top of the hull, only later when tanks got bigger were they mounted in the hull.
You conquer some manufacturers, copy the ammunition in your own manufacturs, you conquer enough ammunition with the guns, or modify the gun to use a different ammunition.
well usually when you overrun an enemy military position, or just push the enemy out of an area, it is likely they have supply depots filled with a decent bit of ammunition, extra parts and possibly extra guns. this in the long term can be a logistical nightmare as having multiple types of your own and enemy equipment is not very optimal in the realistic sense as maintainance and ammunition becomes a problem later on. which is why either you refit enemy equipment to work with your own parts and ammunition or you use it in that specific battle and take it back as a trophie and not an actual weapon you'd use. but in this case, we're talking about Artillery in which case you'd be stuck with refiting and modifying it to work with your own equipment or use it in the short term if you so wish.
i mean it was kinda trash considering it could be strafed by planes since it had an open top and back and most of its side and it could be penned by literally most things which werent small arms.
They were as prepared as they could have been, but the supply lines were just too long, it was 800 miles to Moscow, 200 miles to Paris. Advancing 400 miles was all they were really capable of, much like in WW1 this could have been a point where they negotiated a settlement, this was the only way Germany could "win" which was by being far less ambitious. It's not likely, but it's the only chance they had.
The T34 is the most over rated tank in history. The majority lasted less than 2 weeks after being fielded. Most never made it past their first tank of fuel. There are many reports of panzer IV's taking out as many as 60 at a time till their ammo ran out. T34's were junk.
Because Germany as an economy to recover in some bastion of economic who cares for profit premeditated war as economy , all all went along with it, and with other economies outside Germany in support, corporate rights of Oligarchs; nobody wants war, but the avenger; 1914 was the downfall of Western Civilization; why it never stopped, to this day 2025 was as economy.
Let’s get something straight here. Germany was the most superior military than any other single country in the World if not much more. This is why it took France, England, the US, Canada, Australia and Russia, the biggest army in the World, to beat them. It is also true that one of the Allies, Stalin, killed (starved) more Russian civilians than Germany killed Jews.
But who speaks and denigrate "quality of their tanks" (german tanks), an PROPAGANDA channel working for the british EMPIRE past and nowtime invasions, the main enemy of germans, those which stealed from germans technology everytime they could... because their imperial was soooo garbage that barely could be used, some of them even needed to be somhow ressurected by PROPAGANDA (Spitfire supermarine, churchill, matilda). Also british empire propaganda machine accused tiger tanks to be "very slow" as their own heavy tanks was slower than troops moving ON FOOT (non-motorised infantry, pedestrians)😂. So much hypocrisy is very rare😂 ps: Also your kind of channel always appreciate any garbage which was took by germans from chech industry, french industry, etc. Maybe this is even J channel, because would be no big surprise as you choosen a J as prime minister😂
..which was a puppett (w.c.) of global financiar sionist system. AH stopped invest in british invasion hoping a peace with J (w.c.). Big mistake. Is no peace possible with a puppett government which is led by global sionist financial system. The newest example is ukrain bought entirely by rothschild group, as moldova which also had an J puppett (traitor of national interest, of course) as the ukrain had.
Pretty silly argument. Just check the patents, most things were invented by the Anglo-saxons. Then the Jews and the Germans. German society today and then was based on workers being highly skilled workers, which caused German tanks and aircrafts to be very expensive to produce. The British could produce aircraft at a fraction of the price the Germans could.
One thing is for sure the germans were always practical and inventive on the battle field. Being able to hold off the entire world for as long as they did was an amazing act of tenacity. Remember they did not have the man power or manufacturing capability and still managed for a time this impossible feat.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
The flimsy and ad hoc nature of these machines personifies the German lack of foresight in attacking the USSR. Like trying to climb Everest with ski poles and light rain jackets.
And yet look at what they achieved.
@tylerhiggins3522 complete self-destruction
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 it's a tragedy that Hitler wasn't bumped off before Stalingrad, he really handicapped the Wehrmacht. But they did make and hold enormous gains for some years, and the Red Army halted at the Iron Curtain and not the Atlantic.
@tylerhiggins3522 Package deal: no Hitler, no Barbarossa. There was no honor for the Heer there. Yeah they had cool looking kit and fought like wolves, but the good guys won (and not the USSR)
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 the only good guys who relatively won were the Finns, although they lost over ten percent of their territory and had an unwanted third war forced upon them. Or do you mean the good guys who terror bombed Germany and Western Europe, their troops in Northern Italy rivaling the Red Army when it came to mass rape?
Effectively, the Marder anti-tank self-propelled series filled the gap for the arrival of more advanced and effective tank destroyers!
probably not - german reports from the eastern front 42/43 reported (defensive) anti-tank guns being mostly not effecttive (75 cm) as they could not be towed by crews whereas the Marders always succed in this role - the JgdPz (tank-destroyers) had a very different purpose - as german language of this time was very precise - Marders were classified as "Panzer-Jäger" PzJ whilel the JagdPanther or Jagdtiger as Jagd-Panzer
... the marders were and stayed till the end - anti-tank-guns - as up from the 50cm-PAK - the mobile use of anti-tank guns became tactical obsolete
... a similar concept was made for the Hummel and Wespe - self-propelled artillery
- surprisingly the high-quality udssr-artillery never went into this type despite they were the first nation to build complete (attack) artillery divisions, and wuld have had reliable chassis (later SU series)
English-speakers often pronounce the "ä" umlaut as in "Jäger" like a normal "a". If in doubt, it is far better to pronounce it like an "e" as in "pet". Great video, thanks for covering this often underrated vehicle series!
Thanks for that
They started out with mobile artillery guns on tracks and that eventually evolved into something more like turretless tanks.
Great visual content not usually seen... worth the watch.
Because they stole it from another channel
How hard is it to credit Panzer Insight when you get every single reel from that channel😅
When are you going to credit Panzer Insight for taking their footage, you even took their thumbnail idea.😅
I have been commenting this same thing several times now.
same channel owner maybe ? just not linked. This sounds like an AI voice
You do know that this Videomaterial isn't exclusiv. Most of it is publicly available thru several Archives.
@@CFox.7 all channels seem to be linked, why not this one?
@@papaaaaaaa2625 I think if you build your channel of others peoples backs, getting most of your content from that channel, it's just common decency to give credit at one point.
Nice, I learned something tonight!
Glad to hear it!
Marder II with 75mm Pak 40 it's deadly !.
The Marder was simply a self propelled anti-tank gun. The utilization of an obsolete tank chassis.
But we could make gillions!
One thing is for sure the germans were always practical and inventive on the battle field. Being able to hold off the entire world for as long as they did was an amazing act of tenacity. Remember they did not have the man power or manufacturing capability and still managed for a time this impossible feat.
Ah yet again the mythic onslaught of T34 and KV1. Neither of which fared well during Barbarossa, the great failure of Germany in the east in 41/42 was logistics and the lack of a plan, or more correctly changing the plan and dividing forces at the end of poor logistics. Look up soviet yearly production and loss by year
@@treyriver5676 "Poor logistics" was the result of poor Intelligence. COL Kinzel and his Intel staff F'd all of the planners with horribly bad estimates. You can't plan with bad information. Put the blame where it belongs.
The operational plan was based on bad information, then that plan was given to the Logisticians and Personnel sections to supply and staff. They ran out of supplies, transportation, and people all at the same time. Not the fault of the planners.
This video is awesome history, thanks
Marder was a better idea than the Portee or the Matador "Stopgap SPATs were for the British in North Africa, at least the Gun wasn't bolted or chained to the bed of a Truck.
I loved Marder 3 in Company of Heroes and World of Tanks 😅😅
1. After Poland'1939 the Germans never recovered 300 tanks, and after France'1940 1,000 tanks were never recovered. The tanks were not the issue in the Soviet Union. The Germans were unprepared to provide logistics by train (railroads) all the way to the German forces by Leningrad or Moscow. There was a huge train traffic jam in Warsaw in 1941. The Germans had to prioritize weapons over cold weather clothing. And even the very weapons were initially not delivered in an efficient manner. So why did Luftwaffe have the clothing? They flew it in on their planes. The lack of the cold weather clothing according to an Italian reporter cost the Germans 50,000 dead soldiers and 50,000 soldiers who had to be hospitalized.
Excellent video, thanks.
Did any of the Marder's have a recoil cage over the gun in the fighting compartment. Looks treacherous in a hot fight.
The PZKW 3 had the short 50mm which was not sufficient
Great video, tho you didn't get some things totally right. The "First" tank destroyers were fielded in 1940's in the French campaign (& North Africa). The main version being the panzer 1 B with a 4.7 cm Pak cannon. After that campaign the Germans had hundreds of the Lorraine-Schlepper vehicles (and many other types of French light/heavy tanks), so this led to two types of 4.7 cm Pak gun being mounted on it as well as the 7.5 cm Pak 40(as well as 10.5 cm/15 cm howitzers), because of the narrow tracks this vehicle couldnt move well in the U.S.S.R. and was kept in French battle front. There are many anti-tank halftracks as well. And for the record -These Were a Great Use of Captured Vehicles. And the only reason for heavy loss's is when these were use as if they were turreted tanks. When used as designed (ambush) losses were not an issue. This subject is crazy big with so many different types of "Marders" you could make a series of 35 plus short videos to cover them all. Keep up the Good Work.
Wonderful introduction and explanation
Thanks!
Very clear, concise and fair article. Well done, and many thanks.
Glad you liked it!
It's unbelievable how they went to take on Soviet Union with nothing. Just a huge morale. Completely unprepared and with fuel just for 2 months. They should have stayed on the same positions of the first winter and put their equipment in order. Luck is not going to strike twice in a row. Tactics and surprise made them to advance so far. They should have dug in and wait for at least 1 year and build better tanks. But they rushed again to Stalingrad empty handed but this time it didn't work. Lack of equipment cought up with them and morale eroded eventually. Only aviation was up to the task at that point.
I read a book about the campaign against the Soviet Union where the Wehrmacht's General in charge of logistics stated that, given the horrific state of the road network in Russia, as well as the narrower gauge of Russian train tracks, he could only supply enough guns and ammunition OR food and winter clothing - BUT NOT BOTH. Hitler knew that the German Army would get whacked by the Russian Winter if the campaign lasted more than a few months and he bet everything on a quick victory by Autumn of 1941. As we all know, he lost that bet - with disastrous consequences for the Wehrmacht and Germany at large.
Not to mention they were supposed to attaack in spring but didnt start till summer
@hell_march6652 and that happened a second time at kursk
Good informative video. One point; all AFV's use hulls NOT chassis. 🙂
I learned something new. Apparently both the German and American tank destroyers were similar in design with open top designes and deployment and tactics.
Not really. Allied TDs generally had rotating turrets. The open-topped German TDs were all stopgap measures, and their "designed" TDs all had enclosed roofs and non-rotating turrets.
"Chwat" was a German tank destroyer captured and used by the Polish insurgents in the Warsaw Uprising'1944 against the Germans.
I think you're confusing allot of things in this video, tank-hunters were called Panzer Jagers and were quick fixes for additional anti-tank capability for infantry divisions but were never meant to tank v tank with open superstructures. Sturmgeschütz were assault guns again meant for infantry divisions to provide heavy firepower (howitzers) to help deal with well protected fixed positions. Jagd panzers were tank destroyers, armed with atg guns that couldn't fit on the original chassis with fully incased superstructures and well protected on all sides but far easier and cheaper to make. Jagd panzers could go tank v tank but without a turret were limited in what they could do and when you read field reports of these afvs it was clear crews preferred a tank over a jagd panzer.
OmG... that's a felony now!
Thx
ever heard of the battles at dinant or namur? significant tank battles where the germans were defeated
You mentioned armour thickness but not hit points. 🤦♂️
I can answer that! Nine, according to Panzerblitz,
did they convert the captured french tanks or did they keep producing the french undercarriges in the captured factories
Marder je u prevodu bio antitenkovski top na gusenicama,tj.laksi i brzi za manevar,postavljanje zaseda,i pomeranja,i samo kao takvog bi trebalo posmatrati
It's weird to think about that nobody thought of putting longer more capable guns on tanks when the advantage seems so obvious, even against lighter tanks if you have a flat shooting curve, long range and something that has one shot capability you dominate. Firepower comes before everything else when it comes to tanks. Even the Panzer 3 was only mounted with a pak38 equivalent from 1941 and onwards it seems weird that snub nose tiny canons were mounted instead of the Pak38 on the Panzer 2 and 3 from the get go, it was aviable and light even a Panzer 2 chasi could have handled a Pak38. I mean you could have mounted it on pretty much anything that drives and designed the vehicle from the get go with this in mind. I mean hell you could have just tried to force an 88 on any chasi that can handle it way earlier. It's confusing that this wasn't tried in a war even as a prototype or something significantly earlier.
The 5 cm gun was simply not ready in time for the Pz III and the 3,7 cm was enough pre-war for the army, using combined arms warfare did negate their weaknesses to a point. By general designing, testing, producing, distributing new weapons take time, in this case, the socialist mismanagement of the economy did not help. Pak 38 reached the troops in '41, Pak 40 in '42 only.
"Firepower comes before everything else when it comes to tanks." -- That may be the current theory but it wasn't the way people thought back in 1939. British doctrine was to have fast, lightly armoured tanks for maneuver and slow, heavily armoured tanks to support infantry attacks. Most nations also had light tanks armed only with machine guns.
Bear in mind that people were expecting the next war to be something like World War I, with massive trench systems, artillery barrages, barbed mire and minefields. Artillery was too heavy to put on the tanks of the day, so the main weapon for dealing with enemy infantry would be the machine gun. Anti-tank guns were adequate against the lightly armoured tanks of the day, and no-one had a gun which would fit on a tank which could penetrate the frontal armour of the heavy tanks such as the Matilda II or Char 1B. It was a time of rapid evolution of tank design, manufacture and tactics.
I'd rather look at why was it that the Germans were able to defeat such superior tanks with such inferior equipment.
That is the one thing always overlooked. Finding faults in machines is always easy.
Combined arms. Better battlefield communication. Better training and tactics. Effective air and artillery support. In 1941, Russian tank doctrine was in its infancy and the tanks were not well used. Also, early T34s were not well made and had real reliability issues, plus poor optics and crews with very little training and few radios. These problems were addressed in time, but in 1942 the Germans had better equipment too.
Well, the Soviets kept sending their troops in piecemeal. Creighton Abrams in Patton's army destroyed the "superior" panzers time and again using tactics, maneurability, and combined arms fire. Do not take the matches between the Soviets and the Germans as the gold standard, watch how the western allies took out these "superior" tanks of the Germans.
The 88 flak gun was the only gun they had that could defeat the KV and T34s. Until they developed the pak 40 and long barrel 75mm that's all they had. The Marder was simply a stop gap
@@johneertwegh6261 The German 50mm PaK 38 could penetrate the T34 armour at short range. But was generally ineffective against the KV-1. There are cases where the 37mm inflicted damage on T34s with lucky shots.
At 4:44, how did the camera man capture this shot?? Is it faked?
No not at all its a genuine German anti tank film using captured T34s quite a few different films showing different weapons being used against tanks if you look for them.
It is indeed surprising that the British and French combined lost to the Germans in 1940.
Airplanes… not tanks .. is the Blitz philosophy…
Fighting power is down to training, organization and effective management of all aspects of warfare. The British and French had better tanks, but the Germans had a much more effective army overall.
Lousy leadership. Simple as that. The French General, Gamelin, ignored observers saying there was a massive traffic jam in the Ardennes. Britain proved just weeks later than the Luftwaffe was a paper tiger. Do you know that we had crop dusters that flew faster than the Junkers?
The British won in the end didn't they
@@BobHookernot the British but Soviets and U.S.
If Germany had not made their do or die attempt of Barbarossa, could the inevitable Soviet drive West have later been stopped?
No. Germany was ultimately defeated by the overwhelming industrial production all the United States. The tanks and trucks as well as basic equipment supplied by the United States, enabled the Soviets to enjoy a mechanical advantage superior to anything Germany could produce.
Have to squeeze in a truce or victory before US supplies started turning up. At their most desperate, the USSR got 60% of their needs from the Allies. By late 44 this was down to 20%. At Kursk it was noted that Soviet forces were flush with some western aid. In particular I remember comments on their medical equipment.
Blitzkrieg was all about communications, which allowed commanders full control of army and Luftwaffe units. As you say, German equipment such as tanks and anti-tank guns were often greatly inferior to those of the enemy. The only way you could mount larger guns on small tanks was to mount them on top of the hull, only later when tanks got bigger were they mounted in the hull.
If you're using enemy guns where did they get the ammunition.
You conquer some manufacturers, copy the ammunition in your own manufacturs, you conquer enough ammunition with the guns, or modify the gun to use a different ammunition.
You obviously didn't watch the video.
It clearly said the Germans modified the 76.2mm guns to use the 75mm German ammunition.
well usually when you overrun an enemy military position, or just push the enemy out of an area, it is likely they have supply depots filled with a decent bit of ammunition, extra parts and possibly extra guns. this in the long term can be a logistical nightmare as having multiple types of your own and enemy equipment is not very optimal in the realistic sense as maintainance and ammunition becomes a problem later on. which is why either you refit enemy equipment to work with your own parts and ammunition or you use it in that specific battle and take it back as a trophie and not an actual weapon you'd use. but in this case, we're talking about Artillery in which case you'd be stuck with refiting and modifying it to work with your own equipment or use it in the short term if you so wish.
İf they just produce stug 3 and panther. They probably win. No need. Navy only air and army
Sd.Kfz … not Sd.Kfc … even in English a z is no c
I think it's the American pronounciation of " Zed " ( Zee )
America 1st ..... maga baby maga 👍
Mednis war for Paece ❤❤❤❤.
No armor is best armor.
Mobile big gun
Wihrmacht? You mean Wehrmacht
no, Wehrmacht
@@AjaxXander You know what I mean, he said I instead of E
i mean it was kinda trash considering it could be strafed by planes since it had an open top and back and most of its side and it could be penned by literally most things which werent small arms.
...AUSGEZEICHNET!!!!!!!
The astonishing lack of preparedness that the Wehrmacht tolerated in its attack on the Soviet Union was their greatest mistake of the war.
They were as prepared as they could have been, but the supply lines were just too long, it was 800 miles to Moscow, 200 miles to Paris.
Advancing 400 miles was all they were really capable of, much like in WW1 this could have been a point where they negotiated a settlement, this was the only way Germany could "win" which was by being far less ambitious. It's not likely, but it's the only chance they had.
It's pronounced yay gher
AI slop.
The T34 is the most over rated tank in history. The majority lasted less than 2 weeks after being fielded. Most never made it past their first tank of fuel. There are many reports of panzer IV's taking out as many as 60 at a time till their ammo ran out. T34's were junk.
The PZ 3 with the 5,0 cannon destroyed 1000s upon 1000s of T34s
@@richjageman3976 German mythology
@@GeoffreyIronfist Look it up.
Because Germany as an economy to recover in some bastion of economic who cares for profit premeditated war as economy , all all went along with it, and with other economies outside Germany in support, corporate rights of Oligarchs; nobody wants war, but the avenger; 1914 was the downfall of Western Civilization; why it never stopped, to this day 2025 was as economy.
Try again because I can't make sense of your comment 😅😅
Let’s get something straight here. Germany was the most superior military than any other single country in the World if not much more. This is why it took France, England, the US, Canada, Australia and Russia, the biggest army in the World, to beat them. It is also true that one of the Allies, Stalin, killed (starved) more Russian civilians than Germany killed Jews.
Oh man, there's gonna be a war in these comments.
Wehraboo alert! lol
But who speaks and denigrate "quality of their tanks" (german tanks), an PROPAGANDA channel working for the british EMPIRE past and nowtime invasions, the main enemy of germans, those which stealed from germans technology everytime they could... because their imperial was soooo garbage that barely could be used, some of them even needed to be somhow ressurected by PROPAGANDA (Spitfire supermarine, churchill, matilda).
Also british empire propaganda machine accused tiger tanks to be "very slow" as their own heavy tanks was slower than troops moving ON FOOT (non-motorised infantry, pedestrians)😂. So much hypocrisy is very rare😂
ps: Also your kind of channel always appreciate any garbage which was took by germans from chech industry, french industry, etc. Maybe this is even J channel, because would be no big surprise as you choosen a J as prime minister😂
..which was a puppett (w.c.) of global financiar sionist system. AH stopped invest in british invasion hoping a peace with J (w.c.). Big mistake. Is no peace possible with a puppett government which is led by global sionist financial system. The newest example is ukrain bought entirely by rothschild group, as moldova which also had an J puppett (traitor of national interest, of course) as the ukrain had.
Pretty silly argument. Just check the patents, most things were invented by the Anglo-saxons. Then the Jews and the Germans. German society today and then was based on workers being highly skilled workers, which caused German tanks and aircrafts to be very expensive to produce. The British could produce aircraft at a fraction of the price the Germans could.
One thing is for sure the germans were always practical and inventive on the battle field. Being able to hold off the entire world for as long as they did was an amazing act of tenacity. Remember they did not have the man power or manufacturing capability and still managed for a time this impossible feat.