The Numbers Say it All | The Myth of German Superiority on the WW2 Eastern Front
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 авг 2017
- As stated in the last video, the German Army has a reputation of being vastly superior tactically and operationally to the Red Army on the Eastern Front of WW2. Today, we'll look at the statistics, and see how they give weight to the argument that the German Heer wasn't superior to the Red Army. Perhaps it really is time to change your view on the Wehrmacht and the Eastern Front of WW2.
Historian Nigel Askey made an article responding to this video. I have now made a response to his article, which you can see here • Dear Nigel Askey - You...
HOUSE'S VIDEO - "How the Red Army Defeated Germany: The Three Alibis" by Dr. Jonathon House • How the Red Army Defea...
Check out my other History videos here • History
Thank you to my Patreons for helping me create this content! You guys are awesome!
- Empichu, Tomislav Trlin, nvgrod, Aaron Keogh, Andreas Peter Larsen, John Brown, Sergiu C, Jicksaw, Jeff Baker, Kevin Paulson, James Bellinger, Shane, Bjorn Torseth, and Davide Pessach. / tikhistory
Sources -
*Citino, R. Death of the Wehrmacht: The German Campaigns of 1942. University Press of Kansas, 2007.
*Glantz, D. with House, J. When Titan’s Clashed. University Press of Kansas, 2015.
*Glantz, D. with House, J. Armageddon in Stalingrad. The Stalingrad Trilogy, Volume 2. University Press of Kansas, 2009.
*Glantz, D. with House, J. To the Gates of Stalingrad. The Stalingrad Trilogy, Volume 1. University Press of Kansas, 2009.
*Kavalerchik, B. The Price of Victory: The Red Army’s Casualties in the Great Patriotic War. Pen & Sword Military, 2017.
*Liedtke, G. Enduring the Whirlwind: The German Army and the Russo-German War 1941-1943. Helion & Company LTD, 2016.
Hi everyone! Historian Nigel Askey made an article responding to this video. I have now responded to his response. Please see this video ruclips.net/video/-zwq1w9BV2g/видео.html
I also highly recommend the video "How the Red Army Defeated Germany: The Three Alibis" by Dr. Jonathon House which is a nice follow up to this video. Link ruclips.net/video/zinPbUZUHDE/видео.html
A big thank you to my Patreons - Empichu, Tomislav Trlin, nvgrod, Aaron Keogh, Andreas Peter Larsen, John Brown, Sergiu C, Jicksaw, Jeff Baker, Kevin Paulson, James Bellinger, Shane, Bjorn Torseth, and Davide Pessach. - You guys are awesome!
Please consider supporting me on Patreon. It costs a small fortune to get the amount of books required to make this content, so your support will go a long way. Link www.patreon.com/TIKhistory
Also, check out my other History videos here ruclips.net/p/PLNSNgGzaledhMtb3bsJkJmtECxS_mm_QM
Sources -
*Citino, R. Death of the Wehrmacht: The German Campaigns of 1942. University Press of Kansas, 2007.
*Glantz, D. with House, J. When Titan’s Clashed. University Press of Kansas, 2015.
*Glantz, D. with House, J. Armageddon in Stalingrad. The Stalingrad Trilogy, Volume 2. University Press of Kansas, 2009.
*Glantz, D. with House, J. To the Gates of Stalingrad. The Stalingrad Trilogy, Volume 1. University Press of Kansas, 2009.
*Kavalerchik, B. The Price of Victory: The Red Army’s Casualties in the Great Patriotic War. Pen & Sword Military, 2017.
*Liedtke, G. Enduring the Whirlwind: The German Army and the Russo-German War 1941-1943. Helion & Company LTD, 2016.
“This, of course, leads to the third reason that German commanders cited to explain their defeat: the idea that the Wehrmacht was simply overwhelmed by hordes of robotic opponents. Such an image appealed to both the German veterans and their postwar American allies, who hoped, like the Germans, to use superior training, tactics, and motivation to overcome a larger foe. Again, however, this is only a half-truth. Germany knew from the moment it attacked in 1941 that it was outnumbered two to one, but numerical ratios at first appeared unimportant given the German tactical and operational advantages. The enormous losses that the surprised Red Army absorbed only confirmed the Germans’ belief in their own racial and tactical superiority. The defeats of 1941-1942 reinforced the stereotype of the inflexible peasant soldier who displayed no initiative, perhaps because the Germans were unaware of the penalties that initiative often provoked.
“As the war dragged on, the Red Army became increasingly proficient in planning and executing its own complex form of mechanized warfare, while the level of training among German troops declined quickly in the face of heavy casualties. Those German officers who made their names in the glory days of 1941-1942 often failed to recognize this shift in the relative training and ability of the opposing armies. Indeed, their contempt for their supposedly primitive foe only made them more vulnerable to the maskirovka efforts of 1944, such as the Soviet deception efforts at Korsun’-Shevchenkovskii and prior to Operation Bagration. More than one of the “hordes” that defeated Germany were populated by phantoms.”
Glantz When Titan’s Clashed P355-356
100 percent of the russian army fought 35 percent of the german army with millions of western supplies and still almost lost,,,it took 20 countries to beat Germany,,,not one of the allied countries could have defeated Germany alone,,,all historians agree on that
Incorrect. As I said in the video more than half of the Red Army was in the Far East or was positioned internally, at least up until mid-November 1942. And while most of its army was in the east, the Germans did have sizable numbers in the west. Also, Germany wasn't operating alone. It had many allies itself - e.g. Finland, Romania, Hungary, Croatia... even one division from Spain. It was one alliance vs another, and the Soviets did defeat that alliance, almost by itself (yes, with a crucial contribution from the other powers, but it paid out the most in blood).
Oh please,,,after Italt who SUUUUUUUcked,,there were 4 small countries half hearted in the whole thing,,,,,The allies had France,Great Britain ,United States,Russia,Austrailia ,India,New Zealand and 15 other countries,,,get honest brother,,,what your saying goes against what every historian,history book and military anaylist says on the topic,,,get honest
TIK you deserve way way more subs
I think the crucial issue is that the quality of the German army decreased while the Soviet army quality increased. Let's not forget fuel shortages and strategic industrial mistakes etc...by the Germans.
Exactly what i was thinking, those 'numbers' count every soldier as equally good. While in 45 most of the german 'soldiers' where old, cripple and kids
@@Devjerovf Even in 1944 at D'Day the Allies were far better trained then even the elite units who had by that stage been filled with many poorly trained new recruits. There is an argument about M Wittman only lasting a few months on the Normandy front because his training was not up to the more sophisticated allies opposite him as compared to the mass produced soviet Army that he had faced in the prior 3 years.
one other thing is the soviets are fighting closer to home, so a lot less troops are dedicated to support functions such as logistics
dulls The Soviet Union got a few things right too.
dulls That argument is backed up by Zaloga in his book “Armored Champion”.
Red army: "they had us in the first half not gonna lie'
😂The memes make their way to history channels
Lend-Lease. Germany easily whipped up on the Russians. It was when America dropped 3x what they put into the Pacific and Europe that a mechanized armored Russia started to have a chance. Prior to American division, industry and money, Russia was riding horses and eating corpses.
@@duckvenom Not really, we had our own production of weapons and food, and army had more food then anybody else in the country. We won at the second half sue to our own rising production and supply problems of Germany. But and you and I, just proud of our country, I get that.
@@duckvenom what is wrong with you Americans ??? cant you just accept the Soviet Union beat the Germans and without them the Allies could NEVER have won the war .... you Americans cannot accept the fact YOU DID NOT WIN THE WAR ... the Soviet Union did and if you do accept that fact you have to try and take the credit and say "they could never have done it without us giving lend lease"
Anthony Bohana Some of these cunts didn’t watch the fucking video!
Honestly, the 3:1 ratio over the duration of a war of attrition is actually shockingly good for the Germans.
They still lose btw and lucky enough the soviet graceful enough to accept only certain military personel got executed.
@Yulus Leonard its about the effectivness of the army. USA still lost vietnam but they inflictet causalitys 10 to 1. in some battles they killed 20,000 bvietcong but lost only 100 own men. they still lost the war but they were actually more effective. its not about still losing or not but about army fighting effectivness. thats why people like movies like 300. leonidad with 300 still lost but they were the real movieheroes because everyone can win with numbers. Finnland lost too against soviet union but waht they did and how they defend themself was much more phenomenal than the soviet victory which only won with masses and superior numbers
@@killerklinge52 the US was not the main belligerent of the Vietnam war. It was South Vietnam. Compare both Vietnam's war and also put into account the american help to the southerners and you will come up to the conclusion that the North was superior.
@@joaovilaca1436 well yes and no. South Vietnamese Army by the late war period was superior, but the US withdrawal left them in chaos and it was the superior adaptability of the North Vietnamese that won them the war not a superior army as the South Vietnamese Army was actually better and unfortunately for South Vietnam they got REALLY unlucky which lead to them being defeated even faster then they normally would've been as the Oil crisis in 1973 ended up resulting in even less of South Vietnam's modern forces being operational as they didn't have the fuel to supply them. The US army, however was superior to the North Vietnamese and if it was a conventional war, the US would've won, but that's the point, the North Vietnamese were able to adapt and overcome a superior enemy, but if the US army stayed in and if the Oil crisis never happened it is LIKELY that the US would've won, but ofc that would never happen as war support was just too low and to avoid the oil crisis would be essentially equivalent to meta gaming in an rp.
Fall of Constantinople Even with the US there the tet offensive still occurred and pushed far into the South. They were fighting a losing battle.
double standards:
when germany amasses up to 40:1 manpower ratio on their main attack areas it is called "soviet lost to german genius tactics".
when soviet union amasses up to 15:1 ratio at their main attack areas it is called "soviet hordes storm german positions".
pathetic ^^
Thanks for your comment :)
@@jdgshsjchdjejkd545 Tears of arseblasted wehraboos taste sweet. Will bringing Bomber Harris and him doing nothing wrong piss you off even more?
Formu Oli
U really are moron ,aren't ya?🤔 ...Now, tell me please ,sh*t bird... HOW German defeat from the hands of the Red Army did happen , when ''german Verband could defeat 3 soviet ones or defend against 7'' ,eh?!?! 😁Are u comlietely deluded,ot just plain stupid ? Or both/,wich is highly likely/?😁😁 ...I do love it ,when proudly ignorant neo-nazzies/like urself/ ,take part of discussions about WW2 ...It's makes it somehow ...entertainig/at ur expense, in this case/😁
Formu Oli
German superiority at all times led to Germany's total defeat, unconditional surrender, near total destruction from the Eastern Front, German people's suffering, and elevation of Russia from a second rate European power to one of only two superpowers in the entire world. Total superiority at all times, right.
German superiority at all times was only the perspective of German officers post-war to make themselves look good. Get real man.
Roberto they can be superior in field but war comes to manpower, logistics and production at the end. They lost cause couldnt keep up with those. No other country couldnt have done at those years what they did in fighting.
The most important thing is troop concentration ability. Germans showed how it's done in 41. Soviets learned it good and showed they learned it in 43,44,45 offensives. Stalin needed time to prepare the country for war, therefore used every chance to postpone the start of it (molotov-ribbentrop pact and low alert on western border). That is where the high casualities in 1941 is from.
Exactly
actually at Mosow in 41 while the germans had a the numerical advantage at the strategic level, the russians had a 2:1 ratio tactically speaking.
xpavpushka it was pretty obvious once I learned the Soviets stopped the axis before the attrition phase began
"Stalin" was preparing for major war since 1929. Actually so called "forced industrialization" was militarisation indeed. And what? Stalin shit his pants in june 1941.
Alex Looking and?
My German grandfather told me some stories. One of them was he met Russian soldiers accidentally two times during fight while both didn’t really know their exact position during winter, they shared some food and cigarettes both sides scared to hell and totally freaked out and tried to avoid further contact.
But what he told me why he thought they lost at the end at the east was in his opinion the replacement lacks of quality. In the beginning they fought well equipped with already expierienced soldiers and really good men. The more and more replacements lacked combat experience and the Waffen SS fought like madmen head into action and lost personal and equipment without caring about their losses. The loss of so many really good men couldn’t be replaced with equal quality. So my grandfather said it was like the „B-Team“ showing up at the front.
Even the famous Waffen SS was at the end a Group of Foreigners and drafted men.
He said the Russians where always brave soldiers but they seem to be all of equal quality not standing out but not falling off.
And he said they felt like being stretched out totally home was so far away the land mass seemed to be so impressive that he said he felled like never come home again and that defeating an ever withdrawing enemy was becoming more and more out of reach the longer the eastern campaign lasts.and the more they advanced into this poor and destroyed land
Your grandpa as a soldier didn’t really understand war, he was just a pawn that his superiors were happy to see killed for their purposes
@@MarcoBonechi his grandfather understood war better than you if this story is true, that's for sure. I served in Iraq and Africa with the 10th Mountain Division (light infantry) and soldiers serve during combat not for any political purposes but for eachother. For survival. For the guy next to you and to come home. In the beginning they indoctrinate you with politics and propaganda but during battle and struggle none of that means anything. It's all about brotherhood, survival and self-preservation. So before you go making comments about war go serve in one. I'm honestly skeptical about this story being true in the 1st place. Nobody will ever know 🤷♂️
@widukind so where was your grandfather serving on the Eastern Front. What was his Job and Unit and name if you will?.?
My grandfather was a POW and he recalled that as a prisoner, he was way better treated by Germans than back home by commies. Till his death, he loved Germans and hated commies. Give your grandpa a thank you from my family
Marco Bonechi
^
*Blue checkmark alert*
The Germans were amazing at combined arms, maneuver warfare, and encirclement tactics. Once they lost air superiority, did not have the fuel to maneuver at will, and lost large numbers of veteran combat troops and commanders all their advantages were gone and the war of attrition was on. The German army was always designed for a "short decisive war" as that was the doctrine. Ideally they would fight an overwhelmingly fast war against one enemy and force capitulation before they would move on to another limited war.
But the key thing is the German high command did not understand the need to avoid attritional combat, especially when they were in the offensive.
A profoundly flawed thinking at the tactical level by the German army in both world wars was that giving ground must be responded to by a counter attack.
When a force has fewer men at 1:3 ratio overall during the war but inflicts a 3:1 casualty ratio on the opponent,
then I`d call that superior to an extent.
Nonetheless speaking of elites vs. hordes is rubbish. Both sides had capable military personnel.
don't forget germans were on the defensive for most of the war with the soviets
@@namesurname624 Not sure if a chaotic retreat during a two front war really favours the "defender".
But in theory, you are right.
As superior as massacring native indian back in age of exploration.
This ratio was only in 1945.
In 1941 it was 1,2 in the favor of Nazies.
And this Ratio of 1:3 was only in the 1941.
The average for the War was 1:1,2-1.3 (still debatable).
@@user-gx3hj5ur3n With 1,2 you mean 1:2? Or 1: 1,2?
The latter would be very close to equal casualties/numbers.
I quoted Tik´s numers,
haven´t done any research myself.
That is a crazy amount of dead people...I wonder how the world would look today if WW1 and WW2 never happened!
Probably not much worse actually.
Most of the countries that fought the war had huge population drives post war. Without those, numbers probably wouldn't look too different.
WOW this guy is so fucking stiupid, why you didint compere german reinformence with soviet's, soviets tank production and german tank production, soviet material help from USA (LL), and on how many fronts they had to fight
And this bullshit, about german's advances stoped due to lack of number superiority, why this bold idiot, did't mantion that main german problem was with supplying their troops, so far away from their borders, with EXTREMLY low number of trucks, and most of horses eaten biceuse of winter, in the same time soviet forces where flooded with transport eqiupment from the allies
@Dominikize Agree. The only reason Germans lost was due to the incompetence of its command who could not establish basic supply lines. As the result, by the end of 1943 German army used their solder mostly as a cannon fodder.
Adrian Mulligan fucked up British and france didn't had retreated from its colonies!! Aryan theory would be relevant in Europe and Russia usa become superpower and many things usa has did wrong but they also did innovation and shaped moder world which Europe was not interested to do
The problem is that everyone based themselves on Operation Barbarossa to dictate how the Red Army was.
That and also on Cold War propaganda.
Exactly!
+SirusKing It's actually a problem with studying WWII and the Holocaust. People are so fixated on the crimes that actually happened as opposed to the crimes that most definitely would have happened if the Axis powers had their way. That and the cultural effect of the Cold War.
SlyBiffrons So true. The hunger plan would’ve killed tens of millions.
Yea, another perception issue, I think that some of us in the west conflate the Winter war with things that were going on on the eastern front as a whole. There are claims that the Finns killed 10 Soviets for every 1 Finn killed. They did make an impressive stance in that part of the war, but the kill ratio was really closer to 6 to 1, but people had to exaggerate and make it 10 to 1 because that sounds more "legendary" , but its interesting to note that at the end of the war when the soviets fought the Finns to take back Karelia (2nd time) the kill ratio was almost 1 to 1.
@@nwchrista en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haloperidol
"4:1 isn't that bad" - I'm going to start saying that from now on. Like at a soccer game or something.
German solider was not different from a polish one or a french one. Germans actually respect both french and poles respectively. Its because high command was a joke. The same case with Soviets. Stalins lap dog Zhukov wasnt a capable strategist. Hes tactic of throwing everying at Germans and let them drown in the red soliders bodies worked only because Mother Russia had that manpower pool. Just a reminder that Soviets did have some capable officers like Rokossowski or Koniew who HAD MUCH BETTER CASUALITY TOLL against Germans but because as I said Zhukov was a Stalins dog he is being praised as he was a Napoleon or something.
Umm, the Red Army stillhad to go straight from the suburbs of Moscow to the Führerbunker and Vienna...
@@michelangelobuonarroti4958 "...from the suburbs of Moscow to the Fuehrerbunker..."
It's a wonder that it took them three years, eh? Sorry, how long did it take for the Western Allies to go from a beach in Normandy to the heart of the Third Reich -- not quite a year?
It's not like the Soviets were fighting the Japanese in the East (while the War with Germany was still going); the Soviets contributed NOTHING to the strategic air campaign against Germany (which would have required diverting resources to build more four-engine bombers).
Germany was fighting on multiple fronts (which includes of course the strategic air campaign) -- and THEY were not getting ANY lend-lease or other aid from the United States, were they?
@@MrJm323 The distance from the beach of normandy to Berlin is way shorter than from Moscow to Berlin, and probably easier since arguably Germany was past their prime by then. As an example of how "easy" it was to some degree, I am pretty sure much if not most of the defenders in the beaches of Normandy were made up of basically rear guard from Eastern Europe, especially recruited from prison camps. The Battle of the Bulge, the biggest battle in the western front that I can think of, pales in comparison to the numbers both sides had to the battles in the East, such as Stalingrad, Kursk, and maybe if we can include operations like Bagration. The Soviets did fight a somewhat low level conflict against Japan in the late 30s, and even when hostilities ceased until their invasion of Manchuria, they still had a million personnel nearby just in case. It's pretty much a common point that about most of the Axis Forces were used in the Eastern Front, and that's where they had most of their casualties from outside of prisoners.
This isn't saying that the casualty ratios are justified or that the effort was the Western Allies did not match the Soviets, but you make it sound like the Soviets should have had an easier time dealing with the Axis compared to the Western Allies, which I disagree.
@@ionisingcarbonx1010 ...No. If it weren't for the U.S. and Britain, in all likelihood they would be slogging it out in Byelorus RIGHT NOW -- 75 years on!! ....They would have been like Iran and Iraq in the Eighties!
If the Soviets produced more (fill in the blank -- planes, tanks, whatever), it was because the Germans were INCAPABLE of conducting a strategic air bombing campaign that could reach places such as Novosibirsk (across the Urals). ....There were only TWO countries at that time which had invested in the development of four-engine, long range bombers, and could seriously carry out a STRATEGIC bombing campaign: the U.S. and Britain. It was GERMAN industry and not Soviet industry which was bearing the brunt of such a campaign (a campaign which, in addition to degrading German industrial capacity, required Germany to divert aircraft to attempt to fend off).
The Soviets contributed NOTHING to the strategic air campaign. The Soviets benefited mightily from the U.S./British strategic bombing of its enemy. ...And yet it STILL took the Soviets more more than two years to reach the outskirts of Berlin.
No, they did NOT beat the U.S. to Berlin. Our forces were ORDERED by their political leaders to allow the Soviets to take Berlin. If the U.S. and British had been ordered to take it, it would have been a much less bloody affair -- as the ordinary Germans would have surrendered much more readily to the British and American forces. ...(Indeed, if Patton had been the supreme allied commander rather then Eisenhower, we would have been there MONTHS before we got there with Ike running things.)
To conclude, it was American industrial capacity (and Anglo-American scientific capability) which was the greatest factor in the Allied victory over Germany and Japan.
One thing to note is that sometimes, the way losses are counted is different between the different armies. Germany would not count a retrieved tank as a loss, but the USSR would claim one that is even a simple "mobility" kill (which still sucks btw) as a loss.
Interesting how the comments also forget that a near 1:1 K/D ratio when you are attacking a prepared German enemy is... actually bad for the Germans.
"Prepared" german? Germany wasnt even ready to invade poland.
Alexander Yordanov Both sides were guilty of exaggerating their W/L ratios. Western historians have, until recently, had a lot less information from ex-Soviet sources and that meant a lot of the information which has subliminally remained in our conscious is German. That’s what this video is about.
@@areulsois8411 not his point. Prepared as in dug in to defensive positions.
3:1 casualty ratio against you is the least you should plan on for an offensive action.
@@hlund73 you dont just assume a default number of casualties before assaulting because there are countless situations an army can be in before battle. the fact that germany was outproduced on every level had its effects on the battlefield where in the majority of the cases after august 1942 russia already had the advantage and the initiative (combined with the german intelligence failures that prevented germany from having any kind of tactical edge)
@@areulsois8411 yeah, that is why they lost against Poland.. and against France and the UK...
No, they obviously would have enjoyed better tanks...
but it is silly to say they were not prepared.
When the germans were winning, " We are winning over the soviet even if they are more then us" Then when the germans lost "we lost because they were more then us" lol
Exactly
You forgot the biggest excuse of the wehraboo's - it was the "russian winter" that won the war for the Soviets. Favorite lame damn excuse.
And who say that? You were sit with hitler or what?
and Napoleon's similar experience not figure? my point being: huge land mass (Russia herself) and increasingly organised soviet defense then inevitable indomintable repulse? This is why Russia calls this the "Glorious War". horrendous losses. This war was pivotal to the whole struggle.
@@sergeontheloose I mean, it was a massive contributor to the Soviets hanging on at the end of 1941, especially around Moscow (it's another story if Moscow would have made a difference, ignoring the Political blow, everything Rail related in Western Russia went through Moscow - a 1941 railway map perfectly sums it up - as it was such a large hub and it would have been a massive loss). It's almost become such a meme 'LUL LE RUSSIAN WINTER' that people disregard it. The Drive on Moscow by Zetterling shows perfectly just how bogged down with the weather the Germans got - they physically couldn't move, while the Russians held perfect Airfields and Shelter around Moscow as the Germans floundered around in the scorched earth Steppe outside of it.
The best chance the Germans had was a short campaign, and bad weather/terrain always favours the defenders, Agincourt anyone? And on the flip side, naturally people say ''well why didn't it effect the Russians in the same way?''. Ignoring the fact they're just naturally predisposed to it over generations of living there, the entire Russian military, from Tanks and their tracks, to Planes to Uniforms to Weapons was much better suited to warfare in those conditions. If 'LE RUSSIAN WINTER' wasn't a factor, the Wehrmacht would have taken Moscow, I'm almost certain. What difference it would have made, well...Alternate History is all speculation.
the ratio of 2.4 likes to 1.2 dislikes for this video cracks me up. The video is well presented, clear, concise and impeccably referenced. The arguments presented have greatly changed my perception of the Eastern front war I have built up over the pst 25yrs
Glad to hear it! And yes, this video got swamped with Wehraboos (people who excessively think the Wehrmacht is the best and all powerful army in history - didn't even know this term existed before this video). They didn't watch the full video and continued to turn the comment section into a whirlpool of hate and lies.
The video is full of errors misunderstandings and biased numbers
Nah, the video has so many dislikes simple because it's a bad video.
Soviets had 50 000 T-34 meduim tanks. Just main tank
USA had 50 000 M4 shermans tanks. Main tanks.
Germans had 8000 Panzer. IV tanks. Thier main tank.
Thats 100 000 vs 8000 (Main meduim tanks) numbers dont lie.
@Carnivorus Soviets fought with Europe, not with Germany alone. Add Italy, Hungary, Romania, Finland, Spain. Final ratio will be 1.3:1. 30% more losses from Soviet side is OK - Werhmacht offensive was from Brest to Moscow, while Soviet offensive - from Moscow to Berlin, Vienna, Prague and Budapesht.
“You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and I will win.” -Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh
Americans can't stomach losses. Their society is ill prepared to fight anything but defending their home turf.
@joanne chon still making excuses and trying to make ho chi Minh look bad he was decades ago and already dead lol
actually loses 18:1 and still wins
His generals: If the Americans hadn't quit when we did we would have ran out of people, not just men to throw at them.
@@majungasaurusaaaa Just wrong. Try starting a war with them, watch how that ends up
Hi TIK, Career Naval Officer here, ... do not forget that despite the fact that the Germans are increasing in number up to operation Bagration, their combat efficiency as a fighting unit is decreasing while the Soviet's is increasing despite the fact that the Germans are retreating (and as you know defense is usually easier than offense unless you do not have the time to prepare or the flexibility to set your defensive lines as needed i.e. if higher powers force you to hold an unbearable position). I mean by this that Germany is losing valuable combat Veterans being replaced by younger less experienced recruits. The military combat efficiency is very well covered by Colonel Trevor N. Dupuy USA, a War Veteran who is responsible for computer quantifying (numerically) the "fighting power" of soldiers and their equipment for the United States War Gaming computer scenarios. He extensively published on the subject and collected data of over 240+ engagements in the WW II (plus other wars) to come up with his algorithms. The only caveat is that he did not have access to the documentation that his compatriot historian COL David M. Glantz would have after the break-up of the Soviet Union (Dr. Dupuy died in 1995). I attended his lectures at the War College and I highly recommend his 50+ publications/books (with the above caveat). Great lecture as usual, Peace be with you, Ciao, L (USN Veteran)
lancelot1953 Thanks for your post. I was enjoying Col. Dupuy’s work in the 1960s.
Hi Librarian 007, thank you for the compliment. We studied COL Dupuy's quantification of combat efficiency and "mathematical" approach to combat scenarios - which for us, young officers ("nuggets as we were called by our seniors), was very impressive. Peace be with you, Ciao, L
Colonel Dupuy's books are very, very, very old. They were written in the 60s if my memory is any good. At thet time historians tended to take Geman claims at face value. There has been a lot of research since then and the picture is significantly different
in this comment section: people who didn't watch the video.
Tell me about it.
geckogamer You're right, I personally shut it off after Tik proved himself wrong with his own figure of a 2.5 to 4.27 kill ratio. Never seen anyone win an argument against themselves.
lol, what intellect?
" 2.5 to 4.27 kill ratio. " You're mind is very one dimensional Matt. You are acting like there are no other variables other than man vs man. i.e. if one side is defending a fortified position and another side needs to take the fortified position, does the attacker losing more men indicate the defending side had better soldiers or tactics? Of course not, all of those things play a part. One side could have superior soldiers and tactics and still lose more men in comparison to their enemy simply due to the scenario. Half you people are acting like warfare is a game of call of duty where each side all things being equal you point to kill death ratio as the be all and end all....
Lol. I confess to only viewing about half of the video. To quote Mark Twain "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
One important point is that 8,7 million is not only those Soviet soldiers KIA but the total number of soviets killed including the prisioners of war that were executed (which were not all of them)
So not all of the captured Red Army soldiers were definitive losses, the Soviets liberated millions of soldiers from captivity of which 900 thousands were sent back to the Red Army
Actually, the Soviets immediately arrested any Soviet POWs they found and sent them to what they called "filtration" camps run by the NKVD. "Surrender to the Enemy" was a very serious offence in the USSR, so all those men were checked for their "potential treason". Many were killed, more were sent to work camps in Siberia. It was not easy being a captured Soviet, and things didn't get much better if your internment camp got captured by the Red Army.
@The Truth The Soviet dead PoWs ARE included in the KIA figures.
I disagree the Soviet P.O.W send to Siberia as traitors
@@KnightofAges Ofcourse they were ent to filtration camps for investigation.What if you run to germans with rising arms and now when you came back you would blow something killing of nowmal soldiers? In time of war it must be investigated how you got into enemy hands.
As for "Many were killed, more were sent to work camps in Siberia. It was not easy being a captured Soviet, and things didn't get much better if your internment camp got captured by the Red Army." use the numbers in statistics Luke! And the numbers says that only 1/10 of those POW's were found guilty and sentenced to some punishment. 9 from 10 were sent either back into army if they were capable or back home. My grandpa was POW from september 1941 until november 1944, got back into USSR at february 1945, was a month at filtration camp after which was restored into rank of leutenant, sent back into army and got into his regiment just before Battle of Berlin started. And hey, that was a hell lot better than in german prisoner camp you freak!
Not really, 8.7M are the combat losses, dead POWs account for 2 million more casualties
I think you make the case that Germany wasn't beaten by 10:1 hordes but I also think you play down the advantages of 2:1 and 3:1 that the Soviets had strategically. When it comes to military science and 'the lessons of history' I think both sides are worth the study.
The problem I see is that they were relatively even throughout the war. There are nuanced explanations that provide insight as to why Germans blitzed in 41 and why they struggled in 43 onwards. It's not a Black and white numbers game, there is a lot of nuance and factors at play.
Additionally, the biggest problem is people's unwillingness to read Soviet statistics and notes because "they're Russian". Meanwhile they are so eager to trust what the Germans have to say. You would think that the good guys in this war were the Germans if you're someone from the West which is disgusting.
The Wehrmacht increased in size but by 1942 it had lost most of its first rate soldiers. The Wehrmacht of 1943 was not at all the same animal as in 1941.
You can say the same thing about Soviets in 1941
@@M.L.official No. German troops had invaluable experience from battles of Poland and France, meanwhile soviet soldiers fought only in Finland and didn't have nearly as much experience
At a theatre strategic level the German high command failed to appreciate the need to avoid attritional battles against a country with much greater population and material resources.
They did well from June 22 1941 until Stalingrad because they were fighting all arm’s manoeuvre warfare. Thereafter they got sucked into attritional combat. Hitler shares his fair share of blame for this. A lot more blame than TIK will grant I think.
If i were to collect all the tears in this commentsection that could do for a pretty profitable saltine buissines
3:1 is not a massive superiority? 1 Division fighting 3 divisions? Also if you mention stalingrad you have to look at the numbers at the southern front and especially the numbers for this Operation. The troops in the north doesnt affect the Situation in the south. And where does the myth come from that Germans were great in defense? I have always heard they werent even trained in defensive operations.
Your channel, in my opinion, in this particular segment is the best so far. Good luck in your precious work !
It seems to me that your whole argument is a strawman. You keep saying "People think Germans inflicted 10x casualties on the Soviets. Germophiles think Soviets outnumbered Germans 10:1. People think Germany was unable to replace its casualties in 1943." Yet I don't think anyone really has a source for those numbers. Your point seems to be along the lines of: Loss ratios were only 4:1 for the first few years, not 10:1. Hardly some epic realignment of WW2 mythos.
You'd be surprised how many people actually believe the 10:1 ratio and that the Soviets won only by numbers.
@Carnivorus They won by mobility. Using German blitzkrieg on the Germans.
This, so much this. A 3:1 ratio of losses doesn't lie, not when both sides keep advancing and the front keeps moving back and forth, and neither can thus blame the numbers on any defender's advantage.
The number may not be 10:1, and there were a significant number of occasions where the Red Army did outplay the Wehrmacht (Winter Offensive, Leningrad, Uranus, Kursk, Bagration), but that doesn't mean that the overall perception of the Wehrmacht being the more capable military is false. A ratio of 3:1 over such a long time simply doesn't lie.
@Carnivorus There are mobility differences between army without any cart, those with horse cart and those with trucks. Yes! The Macedonian, Roman and Prussian already proven that they can win just being more mobile than their enemies.
No, they never used Blitzkrieg. Not once. Once the Russian army started rolling in Autumn 43, they used immense mechanised forces and pulverising artillery to break up the whole front. They never tried to punch a tiny hole and use it to deploy into the rear.
Heh. 'Germany and her allies on the far right'. Neat.
Reminds me of this.ruclips.net/video/bZpftZIvYco/видео.html
U bitch!
Funny thing is, he actually didn't mean that as a joke since he believes Nazi Germany was a leftist socialist regime at it's core just like the soviets.
Yes, the Nazis who supported business and had many corporate leaders in its government, and allowed them to use slave labor, and denied all workers the right to have any say or control in their work place is part of the “left”. Yeah okay. Just bc it has it in the name doesn’t mean shit. In fact Hitler distinguishes Marxist Socialism and national socialism. They’re two entirely different ideas. One is about workers rights, the others about ethnocentrism.
@@randomdude4136 And thats a damn well constructed argument.
"3:1 ratio... not that bad". Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.
This is a war of potentials. Germany produced more steel and gunpowder than the USSR. In the battle for Rzhev, it had 2-3 times more ammunition for heavy artillery than the USSR. And it is the impact of artillery that is the main factor for the loss of infantry.
@@user-bw7ke2us2i Nice one ! Didn't knew that.
3:1 ratio is usual when attacking fortified position.
And the demonstration is that Germans were beaten by soviet forces of equal quality and superior numbers, not by hordes of barbarians sent to suicidal assault by conscienceless power.
@@gengis737 I'm not saying that the Russians were barbarians, or that their equipment (especially in the early part of the eastern front) were inferior. What I am saying is that Stavka did show a great disregard for human life thanks to their doctrine. When it comes to attacking fortified positions, the Germans (almost) always inflicted at least 3:1 ratio of casualties on the Russians, even when they attacked heavily dug in Russian troops, where as the Russians didn't manage to inflict the Germans causalities with a K/D ratio in favor of the Russians even when the German army was in a disorganized and chaotic retreat.
Soviet military doctrine has nothing to do with the number of casualties. The German army had more ammunition for heavy artillery on the eastern front until 1944. They used this advantage both in defense (Rzhev, Leningrad) and in attack (Barbarossa, Stalingrad, Kursk). Plus, the Germans had a technical advantage and superiority in the level of education and training of soldiers. This means that the armies fought in unequal conditions (!) at least until 1944, when a second front was opened and Germany began to lose its advantages. From that moment on, the losses became approximately equal.
If you compare the losses of the Wehrmacht in Poland (1939) and France (1940), you will see that the opponents of Germany lost more soldiers killed than the Wehrmacht - Poland is 4.4 times more (66k vs 15k) and France + allies are 2.2 times more (112k vs 50k). A financially richer nation (France) has the opportunity to have a loss ratio less than poorer Poland and the USSR. The economy affects the ability of the army to achieve parity with a strong opponent (Lend-lease for the USSR did not compensate for its economic lag behind Germany).
Nice video. But here, in Russia, these days famous historians Alexey Isaev say that Germany until the end of 1944 produced more artillery shells each month than the USSR, and the density of artillery fire, especially those of large caliber, was about 2 times higher than the soviet one. In your videos you talk about infantry and tank divisions. But the real god of war responsible for the greatest share of losses on both sides was artillery. Germans cherished their artillery pieces way more than tanks in time of danger and retreat and for a reason.
Also lately the total number of losses are being revisioned to 20 mil total, including civilians(Mikhalev, Isaev), or even 15(Zemskov). Military losses(including those who died as POW) - 10.5-12.5 millions.
But that's not officially accepted numbers, because politics and military pride.
I hate these pop culture ideas - memes, to use the actual definition correctly - that always say one state or the soldiers of that state are naturally inferior to others. Italy and the Soviet Union are the main victims of this meme, the pop culture narrative is that their armed forces were very poor and couldn't help themselves. The actual story is infinitely more complex. I love people and videos like yours. Trained soldiers, regardless of where they are from or who they serve, are all good at combating hostile forces and throughout this conflict all did their best under the circumstances they operated with.
That's it. Glad you enjoyed the video :)
If you mean "when the Italians fought they fought as well as any body else" then my late Father obviously would agree. That's his quote he fought both Germans and Italians. The point is when people talk about how good the Germans were as fighters most often they are not talking about individual soldiers or units they are talking about a military system. Racists are pretty peripheral in this debate. The relevant discussion is about how Germans were trained and organised. Why did it take so long to defeat them when they were so badly equipped and short of essential things for mid twentieth century warfare such as vehicles. How did an army that was dependent on the horse for supply and to draw its' artillery hold out for so long even after its airforce had been reduced to mostly poorly trained boys in outdated machines. This takes nothing away from the magnificent Soviet recovery and ability to concentrate "Hordes" at any given Schwerpunkt. The Soviets were to prove they were better equipped for Blitzkrieg and excellent at deceiving the Germans as to where and when they would attack. BUT German defeat came from the factories of Britain, America and the Soviet Union.
My (British) Dad was taken prisoner THREE times by the Germans in North Africa. On one occasion he was taken by an American cousin to visit a German cousin in North Africa. The German was in an Allied POW Camp. My Dad was a Guardsman in other words elite British infantry. Whether people surrendered or not was not determined by nationality but circumstances. Water was probably the most important factor in that campaign.
Except the Russians literally weren't trained at all. The Italians were shit and I don't care what your grandpa said. The statistics prove it. Its just facts man. Germans were the best army during the period and were merely over whelmed. Even the Spartans couldn't defeat the Persian armies. Thats not to say the Spartans weren't vastly superior to the Persians militarily. Its just facts man and you seem more upset by the idea that ebil right wing nazis are going to use it for propaganda but blatantly lying like this isn't going to help anybody.
Really?
It must be said that from 1943 onwards the Wehrmacht was suffering from crippeling oil shortages
Not to mention material shortages, manpower shortages, and logistical issues. In 1943 the material advantage enjoyed by the Soviets by 1943 is staggering. This video is taking the statistics at face value and not considering the deeper issues. I don't think anyone would argue that the German army wasn't the more professional, well trained, and battle hardened army. The Russians have been inept and just about everything they have done since the colonial days.
Precisely - it doesn't matter how many tanks and planes you have if they are out of fuel. Similarly it is OK comparing numbers of troops but we know that young lads of 14 and old men were defending Berlin at the end so presumably the experience and quality of the troops available to Germany must be taken into account.
@@andrew_simpsondepictions9130 Ah, but young boys and old men somehow does not manage to count when the Red Army suffered its first huge losses in 1941. Then it is ok to masturbate to massive Wermacht victories. PS: Most German soldiers by a LONG shot were not young boys or old men even by Berlin. They were very experienced if anything.
Hunter Wagner logistical issues = incompetence
The fuel shortage was in late 1944, not 1943.
Behind every digit there was a soul. A human being like me and you. They could have done so much together, imagine!
I'd think some of the claims in tank numbers was likely taking a simple look at the total number of T-34s built during the war, which was impressive and greatly outnumbered the production of Tiger tanks. But total production over a period of years is not the same as how many were built in preparation for a specific battle and where they were placed.
I like the fact that you cite your sources. I would like to congratulate you for that, and for that reason too, I subscribe. Thank you.
Fascinating stuff as always, keep up the great work Knight!
Thanks Agrippa!
Another question, and I was hoping at some point you could address this in a video. Lets say for instance that Hitler halted his murder of Gypsies, Jews etc and put them instead in punishment brigades on the front, as well as used them for hard labor instead of exterminating them. Would this have given Germany even a tiny chance to beat the Soviets, assuming Barbarossa continued as planned with this particular caveat??
I dont think so Agrippa. It would have created forces less strong than the Hungarians and Romanians division on the Eastern Front. Not motivated at all, not trained. and less equipment. Thats what these divisions would have been. Most of them would have probably surrendered.
The (able ) Jews and Gypsies ( etc ) were already used for hard labor during the whole of world war 2.
What might have helped the Germans a whole lot better would have been to recruit the White Russian into their armies. Wich some of the Generals even told Hitler that he should do that. The Whites Russians were all the Russians that fought the Red Army during the revolution and those that were against the USSR regime.
Hitler would have gained thousands, maybe even, millions of fanatical Russian to fight on their side.
What would have give them a chance is also to not massacre the population. The western Russian already welcomed the Germans as liberators, if Hitler had used that, and recruits everyone there, all those partisans would have transformed into German Divisions. Creating once again, thousands of fanatical troops ready to fight with the Germans to liberate their country from the USSR.
But Hitler didnt want to do that because these people were slav, and so deserved to die, according to his racial judgement.
btw only those evil Carpathian 'ukranians' welcomed Germans as liberators. The massive partisan movement proves that collaborationism wasn't exactly a big thing among Soviets.
what i love from this channel are the references i going to buy a lot of books this year
26 years ago I shared a hospital room with a German gentleman who fought on the Eastern front, he was captured, sent to Siberia to a work camp and finally released in 1955.
@Aidan Hand He wouldnt have been captured if hadnt invaded the USSR.
@@KillerofWestoids No shit, but he was.
I'm actually surprised that the death rate of Germans in gulags are actually lower than Soviets in German captivity lol, that's amazing how the Axis somehow did that
@@comradekenobi6908I am not surprised. The Russians/ Soviets were not and even today, are not barbarians. It is exactly what I would expect. The Nazi era Germans, on the other hand, regarded persons from the USSR then as subhumans. So how did you expect the respective treatment of their captives would be.
you seem surprised that the soviets lost more in 1942 then in 1941 yet you forget that the war started in the 22nd of june
meaning they fought for a bit more than 6 months in 1941 while they fought for the entirty of 1942
you say that an army on the defensive has advantages over the army on the offence
"which is true but then you ask "so why then aren't they inflicting many more losses
well you seem to forget that the red army was on the defensive from 1941 and the major part of 1942
Because the Soviets counterattacks everywhere
Well, had you watched the entire video, you would have understood.
1941 was a messed up year. Germany would apply its famous 'Blitzkgrieg'/Bewedungskried, surround soviet units and then DIG IN, Meanwhile, Soviets pressed by having to fight ON THEIR OWN FRONT had to counter-attack. So. The soviets, despite defending their land, were attacking an enemy that had the benefits of the defensive. That's the whole scheme.
This channel deserves more views! Keep the documentary type video's coming please
Not a day goes by where I don't work on the research for these videos :)
Good analysis ... very intetesting and informative ... who would have thought stats would be so interesting 😄 well done good Sir 👍
Man lol 6,600 009 to 2,070 000 you ask an axis soldier what that felt like, that is a huge numerical advantage I dont know how you can argue that. 4 000 000 extra men is a massive advantage.
3 to 1 over the entire war, which they eventually lost, is not evenly matched. Especially taking into consideration the lack of resources the axis powers had and that most of the war was fought in the Soviet Union.
casualty ratio ≠ troop ratio
@wut it is mate Russia also was at the advantage of being in their own land. Also the brutal Russian winter helped.
@wut it is mate The USSR could afford to lose thousands of tanks in an offensive and by the time of the next offensive they had EVEN MORE TANKS on the frontline than they had for the last offensive.
Russia's industry was massive compared to that of the Germans. And unlike Germany their cities weren't being carpet bombed, and they weren't fighting on 3 fronts either.
@@asuka7309 dont forget lend lease.
@@asuka7309 As Mr Timoshenko said in one of his speeches, Germany was complaining about its lack of resources since before the war, and so the war had to be focused in making them waste as much resources as possible
Great video, This is the kind of analysis I like to see. The Eastern front is a mystery that needs researching and understanding.
If you ever need any pictures of German generals or info on them let me know. Me and a few others, way back in the day, were responsible for most of the information online. Probably not now, I have retired from that a long time now but from about 1997 to 2006 We created Axis History Factbook, Feldgau (it used to be called something else) and Axis Biographical Research. My specialty was the Kriegsmarine but I've more than enough knowledge on the other services, maybe not SS, they never really interested me. I've many rare images obtained from tireless writing to the Bundesarchiv and fellow researchers from all over the globe. Keep it up man. There are very from honest observations about WWII. I think it will be some years before we, as humans, can all finally look back at world war two with an objective eye. some are too far one war, some too far the other, most just big-up their own nations actions to unrealistic levels. It's good to see someone attempt an objective view. I may not agree with everything you've said here, in fact I know I don't, but RUclips is not the forum for debate, about anything. Anyway keep the videos going.
Could you give a link?
id love to read them. would help me big time. thanks for what you did for the community!
Old Skool Wax. Thank you for your work. Appreciated.
Hi TIK,
I really enjoy your videos and especially your scientific approach!
I was wondering if you thought about mixing the raw statistics on this topic with the other developments. For example, the increase of casualties, linked with the worsening of the logistics, because of the bombings and the winter, over-extension of the Germans, and at the same time increased materials support from the other Allies to the Soviets.
All topics on which you already made videos. But combining the conclusions from the videos will be something quite good, since statistics will be combined with overall historical context. :)
There's a great documentary on the Eastern Front from the Soviet perspective called Soviet Storm. It does a great job explaining the strategic, tactical, and humanitarian angles of the war. Although it is firmly from the Soviet point of view, it doesn't seem to be too strongly biased as it does point out a lot of the atrocities committed by Soviet forces during the war, such as the looting and raping that was done during the invasion of Germany.
It is a really good documentary. You can find it on RUclips, all 18 parts lol. They use reenacted scenes, so you're not stuck just watching the original footage from the 1940s, and/or just watching a historian talking on camera.
TIKs ‘just’ done a Q and A where he shared his opinions on the documentary, and he thought (at least episode 1) was extremely biased. I do think the documentary is fairly well made with reenactors etc but it is really Soviet biased…
Here comes the mob of angry Wehraboos
Tell me about it.
Lol u raite its sew halareous.
All I see are russoboos vehemently trying to defend their favorite communist mass murderer.
Triggered kiddo? Got all insecure when it's pointed out your glorious genocidal Übermensch were not in fact superhuman and the soviets mangled them all the way back to Berlin?
Nobody here brought up Nicolae Ceausescu but since you did mention the war...spoiler alert...your favourite mass murderer lost.
In the nineteensixties when I was still quite young I heard a lot of stories (I was very curious) from austrians (germans) who had been as common soldiers on the eastern front. Now, while these of course were individual tales a few common themes popped up on which almost all of them were consistent despite these guys beibg in different places and not knowing each other. One is that when they got attacked by the Red Army the Soviets had vastly superior numbers. That can be easily explained by concentration of forces. Like the example in the video of one german division holding the front against an entire Soviet Army. Once the Soviet Union had the initiative, it also had the fuel to shift ist forces and create superiority at the points they attacked. The russians are not stupid after all. So, it was a fact that the individual german infantryman saw quite more russians coming at him as he had comrades in his company. Another common thread was that the soldiers in the frontline were very short on amminition and equipment. But there was something I dont hear nowadays which seems to have been forgotten. They told me then, when they had to retreat from superior attacking soviet forces, a few kilometers behind the now overrun Frontline they came upon supply depots full of the stuff they had desperatey lacked in the frontline trenches, but was now blown up and/or put to the torch by the support units which started to run as soon as they heard that the frontline was broken. Including maintenance yards full of vehicles of all kinds which were not operational for some reason. It went even so far that retreating infantry Units which were out of ammo were denied ammo by depot commanders (because lack of orders) just before that depot got blown up to keep it from falling into Soviet hands.
Therefore, it sems to me that the Wehrmacht had a basic problem of distributing the supplies to those units which actually needed them. And also that because of lack of fuel and motorized transport the germans were failing to counterattack quickly enough when the Soviets attacked. Instead by the stories I have heard from the soldiers who were actually there, once the russians managed to get through the frontlines it became a chaos of routing support units and desperate stop gag actions. And burning depots full of unused Equipment and ammunition.
The German Wehrmacht had technical superiority over the Soviets ONLY in the summer of 1941. If Stalin kept his main Soviet armies dug in on the old 1939 border fortifications, with reformed smaller rifle divisions and armor brigades, the German Wehrmacht would have suffered terrible casualties trying to reach Leningrad, Moscow or Rostov. However, Timoshenko's and Zhukov's military reforms still had major impacts at the battle of Moscow in 1941. The Soviets had superiorty in winter technology. Soviet equipment guns, tanks, automatic weapons worked well in minus 30 Celsius temperatures with winterized lubricants. Soviet soldiers had excellent warm quilted winter uniforms, fur lined caps, good winter boots, gloves with white winter camouflagued suits for most frontline infantry units. The Soviet Army started getting equipped with many thousands more excellent antitank rifles in the PTRD 14.5x114mm antitank rifles and tens of thousands more Ppsh-41 submachine guns. Soviet tank brigades started using ambush tactics against against German Wehrmacht armor.
Soviet antiaircraft aircraft artillery and machine guns took a significant toll on German Luftwaffe aircraft. So significant German losses really started impacting the German Wehrmacht performance at the battle of Moscow. Soviet Mig fighter planes shot down good numbers of Luftwaffe bombers with barrage balloon and fire brigade teams trained to minimize fire damage. Moscow was never very heavily damaged due to the excellent Soviet civil defense units. The minus 30 below weather hurt Germany but they should have known Russia gets cold in winter. No excuse for German deficiencies exist except German arrogance and logistical snafu's.
The reformed Soviet rifle divisions of about 9,500 soldiers were easier for inexperienced officers to command. Soviet infantry rifle brigdes of about 3,600 men were also streamlined for easier mass production, command in combat. These streamlined rifle divisions received many more machine pistols, light machine guns, antitank rifles, and 82mm battalion mortars and 120mm regimental mortars. The new streamlined Soviet rifle divisions had three regiments of infantry and a regiment of 72mm and 122mm guns, 45mm antitank guns and mortars organized in a regiment. These streamlined rifle divisions had plenty firepower but their smaller size made ease of deployment highly effective in defensive battles of late 1941 and 1942.
Soviet artillery was the main reason for the Wehrmacht's eventual defeat. Soviet artillery organiized in divisions allowed their firepower to concentrate on breakthrough fronts. The Soviets were highly successful in their concentrations of artillery and katyusha rocket batteries. The Soviet artillery barrages pulverized German Wehrmacht defenders with as many as 300 guns and mortars per kilometer of breakthrough front. The Soviets developed self propelled SU-Guns in large numbers in 1943 onwards. These self propelled artillery guns went right with the tank and infantry rifle divison teams to smother German Wehrmacht defenders with high explosives when and where rifle commanders needed them. The main reason the Soviets defeated the Germans was those SU-guns, artillery divisions, and mortars organic to the rifle brigades amd rifle divisions. Walter S. Dunn has some good books on the Soviet Army in the Stackpole Military history series.
In another of your videos, you explain how the German lack of oil triggered the 1941 Barbarossa attack and also how German failure to capture the Grozny/Baku oilfields ensured that Germany would lose WWII.
So......
Remembering that modern warfare is so reliant upon oil, how can you (in the video above) not relate this increasing oil shortage to Germany's dwindling WWII kill ratio ?
Yes the post-1941 attacking Panzer spearheads were seriously handicapped ed by lack of fuel, but in identical fashion; Germany's post-1942 defensive infantry were also crippled in the same way. When encircled by the advancing Soviet forces, being reduced to marching speed (4mph ? ) rather than the 30/40mph speed when travelling in trucks/half-tracks is obviously a critically important disadvantage.
How could you start making a good point and then messing up so bad?
A DEFENSIVE INFANTRY MOVING AT 4MPH IS ALREADY TOO FAST. They are infantry and they need to DEFEND a position. They don't need to move like crazy.
Also, oil handicap was not so severly bad on the Eastern Front. The reason why Oil Was a huge problem in northern Africa was because UK would sink most of the German supply ships. Yes, Germany had a huge oil deficit, but they would try to compensate for it off front, at a logistical level, like marching, using less the navy etc, rather than on front.
@@nottoday3817 If they are going to be encircled they better get moving dumbass, this isn't medieval combat where you can safely hole out in a castle and defend, there's artillery and aerial raids to factor in. Defending a position of any sort with just infantry while being shelled by artillery non-stop and facing an airforce is just not practical.
I think your missing the point, a lack of oil makes the German army less superior? Which proves his point? Idk what your trying to say here that everyone should have been alloted the same amount of oil for a fair fight?
An army on the defense dont use anywhere near as much oil as an army on the attack. Once the germans went on the defense, they had enough oil for what they were trying to do.
how about the bombing of the germans civilians from usa and brits wasnt that 1943
In the movie The Enemy at the Gate:
They have to share rifles between three;
Their commander use full auto weapon to gun down retreating soldiers.
Yeah, that makes A LOT OF sense...
That's how the west indoctrinates its people
Only 1 out of 3 Soviet soldier can carry a rifle to battle
Because the other 2 carry PPSh and DP :))
The “horde” point whilst a bit stupid to debate needs defending I feel as that was clearly the experience of many Germans. An overall manpower ratio of 2 or 3 to 1 in the field means that if you have 1 to 1 ratio on 80pct of the front, then you will have exactly the “hordelike” ratio of 10 to 1 on the offensive sectors of your choosing! And exactly what the Germans there saw. There is no contradiction here.
In several historical military studies, it was mentioned that attackers must out number defenders by at least 3:1 to ensure victory. So looking at this historically, at 1.52:1, the Germans were already dramatically outnumbered so it must have felt like hoards of dug in Russian troops. It looks like the Germans were pretty stupid to try this without 3x or more troops. The fact that the Germans did so well is a testament to the quality of their technology/troops. My Dad was in WW2, and he said the Germans "were good, too good".
Were the Germans outnumbered? The population of the Soviet Union was smaller than Germany with the occupied territories, Italy, Romania and Hungary.
What's funny about this is that you answered all your rhetorical questions about why the German army couldn't do as much after 1941 in another video where you talked about the oil shortage.
The thing is, that what I'm saying in this video is still true. People may not be agreeing with me (and I may not have presented it as well as I could have) but what I'm saying is true. The German and Soviet soldiers were equal adversaries. The Germans though, outnumbered the Soviets at the beginning of hte war, and the Soviets outnumbered the Germans from December 1941 onwards. Coupled with the oil crisis, it explains why the Germans were ultimately defeated.
(for anyone else reading this wondering about the oil video - here's the link ruclips.net/video/kVo5I0xNRhg/видео.html )
@@TheImperatorKnight Have to disagree with you there. The evidence you presented clearly shows that the Germans inflicted more damage then they received. Does that not suggest that they were, in fact, of a higher quality than their enemy? If not, why not? How does being out numbered (for most of the war) yet inflicting more casualties than they are taking indicate that one's foe is actually your equal?
If I score better on a test than my classmate by 2 to 1, how does that indicate that he is my equal on the tested subject?
I was thinking the same thing lol. He completely contradicts himself in several instances. Thats what happens when you are a video blogger who has to keep on coming up with videos that stand out. No one wants to hear the same old fact repeated, they want “ myth busting” and to be told how wrong everyone has been until now. Sorry but this war was well hashed out before TIK was even born. Just because you read a new book doesn’t change the general facts.
@Type 36 Hachimoto Though the Soviets may have had numerical superior from 1943 on, it could hardly be argued that Germany was unprepared to be attacked as was the case for the USSR in June 1941. For this reason alone, you cannot say that the USSR should have achieved the same kill:loss ratios as the Germans did in the initial stages of Barbarossa.
I do agree though with the main point that the Germans demonstrated technical superiority to the USSR over the course of the war given the constraints under which they operated. It isnt like the Soviet army was aggressively seeking to limit losses in the field when they gained the initiative so I dont even think that metric is very useful for evaluating performance.
Ultimately, it is a futile (and stupid) exercise to play the "which army performed better" game because the political aspects of the war determined how the armies would fight to a great extent. You certainly see that playing out in the capture of Berlin where the Red Army took horrific losses because Stalin made a game out of which general would take the capital.
@@BaldexSoldier You compare marks with troops
Thats your score
it doesnt relate
Good video. Statistics and real figures often show that reality is different from common belief. Would you be able to provide a similar study on the Italian Army in WW2. I think i would be interesting comparing the initial failures at the beginning of the war, in particular in Greece, with the performance achieved under Rommel in 1942 and the final struggule in Tunisia in 1943. Thanks
Watched the video, read the comments section. I don't think anybody has disproved the myth of German superiority on the Eastern front, and yet everybody seems to be accusing anyone who dares to say so of being a nazi, or a nazi sympathizer. All politics aside, here are some points to consider:
1. The German army still had inflicted somewhere between 2 and 3 times as many casualties over the course of the entire war than the Soviets inflicted on them. 2-3x superiority is still superiority, and killing two to three enemies for each of your dead is a substantial gap no matter how you explain it/choose to trivialize it. There really is no reason to take this away from the German army just because a lot of loud, obnoxious nazi fanboys exaggerate the numbers, or because you disagree with their toxic ideology.
2.Germany ran out of oil partway into its war with the Soviet Union as TIK himself has discussed in an excellent video titled something like "the real reason Germany lost WWII". Honestly this may be a significant reason (if not the main reason) for the lackluster performance of the German army after their initial offensive, rather than an increase in Soviet troops on the front. It is at least a factor that needs to be considered as a possible third variable - it definitely is important enough that it needed to be mentioned in a 30+ minute video before you totally dismiss early German successes as a mere reflection of a lack of Soviet troops on the front. There are honestly a lot of factors at play here, and I really don't think anybody can sensibly claim to be certain of how Germany would have fared without major fuel shortages restricting their operations (this really seems to be a speculative albeit interesting question that historians will not be able to definitively answer) - the Germans might have just continued killing mountains of Soviet troops so long as they had the fuel to actually conduct broad offensives across the whole front unhindered, rather than having to localize and basically give up on the war of movement.
3. Admitting that the German army is "superior" in this one, limited, and almost completely insignificant regard does not make you a nazi or a nazi sympathizer, it is what a sober assessment of the facts will lead any reasonable person to conclude. The germans have a higher quality army than the soviets - they have very little manpower, so obviously they would prioritize quality more than the Soviets - was this ever really even a serious question? The soviets don't need to care about kill to death ratios or having particularly high quality, well equipped and especially well-trained troops in the same way the Germans do, because the Soviets have a nearly inexhaustible supply of manpower (and know it). In any case, it seems basically correct to say that the German army was statistically better when it came to casualties (not that it helped them win the war or anything). Nothing in the video has at all contradicted this, so I'm not sure why TIK (or any of the rest of you) are patting yourselves on the back for "disproving the myth of german superiority". The best you really did is disprove the myth of 10:1 German superiority, which is not quite the same thing.
Best and most balanced comment I have read yet (including my own).
What superiority? If one army managed to give machine gun to every platoon while the other have to use sub machinegun as substitute and you throw both of them in a pit and the sub machine gun army win which one of them are superior?
Well said: I came here to make the points you made, but I think you've done a better job than I would have done.
Impeccably researched? he used one table from one source....Statistics from the Eastern front vary to a very great degree especially from the USSR side and even the German statistics are not terribly reliable as a huge amount of first source documents were destroyed in the battle for Berlin.
After 1943 the German-Soviet kill death rate was 1:1.
7:19 when you say this excludes civilian death and accounts only the deaths of those in the Red Army does that count Partisan Forces or are those counted as civilian life?
Dear Tik, I noticed that you are using OKH instead of OKW(as it was at the time). Why?
Because the Germans did not have unified command. The Eastern front was the responsibility of OKH (army high command, with Hitler in charge after he sacked Brauchitsch for not winning in 1941), whereas other theaters were OKW (armed forces high command) responsibility. I guess another form of divide and conquer (rule)
OKW is Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, High Command of the Armed Forces. Overall main command.
OKH is Oberkommando des Heeres, High Command of the Army/Ground Forces. Just the guys on the ground.
OKW is technically higher than OKH, because it commanded all branches: Heeres/OKH(Ground Forces), Kriegsmarine(Navy), and Luftwaffe(Airforce).
Pre-Barbarossa they all worked together to subdue Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, Greece ,Yugoslavia, etc.
But on the Eastern Fron OKH had most of responibility due to land being the main area of operations, while defense of the Reich from other directions became a major obective too. Therefore Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine units in the East were assigned directly under the command of OKH, while still being administratively separate entities under OKW->Kriegsmarine and OKW->Luftwaffe administration.
Initially Hitler was the head of OKW, Fieldmarsshal Brauchitsch was the head of OKH, Grossadmiral Raeder was head of Kriegsmarine, and Reichsmarschal Goring was head of Luftwaffe.
But after the defeat at Moscow Hitler wanted to control his forces more, so he deposed Brauchistch and became also the head of OKH.
Eventually OKH was given the command on the Eastern Front altogether(as it pretty much already had it all there anyway).
OKW on the other hand commanded everywhere else - Heeres units everywhere other than Eastern Front went under their direct command from that point.
Pretty much at first one was subordinate to the other, then they split for OKW being West command and OKH being East command.
Just weird Nazi management reorganization, don't bother much.
I wonder if 1.1k people bothered to check your sources before hitting the disklike
Not only did they not check their sources, they also didn't watch more than 5 minutes into the video. Half the stuff they complained about is things I addressed in the video. The only thing I didn't mention was that the Soviet Union in 1942 had a smaller population than Germany and Italy alone (nevermind the rest of the Axis) so the Soviets couldn't have afforded to send "waves" of riflemen to their deaths.
TIK They did have a larger population.
Its not worth to even watch more than 5 minutes of the utter bullshit you are talking. You are just some silly Brits with anti-German resentments. Nothing more, nothing less.
@@harisminfaris Fuck off Wehraboo
The big takeaway for me is how much Germany was able to do with such limited resources.
Mate, also give a long description of your videos - some of us like to get a background on what we're gonna see, especially when your videos are so thoroughly detailed.
A 1:1.7 or 1:3 ratio may not constitute “hordes” in your book, but I think this parity was written off as insignificant or unimpressive far too flippantly in this presentation. Those differences are actually HUGE! Imagine a soccer game where one team has 10 players on the field while the other team has 17! Being that out-manned, I, too, would probably describe the 17-man team as having “hordes” of players.
100% agree with this comment. while factually correct this video is presented in a very biased manor. he even referred to the war as the great patriotic war which how the russians refer to it
@@daraghdalton956 if you watch him at all, he is almost never biased. I’d say he is one of the realest historians out there.
@@jonvro4022 since leaving this comment i started watching alot of his videos and i have to say i agree with you but in regards to this video i think his take is biased. He presents a kill to loss ratio of 3:1 as being unimpressive which considering what the Wehrmacht were dealing with i just disagree with that sentiment. Also as i said calling it the great patriotic war betrays a little bias
German/Soviet deaths according to Stephen G. Fritz "Ostkrieg" pp. 496.
1941 - 302,495 vs 2,993,803 | 1:9.90
1942 - 506,815 vs 2,993,536 | 1:5.91
1943 - 700,635 vs 1,977,127 | 1:2.82
1944 - 1,232,946 vs 1,412,335 | 1:1.15
1945 - 1,427,398 vs 631,633 | 2.26:1
Total - 4,170,289vs10,008,434 | 1:2.40
Source: Overmans, Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg, 238, 278; Glantz and House, When Titans Clashed, 292.
Maxim Jochim That is additional 959,000 deaths [350,000 Hungarians; 45,000 Italians; 480,000 Romanians; 84,000 Finns] + 766,800 POWs [513,700 Hungarians; 48,900 Italians; 201,800 Romanians; 2,400 Finns]
Source: Earl F. Ziemke, From Stalingrad to Berlin: The German Defeat in the East (Washington D.C., U.S. Army Center of Military History, 1968), 213- 214, 412.
G. F. Krivosheev, Grij sekretnosti sniat: Poteri vooruzhennykh sil SSSR v voinakh, boevykh deistviiakh i voennykh konfliktakh [Losses of the armed forces of the USSR in wars, combat actions, and military conflicts] (Moscow: Voenizdat, 1993), 384-392
David Glantz “When Titans Clashed” Appendixes (online pdf version).
All combined it goes as:
5.1 million dead
vs 8.7-10 million dead (1:1.6 or 1:1.9)
With equal POVs (around 4/5 mln. each) and not difficult to guess how the POWs/dead was balanced there to which side.
But you know, man, it was just cold, just cold, Napoleon and Carelux and plenty of them nearly every century or twice a century told me so as well.
I work in corporate offices in finance and accounting and it is so easy for numbers and discrepancies with companies operating with 200 people in the field. I can only imagine how crazy hard it would be to have accurate reporting for an army of 8 million plus men and all that material. I am not surprised there would be issues like you show in the panzer numbers.
The issue is people will take whatever statistics show that Russia lost badly. Reality is not something they are interested in, they would rather back Nazis than even consider something Russian which is pathetic
My Physical Therapist mother visited Soviet rehabilitation facilities well after the war. They were huge. It’s not just the KIA, but the 2nd and 3rd order effects, too.
Or the impact of millions of dead men on women and families.
Not quite TIK, beign outnumbered 2-1 over a large front means that the enemy can easily concentrate huge numbers of forces at their main point of effort. That said I do respect your work and efforts and the video was great to watch overall.
Excellent presentaion. Love the myth-busting. Another myth you might want to address, given your sources: "The Russians could not have won the war without Allied Lend-Lease."
I've addressed this myth myself, having found one excellent source which shows the month by month arrival of Allied Lend Lease. Several important facts.
1. We can say that the Germans were more or less strategically defeated by March, 1943.
2. By that month, only about 10% of the Allied Lend Lease which would be shipped to the USSR in the course of the entire war had been delivered.
3. The total of Allied Lend Lease represented anywhere between 5% to about 15% of total Soviet production capacity during the period. (Estimates vary, and given the nature of shipments, for example Spam, their impact and relevance often hard to measure).
4. This means that by March, 1943, Allied Lend Lease represented only less than 1% of Soviet production capacity - not enough to make a significant impact of any kind, and certainly not enough to lend credit to the notion of Lend Lease being critical to victory.
5. What mattered, of course, were the trucks. The number of trucks delivered in 1943 and especially in 1944, were in fact a significant proportion of Soviet truck output, and provided a certain degree of mobility to the infantry. In my opinion, this shortened the war by a couple of months (the amount of time it would take unmotorized infantry to march from Smolensk to Berlin).
Looking forward to an excellent presentation from you on Lend Lease.
It's funny that it doesn't take a lot of research to establish this. And the key is the timeliness of it. Sure, the Red Army would not have got to Berlin by March 1945 without 400,000 Studebaker trucks but they would have got there eventually.
@@thethirdman225 Yep
The USSR never had to necessarily produce trucks
it needed aircraft
reliable enough tanks aka A t-34 that can serve in a battle be damaged or knocked out and just be repaired and put back
and ofcourse the most important thing being towed and self propelled artillery
Trucks were very important and the USA with its industry never having been effected had covered
which is still pretty unrealistic in todays world
but they achieved all that somehow
pretty dang impressive
great vids mate...keep up the good work...
Did you have any comments on Nigel Askey's Oct 2017 rebuttal to your argument? (I may have missed it).
?
@@hugomuller9373 www.operationbarbarossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Essay-alt-view-TIK-presentation.pdf
@@jamponyexpress7956 thanks
ruclips.net/video/-zwq1w9BV2g/видео.html
To be sure admirers of the Wehrmacht since the close of WWII have engaged in a bit of hyperbole and exaggeration with respect to tactical performance and abilities juxtapose to the Red Army, but I've got to say unfortunately that I'm rather surprised at TIK's conclusions based on the research he has done and think his rationale and thinking is a bit off here. I am equally surprised at the rhetorical question he asks about why the Germans failed so miserably to capture key objectives such as Moscow in '41 and Kursk again in '43. I won't even bother answering these questions as we all in here know why. Look there's no question that by the end of the war the Soviet infantryman, tank crews, combat engineers, rifleman, artillerist, et al were highly capable soldiers that any country would want. The USSR had closed much of the proficiency gaps between the Red Army and the Wehrmacht, but if you step back and assess the whole enchilada I don't see how you can't come to the conclusion that man for man the Germans, despite losing, were the better of the two. I know that "mythbusting" draws viewers and I'll concede that through the decades following WWII the capabilities and competencies of the Wehrmacht have been significantly inflated to what some would describe as mythic proportions but serious research will show that said myth is grounded in solid factual evidence.
Yes said well but the video explains the myth between a 3 to 1 ratio versus the fantasy told of 12 to 1 we all know german soldiers on average did better buy we also know russia adapted and won
I'm a new sub of yours, so I just wanna tell you that I like your videos and I suggest you not to be discouraged because of what happened right here. I'm kind of amazed to see how much hate you got from this video. Try to interact less with hateful comments. Keep up the good work.
Thank you! I'm greatful for your comment because it is frustrating to read so many bitter comments. That said, the hate reminds me to stay on my toes and keep producing quality videos. And I do intend to return to this topic in the future, and hit it with a vengence
May I ask, what do you mean by "unprepared for war". everybody keep saying that but what does that mean?
I don't know what the author means. However, I can offer you a poetic comparison. It's like a boxer with the fists unclenched and the arms just hanging along the body. The USSR missed the first punch and was knocked down. The Soviets were not unprepared-unprepared, like Incas for the Spaniards unprepared. They were Americans in Pearl Harbour unprepared. Just unfocused and disorganized enough to miss the first blow.
One of the best finds on RUclips! Keep up the good work TIK!
As well as the stuff you mentioned, in 1941 the Germans had a huge tactical intelligence advantage, because LW reconnaissance planes, of which they still had many, had been systemtically photographing the whole front up to a 100 miles deep for months, unmolested because of Stalin's trust in Hitler's promises in the Ribentrop-Molotov pact and his refusal to be drawn into hostilities by any alleged "provocation". The Red Air Force was almost entirely wiped out in the west in the first few days as all the air fields were attacked heavily as the first order of business. Soviet production did make good the losses, on the same timescale as the tank losses, but their aircraft technology was inferior, with weaker engines and almost no radios. They only gained air parity after British nightly bomber raids on Germany began, causing Hitler to order most of the fightrers back to Germany for bomber interception. Without that air supremacy, and without sufficient reconnaissance planes, which Germany virtually stopped building, whereas they had been a large proprtion of the Luftwaffe in 1939, meant the Germans lost that tactical intelligence on Soviet dispositions and movements, and of course they never got much from spies or codebreaking, because of Nazi disdain for both slavic civilians and nerds.
there was also the fact that the soviets had no aircraft that could fly high enough to intercept the Ju-86
Not really, though. Soviets did have largely obsolete and ill-maintained aircraft in the beginning, but once they introduced IL-2's and Yak-1's, they started gaining quite a momentum in air superiority. IL-2 aka "Black Death" was especially feared by and effective against German armor divisions. The Yak-1 was in many ways superior to the Bf-109. FW190 was an impressive war bird indeed, but it wasn't allmighty and it did have some considerable downsides compared to its adversaries.
What you say makes no sense
Mostly true, though despite the western Allies' bombing campaign, the vast majority of the Luftwaffe - including fighters, were still deployed in the east. They needed them. Just look at the balance of air forces on D-Day. A couple hundred fighters at best vs about 13,000 Allied aircraft - because by 1944 the Luftwaffe needed everything in the east to even contest the air at that point.
Andrew Oosterbaan On D-Day landings the Luftwaffe wasn't even present
You missed some basic and obvious facts which is why it has so many dislikes. It's that simple.
This guy is a bitter little Bolshevik clown, who cannot stand the fact that his Bolshevik boys were utterly crushed until the saturation of wrongly gotten Jewish capital, materials, equipment, armaments, food, and CASH turned the tide on an ill-prepared for winter and supply squelched German offensive.
“Wrongly gotten” actually good way to describe what the Germans did stealing all the possessions the Jews owned. Video probably has so many dislikes bc idiot Nazi losers can’t understand facts and numbers.
Great channel and great work, thank you.
The biggest reason the tide of the casualty ratios turned is because the Germans lost air superiority and didn’t have even close to as many tanks at that point either. Their industrial capacity was crippled by constant bombing, while the Soviet industrial capacity only increased as the war went on, because despite the lightning fast devastating onslaught of the beginning of the war, they were able to successfully evacuate almost all of their factory equipment and manpower to the east.
Allowing that was one of the Wehrmacht’s biggest failures. So in the later war years it was mostly formations of inexperienced, under-trained German infantry fighting against hordes of Soviet tanks and planes without sufficient respective support.
When a country outnumbers another country across the entire front by 3 or 4 to 1, then the concentration of superiority in the battle area is likely to be 10 to 1----as per the traditional narrative. Also to be considered is the effect on strategic mobility of one side "outnumbering" the other side in oil. Remember oil, TIK? Oil helped strategic concentrations as well----it wasn't only the railroads that were used.
This video is flawed in its arguments.
Yes Andrew, the video is very flawed in its arguments. How'd be Tik so incompetent?
@@alwillis5817 I think TIK gets annoyed at "Wehraboos" and it drives him to make weak arguments that he thinks they won't like. He should just ignore them.
@@andrewdolokhov5408 Tik on the one hand speaks as one who had lived at the OKW (Chancellery), but on the other hand, for example, he says incredible things such as when he accused the entire 6 army (bunch of criminals) but not their leader (excellent commander).
Hi Tik, just having viewed Operation Typhoon and the 1941 Battle for Moscow - John Suprin, Sept 2014, he gives some numbers that are interesting. Of particular interest to me where the pockets of soviet troops that where encircled in 1941 during the German advance east.
1. Bialystock/Minsk 340 ,000
2. Smolensk 310,000
3. Uman 460,000
4.Kiev 610,000
5 Bryansk/Vyazma 658,000
that is just shy of 3mil.
John Superin also goes on to state that it was Soviet strategic philosophy that they would need to replace their entire force structure in 8- 10 weeks. He also gives starting figures for Germans at 140 divisions 2.5 mil and the soviets at 170 div 2.9 mil, Divisions Soviet and German in June 1941 both being around 17,000 strong Soviets having about 5mil men in uniform in June 1941. Also with trained reserves at 14.5 mil. This all appears to support an overwhelming superiority in the Soviet camp.
I can't vouch for Suprin's sources, but I have seen roughly these figures quoted by many authors.
Now I am trying to reconcile these two sets of numbers.
I see your sources.
Could you set out a possible explanation of how these two sets of figures have come into being, given that all your sources are available (presumably ) to all other researchers. Do you think that in time, once more sources become available and a new body of research by researchers, that are not so close to the Germans is undertaken and published that they will look more like your figures? Basically how do you account for the numbers discrepancy at this time?
1. The pocket in Kiev is 460k, not 610.
2. Correlation of forces on the eastern front:
First echelon.
Axis - 4.572.700 (Germany - 3.718.500, Allies - 854.200).
USSR - 3.262.851
Second echelon.
Axis - 469.400 (Germany - 331.500, Allies - 137.900).
USSR - 618.700
Total:
Axis - 5.042.100
USSR - 3.881.551
Something doesn't add up in this video.
I love Tik but he's telling us, in effect, not to trust as entirely reliable the German general’s accounts who authored papers & autobiographies in the early and mid 50-60s as well as other German sources. That's right as far as it goes b/c autobiographies by many generals, and common soldiers, tend to embellish their roles and even lie. But he wants us to believe comparative sources from Russia and people like Glantz, and left-wing German historians who are famous for not accepting and downplaying German sources and accepting Russian accounts & data. Why are soviet & Russian sources any more reliable than German since many of them also come from Russian generals and Russian archives? Most of the ‘newly released’ Russian archives and data were amassed during the soviet era and papers & histories published during that period were notoriously unreliable. Don’t get me wrong, maybe Tik is right but IMO, the numbers don’t add up. I admit, even though I’ve read hundreds of books and monographs on this subject I don’t know all the answers, or even many of them.
Let’s wait & see. Meanwhile I'll do some studying on both German & Russian sources and if wrong will apologize openly to Tik.
Love your videos btw very informative your clearly well versed on ww2 subject matter
Would benefit if it had Zemskov's estimates discussed. He performed the most detailed research on soviet losses.
Anyway very interesting, thank you.
Can you give a link pls. Interested
@@alexanderbenkendorf688 military.wikia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union#Estimates_by_Russians_published_in_the_West_1950-1983
you defiantly make some of the best military documentary's on youtube also thanks for the topic, besides "The Soviet-German War, 1941-1945: Myths and Realities" nobody truly touched this side
It's a great video - I linked to it in the last video. For anyone curious, here is the link ruclips.net/video/5qkmO7tm8AU/видео.html
besides spain/sweden and occupied norway turkey was a big source of rear materials till close to the end for germany
Ya just leave out everything later on in the war like, faulty munitions from slave labors that saw a chance for freedom, totally depleted supplies, factories, etc... ya at the start lol they were wrecking.
it was a part of it and on both sides, if you look deep in to statistics and even more importantly eye witnesses of major battles the soviets had a breakdown ration in some battles of 30-50% in terms of heavy equipment that got better as the war went on while germanys got worse, also a part of bad planning in term of germany if germany was serious about winning the war then the whole "exterminate the jews gypsy s etc." should have waited AFTER the war was won, the extermination campaign picked up speed in 42 when things got slowly worse and worse and now germany was diverting serious logistical capacity's and industrial capacity's AWAY from the war that they were loosing and in to mass extermination
*definitely *documentaries - sorry couldn't help myself
Eastory visualizes this really well in their animated maps series. You can clearly see that along the aggregate, the Germans and Soviets have a lot of parity in forces deployed right up till 1943 or so, and this is particularly so even at a 1:1 or 1:1.5 ratio when you break down the front lines. Yet that is not where all the soldiers are deployed. When you break them down further to the division level, you can clearly see the concentration of forces along the planned axis of advance. Needless to say, the offensive force usually had greater men concentrated along their planned axis of advance when they won, outflanked and encircled the enemy. This is true of both the German and Red Army offensives that succeed. Thus, I don't think its too far a stretch to say that the individual field commander will feel that he is massively outnumbered, especially if he is at the point of penetration. This is probably what gives rise all the myths, since all a soldier would see psychologically is miles of the enemy.
I believe TIK also shows in later videos that with the resources and equipment available by Fall Blau, the war still looked winnable with the resources present.
So for the whole year of 1943 Germans had 113000 of their soldiers captured, but only at Stalingrad 91000 Germans were captured, so for the whole rest of the year only 22000 were captured. Thats quite unbelievable considering they were losing.
"By January 1941..." Typo here because the Eastern Campaign only started in June of 1941... Love your work!😎
Probably means January 1942.
dude why so many dislikes on your videos?
your points are valid and right on point
wehraboos are mad
I love your videos TIK, but on this one I have to respectfully disagree.
By the way - where are you from (not Liverpool, but somewhere close I think). Crosby?
I confess to having not known the facts before your video, thanks for the detailed upload.
However I'm still a little confused.
Is it right then to say that the Soviets early on had equal generals on average despite the prewar purges and equal quality of soldiers despite experience differences?
Soldier quality the Soviet always better because they are not bound by Versailles. in fact the soviet only have to mobilize their reserve while Germans have to issue general conscription. Average soviet soldier are reservist while average German soldier are conscript. New soviet conscript have 6 months of training while new German coscript have 3 months of training.
Officer quality Soviet have it worst because of the purge. They literally kill low-mid-high officer and replace it with useless party member. They eventually replaced by soldier who distinguished themselves in battle and this is why you never see stunning Soviet ace because they leave battlefield and became officer as soon they got those medals.
Despite your sometimes weird politics, I really enjoy your thorough and well-sourced analysis videos.
Why is TIK’s view on politics weird? Hitler was a socialist. He was not a right winger. Hence, that is why all of the comparisons to Trump to Hitler. I’m Not a Republican so why was Trump compared to Hitler. Hitler’s ideology was left wing socialism. Plain and simple. He hated capitalism and Jews. Both are facts. Is that what you find weird? Just curious. Not attacking you. Just want to know what is weird.
@@michaelsage4599 Mostly because it's weird taking such a reductionist and simplistic approach to such a complex question. The totalitarian ideologies of the 30s had both some common themes and some differences. Anyway - just to scratch the surface of the discussion: www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/europe#wiki_how_socialist_was_national_socialism.3F - an example: www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cwh8pi/were_nazis_socialists/eyblwvo/
Total Soviet Military Deaths - 8.6 million (More than 3 million POWs dead)
Total Axis Military Deaths - Between 5 - 6 million (Less Than 1 Million POWs dead)
Superior only in killing POWs
These numbers are all wrong.
@Ajb Ajb I'm not dyslexic, I'm an idiot XD
@Ajb Ajb sorry I think I was to tired to realise what bullshit I'm typing.
How many russian soldiers Stalin used as cannon fodder and unequipped?
On the question regarding why Germans do not advance in 41 despite being slightly outnumbered you may consider 3 factors:
- Do they have enough gasoline to really play their manœuver play and circumvent Moscow?
- attackers of a city need to outnumber by a large number to succeed as the defendant has the advantage
- Germans were miles from their base with extended supply chains when Russians were close to their core with good supply chain.
Something is wrong. At 10'51'' it says the Germans had suffered 917 k casualties by 31/1/1941. But they only invaded the USSR in June 1941.
How come I have just come across this channel? Exactly what a history nerd like me wants! Very intellectual arguments, well backed up with factual research. I love the level of detail (troop numbers, dispersal, ratio etc.) Very rare to get a decent historian who really knows what they are talking about (recent History Channel docs come to mind). There are only three or four really good military history channels on youtube and this is one of them. Don't fully agree with everything you say but you present an intelligent case and I am open to be educated haha! I will be subscribing on patreon very soon. Thumbs up mate and keep putting out the quality content ☺
It's alright if you don't agree with me. I don't expect you too. So long as you can make some good counter-arguments ;) not sure if you've seen my Battlestorm documentaries, but they'll probably right up your street
Exactly. Only superior numbers and surprise drove the Axis advance. Once both if those turned slowly, the Germans were crushed.
the germans simply had less reserves of raw material needed to feed a war machine. the soviets were fine not just in manpower but in resources that were growing as the war progressed. although the numbers of men seem equal, more russians are able to be mobilized and fitted to fight than the germans, thus it feeling like there were constant waves of Russians
I just want to say to TIK. I watched most of your Documentaries and love them all. I have read many Books on WW2 (1939 - 1945). And learned alot. But I gained more Knowledge by also watching your Videos. I believe that the main Point of WW2, would then be......"How close the Germans came in Winning the War. And if Hitler let his Generals run it, the way they wanted to, they would of Won."! Having read alot about WW2, I came up with the Strategy that if the then Germans used, then they would of Won. All it needed was ,Time, Strategy and bringing the USA into the War in December 1943. Were it would of been ok, if the USA never got involved. I want to thank you, for your Excellent Documentaries and if you get more info, put it here so we all can hear and learn. Take care Always.🍷🍾🍫
Too be a truly professional historian you have to look at history from both sides not take a stance that’s how history gets confused and ends up repeating itself we have an moral imperative to be neutral when it comes to history.
Why do you call the Red (then Soviet) Army Russians?
They were Soviets (many nations).
@@ronrontall6370 They did have a problem with people calling them Russians - it is just something westerners do (and did) but not them. And no, maybe half of the entire population were Russians, not 2/3. And lead by Russians? Well, let's say that if you called Stalin "a Russian", you could kiss your sweet ass goodbye. Many political and military leaders were not Russian - they represented more or less the diversity of a nation. So, half were Russian.
So, just because westerners got used to calling the entire population of USSR Russians, it does not mean that they too accepted it, nor did they particularly liked it. Non-Russians for obvious reasons, and Russians themselves did not like it when you equalize them all in that way. That is why they were always considered Soviets by foreigners with two working brain cells and their own people.
Yeah, ukrainians were fighting for hitler for instance...
@@andykims1877 Im not Ukrainian.
@@Wustenfuchs109 %
Tik, don't you have other videos highlighting the dire fuel situation that the Wehmacht faces in the later-stages of the war? Shouldn't that be taken into consideration when viewing their later inabiility to defend themselves against a more numerous enemy?
IMPORTANT: TIK note how at 31:03 you said that on 01/07/1943 Germans had 11,447 but at 35:17 for 01/07/1943 you said they had 7,798, you used tank numbers for 01/11/1942. Besides that in your other video Soviet War-Wining Tanks at 21:02 you showed a picture where on 01/07/1943 Germans had 7,505 tanks instead of 11,447.
Oversimplification. Of course if i have 10 times as many tanks and air superiority, the numbers will change. You simply cannot only look at those numbers and come to conclusions, you have to take much more into account.