The Sherman was not really a peice of crap. When it entered the war it was on par with the panzer III and IV. By late 1943 and 1944, it was obsolete. You can say the exact same thing for the Panzer I, II, III and IV. they were good when they first hit the field, but soon became obsolete. It was easyer for the western allies to produce mass numbers of shermans, then delay the war and wait for new tanks. America had Tank Hunters Doctrine, so Shermans were never designed for Tank on Tank action.
Total Russian casualties in Kursk was 1,040,000 dead and wounded and sick, along with 7,700-8,000 tanks and TD's, it was atrocious losses they suffered, Marshall Zhukov was a butcher, he did not care about human life. German total casualties in Kursk for July and August was 257,000 dead and wounded, and 1,100 tanks and TD's lost. The Russians got hammered at Kursk, no doubt, but they still won because Zhukov was willing to expend human lives and resources for success, he was ruthlessly callous
@TheKabzonchik You should be. Russia were the real victors of WW2. Russia destroyed 75% of the German Army during WW2. The only people in the World that think the U.S saved Europe in WW2 are the Americans themselves.
You have to understand that by the summer of 1943 the Germans had lost massive amounts of tanks, men and material that by all intent and purposes could not be replaced. They were surely not defeated before Kursk, but they could not replace the 1 million plus troops they lost in 1941 and the over 1 million troops they lost again in 1942 and materials. Why was Russia able to replace their losses? Because Russia had twice the population of Germany at the time that's why.
This documentary makes it sound like the German's were completely decimated, that's not true, 2 more years of vicious combat lay ahead from July 1943 to May 1945. The Wehrmacht was far from defeated, it was still quite a powerful force to be reckoned with in 1943, the Russians knew that, that's why they did not carry out any more reckless frontal assaults against the Germans. The Russian Red Army and German Wehrmacht were like two heavy weight boxers, beating each other up to utter exhaustion.
NATO "recepy" to fight a possible war against Warsaw Pact forces, on European soil, took a lot from the Germans - developing more and more technologically advanced, very expensive, tanks.
Such "strategy" however, proved to be a failure in WWII, against the Soviet tradition of building cheaper tanks, but with few potentially "winning" characteristics - speed, mobility and - MOST OF ALL - suitable to be produced in sheer numbers.
THEN...what's the point in repeating the same error?
@2serveand2protect One big difference is that NATO wasn't planning on conquering the Soviet Union but on defending (parts of) Western Europe with Germany being the designated war zone. This means the defending tanks wouldn't be spread out too thin nor suffer from long supply lines. Another major difference is the absence of tactical nukes in WWII, which would be deployed on the German battlefields to whittle down the invading Warsaw Pact forces.
So, basically, You're saying that in such a (potential) conflict all tactical doctrines would be simply "useless", since the war would degenerate in any case into a nuclear-strategic conflict? Well, I know that, and admit You're perfectly right...
I was just "wondering"...
Let's suppose there WEREN'T NUCLEAR WARHEADS INVOLVED - would have the NATO defences held ?
@2serveand2protect NATO was planning on the limited use of tactical nukes on its own territory to destroy invading troops, not to start an all out global thermonuclear war by deploying their strategic nukes on Warsaw Pact cities.
Conventional NATO defenses only wouldn't have stood a chance against a Warsaw Pact invasion during the Cold War days. Today the situation has reversed as NATO now has more conventional weapons than Russia and its now Russia that's hoarding the tactical nukes.
However in my opinion starting a nuclear war - even on a small, "tactical" scale - would have IMMEDIATELY made the other part respond with "strategical" nuclear warfare.
Don't forget that the line dividing terms "strategical" or "tactical" nuclear warfare exists in fact only on books - they both refer to the use of basically the same weapon...
It's true that NATO today is stronger in respects to Russia - strategically - with the new NATO countries.
@2serveand2protect I don't think a local nuclear conflict would have triggered a global nuclear war right away, but the risk of a limited nuclear war devolving into an all out global nuclear war is still very real. Basically, if the invading party would give up after its first wave of attacks was reduced to radioactive ashes that would stop the conflict there and then, but if they kept on sending new forces the scale of the war would gradually increase until strategic warfare became inevitable.
How did the German air reconnaissance fail to see all of those defence preparations made by the Soviets? They meticulously planned this battle for months and didn't see anything?! Doesn't make sense.
must have been horrible for the germans watching their elite SS divisons fail against Russian soldiers who never even held a rifle before dying trying to stop the Red army advances
The reason why soviet lost so heavily tanks and assault guns was rather simply: their tankmen were poorly trained and commanded by more or less lousy commanders. Perhaps the main reason for all these were coz Stalin want's more and more bloody offensives. Hitler pulled remarkable many their best independent Abteilungen-armoured units from east to south and France from july 43 to summer 44. It has been estimated that eastern front lost more thant 1/3 of these Abteilungen-units.
Total loss number of Kursk if we trust russian figures:
Soviet: 1 614 totally lost APV's
Germany: 323 totally lost APV's
And these numbers by Frieser:
Soviet: 1 954 (destroyed or captured by germans)
Germany: 323 (destroyed or captured by soviets)
So we got loss rate 1:5 and 1:6. Russians produced 2.2 times more APV's than Germany. So Kursk was hardly at all victory for either Germany or Soviet. It was stopped by Hitler because allied were going to take Italy. Hitler pulled forces to south.
the nazis, eventhough lost the war, they paralized the whole world for 4 years before they fell down. it took 3 strong nations, to fights germany at 3 fronts to take them down. and the allies still lost more. great army the nazis were.
The Germans were only superior at losing & that is why they lost the war.Does anyone need to be reminded that they did lose the war. That was 1 of the best things that had come to mankind just as significant as the Romans getting fat & lazy. 2 world wars were fought because of this shit stained race & I most sincerely hope that all German people die a most horrible death. They should never ever be forgiven in all of human history & when you do meet a German national kick the fucker in the face
@Temp1330 A lot of the problems discussed are somewhat exaggerated. The Panthers and Elephants did have a bad beginning in the first few days, but then the problems were realized and remedied out pretty quick. By the time the Elephants were taken out of the fighting they lost about 40 vehicles and were credited with destroying over 500 Soviet machines. Each of the SS divisions started Kursk with 15 Tiger tanks and that was it for the whole order of battle.
I love how everyone always tries to discredit the Russians by saying they only won because of numbers. That's the same reason the Americans beat the Germans on the Western Front. The American tanks were actually inferior to both the Russian and German ones but they just outnumbered the Germans to win. The USA's best tank of WW2 was the Sherman. Nuff said.
@alieu156 also, russian tanks were superior to germans in many respects. the js-2 for example was able to kill both panthers and tigers at 3000 meters and beyond according to many sources with its high velocity 122mm d25-t gun while its 120mm well sloped hull armour was nearly impervious to the best german tank guns like the panther's 75mm or tigers 88mm. The only tank that was comparable was the king tiger but only 400 of those were built and they came too late and they were also unreliable
@EonFigure It's funny, though I'm not sure you've intentionally meant it. Basically you're blaming the Soviets for fighting a war to their strengths and winning it too. It's all rather silly. If an intruder comes to my home to pilllage it, the intruder better know that I will use my every resource to destroy him. And if my resources are vastly, vastly, superior to his, then all the more foolish of him for violently entering my home in the first place.
@TanoBrati they cared nothing for their soldiers, nor their families...your right it takes a lot of strength to order your soldiers into suicide raids. The soviets were the barbarian hordes of ww2
@EonFigure What families, you camel fuck? Most families were killed when germs came, in small Belarus alone germs burnt 628 villages with all inhabitants alive - people where drawn into barn, locked and set ablaze. Most families were dead when Red Army pushed germs back, liberated Poland, Hungary etc, came to germ and started dismantling it and raping germ female species - unfortunately asshole Stalin stopped raping pretty quickly and didn't proceed with total elimination of germ race.
the luftwaffe attacked the RAF to try to eliminate them so they could get air supiriority
after a few months the RAF was next to extinct but hitler told the Luftwaffe to start bombing cities instead of british air force equipment, thus giving them time to recouperate and win the battle of britain, if germany won they would achieve air suppiriority and the navy wouldn't be as useful to britain
Yep, and the sudden switch of targets from the RAF to London was all just because a handful of Wellington bombers dropped a few bombs on Berlin. Damage was minimal, but the psychological effect was huge on Hitler, enough for him to have a cow, and send the bombers to London.
Fine program, well worth seeing. As Stalin is supposed to have said "Quantity has quality all of its own" - see "Riding the T34" for a close up perspective on a fine machine.
@AustHeritage T-34 - Exposed ammunition, horrible compartments, inferior to the Sherman and had a copied 85 from the 76 of the 2,000 given American Shermans 76 (w). Our Shermans were loved by the Russians. Russia built absolute horrible machines. 85 had potential, if they had the correct ammo storage.
@Tyco200 you're fooling yourself. Most Russians hated Shermans, shermans had a gasoline engines and burned like a torches being hit by almost anything, also thier own crew was killed by bolts flying around and parts comming apart of each other. Later vers T35-85 was capable of dealing with most Germans tanks including tiger and panther 4. Last version of T 34-85 had being used in Korea and all over the Africa, in 1980th, in Angola against modern western armor and showed good results.
@Tyco200 What drugs are you on ? Shermans were one of the worst tanks in WW2. My uncle drove that crap (his words) in WW2 , on russian side. Sherman was great to drive to the battle , but not into the battle. it had no armor , cannon was weak and gasoline engine didn't help ether. russian T-34 vs Sherman , would rip sherman a new , you know what , every time, the only reason russian drove them , thats what americans supplied to them
@Tyco200: you need to take off your western blinders: there isn't one military tank specialist that would consider the Sherman superior to the T34. Even the most ardent American military jingoist will concede that T34 was superior to the Sherman and it WAS so superior that the American military incorporated many of the design aspects of the T34s into their post-Sherman tanks.
@Tyco200 But you forget the most Crucial fact. T-34 Slooped armor, Sherman, No slooped armor. I'll take the tank with a chance too deflect incoming enemy fire please.
And also, the shermans where considered pieces of crap, it wasn't until British improved the design and gave it a decent gun that it could finnaly stand toe to toe with a Tiger. And even then Americans refuse too refit all there shermans because the gun wasn't "american".
Battle of Kursk is a myth. It took less than two weeks and was big mess. Casualties on both sides were much smaller thant "Great Patriotic War" legend are arguing. In fact Germans had only 1081 tanks and 376 "sturm-types" ready on 3rd of july for Zitadelle, total 1457. Not 2700 as conventional wisdom is arguing. Losses of Soviet were hardly even 85 000 while germans lost 27 000 before Hitler stopped. And why? Because Italy fell down in knees and Hitler had to move divisions to Italy.
Germany's principal problem in WW2 (apart from being lead by someone unbalanced) was that unlike Britain and the USSR their industry wasn't put on a total war footing until it was too late. Too much of Germany's GDP was spent on costly propaganda weapons like the V1, V2 and superheavy tank development. If the Germans had concentrated on PzV and Me262 production they would have held out longer, but nothing could have countered the folly of simultaneously fighting the British Empire, USSR and USA.
Why the Germans insisting on building new tanks during the heat of war? They should instead improve their old one, like Panzer IV, install a bigger gun and thicker armour can be more helpful than building new tanks.Even if new tanks were needed, they should only buiild 1 or 2 models only, but in fact they build too many new tanks, and it can fully function during such a rush of time.
Many historians believe the Germans should have stuck to the Panzer IV. However, this is monday morning quaterbacking. The Panther and Tiger I were far superior.
If one on one, Tiger and Panther are undoubtedly better than T-34 or other allied tanks,but in such a large scale of war,quantity may be more important than quality.The problems for the Germans are those new machines (Tiger,Panther)need to time to fine tune,so their full power can only unleash at 1944-45,which is too late.Also,they are too less in numbers,as I know the Russian T-34 and USA Sherman are almost 10 times more in numbers!If I am Hitler,I will keep on improving Panzer IV instead.
John Mosier, in line with Erhard Raus, believes that heavy tank production should have been scaled back to supply only the best tank men with the weapons equal to their abilities, while investing more in assault guns and anti-tank guns in general since they could be produced a great deal more cheaply and quickly since they lacked turrets; the greater concealment qualities were also appropriate to German defensive requirements.
"They should instead improve their old one, like Panzer IV, install a bigger gun and thicker armour can be more helpful than building new tanks"
I thought they did that with the Panther & Tiger....the problem with the ones they sent to Kursk was that they were more or less new and the tank crews were not entirely used to them & the initial flaws with new tanks.
This had to do with the failure of Germany to acknowledge that the Allied forces would improve in technology and equipment. Germany believed that what they started the war with would serve throughout as sufficient to the task. They were unprepared to face, for example, the T-34 and KV-1 on the east front, the Grant and Sherman on the African front or, later , the up-gunned tanks of the post Normandy front with the kind of tanks that they held to - Pz III and IV. [continued next]
Germany always had plans for better equipment. These plans were not developed as part of an extended manufacturing program, but were pulled up as they began to realize their error in underestimating the advances of their enemies in many different aspects of military design. Manufacturing cohesiveness did not really come to be until Fritz Todt died in 1942. His successor, Albert Speer, was hughly responsible for helping Germany to supply better designs of all types. [continued]
All nations had plans for vehicles that were better before the war began. What determined whether they would be used or not had to do with one thing - MONEY. None of the countries went out of their way to make better until it was absolutely needed. The U.S. was the one nation on the planet that was actually given time to plan things in advance - Roosevelt knew as soon as Poland was attacked that we would end up in the 'European War', as it was named over here. [cont]
As a result of what was known, the U.S. government used 1939-41 to get ready. We worked behind the scenes to prepare. You do not believe that the U.S. would have responded so quickly to the Japanese attack if we had sat on our thumbs while Hitler raged, do you? We made 200,000 aircraft alone from 1941-1945. That doesn't even count everything else we made. By the time we had Pershings, they were obsolete. Why would you ask me this about Hitler? Are you daft? I am a scholar.
@EStrongblade I did not ask you about hilter. Are you a high school scholar? Pershings were not obsolete during WWII they pulled them out of mothballs for Korea. The US did not believe the gremans would spent so much money on tigers. Shermans were up to the task of taking on panzer IV's
You asked, "Do you realy wish the germans won the war?" is that not the same? Pershings damn sure were obsolete by the time we got them - pull your head out of your butt! Sure we used them in Korea - we used Shermans too - did that make them high tech? Today, there are no targets for the M-1 Abrams - every enemy the US has faced with them has had a bunch of outdated crap - that's why they look so good! You have NO clue about how the US works or what motivates it... [cont]
...so I have no problem ignoring your 'high school scholar' crack. I find it amusing that you champion the Pershing, of all tanks. The precursor to the M-48 was on the drawing board before the first Pershing was mass produced - even WE recognized how obsolete it was. I am sorry that it was your favorite. How about learning a few things about U.S. mass production and how it works/worked before spouting off over what you know nothing about. BTW, the Tiger sucked too - both of them!
Like his allied counterparts, Speer realized that what his country had started the war with could only be upgraded so far - the MK III was obsolete by 1943. The MK IV served the Germans just like the Sherman served the US and the T-34 served the Soviets - a medium battle tank that was upgraded throughout the war. All sides knew, however, that medium tanks alone would never cut it except to a certain point. [cont]
They would have to be replaced totally if advantages in strategy and tactics were to be pursued with any hope of success. Germany, like the Soviets and the Western allies, had to meet new enemy threats with something better, or be annihilated. The results were based on the speed with which they were put into place. Germany was assailed on all sides, and so had to move far faster than was prudent if they were to survive. [cont]
The Allies, able to develop items and test without fear of getting bombed during the process, had a better ability to provide better prepared equipment. Germany, trying to maintain offensive capability while under constant enemy pressure, often threw what they developed out there before knowing how well (or how disasterous) their efforts would turn out. Kursk is a prime example. [cont]
The Allies, able to develop items and test without fear of getting bombed during the process, had a better ability to provide better prepared equipment. Germany, trying to maintain offensive capability while under constant enemy pressure, often threw what they developed out there before knowing how well (or how disasterous) their efforts would turn out. Kursk is a prime example. [cont]
3 untried tank designs were used at Kursk, and one of them did not even have anti-infantry capability! Hitler knew as well as his Generals that upgraded MK IVs would be obsolete soon, just as the MK IIIs all ready were. The hurried risk of introducing new designs was worth it in the long term. Even though the 'Ferdinand' proved worthless, the Panther and the Tiger worked, after a fashion. Improvements upon them continued. Germany kept going by taking risks to meet new threats.
@bobowai The sloping armor on the Panther made a far superior design. once the teething problems that plagued the "A" model were gone it was a devastating weapon.
@bobowai the reason why they didn't improve the old tank was because the new Russian T-34 was shockingly superior compared to the German tanks because of it's slope armour could deflect rounds so the Germans made new tanks using the slope armour design.
I dont know why the Germans didnt try to make a light, high mobility vehicle, armed with a large caliber single shot cannon. Something similar to a HUMVEE with a TOW missile on it. I bet they could have cranked out thousands of those and outmaneuvered and defeated the Russian tanks on these open areas.
@2bn442RCT if im right the tow is wire guided right like the sag? The germans used wire guided glided bombers in world war 2 and also wire guided tankettes with machine guns on them. What People forget is that no matter how good the germans are at inventing wonder weapons they are doomed to fail. Because they were led by an incompetent boob.
@Lumotaku there was actually a really high possibility that they would have been successful but they made a HUGe mistake attacking Russia because the Russians destroyed the "invincible" German army with exceedingly high numbers.
@2bn442RCT he is talking about a fast attack vehicle with a powerful AT gun; one that could move quickly and flank enemy tanks as the enemy tanks guns could not keep pace with it's speed as it shoots from the a flank or just preform a hit and run.
@labartic has a good point,plus they could have added a laser beam to this "Light high mobility vehicle" and then developed a photon torpedo like off Star Trek
@labartic this comment may be 2 years old, just want to mention that 20mm and the russian 37mm autocannons were around specifically to obliterate light vehicles, especially something like a humvee. They had high rates of fire, accuracy, and enough penetration to take out armoured vehicles.
@labartic do you mean by a fast attack vehicle armed with a anti tank weapon? say a vehicle capable of flanking enemy tanks or preforming hit and runs?
@dinison6 a dune buggy with a 75mm recoiless rifle on it with some AP ammo. That wouldve rocked some shit. You could crank out tens of thousands of them and they could augment the panzers/assault guns. Put an mg42 on it and the anti tank gun. It wouldve been a good supplement to the panzers. That and a dedicated ground fighter like the stuka with the cannon system mounted on it. But something more like a p38 lighting. Maybe something like that did exist but I am not aware of it.
I've read that the Elephant tank destroyers during Kursk were credited with over 500 kills, while losing about 40 of their own. Doesn't sound like a total failure to me.
Well, lets all try to agree on one thing: the only Sherman many would not consider a piece of crap is the Sherman Firefly!
Com18Alpha 2 weeks ago
The Sherman was not really a peice of crap. When it entered the war it was on par with the panzer III and IV. By late 1943 and 1944, it was obsolete. You can say the exact same thing for the Panzer I, II, III and IV. they were good when they first hit the field, but soon became obsolete. It was easyer for the western allies to produce mass numbers of shermans, then delay the war and wait for new tanks. America had Tank Hunters Doctrine, so Shermans were never designed for Tank on Tank action.
Wednesdayat11 2 weeks ago
Which idiots marked this documentary as "potentially offensive or inappropriate"!?! Simply ridiculous!
Spetsop 3 weeks ago
Total Russian casualties in Kursk was 1,040,000 dead and wounded and sick, along with 7,700-8,000 tanks and TD's, it was atrocious losses they suffered, Marshall Zhukov was a butcher, he did not care about human life. German total casualties in Kursk for July and August was 257,000 dead and wounded, and 1,100 tanks and TD's lost. The Russians got hammered at Kursk, no doubt, but they still won because Zhukov was willing to expend human lives and resources for success, he was ruthlessly callous
hailherrosner 4 months ago
I am a PROUD Russian....
TheKabzonchik 4 months ago
@TheKabzonchik You should be. Russia were the real victors of WW2. Russia destroyed 75% of the German Army during WW2. The only people in the World that think the U.S saved Europe in WW2 are the Americans themselves.
boscoesarmy 2 weeks ago
You have to understand that by the summer of 1943 the Germans had lost massive amounts of tanks, men and material that by all intent and purposes could not be replaced. They were surely not defeated before Kursk, but they could not replace the 1 million plus troops they lost in 1941 and the over 1 million troops they lost again in 1942 and materials. Why was Russia able to replace their losses? Because Russia had twice the population of Germany at the time that's why.
TheBatFlying 6 months ago
This documentary makes it sound like the German's were completely decimated, that's not true, 2 more years of vicious combat lay ahead from July 1943 to May 1945. The Wehrmacht was far from defeated, it was still quite a powerful force to be reckoned with in 1943, the Russians knew that, that's why they did not carry out any more reckless frontal assaults against the Germans. The Russian Red Army and German Wehrmacht were like two heavy weight boxers, beating each other up to utter exhaustion.
haiherosner 7 months ago
Strange!...
NATO "recepy" to fight a possible war against Warsaw Pact forces, on European soil, took a lot from the Germans - developing more and more technologically advanced, very expensive, tanks.
Such "strategy" however, proved to be a failure in WWII, against the Soviet tradition of building cheaper tanks, but with few potentially "winning" characteristics - speed, mobility and - MOST OF ALL - suitable to be produced in sheer numbers.
THEN...what's the point in repeating the same error?
2serveand2protect 9 months ago
@2serveand2protect One big difference is that NATO wasn't planning on conquering the Soviet Union but on defending (parts of) Western Europe with Germany being the designated war zone. This means the defending tanks wouldn't be spread out too thin nor suffer from long supply lines. Another major difference is the absence of tactical nukes in WWII, which would be deployed on the German battlefields to whittle down the invading Warsaw Pact forces.
JerehmiaBoaz 9 months ago
@JerehmiaBoaz
So, basically, You're saying that in such a (potential) conflict all tactical doctrines would be simply "useless", since the war would degenerate in any case into a nuclear-strategic conflict? Well, I know that, and admit You're perfectly right...
I was just "wondering"...
Let's suppose there WEREN'T NUCLEAR WARHEADS INVOLVED - would have the NATO defences held ?
2serveand2protect 9 months ago
@2serveand2protect NATO was planning on the limited use of tactical nukes on its own territory to destroy invading troops, not to start an all out global thermonuclear war by deploying their strategic nukes on Warsaw Pact cities.
Conventional NATO defenses only wouldn't have stood a chance against a Warsaw Pact invasion during the Cold War days. Today the situation has reversed as NATO now has more conventional weapons than Russia and its now Russia that's hoarding the tactical nukes.
JerehmiaBoaz 9 months ago
@JerehmiaBoaz
I can agree with that, too...
However in my opinion starting a nuclear war - even on a small, "tactical" scale - would have IMMEDIATELY made the other part respond with "strategical" nuclear warfare.
Don't forget that the line dividing terms "strategical" or "tactical" nuclear warfare exists in fact only on books - they both refer to the use of basically the same weapon...
It's true that NATO today is stronger in respects to Russia - strategically - with the new NATO countries.
2serveand2protect 9 months ago
@2serveand2protect I don't think a local nuclear conflict would have triggered a global nuclear war right away, but the risk of a limited nuclear war devolving into an all out global nuclear war is still very real. Basically, if the invading party would give up after its first wave of attacks was reduced to radioactive ashes that would stop the conflict there and then, but if they kept on sending new forces the scale of the war would gradually increase until strategic warfare became inevitable.
JerehmiaBoaz 9 months ago
какая то хрень ребята... такое ощущение будто фильм какой то немецкий)))
то есть смотришь его и думаешь блин за кого болеет автор фильма?
тваю мать мы спасли европу освободили))) суки пидары америкоты все испоганят)
kz4eva 10 months ago
How did the German air reconnaissance fail to see all of those defence preparations made by the Soviets? They meticulously planned this battle for months and didn't see anything?! Doesn't make sense.
Attila709 10 months ago
must have been horrible for the germans watching their elite SS divisons fail against Russian soldiers who never even held a rifle before dying trying to stop the Red army advances
jasincl 11 months ago
this is the battle following stalingrad , right ?
Dilbet57Wombo 1 year ago
The reason why soviet lost so heavily tanks and assault guns was rather simply: their tankmen were poorly trained and commanded by more or less lousy commanders. Perhaps the main reason for all these were coz Stalin want's more and more bloody offensives. Hitler pulled remarkable many their best independent Abteilungen-armoured units from east to south and France from july 43 to summer 44. It has been estimated that eastern front lost more thant 1/3 of these Abteilungen-units.
tranmere789 1 year ago
Total loss number of Kursk if we trust russian figures:
Soviet: 1 614 totally lost APV's
Germany: 323 totally lost APV's
And these numbers by Frieser:
Soviet: 1 954 (destroyed or captured by germans)
Germany: 323 (destroyed or captured by soviets)
So we got loss rate 1:5 and 1:6. Russians produced 2.2 times more APV's than Germany. So Kursk was hardly at all victory for either Germany or Soviet. It was stopped by Hitler because allied were going to take Italy. Hitler pulled forces to south.
tranmere789 1 year ago
@tranmere789 If wars were decieded by kill ratios the United States won in Vietnam. It's not a game.
IVANGROZNEY 11 months ago
Thank you for uploading the entire series. Good job!
notaire2 1 year ago
the nazis, eventhough lost the war, they paralized the whole world for 4 years before they fell down. it took 3 strong nations, to fights germany at 3 fronts to take them down. and the allies still lost more. great army the nazis were.
fadyb56 1 year ago
The Germans were only superior at losing & that is why they lost the war.Does anyone need to be reminded that they did lose the war. That was 1 of the best things that had come to mankind just as significant as the Romans getting fat & lazy. 2 world wars were fought because of this shit stained race & I most sincerely hope that all German people die a most horrible death. They should never ever be forgiven in all of human history & when you do meet a German national kick the fucker in the face
Kilooscarromeo 1 year ago
Good documentary. But once again, it's not telling us everything.
Attila709 1 year ago
@Attila709 this docu is about tanks. all it need to tell u is about use of tanks in the battle. they dnt need to tell u evthing.
Temp1330 1 year ago
@Temp1330 That's what I mean idiot. It's not telling us everything about tanks at Kursk.
Attila709 1 year ago
@Attila709 they only have so much time they cant tell u evthing in such a short time
Temp1330 1 year ago
@Attila709 and what is it missing?
Temp1330 1 year ago
@Temp1330 A lot of the problems discussed are somewhat exaggerated. The Panthers and Elephants did have a bad beginning in the first few days, but then the problems were realized and remedied out pretty quick. By the time the Elephants were taken out of the fighting they lost about 40 vehicles and were credited with destroying over 500 Soviet machines. Each of the SS divisions started Kursk with 15 Tiger tanks and that was it for the whole order of battle.
Attila709 1 year ago
@Attila709 hey mentioned all of that, anything else?
Temp1330 1 year ago
@Temp1330 He mentioned all panthers were lost which is not true. German tank recovery crews and mechanics worked miracles and don't get much credit.
Attila709 1 year ago
@Attila709 he only said the Panthers didnt do much from then on
Temp1330 1 year ago
@Attila709 he only said the Panthers didnt do much from then on the panthe units have been blunted he didnt say they were all lost.
Temp1330 1 year ago
@Temp1330 Ok great, you're the expert. I don't know shit. Sorry.
Attila709 1 year ago
I love how everyone always tries to discredit the Russians by saying they only won because of numbers. That's the same reason the Americans beat the Germans on the Western Front. The American tanks were actually inferior to both the Russian and German ones but they just outnumbered the Germans to win. The USA's best tank of WW2 was the Sherman. Nuff said.
alieu156 1 year ago
@alieu156 also, russian tanks were superior to germans in many respects. the js-2 for example was able to kill both panthers and tigers at 3000 meters and beyond according to many sources with its high velocity 122mm d25-t gun while its 120mm well sloped hull armour was nearly impervious to the best german tank guns like the panther's 75mm or tigers 88mm. The only tank that was comparable was the king tiger but only 400 of those were built and they came too late and they were also unreliable
jizzinmypants191919 1 year ago
@alieu156 your wrong, America's best tank in WWII is the Pershing
Temp1330 1 year ago
@Temp1330 True, but it was only in service for the last few months of the war.
alieu156 1 year ago
@alieu156 actually the usas best tank doing world war 2 was the m 26 pershing.
Lumotaku 1 year ago
@Lumotaku ther Pershing was like the tiger it broke down not many were produced and etc.
jasincl 11 months ago
Thanks for the upload. Excellent footage and narration!
lanaowest 1 year ago
damn soviets....id win the war too if i had what seemed like a nearly UNLIMITED amount of reinforcements -_-
all the soviets did was throw their soldiers into a slaughterhouse and come out on top because they had more......cheap
EonFigure 1 year ago
@EonFigure It's funny, though I'm not sure you've intentionally meant it. Basically you're blaming the Soviets for fighting a war to their strengths and winning it too. It's all rather silly. If an intruder comes to my home to pilllage it, the intruder better know that I will use my every resource to destroy him. And if my resources are vastly, vastly, superior to his, then all the more foolish of him for violently entering my home in the first place.
TanoBrati 1 year ago
@TanoBrati they cared nothing for their soldiers, nor their families...your right it takes a lot of strength to order your soldiers into suicide raids. The soviets were the barbarian hordes of ww2
EonFigure 1 year ago
@EonFigure What families, you camel fuck? Most families were killed when germs came, in small Belarus alone germs burnt 628 villages with all inhabitants alive - people where drawn into barn, locked and set ablaze. Most families were dead when Red Army pushed germs back, liberated Poland, Hungary etc, came to germ and started dismantling it and raping germ female species - unfortunately asshole Stalin stopped raping pretty quickly and didn't proceed with total elimination of germ race.
ihave1 1 year ago
@EonFigure -TanoBrati is right,your a complete twit
The soviets gave the japanese a right good bashing you smelly piece of poo
LordOfAllFaggots 1 year ago
I echo the thanks expressed by others for making this available on YouTube.
Manlyho 1 year ago
0:54 awe inspiring.
tragicblackness 1 year ago
the coz of germany's defeat is hitler he dont listen to his generals unlike stalin
Gab1n0III 2 years ago
youre right, Stalin just killed all of his.
12Oc7ock 2 years ago 7
Stalin didn't always listen, both Hitler and Stalin are dictactors and are more willing to do what they want rather wat is the best.
RedFighterNL 2 years ago
if germany focused on eliminating britain then moving on to russia they could have won
Senorize 2 years ago 2
They would have been hard pressed to invade England with the might of the British Navy guarding the channel.
koalabrownie 2 years ago
ya they tried though, The Battle of Britain.
the luftwaffe attacked the RAF to try to eliminate them so they could get air supiriority
after a few months the RAF was next to extinct but hitler told the Luftwaffe to start bombing cities instead of british air force equipment, thus giving them time to recouperate and win the battle of britain, if germany won they would achieve air suppiriority and the navy wouldn't be as useful to britain
Senorize 2 years ago
Yep, and the sudden switch of targets from the RAF to London was all just because a handful of Wellington bombers dropped a few bombs on Berlin. Damage was minimal, but the psychological effect was huge on Hitler, enough for him to have a cow, and send the bombers to London.
BA31Driver 2 years ago
there were like 8 occasions were hitler could have won the war but he was too stupid to do so
Senorize 2 years ago
@koalabrownie u-boats renderd the royal navy useless alomst but not completly
tankexpert 2 years ago
useless? U-boats were used to attack unarmed merchantmen, while they ran away from Destroyers let alone Battlecruisers and the like.
Biggest threat vs the Royal Navy was probably air-power not submarines.
koalabrownie 2 years ago
bullshit
fligghal 2 years ago
if britain was eliminated all of the german resourses could be focused on the eastern front
Senorize 2 years ago
Fine program, well worth seeing. As Stalin is supposed to have said "Quantity has quality all of its own" - see "Riding the T34" for a close up perspective on a fine machine.
AustHeritage 2 years ago 9
@AustHeritage actually that was Lenin
EonFigure 1 year ago
@AustHeritage T-34 - Exposed ammunition, horrible compartments, inferior to the Sherman and had a copied 85 from the 76 of the 2,000 given American Shermans 76 (w). Our Shermans were loved by the Russians. Russia built absolute horrible machines. 85 had potential, if they had the correct ammo storage.
Tyco200 4 months ago
@Tyco200 you're fooling yourself. Most Russians hated Shermans, shermans had a gasoline engines and burned like a torches being hit by almost anything, also thier own crew was killed by bolts flying around and parts comming apart of each other. Later vers T35-85 was capable of dealing with most Germans tanks including tiger and panther 4. Last version of T 34-85 had being used in Korea and all over the Africa, in 1980th, in Angola against modern western armor and showed good results.
vikruss 4 months ago 2
@Tyco200 What drugs are you on ? Shermans were one of the worst tanks in WW2. My uncle drove that crap (his words) in WW2 , on russian side. Sherman was great to drive to the battle , but not into the battle. it had no armor , cannon was weak and gasoline engine didn't help ether. russian T-34 vs Sherman , would rip sherman a new , you know what , every time, the only reason russian drove them , thats what americans supplied to them
MilitantChimp 3 months ago 4
@Tyco200: you need to take off your western blinders: there isn't one military tank specialist that would consider the Sherman superior to the T34. Even the most ardent American military jingoist will concede that T34 was superior to the Sherman and it WAS so superior that the American military incorporated many of the design aspects of the T34s into their post-Sherman tanks.
lukebccb 1 month ago
@Tyco200 But you forget the most Crucial fact. T-34 Slooped armor, Sherman, No slooped armor. I'll take the tank with a chance too deflect incoming enemy fire please.
And also, the shermans where considered pieces of crap, it wasn't until British improved the design and gave it a decent gun that it could finnaly stand toe to toe with a Tiger. And even then Americans refuse too refit all there shermans because the gun wasn't "american".
Sherman better then t-34, ROFLMAO.
WarSmurfs 1 month ago
@Tyco200
german recon: herr general, we encountered an awesome russian machine t-34, sloped armor, wide tracks, 75 mm gun.
general: develop imediatelly a german tank that incorporates all those inovations. The panther is born.
german recon: herr general we encountered american shermans, they blow up with a single shot.
general: sounds like a very effective way to cook tommies, lez call it Tommy Cooker
Zamolxes77 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Battle of Kursk is a myth. It took less than two weeks and was big mess. Casualties on both sides were much smaller thant "Great Patriotic War" legend are arguing. In fact Germans had only 1081 tanks and 376 "sturm-types" ready on 3rd of july for Zitadelle, total 1457. Not 2700 as conventional wisdom is arguing. Losses of Soviet were hardly even 85 000 while germans lost 27 000 before Hitler stopped. And why? Because Italy fell down in knees and Hitler had to move divisions to Italy.
tranmere789 2 years ago
Germany's principal problem in WW2 (apart from being lead by someone unbalanced) was that unlike Britain and the USSR their industry wasn't put on a total war footing until it was too late. Too much of Germany's GDP was spent on costly propaganda weapons like the V1, V2 and superheavy tank development. If the Germans had concentrated on PzV and Me262 production they would have held out longer, but nothing could have countered the folly of simultaneously fighting the British Empire, USSR and USA.
celticchefgirl 2 years ago 2
Nice vid, as usual.
chicago85bearz 3 years ago
Why the Germans insisting on building new tanks during the heat of war? They should instead improve their old one, like Panzer IV, install a bigger gun and thicker armour can be more helpful than building new tanks.Even if new tanks were needed, they should only buiild 1 or 2 models only, but in fact they build too many new tanks, and it can fully function during such a rush of time.
bobowai 3 years ago
Many historians believe the Germans should have stuck to the Panzer IV. However, this is monday morning quaterbacking. The Panther and Tiger I were far superior.
2bn442RCT 3 years ago 2
If one on one, Tiger and Panther are undoubtedly better than T-34 or other allied tanks,but in such a large scale of war,quantity may be more important than quality.The problems for the Germans are those new machines (Tiger,Panther)need to time to fine tune,so their full power can only unleash at 1944-45,which is too late.Also,they are too less in numbers,as I know the Russian T-34 and USA Sherman are almost 10 times more in numbers!If I am Hitler,I will keep on improving Panzer IV instead.
bobowai 3 years ago
Its more like Friday Morning quarterbacking.
lamrof 2 years ago
@2bn442RCT soundtrack?
SaKaWorriorAfghan 1 year ago
John Mosier, in line with Erhard Raus, believes that heavy tank production should have been scaled back to supply only the best tank men with the weapons equal to their abilities, while investing more in assault guns and anti-tank guns in general since they could be produced a great deal more cheaply and quickly since they lacked turrets; the greater concealment qualities were also appropriate to German defensive requirements.
barrywinehousexp 2 years ago
@bobowai One of many strategic errors they made...
Mistermax30 1 year ago
@bobowai
"They should instead improve their old one, like Panzer IV, install a bigger gun and thicker armour can be more helpful than building new tanks"
I thought they did that with the Panther & Tiger....the problem with the ones they sent to Kursk was that they were more or less new and the tank crews were not entirely used to them & the initial flaws with new tanks.
Superstrings 1 year ago
@bobowai the only one superiority that would make them win would be superiority in Quality of resources.
They certainly were losing in Quantity. Hitler needed something that would make a SHIFT.
Soviet army casualties were always several times bigger then German during almost any battle of WW2 and soviet army always had enough people.
DmitriyRybalsky 1 year ago
@DmitriyRybalsky
facepalm.jpg
38602 1 year ago
@bobowai
This had to do with the failure of Germany to acknowledge that the Allied forces would improve in technology and equipment. Germany believed that what they started the war with would serve throughout as sufficient to the task. They were unprepared to face, for example, the T-34 and KV-1 on the east front, the Grant and Sherman on the African front or, later , the up-gunned tanks of the post Normandy front with the kind of tanks that they held to - Pz III and IV. [continued next]
EStrongblade 1 year ago
@bobowai
Germany always had plans for better equipment. These plans were not developed as part of an extended manufacturing program, but were pulled up as they began to realize their error in underestimating the advances of their enemies in many different aspects of military design. Manufacturing cohesiveness did not really come to be until Fritz Todt died in 1942. His successor, Albert Speer, was hughly responsible for helping Germany to supply better designs of all types. [continued]
EStrongblade 1 year ago
@EStrongblade Do you realy wish the germans won the war? The US had Pershings on the drawing board before the war started.
IVANGROZNEY 1 year ago
@IVANGROZNEY
All nations had plans for vehicles that were better before the war began. What determined whether they would be used or not had to do with one thing - MONEY. None of the countries went out of their way to make better until it was absolutely needed. The U.S. was the one nation on the planet that was actually given time to plan things in advance - Roosevelt knew as soon as Poland was attacked that we would end up in the 'European War', as it was named over here. [cont]
EStrongblade 1 year ago
Comment removed
EStrongblade 1 year ago
@IVANGROZNEY
As a result of what was known, the U.S. government used 1939-41 to get ready. We worked behind the scenes to prepare. You do not believe that the U.S. would have responded so quickly to the Japanese attack if we had sat on our thumbs while Hitler raged, do you? We made 200,000 aircraft alone from 1941-1945. That doesn't even count everything else we made. By the time we had Pershings, they were obsolete. Why would you ask me this about Hitler? Are you daft? I am a scholar.
EStrongblade 1 year ago
@EStrongblade I did not ask you about hilter. Are you a high school scholar? Pershings were not obsolete during WWII they pulled them out of mothballs for Korea. The US did not believe the gremans would spent so much money on tigers. Shermans were up to the task of taking on panzer IV's
IVANGROZNEY 1 year ago
@IVANGROZNEY
You asked, "Do you realy wish the germans won the war?" is that not the same? Pershings damn sure were obsolete by the time we got them - pull your head out of your butt! Sure we used them in Korea - we used Shermans too - did that make them high tech? Today, there are no targets for the M-1 Abrams - every enemy the US has faced with them has had a bunch of outdated crap - that's why they look so good! You have NO clue about how the US works or what motivates it... [cont]
EStrongblade 1 year ago
@IVANGROZNEY
...so I have no problem ignoring your 'high school scholar' crack. I find it amusing that you champion the Pershing, of all tanks. The precursor to the M-48 was on the drawing board before the first Pershing was mass produced - even WE recognized how obsolete it was. I am sorry that it was your favorite. How about learning a few things about U.S. mass production and how it works/worked before spouting off over what you know nothing about. BTW, the Tiger sucked too - both of them!
EStrongblade 1 year ago
@IVANGROZNEY How do you know?
jasincl 11 months ago
@bobowai
Like his allied counterparts, Speer realized that what his country had started the war with could only be upgraded so far - the MK III was obsolete by 1943. The MK IV served the Germans just like the Sherman served the US and the T-34 served the Soviets - a medium battle tank that was upgraded throughout the war. All sides knew, however, that medium tanks alone would never cut it except to a certain point. [cont]
EStrongblade 1 year ago
@bobowai
They would have to be replaced totally if advantages in strategy and tactics were to be pursued with any hope of success. Germany, like the Soviets and the Western allies, had to meet new enemy threats with something better, or be annihilated. The results were based on the speed with which they were put into place. Germany was assailed on all sides, and so had to move far faster than was prudent if they were to survive. [cont]
EStrongblade 1 year ago
@bobowai
The Allies, able to develop items and test without fear of getting bombed during the process, had a better ability to provide better prepared equipment. Germany, trying to maintain offensive capability while under constant enemy pressure, often threw what they developed out there before knowing how well (or how disasterous) their efforts would turn out. Kursk is a prime example. [cont]
EStrongblade 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bobowai
The Allies, able to develop items and test without fear of getting bombed during the process, had a better ability to provide better prepared equipment. Germany, trying to maintain offensive capability while under constant enemy pressure, often threw what they developed out there before knowing how well (or how disasterous) their efforts would turn out. Kursk is a prime example. [cont]
EStrongblade 1 year ago
@bobowai
3 untried tank designs were used at Kursk, and one of them did not even have anti-infantry capability! Hitler knew as well as his Generals that upgraded MK IVs would be obsolete soon, just as the MK IIIs all ready were. The hurried risk of introducing new designs was worth it in the long term. Even though the 'Ferdinand' proved worthless, the Panther and the Tiger worked, after a fashion. Improvements upon them continued. Germany kept going by taking risks to meet new threats.
EStrongblade 1 year ago
@bobowai The sloping armor on the Panther made a far superior design. once the teething problems that plagued the "A" model were gone it was a devastating weapon.
ceetee1459 1 year ago
@bobowai look at the tiger and the mark 4, thats pretty much what it was
KingOCleveland 11 months ago
@bobowai the reason why they didn't improve the old tank was because the new Russian T-34 was shockingly superior compared to the German tanks because of it's slope armour could deflect rounds so the Germans made new tanks using the slope armour design.
dinison6 7 months ago
I dont know why the Germans didnt try to make a light, high mobility vehicle, armed with a large caliber single shot cannon. Something similar to a HUMVEE with a TOW missile on it. I bet they could have cranked out thousands of those and outmaneuvered and defeated the Russian tanks on these open areas.
labartic 3 years ago
a TOW type missle in WW2 okie dokie.
2bn442RCT 3 years ago 3
I said something similar to it, meaning, a tank killing single shot weapon. Not a wire guided missile.
labartic 3 years ago
@2bn442RCT probably meant something like a mobile Panzerschrek carrier
Temp1330 1 year ago
@2bn442RCT if im right the tow is wire guided right like the sag? The germans used wire guided glided bombers in world war 2 and also wire guided tankettes with machine guns on them. What People forget is that no matter how good the germans are at inventing wonder weapons they are doomed to fail. Because they were led by an incompetent boob.
Lumotaku 1 year ago 4
@Lumotaku You mean radio guided? They actually had a tv guided bomb during the war.
2bn442RCT 1 year ago
@2bn442RCT Not calling you a liar can you link me to proof of that? I have only heard of wire guided german weapons.
Lumotaku 1 year ago
@Lumotaku German Scientist:"We Invented a Nuclear Missile!"
Hitler:"Dont Use it! my Super SS doo-doos can reach Moscow!"-29th April 1945
jasincl 11 months ago
@Lumotaku there was actually a really high possibility that they would have been successful but they made a HUGe mistake attacking Russia because the Russians destroyed the "invincible" German army with exceedingly high numbers.
dinison6 7 months ago
@2bn442RCT he is talking about a fast attack vehicle with a powerful AT gun; one that could move quickly and flank enemy tanks as the enemy tanks guns could not keep pace with it's speed as it shoots from the a flank or just preform a hit and run.
dinison6 7 months ago
@labartic Well they dide, Nashorn and the Hetzer. The Hetzer was very succesfull.
MissMan666 1 year ago
@labartic has a good point,plus they could have added a laser beam to this "Light high mobility vehicle" and then developed a photon torpedo like off Star Trek
LordOfAllFaggots 1 year ago
theres nothing crazy about a single shot high caliber cannon.
labartic 1 year ago
@labartic in 1943 there was lol
LordOfAllFaggots 1 year ago
@labartic this comment may be 2 years old, just want to mention that 20mm and the russian 37mm autocannons were around specifically to obliterate light vehicles, especially something like a humvee. They had high rates of fire, accuracy, and enough penetration to take out armoured vehicles.
comrade44 8 months ago
@labartic do you mean by a fast attack vehicle armed with a anti tank weapon? say a vehicle capable of flanking enemy tanks or preforming hit and runs?
dinison6 7 months ago
@dinison6 a dune buggy with a 75mm recoiless rifle on it with some AP ammo. That wouldve rocked some shit. You could crank out tens of thousands of them and they could augment the panzers/assault guns. Put an mg42 on it and the anti tank gun. It wouldve been a good supplement to the panzers. That and a dedicated ground fighter like the stuka with the cannon system mounted on it. But something more like a p38 lighting. Maybe something like that did exist but I am not aware of it.
labartic 7 months ago
@labartic it would be great BUT i think they've already made it. they put AT guns onto their APC's and sent them into battle for a flank tactic.
dinison6 7 months ago
@labartic lol another CoD kid alert!
Spets25 6 months ago
I've read that the Elephant tank destroyers during Kursk were credited with over 500 kills, while losing about 40 of their own. Doesn't sound like a total failure to me.
Attila709 3 years ago
Yeah, but those numbers are from the Germans, who always inflated the numbers of their kills to absurd proportions.
tj2tone 3 years ago 2
Thanks! 5*****
STATIONO 3 years ago
Thanks for this series, it's awesome.
itseasyforyou 3 years ago
welcome!
2bn442RCT 3 years ago
Kursk meant that Germany's fate would be a complete and utter defeat.
"The end of the Third Reich draws near
Its time has come to an end
The end of an era is near
It's time to attack"
Sabaton - Panzerkampf
rfmikael 3 years ago