If the Germans began the offensive on the Western Front, the West would not help. The Soviet Union was not ready for war, suffered a much greater loss and possibly lose. If lost svovetsky Union, the world would speak in German. =)
@lolshtoo исключи гражданских, и потери будут почти одинаковые. А если учесть, что советские войска прошли наступлением не только по оккупированной территории Союза, но и всю Европу, потери вполне сопоставимы.
Ага, такая достойная армия, что фашисты в своих воспоминаниях ужасались бездарству СОВЕСТКОГО рук-ва, которая затыкала щели людскими потоками, не считаясь с потерями. Маленькая Германия дошла до Москвы и вышла из войны проигравшей, но с многократо меньшими людскими потерями. А про оснащение и вовсе смешно, наши дедов бывало заставляли буквально с голыми руками искать себе смерть, винтовок не хватало. Подготовка тоже умиляет, офицерский состав сгноили по лагерям, приходилось учиться по-новой
@Lar82Pa too bad u don't know russian, I already apoligized for speaking of smg being primary german weapon. What I meant was that in urban/house fighting smg were the most dangerous weapon and that's exactly where this armor was used most of time. I disagree about the STG-44 being common with today's assault rifles though because today's AR's are mostly used in full auto mode and STG-44 was much more like M1 Garand in terms of usage, with full auto mode only for critical situations.
Russians were shit and still are, nothing will change that. You repelled the german invasion thanks to america's industry, providing you with tanks, airplanes, etc.
And invading the northern japanese islands 2 weeks before the war's end ? How cowardly can one be, scavenging from a defeated empire.
And now you bullshit the world with heroic stories on how great and advanced you were, how pathetic.
@001720BC Hahaha! Wow, you really amused me there. One again, a patriotic American know-it-all swoops down to bash others with his country's self-propagated facts. Thank you for your oh so knowledgeable wisdom, teacher. Now, please bash my country of Canada so that I can feel that I have learned something from your superior intellect.
@001720BC Wow, if you're French, then you've really not been paying attention in history class. The commonwealth is what you should be thanking for defending you at first, and the Americans later for reinforcing those who were already there.
And hell, to insult France's former allies is a low blow.
And oh, at least the Russians repelled the invasion of their lands unlike France, which had tanks that were better that the German's yet still failed.
@LCRDKazrai We were allies then because "the enemy of your enemy is your friend". Not because we like them.
They did not repel anything, the only thing that saved them was the vastness and emptiness of russia. How can you successfully end an invasion when the enemy doesn't care about losing 500kms ?
Better tanks ? You are joking right ? Germans were far superior in most domains. We won because we had the industrial might of the USA giving us an endless stream of supplies
@LCRDKazrai Stalingrad was a bloody siege, were russian losses were around 40% superior to the germans. If you call nearly 25 million russian deaths in total "repelling" the enemy....
You do know that France only fought a couple of weeks before being totally overrun ? You call that battle proven ?
@001720BC Stalingrad was a siege, yes, but guess what? They won and pushed them back across the hundreds of miles of land back to Berlin. More loses? Yes, but that still fits the description of repelling, no matter how many deaths.
I do know that there was only a few weeks, but in that time, here's a good example of the B1 "...a single Char B1 French heavy tank... frontally attacked and destroyed thirteen German tanks lying in ambush" "The tank safely returned despite being hit 140 times "
@22tasos22 We're talking the Pazers that took hold over France. The French had better penetration and armour and during one battle was defeated because of the Germans sheer number, where they had to surround the French tanks and then fire at them from all sides.
But this has gone far enough. This video isn't about France. It's about Russia, so back on topic. Got any questions for me on the actual video?
@LCRDKazrai i don't know many stuff about the wars.. but check Zeitgeist the first movie the 3rd part.... it also shows how US wants wars... they are extremely profitable.. :/
@001720BC "Better tanks ? You are joking right ? Germans were far superior in most domains"
Actually yes the T-34 tanks were better than the panzers -- so they did have better tanks -- at least for a while till the gemreans invented the tiger tank.
@001720BC "Better tanks ? You are joking right ? Germans were far superior in most domains"
Depends --at which point of the war we at talking about -- The T34 tanks were better than the german tanks at the time --- of course it was only later in the war the german came up with the tiger tank
if we make men walking tanks then the enemy will simply fire larger ammunition at them, like 30mm, 40mm grenades or 12.7mm... everything has it's limit.
@godscuttingyoudown, at the time of WW2 there were no assault rifles, even German STG-44 wasn't assault rifle in nowadays meaning, this body armor protected soldiers from pistole bullets. It usually couldn't deflect Mgun or rifle bullets, that's true, but most german soldiers were armed by submachine guns anyway.
@warpreacher1 не надо грязи, подавляющее большинство солдат вермахта с начала и до финала было вооружено винтовками mauser 98k, объём выпуска пистолетов-пулемётов mp38 и mp40 был весьма скромен... для most german soldiers.
@HackDaTank я это для красного словца добавил, моя ошибка конечно, я знаю что в реальности автоматами далеко не большинство было вооружено, я имел в виду что именно там где применялись эти штурмовики, то бишь на штурме укреплённых объектов и в городских зданиях наибольшую опасность представляли именно автоматы, кое-где пулемёты, винтовки реже.
5. The part about Berlin operation is more my thoughts, at least by now I haven't found any proves of that they were used there, so dunno. But at the same they did a great role, even though as said in movie they couldn't cover all parts of front with 10000 soldiers dying every day and the whole number of such soldiers a bit more than 20000.
4. These brigades were formed from usual assault-engineering ones, only very tough soldiers younger than 40 could pass, they were armed by machine guns, flamethrowers, anti-tank rifles and usual sub-machine guns PPS-43. It was their task to take fortified cities, bunkers and hills. Haven't you ever thought how that appeared that soviets lost less than Germans in Berlin operation? Well artillery did important part, but still...
Weren't these segmented armor from the first world war? I remember seeing images of them used by the British. Also, I highly doubt that these were used for main line combat. It would be too bulky and heavy for mobile combat and would not be effective against bullets. Engineering and sapper troops would find it useful though against shrapnel or stray bullets.
I don't understand Russian, so I was wondering if the armor seen in this clip is made of metal plates or some sort of high quality fabric like Kevlar.
The Finns were good but not miracle workers. Kept secret until the 1970's it was revealed that the UK/US code breakers were feeding real time intercepts of the Russian Army. That's how the Finns made such stunning defenses.
Your people did greatly in the winter war, and the russians learned the lesson...Blame the Big Powers and blame Stalin, but leave alone the Russian people.They lost 20 million lives that deserve to be honoured, and they could have wiped your country out when they rolled over in 1944. And look, today your country is more socialist (socialdemocracy at work) than theirs )))
Stalin was no saint, everybody knows... but truth is that all the world powers wanted to profit on the Soviet Union disgrace. Everybody played to Hitler´s game. WWII started in Spain, you all know it, and the allies played pretty stupidly , loosing a safe rear For France and the BEF. The Blitzkrieg, however mighty, could not tresspass the Pyrenees, and Hitler knew it. What if the allies had been holding the line like the International brigades and the SOVIET UNION did when it was about time.
Just imagine.... you've been suddenly puled off your PC))))))your country treacherously attacked, regular forces crippled, you received a "GUN" and few clips if you are lucky, say me, do you have courage to defend your home? This WARRIORS did!!!, all this suffer, pain, lost, of my people, worth something (and any people that fought the Hitler's army), and must be remembered for Centuries, that we may never forget what Humans blood thirst can do. Peace to you All. Sorry for my bad English :)
@kaahaajaFIN I understand ur feelings, but attacking finland was inavoidable those days, in order to push border a little bit further from Leningrad. In other case we would loose this great city right after beginning of germans invasion. It wasn't a secret for russians that finland will join war on Hitler side. So it was inavoidable evil those days.
@georgysb There's sence in your argument, but proven facts overrule it. Sure I understand, that Finland's border was close to leningrad, but there was a secret document with USSR and Germany. There read, what countries Germany would get to invade, without soviet interruption, and what countries USSR would get to conquest without Germany's interference. There read, that USSR got, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine, Baltic states, and WHOLE Finland. Not just the border area.
@hemek Yeah they won in paper, but in practice, they lost, because they couldn't achieve their goal (the conquest of whole Finland), and Finland gained a defencive victory, when she kept her freedom.
Why would I be pissed? Im proud of my country's success in ww2 against many ten times bigger enemy :)
@kaahaajaFIN there is little doubt about sophisticated defense strategy and tactics of Finnish army during Winter war which (the tactics) was honored in the USSR and is still a sound example in modern military education (unfortunately in didn't work in 1944 when Finland thrown out the white flag as Nazi ally)), but you're wrong about strategic targets of Soviet Union which were Vyborg area and Karelia and they've got it. there were no use in such amount of wetlands as 'whole Finland'.
You must also remember that German Forces had an Allies on Eastern Front! such as: Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and other countries of Eastern Europe. Whole Europe working on Germans (not by their will mostly) to help destroy the Soviet Union. Russia draw most of the German Forces into herself, and then grander it in bloody struggle. I'm Russian myself, i heard my grandfather stories about war, about this bloody, unstoppable, hard work, to stop the invaders, to protect the country, people.
Yeah right :D! Russians ... in ww2? ... body armor? stopping a whole clip ? ... :D! Sounds like Communist Propaganda! :D it was amazing that the russians even had rifles :D!
@Scoutrussp7 There arent such armors made nowadays dude :D! The only closest thing to an armor back then was the Flak Jacket which was used by Pilots. And it could only partialy protect by the lightest of fragments but by no way can protect against a direct bullet. And in the begining of the war the Russians at some places had 1 rifle per 5 people so do answer me like a person and do not start trying to insult me.
@Scoutrussp7 lolz yeah Enemy at the gates yeah. Ive heard about what i said before ive seen the movie though. Still yeah ive heard that they had such steel vests but they were not very effective. And what i really meant was that this video is filled with too much propaganda. Such a vest could not stop a whole clip. Even today's vests handle that much.
@2RayneR7 Jesus where did you learn your history ? Games, Wikipedia, Movies man get smarter and start reading books have you got any idea what industries were capable off during the war and you start about 1 rifle for 5 soldiers *facepalm* ????? That armor was capable of stopping pistol cartridges which was a very nice advantage in close combat because of the weapons used (SMG's, Pistol's)
@ASoldiersGuide Where i have heard the 1 rifle for 5 soldiers .... Discovery said by a Russian veteran. I do understand that was not everywhere .... obviously this was about a certain part of the army in the begining of the war. And even if that is exadurated the Russians for one reason or another were losing the war in the begining because they were not ready. What industries were capable of has nothing to do with ways of making steel capable of stopping bullets.
@ASoldiersGuide And if you truly believe that back then vests were more capable then now then... you are living in a dream. If that is so then why are today's vests barely capable of pulling off such feats? Since we are talking about only single layer steel armor right? Yes nowadays there are steel plates which can stop a limited amount of pistol cartridges. But the idea why i started writing these comments was that this video is a propaganda video which means it is overexadurated at best.
@2RayneR7 For the time it was good... no propoganda here, don't forget that the weapons back there were not as powerful as today, machine pistols and rifles were used as most common weapons, also it is said the guy was shot with an mp, so it's a small round... Not everything east is only propoganda, west lies enough too...
@Scoutrussp7 It was very useful in dense, intense urban battles (Stalingrad) where the Germans used the MP-40 predominantly, but, because of its weight, was not practical for soldiers charging across an open field.
@Scoutrussp7 yeah, SN-42.. russian body armor for urban conflicts used by the engineers or the infantry that was on the tanks.. tho its weight was just around 3,5 kg.. 2mm of steel.. it bounced 9mm shells from medium to long range.. useless at close range or against high caliber weapons as MG-42.
@blackwolfLT It was only at the beginning of the war. The whole country at that time worked for the front. It was designed and manufactured a lot of weapons.
@2RayneR7 1. official numbers of soviet losses are 100% accurate because are same from any sources, they make up difference between what SU had before and after war, counting birth/non-war deaths rate, they don't use soviet numbers of dead soldiers. 2. 1 rifle for 5 men.... no comments 3. 3 these body armor was given to assault-engineering brigades of supreme commander's personal reserve (ШИСб РВГк), 20 of such brigades were formed overall, it's about 23000 soldiers.
@2RayneR7 Oh please shut the fuck up! While Russia was fighting at eastern front you brits couldn't even defend your little island, not talking about starting western front on your own. Yes, you made Spitfire, best plane of the time, but when it came to agreement with France about mutual defense you let nazi's to take them over. Also asskicked in Africa. Opening western front at the end of war? Oh please, it was just a political step, otherwise soviets would have taken that land next to you!
The reign of Joseph Stalin over the nations under the Soviet banner was characterized by a veil of secrecy perhaps best compared with what we observe with North Korea today. The Soviet government regularly distorted figures to bolster the morale of its own people and to appear strong before its allies.
In 1944 the Soviets still managed to lose 23 700 fully tracked AFVs of which only 2 200 were light tanks: the highest number of AFV losses in a single year by any country in history.Of these losses 58% were T-34s. Despite all possible factors being in their favour and despite massive German operational losses during 1944, the Soviets still managed to loose around three AFVs for every German AFV destroyed, or around four tanks (mostly T-34/85s) for every German tank destroyed.
Indeed, it was the Germans who were suffering increasing numbers of operational losses, so if anything the T-34’s tactical loss ratio in 1943 was probably closer to four or five to one.
Close to two thirds (63%) of AFVs lost were T-34s. As in 1941 and 1942, at least three T-34s were lost for every enemy fully tracked AFV destroyed. The vast majority of these losses were due to direct enemy fire and cannot be attributed to operational losses, because by 1943 the Soviets were most often gaining control of the battlefield and were recovering almost all disabled and partially destroyed tanks.
There is no doubt that on average German tank crews in 1942 were probably still the best trained and most experienced in the world. However, this does not explain how apparently obsolete and inferior German AFVs achieved a kill ratio of better than three to one against T-34s in direct combat, unless the overall combat power of the T-34 is historically overrated.
In 1942 the Soviets still managed to loose 15 100 fully tracked AFVs in 1942 including 6 600 T-34s and 1 200 of the even more powerful KV heavy tanks.This meant their loss ratio was almost as bad as 1941. To a large extent it was worse than 1941 because in this case over half the tanks destroyed were T-34 and KV tanks, and the large majority of losses were due to direct enemy fire and cannot be attributed to operational losses.
I guess most of them didn't have those protections, otherwise they wouldn't have lost 8.6 millions soldiers...i feel sorry for those guys, russian commanders were damn butchers
I respect russian when they attacked our fatherland (Finland)
I respect their bravery.
Why Russians just force people into figth and let them die?
Russians Officers shot their own if they came back and that is just awful.
When Soviet Army invaded finland in 1939 , and some of those soldiers got as prisonners. Finland Army FED THIS MAN GREATLY! AND GAVE THEM PLACE TO SLEEP! FINLAND NEVER KILLED ANY SINGLE PRISONNER AND DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY GERMANS AND RUSSIANS DID?!?!
@ChriisoX USA+England joined fight only in 1944 being scared by opportunity that USSR will finally gain control over all Europe. Before that US Air Forces were busy with genocide of german civilians by massive bombing of german cities.
@georgysb omfg... THE UK JOINED IN 1944 !??! WHERE THE HELL ARE U FROM? RUSSIA?? If Im right, germany where bombing the shit out of UK from almoust the start of the war. You my friend are full of false propoganda. AND NO! America didnt join because they where scared of that the USSR where going to take europe all by them self. America joined when the japanese attacked pearl harbour. And if you didnt know, the german submarines where sinking american ships to in the atlantic osean.
@Spets25 *cough* read again. The german sank thousends of tons of steel in the atlantic osean.... Maybe another reason to join? Maybe another reason because they where allied to the UK?
@ChriisoX I mean USA ans UK dropped troops on land fight with germans in 1944. And japaneese weren't actually that serious enemy as soviet army easily beated them in 1939 and again in 1945. The only and the most strong enemy was Germany.
@georgysb yeah not them's fault that they got bombed the shit out so they couldn prepear their attack. Germany kept bombing the UK so hard they almoust lost (in the air space) but since germany gave up, the UK could make allot of spitfires and they could take the air space back. And if im right, Russia wasnt in the heart of Europe until 1945, they where in russia for almoust 3 years before they made it out of there. USA used one year to do what u guys did in 3 years.
@ChriisoX 1) russian troops came out of russian pre-war borders in 1944.
2) russian army destroyed about 85% of german troops, while USA + UK dealed with only the rest 15%. But the biggest contribution of USA and UK was destroying the bigger part of german air forces.
Um, no the IL-2 was a sitting duck for German aircraft. In fact the Russians had nothing to compete at the German level until the Yak-3 hit. Nearly HALF of the IL-2s built were shot down by the Germans.
@ESP1EMG I doubt u can read russian and in my turn I didn't use english sources. But still u could read some of Max Hastings, british historian. He was highly surprised how ineffective were allies troops on western front. Losses were about 10/24 in german favor there. During 1944-45 germans have lost 540.000 soldiers on western front which is about 5.5% of their common losses on WWII.
@georgysb I'm so glad you pointed that out "how ineffective were allies troops on western front" which can be disputed as well as supported. a lot of failures in that campaign to be found. the germans lost an entire army division at stalingrad so it is fathomable to think the losses as russia pushed toward berlin. i do find this interesting to think about! 85% of the entire military force of the nazi war machine being crushed by the russia resistance! damn them were some tough soldiers.
@ESP1EMG The secret of such a toughness was that russians found themselfs cornered when they realized what do germans bring to them... that in case of defeat they were doomed to desappear as a nation. So my ancestors fought as deamons for the chance to live for their children... and they didn't doubt much when it was needed to die here and now to stop enemy approach for another day and let the rest brothers in arms to regroup.
@georgysb Hitler had one ambition to defeat Russia and than eradicate their people by genocide and most people unaware that Russian lost 26 million people during WW2. After that Russian people were gone German Settlers would take over there farms and industry. Of course the Russian fought with a tenacity that destroyed the German Army with the aid of American Lend Lease and allied assualts on German territories and Industry.
@ASoldiersGuide well... they declared war to Germany and what was next? They did nothing for a year untill germans prepared for war with France and attacked them.)) That's coz UK wasn't really going to fight for Poland, but to frame USSR and make it fight with Hitler for some polish territories, but Stalin appeared to be smarter and USSR had got 2 more years to prepare for a big war.
As I've read, this armour was easily penetrateed by German machine guns, which is why the idea was abandoned, not so much because of the mobility. It wasn't also very useful in "human wave" strategy, since soviet soldiers were cheaper than piece of steel for commanders.
@DV51260 Yes the armor was capable of stopping small caliber ammunition like pistol rounds or SMG rounds since Machine guns use larger calibers they could easily penetrate that armor.
Now I know where Bethesda got inspiration for some of the weird "diy" looking body armors in Fallout 3!
Didn't seem to protect though, russian casualties were around 8.6 million dead soldiers while the germans only lost a total of approx. 5.7 men on both fronts with the majority on the eastern front.
Anyways, nice to see how modern body armor started! (And no, medieval human tincan armors don't count as Body Armor)
Why wouldn't it count as body armor? It is in fact Armor covering the body over the wearer.
And these were virtually never used - without doing a research of myself I quote the author of this video -"Until the end of the War, only 15 such units were established.".
And I doubt armor alone will make any significant difference over the course of any war. It's not like American troops in the Middle East are doing especially good despite looking how they're equipped.
You misread my comment. I called this the start and heritage of our modern body armor. The only thing I wouldn't call body armor because it wouldn't protect you from anything are medieval knight armors.
This armor was very heavy solid steel (~10kg). It protected only from MP-40 (9mm pistol rounds) fire and only chest. Narrator talks B.S. about efficacy of this armor, otherwise losses of one division a day (~10.000) would be argument for the use, not against it.
0:04 19th of August, 1943, Smolensk outskirts. For 2 weeks soviet forces were entangled in heavy combat with the Wehrmacht for a high ground which they had turned into an impregnable fort. The decision was made...
0:46 They were the fighters of an independent assault engineer-sapper brigade, apart from steel vests, they were all equiped with automatic weapons, dosens of grenades, anti-material rifles & camo fatigues.
1:08 in 30 minutes the area was captured, having only 2 KIAs and 19 wounded.
I hope I don't sound to cynic. The value of life in USSR during WWII was extreamly cheap. The book "Brute Force" states that USSR army did have supply units. The made military units as a complete package with able enough supplies to last to annialation. Survivors where send back to new units. Later during WWII this became a problem when the army units began winning and beating the Nazi war machine.
Quote: "WWII where won by the US industry and Russian blood".
@darkon112 I need to be a bit rought since space are limit here. The amount of equipment does not matter. It is how you use it. Most of the seasoned officer died at his purge before WWII. Pushing soldier into attack in unsound situations with one two soldier to share 1 rifle and 2 magazines and having NKVDshooting and retreating soldiers are just an example. Stalin himself adds to my statement with his quotes like: "One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are a statistic".
@FysikFyren Eh, two soldier to sharing 1 rifle and 2 magazines. is a load of drivel one thing SU had plenty of is guns and ammo. NKVD shooting retreating soldiers is also a fucking myth. Penal battalions were though shot for retreating. Well there was also a company shot for retreating during the battle for Berlin ordered by zhukov himself.
Next time though learn your history from something more then a shitty movie.
I don't know about you guys, but if I was a front line trooper I would WANT to wear the body armour if given one... Protection against glancing rounds, shrapnel and sharp edge objects would be good enough and better than no protection at all...
juggernauts!!!!!!!!
nemanjacoric 3 weeks ago
жаль мало было брони для пехоты только командный состав имел такую вещь.
redneck10ivan 4 weeks ago
My distant grandfather built the citadel of Smolensk in the 1600's... also a German :P
MessiahComing 1 month ago
Поцреотские комменты порадовали!
NeverTrustNobody1 1 month ago
@BeigarthTV A french tank being good ? AHAHAHHA NICE ONE
22tasos22 1 month ago
@22tasos22 Fuck you
0jrhindo 1 month ago
@0jrhindo I feel nothing i think your dick is broken..if u have one
22tasos22 1 month ago
If the Germans began the offensive on the Western Front, the West would not help. The Soviet Union was not ready for war, suffered a much greater loss and possibly lose. If lost svovetsky Union, the world would speak in German. =)
(translated by Google)
zipmantube 2 months ago
No, no, no, the title is incorrect, is not Russian, but a Soviet body armour.
Kriegerdammerung 2 months ago
el saagrado ejercito ROJOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooO!
holayz80 3 months ago
lolshtoo не смотри тупые фильмы, не слушай всяких пидорасов, типа Сванидзе то, что ты написал не соответствует дейстивительности.
alex2010m 3 months ago
ШИСБр РВГК - штурмовая элита. Спецназ, где бойцы имеют отличное техническое образование. Сомневаюсь, что где-то в мире были аналоги.
bodyguardik 3 months ago
Comment removed
lolshtoo 4 months ago
Я напомню, что по оф данным людские потери Союза в ВоВ составили более 11 млн убитых и пропавших без вести, включая гражданских - 26,5 млн погибших.
Германия - порядка 12 млн., включая гражданских.
lolshtoo 4 months ago
@lolshtoo
Т.е. советская армия должна была накрошить побольше мирного населения Германии, чтобы уравнять потери, так что ли?
Напомню, что соотношение военных потерь 1 немецких к 1,3 наших, и это потому, что немцы наших пленных изводили, а наши немецких - холили и лелеяли.
SarRuRand 4 months ago
@lolshtoo исключи гражданских, и потери будут почти одинаковые. А если учесть, что советские войска прошли наступлением не только по оккупированной территории Союза, но и всю Европу, потери вполне сопоставимы.
bodyguardik 3 months ago
Ага, такая достойная армия, что фашисты в своих воспоминаниях ужасались бездарству СОВЕСТКОГО рук-ва, которая затыкала щели людскими потоками, не считаясь с потерями. Маленькая Германия дошла до Москвы и вышла из войны проигравшей, но с многократо меньшими людскими потерями. А про оснащение и вовсе смешно, наши дедов бывало заставляли буквально с голыми руками искать себе смерть, винтовок не хватало. Подготовка тоже умиляет, офицерский состав сгноили по лагерям, приходилось учиться по-новой
lolshtoo 4 months ago
toti romani sa dea dilsike
pascanutudor 4 months ago
Меня многие лемминги закритикуют, но у нас была достойно вооруженная и подготовленная пехота.
timeniazaipal 4 months ago 13
@timeniazaipal на низовом уровне в войсках и промышленности в основном всё было очень достойно. Проблема была в командном звене.
winterfable 4 months ago
@winterfable
Согласен
timeniazaipal 4 months ago
@Lar82Pa too bad u don't know russian, I already apoligized for speaking of smg being primary german weapon. What I meant was that in urban/house fighting smg were the most dangerous weapon and that's exactly where this armor was used most of time. I disagree about the STG-44 being common with today's assault rifles though because today's AR's are mostly used in full auto mode and STG-44 was much more like M1 Garand in terms of usage, with full auto mode only for critical situations.
warpreacher1 5 months ago
Let no pussy amerikosy
And the less open mouth!
Otherwise fatty pumps
In favor are to get to us!
Then no one will not help them,
even Chuck Norris does not save you!
And the president of their black
in all of Russia suck!
~ ~ Rom4ik Volkovsky
sinfulvolk 5 months ago 3
@sinfulvolk
sinfulvolk 5 months ago
@sinfulvolk What language is that?
4ingP 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Russians were shit and still are, nothing will change that. You repelled the german invasion thanks to america's industry, providing you with tanks, airplanes, etc.
And invading the northern japanese islands 2 weeks before the war's end ? How cowardly can one be, scavenging from a defeated empire.
And now you bullshit the world with heroic stories on how great and advanced you were, how pathetic.
001720BC 5 months ago
@001720BC Hahaha! Wow, you really amused me there. One again, a patriotic American know-it-all swoops down to bash others with his country's self-propagated facts. Thank you for your oh so knowledgeable wisdom, teacher. Now, please bash my country of Canada so that I can feel that I have learned something from your superior intellect.
LCRDKazrai 2 months ago
@LCRDKazrai I'm actually French.
Nice fail on your analysis.
001720BC 2 months ago
@001720BC Wow, if you're French, then you've really not been paying attention in history class. The commonwealth is what you should be thanking for defending you at first, and the Americans later for reinforcing those who were already there.
And hell, to insult France's former allies is a low blow.
And oh, at least the Russians repelled the invasion of their lands unlike France, which had tanks that were better that the German's yet still failed.
Oh, and thanks for holding Vimmy for us.
LCRDKazrai 2 months ago
@LCRDKazrai We were allies then because "the enemy of your enemy is your friend". Not because we like them.
They did not repel anything, the only thing that saved them was the vastness and emptiness of russia. How can you successfully end an invasion when the enemy doesn't care about losing 500kms ?
Better tanks ? You are joking right ? Germans were far superior in most domains. We won because we had the industrial might of the USA giving us an endless stream of supplies
001720BC 2 months ago
@001720BC To reply in order:
1. That may be true, but they were allies to you before WWI.
2. Ever hear of Stalingrad? Then a push back to Berlin to defeat it (without America or France) Yeah, tell me that wasn't repelling.
3. Char B1 was better than the Panzer III or IV and proved it in combat. The reason they lost was because of ambushes and being heavily outnumbered.
4. America was not the only supplier of the war. Hell, they supplied the Axis, so without them t first we would have won faster.
LCRDKazrai 2 months ago
@LCRDKazrai Stalingrad was a bloody siege, were russian losses were around 40% superior to the germans. If you call nearly 25 million russian deaths in total "repelling" the enemy....
You do know that France only fought a couple of weeks before being totally overrun ? You call that battle proven ?
001720BC 2 months ago
@001720BC Stalingrad was a siege, yes, but guess what? They won and pushed them back across the hundreds of miles of land back to Berlin. More loses? Yes, but that still fits the description of repelling, no matter how many deaths.
I do know that there was only a few weeks, but in that time, here's a good example of the B1 "...a single Char B1 French heavy tank... frontally attacked and destroyed thirteen German tanks lying in ambush" "The tank safely returned despite being hit 140 times "
LCRDKazrai 2 months ago
@LCRDKazrai What didi it fight against Leichtraktors ? Lol
22tasos22 1 month ago
@22tasos22 Try Panzer IVs
LCRDKazrai 1 month ago
@LCRDKazrai hah I bet the ones without the exterior plating which had a better gun penetration ;O
22tasos22 1 month ago
@22tasos22 We're talking the Pazers that took hold over France. The French had better penetration and armour and during one battle was defeated because of the Germans sheer number, where they had to surround the French tanks and then fire at them from all sides.
But this has gone far enough. This video isn't about France. It's about Russia, so back on topic. Got any questions for me on the actual video?
LCRDKazrai 1 month ago
@LCRDKazrai Nope I'd like to learn mroe about them frenchies :P
22tasos22 1 month ago
@LCRDKazrai i don't know many stuff about the wars.. but check Zeitgeist the first movie the 3rd part.... it also shows how US wants wars... they are extremely profitable.. :/
DrKillaser 2 months ago
@001720BC "Better tanks ? You are joking right ? Germans were far superior in most domains"
Actually yes the T-34 tanks were better than the panzers -- so they did have better tanks -- at least for a while till the gemreans invented the tiger tank.
badpanda84 2 months ago
@001720BC "Better tanks ? You are joking right ? Germans were far superior in most domains"
Depends --at which point of the war we at talking about -- The T34 tanks were better than the german tanks at the time --- of course it was only later in the war the german came up with the tiger tank
badpanda84 2 months ago
@badpanda84 Yes indeed, but the comment I was replying to said the french had better tanks. Which just is not so.
001720BC 2 months ago
@001720BC Oh fair enought -- I've never heard anyone try and argue that the French had better tanks.
badpanda84 2 months ago
Comment removed
001720BC 5 months ago
if we make men walking tanks then the enemy will simply fire larger ammunition at them, like 30mm, 40mm grenades or 12.7mm... everything has it's limit.
cwross1976 6 months ago
i would hardly call it body armor
i was issued to the first wave soldiers, once they breach the german line most of the soldiers would take it off and continued fighting
the armor was only good defense against hand gun bullets not assault rifles
godscuttingyoudown 7 months ago
@godscuttingyoudown then were no 'assault rifles', most German automatic guns had pistole cartridge.
winterfable 7 months ago
@godscuttingyoudown, at the time of WW2 there were no assault rifles, even German STG-44 wasn't assault rifle in nowadays meaning, this body armor protected soldiers from pistole bullets. It usually couldn't deflect Mgun or rifle bullets, that's true, but most german soldiers were armed by submachine guns anyway.
warpreacher1 6 months ago
@warpreacher1 не надо грязи, подавляющее большинство солдат вермахта с начала и до финала было вооружено винтовками mauser 98k, объём выпуска пистолетов-пулемётов mp38 и mp40 был весьма скромен... для most german soldiers.
HackDaTank 6 months ago
@HackDaTank я это для красного словца добавил, моя ошибка конечно, я знаю что в реальности автоматами далеко не большинство было вооружено, я имел в виду что именно там где применялись эти штурмовики, то бишь на штурме укреплённых объектов и в городских зданиях наибольшую опасность представляли именно автоматы, кое-где пулемёты, винтовки реже.
warpreacher1 6 months ago
5. The part about Berlin operation is more my thoughts, at least by now I haven't found any proves of that they were used there, so dunno. But at the same they did a great role, even though as said in movie they couldn't cover all parts of front with 10000 soldiers dying every day and the whole number of such soldiers a bit more than 20000.
warpreacher1 7 months ago
4. These brigades were formed from usual assault-engineering ones, only very tough soldiers younger than 40 could pass, they were armed by machine guns, flamethrowers, anti-tank rifles and usual sub-machine guns PPS-43. It was their task to take fortified cities, bunkers and hills. Haven't you ever thought how that appeared that soviets lost less than Germans in Berlin operation? Well artillery did important part, but still...
warpreacher1 7 months ago
Body armour?
I think I'd stick to a T-34 or a Panzer IV, thanks.
jimmyxx3 7 months ago
Weren't these segmented armor from the first world war? I remember seeing images of them used by the British. Also, I highly doubt that these were used for main line combat. It would be too bulky and heavy for mobile combat and would not be effective against bullets. Engineering and sapper troops would find it useful though against shrapnel or stray bullets.
romanlegions 7 months ago
I don't understand Russian, so I was wondering if the armor seen in this clip is made of metal plates or some sort of high quality fabric like Kevlar.
MegaBondagemon 8 months ago
Comment removed
HackDaTank 8 months ago
@MegaBondagemon As I understand they're talking about steel plates, not kevlar. Keep in mind, it was before assault rifles
bambinonero 8 months ago
The Finns were good but not miracle workers. Kept secret until the 1970's it was revealed that the UK/US code breakers were feeding real time intercepts of the Russian Army. That's how the Finns made such stunning defenses.
KB4QAA 8 months ago
@KB4QAA well... the big game is still being played.
HackDaTank 8 months ago
Interesting,Can you add english subtitles?
Artaxeus 8 months ago
Пусть не пиздят америкосы
И раскрывают реже пасть!
Иначе жирные отсосы
В немилость могут к нам попасть!
Тогда никто им не поможет,
даже Чак Норрис не спасёт!
А президент их чернокожий
у всей России отсосёт!!!
~Ром4ик Волковский~
Travmapunk 9 months ago 41
@Travmapunk you sir are a racist dick
lovegunz1 8 months ago
cccp sucks
brizz500 9 months ago
@brizz500 sucks!
Travmapunk 9 months ago
This is very interesting information.
Columnsl 9 months ago
Your people did greatly in the winter war, and the russians learned the lesson...Blame the Big Powers and blame Stalin, but leave alone the Russian people.They lost 20 million lives that deserve to be honoured, and they could have wiped your country out when they rolled over in 1944. And look, today your country is more socialist (socialdemocracy at work) than theirs )))
TheConspirateWarrior 9 months ago
Stalin was no saint, everybody knows... but truth is that all the world powers wanted to profit on the Soviet Union disgrace. Everybody played to Hitler´s game. WWII started in Spain, you all know it, and the allies played pretty stupidly , loosing a safe rear For France and the BEF. The Blitzkrieg, however mighty, could not tresspass the Pyrenees, and Hitler knew it. What if the allies had been holding the line like the International brigades and the SOVIET UNION did when it was about time.
TheConspirateWarrior 9 months ago
hèy_í_fèËl_só_løñÊlY_tÒdÁy
BabyyuuJovitaan840 9 months ago
Just imagine.... you've been suddenly puled off your PC))))))your country treacherously attacked, regular forces crippled, you received a "GUN" and few clips if you are lucky, say me, do you have courage to defend your home? This WARRIORS did!!!, all this suffer, pain, lost, of my people, worth something (and any people that fought the Hitler's army), and must be remembered for Centuries, that we may never forget what Humans blood thirst can do. Peace to you All. Sorry for my bad English :)
Altanzar1990 10 months ago
@Altanzar1990 Dont praise USSR. USSR chose to start wars and therefore isn't entitled to respect.
Attack small friendly neutral nations like Finland and baltic countries. Fortunately, Finns destroyed very large parts of the pathetic red army...
kaahaajaFIN 10 months ago
@kaahaajaFIN I understand ur feelings, but attacking finland was inavoidable those days, in order to push border a little bit further from Leningrad. In other case we would loose this great city right after beginning of germans invasion. It wasn't a secret for russians that finland will join war on Hitler side. So it was inavoidable evil those days.
georgysb 9 months ago
@georgysb There's sence in your argument, but proven facts overrule it. Sure I understand, that Finland's border was close to leningrad, but there was a secret document with USSR and Germany. There read, what countries Germany would get to invade, without soviet interruption, and what countries USSR would get to conquest without Germany's interference. There read, that USSR got, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine, Baltic states, and WHOLE Finland. Not just the border area.
kaahaajaFIN 9 months ago
@kaahaajaFIN That maybe a fact but they still won :) You must be pissed about that ay Finny :) QQ more
hemek 9 months ago
@hemek Yeah they won in paper, but in practice, they lost, because they couldn't achieve their goal (the conquest of whole Finland), and Finland gained a defencive victory, when she kept her freedom.
Why would I be pissed? Im proud of my country's success in ww2 against many ten times bigger enemy :)
Have a nice day my friend!
kaahaajaFIN 9 months ago
@kaahaajaFIN there is little doubt about sophisticated defense strategy and tactics of Finnish army during Winter war which (the tactics) was honored in the USSR and is still a sound example in modern military education (unfortunately in didn't work in 1944 when Finland thrown out the white flag as Nazi ally)), but you're wrong about strategic targets of Soviet Union which were Vyborg area and Karelia and they've got it. there were no use in such amount of wetlands as 'whole Finland'.
HackDaTank 8 months ago
@kaahaajaFIN maybe your an Allies fan boy you SUCK!
Wolf9405 9 months ago
@Wolf9405 Wow! That sentence made absolutely no sence at all! Congratulations, you just earned your place in my Block list.
kaahaajaFIN 9 months ago
@Altanzar1990 Правильно говоришь. Согласен с тобою. Вечная память погибшим солдатам.
SoulTakerxRus 9 months ago
You must also remember that German Forces had an Allies on Eastern Front! such as: Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and other countries of Eastern Europe. Whole Europe working on Germans (not by their will mostly) to help destroy the Soviet Union. Russia draw most of the German Forces into herself, and then grander it in bloody struggle. I'm Russian myself, i heard my grandfather stories about war, about this bloody, unstoppable, hard work, to stop the invaders, to protect the country, people.
Altanzar1990 10 months ago
i remember watching some photos of german assault soldiers wearing similar armour in ww1
rod3067 10 months ago
*tough soldiers out for revenge....their land...their people.
ESP1EMG 10 months ago
Хоть бы субтитры включил!
DmitRU2007 11 months ago
They wich they have sutch Armor.
Odin88Rabe 11 months ago
Yeah right :D! Russians ... in ww2? ... body armor? stopping a whole clip ? ... :D! Sounds like Communist Propaganda! :D it was amazing that the russians even had rifles :D!
2RayneR7 1 year ago
@2RayneR7
you are retarded or what?
Scoutrussp7 1 year ago
@Scoutrussp7 There arent such armors made nowadays dude :D! The only closest thing to an armor back then was the Flak Jacket which was used by Pilots. And it could only partialy protect by the lightest of fragments but by no way can protect against a direct bullet. And in the begining of the war the Russians at some places had 1 rifle per 5 people so do answer me like a person and do not start trying to insult me.
2RayneR7 1 year ago
@2RayneR7
1 rifle for 5 soldiers?
too much "enemy at the gates" movies?
google SN-42
Scoutrussp7 1 year ago 53
@Scoutrussp7 lolz yeah Enemy at the gates yeah. Ive heard about what i said before ive seen the movie though. Still yeah ive heard that they had such steel vests but they were not very effective. And what i really meant was that this video is filled with too much propaganda. Such a vest could not stop a whole clip. Even today's vests handle that much.
2RayneR7 1 year ago
@2RayneR7 Jesus where did you learn your history ? Games, Wikipedia, Movies man get smarter and start reading books have you got any idea what industries were capable off during the war and you start about 1 rifle for 5 soldiers *facepalm* ????? That armor was capable of stopping pistol cartridges which was a very nice advantage in close combat because of the weapons used (SMG's, Pistol's)
ASoldiersGuide 11 months ago
@ASoldiersGuide Where i have heard the 1 rifle for 5 soldiers .... Discovery said by a Russian veteran. I do understand that was not everywhere .... obviously this was about a certain part of the army in the begining of the war. And even if that is exadurated the Russians for one reason or another were losing the war in the begining because they were not ready. What industries were capable of has nothing to do with ways of making steel capable of stopping bullets.
2RayneR7 11 months ago
@ASoldiersGuide And if you truly believe that back then vests were more capable then now then... you are living in a dream. If that is so then why are today's vests barely capable of pulling off such feats? Since we are talking about only single layer steel armor right? Yes nowadays there are steel plates which can stop a limited amount of pistol cartridges. But the idea why i started writing these comments was that this video is a propaganda video which means it is overexadurated at best.
2RayneR7 11 months ago
@2RayneR7 For the time it was good... no propoganda here, don't forget that the weapons back there were not as powerful as today, machine pistols and rifles were used as most common weapons, also it is said the guy was shot with an mp, so it's a small round... Not everything east is only propoganda, west lies enough too...
thenameless615 11 months ago
@Scoutrussp7 It was very useful in dense, intense urban battles (Stalingrad) where the Germans used the MP-40 predominantly, but, because of its weight, was not practical for soldiers charging across an open field.
Nebelwerfer89 6 months ago
@Scoutrussp7 yeah, SN-42.. russian body armor for urban conflicts used by the engineers or the infantry that was on the tanks.. tho its weight was just around 3,5 kg.. 2mm of steel.. it bounced 9mm shells from medium to long range.. useless at close range or against high caliber weapons as MG-42.
Sunshrine2 3 months ago
@Scoutrussp7
no, really its like:
the first solder gets a weapon.
a second gets an ammo.
when first dies, second will get weapon and shoot...
the russians were poorly armed, but they had a lot of solders.....
blackwolfLT 3 months ago
@blackwolfLT It was only at the beginning of the war. The whole country at that time worked for the front. It was designed and manufactured a lot of weapons.
zipmantube 2 months ago
@2RayneR7 1. official numbers of soviet losses are 100% accurate because are same from any sources, they make up difference between what SU had before and after war, counting birth/non-war deaths rate, they don't use soviet numbers of dead soldiers. 2. 1 rifle for 5 men.... no comments 3. 3 these body armor was given to assault-engineering brigades of supreme commander's personal reserve (ШИСб РВГк), 20 of such brigades were formed overall, it's about 23000 soldiers.
warpreacher1 7 months ago
@2RayneR7 Oh please shut the fuck up! While Russia was fighting at eastern front you brits couldn't even defend your little island, not talking about starting western front on your own. Yes, you made Spitfire, best plane of the time, but when it came to agreement with France about mutual defense you let nazi's to take them over. Also asskicked in Africa. Opening western front at the end of war? Oh please, it was just a political step, otherwise soviets would have taken that land next to you!
thenameless615 11 months ago
The reign of Joseph Stalin over the nations under the Soviet banner was characterized by a veil of secrecy perhaps best compared with what we observe with North Korea today. The Soviet government regularly distorted figures to bolster the morale of its own people and to appear strong before its allies.
tranmere789 1 year ago
In 1944 the Soviets still managed to lose 23 700 fully tracked AFVs of which only 2 200 were light tanks: the highest number of AFV losses in a single year by any country in history.Of these losses 58% were T-34s. Despite all possible factors being in their favour and despite massive German operational losses during 1944, the Soviets still managed to loose around three AFVs for every German AFV destroyed, or around four tanks (mostly T-34/85s) for every German tank destroyed.
tranmere789 1 year ago
Indeed, it was the Germans who were suffering increasing numbers of operational losses, so if anything the T-34’s tactical loss ratio in 1943 was probably closer to four or five to one.
tranmere789 1 year ago
Close to two thirds (63%) of AFVs lost were T-34s. As in 1941 and 1942, at least three T-34s were lost for every enemy fully tracked AFV destroyed. The vast majority of these losses were due to direct enemy fire and cannot be attributed to operational losses, because by 1943 the Soviets were most often gaining control of the battlefield and were recovering almost all disabled and partially destroyed tanks.
tranmere789 1 year ago
There is no doubt that on average German tank crews in 1942 were probably still the best trained and most experienced in the world. However, this does not explain how apparently obsolete and inferior German AFVs achieved a kill ratio of better than three to one against T-34s in direct combat, unless the overall combat power of the T-34 is historically overrated.
tranmere789 1 year ago
In 1942 the Soviets still managed to loose 15 100 fully tracked AFVs in 1942 including 6 600 T-34s and 1 200 of the even more powerful KV heavy tanks.This meant their loss ratio was almost as bad as 1941. To a large extent it was worse than 1941 because in this case over half the tanks destroyed were T-34 and KV tanks, and the large majority of losses were due to direct enemy fire and cannot be attributed to operational losses.
tranmere789 1 year ago
finland sucks , just sayin.......
THEFLESHMANN1 1 year ago
I guess most of them didn't have those protections, otherwise they wouldn't have lost 8.6 millions soldiers...i feel sorry for those guys, russian commanders were damn butchers
kukuntz82 1 year ago
@kukuntz82
Actually they (Soviet) lost more than 10.5 soldiers killed. Their official numbers of losses are estimated to be about 40-68% of real losses.
tranmere789 1 year ago
I respect russian when they attacked our fatherland (Finland)
I respect their bravery.
Why Russians just force people into figth and let them die?
Russians Officers shot their own if they came back and that is just awful.
When Soviet Army invaded finland in 1939 , and some of those soldiers got as prisonners. Finland Army FED THIS MAN GREATLY! AND GAVE THEM PLACE TO SLEEP! FINLAND NEVER KILLED ANY SINGLE PRISONNER AND DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY GERMANS AND RUSSIANS DID?!?!
Greeds from Finland!
Jaksi12345 1 year ago
And to think if you were a russian soldier in WWII you had a 1 in 5 chance of survival...
XxZJ21Xx 1 year ago
fail propoganda, the germans could have won the war if it only was germany vs Russia.
ChriisoX 1 year ago
@ChriisoX USA+England joined fight only in 1944 being scared by opportunity that USSR will finally gain control over all Europe. Before that US Air Forces were busy with genocide of german civilians by massive bombing of german cities.
georgysb 1 year ago
@georgysb omfg... THE UK JOINED IN 1944 !??! WHERE THE HELL ARE U FROM? RUSSIA?? If Im right, germany where bombing the shit out of UK from almoust the start of the war. You my friend are full of false propoganda. AND NO! America didnt join because they where scared of that the USSR where going to take europe all by them self. America joined when the japanese attacked pearl harbour. And if you didnt know, the german submarines where sinking american ships to in the atlantic osean.
ChriisoX 1 year ago
@ChriisoX Americans must have had some bad sense of direction if they came to Europe due to the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor alone.
Spets25 1 year ago
@Spets25 *cough* read again. The german sank thousends of tons of steel in the atlantic osean.... Maybe another reason to join? Maybe another reason because they where allied to the UK?
ChriisoX 1 year ago
@ChriisoX I mean USA ans UK dropped troops on land fight with germans in 1944. And japaneese weren't actually that serious enemy as soviet army easily beated them in 1939 and again in 1945. The only and the most strong enemy was Germany.
georgysb 11 months ago
@georgysb yeah not them's fault that they got bombed the shit out so they couldn prepear their attack. Germany kept bombing the UK so hard they almoust lost (in the air space) but since germany gave up, the UK could make allot of spitfires and they could take the air space back. And if im right, Russia wasnt in the heart of Europe until 1945, they where in russia for almoust 3 years before they made it out of there. USA used one year to do what u guys did in 3 years.
ChriisoX 11 months ago
@ChriisoX 1) russian troops came out of russian pre-war borders in 1944.
2) russian army destroyed about 85% of german troops, while USA + UK dealed with only the rest 15%. But the biggest contribution of USA and UK was destroying the bigger part of german air forces.
georgysb 11 months ago
@georgysb even so, the luftwafe was outmatched by the Ilyushkin aircraft and the russian winter
CCCP1USSR 11 months ago
@CCCP1USSR
Um, no the IL-2 was a sitting duck for German aircraft. In fact the Russians had nothing to compete at the German level until the Yak-3 hit. Nearly HALF of the IL-2s built were shot down by the Germans.
EvilxMerlin 10 months ago
@georgysb cite your source. 85% doesn't sound right for the entire german force. maybe 85% of the eastern german front.
ESP1EMG 10 months ago
@ESP1EMG I doubt u can read russian and in my turn I didn't use english sources. But still u could read some of Max Hastings, british historian. He was highly surprised how ineffective were allies troops on western front. Losses were about 10/24 in german favor there. During 1944-45 germans have lost 540.000 soldiers on western front which is about 5.5% of their common losses on WWII.
georgysb 10 months ago
@georgysb I'm so glad you pointed that out "how ineffective were allies troops on western front" which can be disputed as well as supported. a lot of failures in that campaign to be found. the germans lost an entire army division at stalingrad so it is fathomable to think the losses as russia pushed toward berlin. i do find this interesting to think about! 85% of the entire military force of the nazi war machine being crushed by the russia resistance! damn them were some tough soldiers.
ESP1EMG 10 months ago
@ESP1EMG The secret of such a toughness was that russians found themselfs cornered when they realized what do germans bring to them... that in case of defeat they were doomed to desappear as a nation. So my ancestors fought as deamons for the chance to live for their children... and they didn't doubt much when it was needed to die here and now to stop enemy approach for another day and let the rest brothers in arms to regroup.
georgysb 10 months ago
@georgysb Hitler had one ambition to defeat Russia and than eradicate their people by genocide and most people unaware that Russian lost 26 million people during WW2. After that Russian people were gone German Settlers would take over there farms and industry. Of course the Russian fought with a tenacity that destroyed the German Army with the aid of American Lend Lease and allied assualts on German territories and Industry.
LottoWinner999 10 months ago
Comment removed
bojangles593 9 months ago
@georgysb thats the biggest load of crap ive ever heard HAHA but what else would you expect from someone living in a failed country like yours
bojangles593 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@bojangles593 oops... TROLL detected!
georgysb 9 months ago
@georgysb Meehn England together with France declared war on Germany in 39' when germany attacked poland.
ASoldiersGuide 11 months ago
@ASoldiersGuide well... they declared war to Germany and what was next? They did nothing for a year untill germans prepared for war with France and attacked them.)) That's coz UK wasn't really going to fight for Poland, but to frame USSR and make it fight with Hitler for some polish territories, but Stalin appeared to be smarter and USSR had got 2 more years to prepare for a big war.
georgysb 11 months ago
@ChriisoX так союзники стали рыпаться только тогда, когда увидели, что Советы стали оттеснять немцев.
51region 1 year ago
@51region omg learn english.
ChriisoX 1 year ago
As I've read, this armour was easily penetrateed by German machine guns, which is why the idea was abandoned, not so much because of the mobility. It wasn't also very useful in "human wave" strategy, since soviet soldiers were cheaper than piece of steel for commanders.
DV51260 1 year ago
@DV51260 What say is sad but true. re: price for a Soviet soldier vs steel.
InquiringMind63 1 year ago
@DV51260 Yes the armor was capable of stopping small caliber ammunition like pistol rounds or SMG rounds since Machine guns use larger calibers they could easily penetrate that armor.
ASoldiersGuide 11 months ago
Too bad the few troops who received them probably traded for food :/
AdamSavage88 1 year ago
the russian body armour in WW2 was more russians.
JeremyPettapiece 1 year ago
Now I know where Bethesda got inspiration for some of the weird "diy" looking body armors in Fallout 3!
Didn't seem to protect though, russian casualties were around 8.6 million dead soldiers while the germans only lost a total of approx. 5.7 men on both fronts with the majority on the eastern front.
Anyways, nice to see how modern body armor started! (And no, medieval human tincan armors don't count as Body Armor)
DonMoza 1 year ago
@DonMoza
Why wouldn't it count as body armor? It is in fact Armor covering the body over the wearer.
And these were virtually never used - without doing a research of myself I quote the author of this video -"Until the end of the War, only 15 such units were established.".
And I doubt armor alone will make any significant difference over the course of any war. It's not like American troops in the Middle East are doing especially good despite looking how they're equipped.
BorkaBonum 1 year ago
@BorkaBonum
You misread my comment. I called this the start and heritage of our modern body armor. The only thing I wouldn't call body armor because it wouldn't protect you from anything are medieval knight armors.
DonMoza 1 year ago
This armor was very heavy solid steel (~10kg). It protected only from MP-40 (9mm pistol rounds) fire and only chest. Narrator talks B.S. about efficacy of this armor, otherwise losses of one division a day (~10.000) would be argument for the use, not against it.
currishev 1 year ago
No this armor weighs 3.5 kg,2 mm steel
Tetraciclinum 1 year ago
This is Soviet body armor not Russian.
KonChul 1 year ago
@KonChul In WW2 Russia was the soviet union so you have to use a little common sense
bigmathafaka 1 year ago
@KonChul Absolutly, and may i suggest you use yours and learn about sarcasm.
KonChul 1 year ago
at least 20 million killed...
CyberP4nk 1 year ago
0:04 19th of August, 1943, Smolensk outskirts. For 2 weeks soviet forces were entangled in heavy combat with the Wehrmacht for a high ground which they had turned into an impregnable fort. The decision was made...
0:46 They were the fighters of an independent assault engineer-sapper brigade, apart from steel vests, they were all equiped with automatic weapons, dosens of grenades, anti-material rifles & camo fatigues.
1:08 in 30 minutes the area was captured, having only 2 KIAs and 19 wounded.
patrikasLTL 1 year ago
@patrikasLTL Yes sir, the true value of the SN-38,39,40,40A and 42 body armour as proven in combat...
dzdz80 1 year ago
09.05.1945
BaranovV 1 year ago
Стальные нагрудники, это как, чугунные_??? хD Сколько ты в них пробежишь пиздун ты ванька.
DieKerze1981 1 year ago
пиздеть только ненадо, оденька свою броню, я попробую на тебе АК_47 может вправду_??? идиот.
DieKerze1981 1 year ago
идёт дрысня народная, народная дрысня :D
DieKerze1981 1 year ago
I hope I don't sound to cynic. The value of life in USSR during WWII was extreamly cheap. The book "Brute Force" states that USSR army did have supply units. The made military units as a complete package with able enough supplies to last to annialation. Survivors where send back to new units. Later during WWII this became a problem when the army units began winning and beating the Nazi war machine.
Quote: "WWII where won by the US industry and Russian blood".
FysikFyren 1 year ago
@FysikFyren That qoute makes no sense since SU produced just as much equipment as the US.
darkon112 1 year ago
@darkon112 I need to be a bit rought since space are limit here. The amount of equipment does not matter. It is how you use it. Most of the seasoned officer died at his purge before WWII. Pushing soldier into attack in unsound situations with one two soldier to share 1 rifle and 2 magazines and having NKVDshooting and retreating soldiers are just an example. Stalin himself adds to my statement with his quotes like: "One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are a statistic".
FysikFyren 1 year ago
Comment removed
darkon112 1 year ago
Comment removed
darkon112 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FysikFyren Eh, two soldier to sharing 1 rifle and 2 magazines. is a load of drivel one thing SU had plenty of is guns and ammo. NKVD shooting retreating soldiers is also a fucking myth. Penal battalions were though shot for retreating. Well there was also a company shot for retreating during the battle for Berlin ordered by zhukov himself.
Next time though learn your history from something more then a shitty movie.
darkon112 1 year ago
I doubt it was even bullet-proof. Its most likely designed only to protect from shrapnels and flying debris...
jariroth 1 year ago
SUBVERTEDNATIONdotNET
ArmenianOzzy 1 year ago
ah thats why if you look at the soviets soldiers in ww2 looks like they cary 1 sack of rice...
grvc44 1 year ago
the bodyarmors were quite good for weak pistol and mp munitions, but nowadays it wouldnt stand an ak or any other rifle bullet.
InRUSSIAweTRUST 1 year ago
I don't know about you guys, but if I was a front line trooper I would WANT to wear the body armour if given one... Protection against glancing rounds, shrapnel and sharp edge objects would be good enough and better than no protection at all...
dzdz80 1 year ago
me too
Napalm127 1 year ago
subtitles please!
jab15552 1 year ago
they shoul use full armours like fallout 3 LOL
Cruz182 1 year ago
the first bodyarmor? a nother thing that russians invented. guess we can thank russians for modern bodyarmor.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
locks like a copy of WW1 german trench armor , lol even the british soldiers of WW1 got trench armor but more like a chainmail
pissmeister 1 year ago
Stalin's incompetence costs many Russian lives. Stalin's treachery costs more innocent Russians their lives. God bless the Russian people.
thoumaturgica 1 year ago 2
Какая высота? Подскажите район конкректнее!!!
wrednusha 1 year ago
Germans have a government; Russians have a motherland.
RodinaZovet 1 year ago 15
@RodinaZovet ...which killed more Russians than German goverment killed people,combined!
mfilip62 1 year ago
@mfilip62
There is a difference between regime and country which you fail to see. And Russians fought for their country.
RodinaZovet 1 year ago
@RodinaZovet ROA (POA) fought for their country,White Army fought for their country,
Red Army fought for Jewish controled goverment that killed more Russians and other people
than any other counry or regime combined...
Don't get me wrong,I respect Russia,but hate communism with all my being!
mfilip62 1 year ago
@mfilip62 that just one word for that pèople stupid comies!!!!!