@CaptainCheap21 Chinese people are the same as Taiwanese..... in 1949 chinese people went to taiwan and KICKED OUT the original islanders. They just quietly stole all their land. Dirty chinks. Chinese people= same blood and DNA as modern taiwanese. Not unless you're talking about original islander.
German engineering in tanks was certainly not superior. No german tank had stabilized guns. No german tank had fast electric traverse. Germany never fielded airburst fuses in their artillery. Germany never dropped a bomb on the US.
Its amazing how many tanks the german aces destroyed.
Michael wittman with 141 tank kills, and 132 anti tank guns (confirmed kills), Otto Carius with more then 150 Tank kills, or Kurt Knispel with 168 kills (128 as gunner), Johannes Bölter with 144 Tank kills...and the list continues.
Tacts, Skills, superior engineering and discipline, its damn impressive.
By the way....read Otto Carius "Tigers in the mud" it really takes you back in time, and into the tankbattles. Hes still alive!
@Skalmans750 Has more to do with German personnel practices. Germany kept skilled people in line, and counted their kills and broadcast them for propaganda. Further, Germany encouraged high counts, again for propaganda. German propaganda intended to keep the fools fighting, though the war was lost.
By contrast Ira Bong was pulled from combat after he had a mere 40 kills. US that way used skilled men to train their very large army to a very high standard. Result: US overran most of Germany
@DonMeaker If you take Michael Wittman for exemple, he was called to train the panzercrews back in Germany on several occasions but he went hes own way and against Hitlers will(Typical Wittman) .Wittman had sutcha greate respect among higher ranks and was one of the few who could get away with saying no to Hitler.
USA didnt face a fully powered german army, by this time there were old men and kids fighting with what they could lay their hands on.
@Skalmans750 That must be right: nothing left but old men and children in 1942 when the US kicked Germany out of Africa.
What happened is the US built a combined arms force in imitation of the German practice, and Germany left combined arms, abandoned close air support, and built crude monsters like the Tiger II but failed to build the artillery/air units necessary for combined arms.
@Shchetchynianin In particular we outnumbered Germany in Allies not Attacked, and in radar detonated artillery fuses. Germans outnumbered us in Tanks Abandoned because they broke down.
@DonMeaker OMFG if running out of ammo and fuel means, that equipment is getting broken.. Btw. have you ever compared in numbers size of forces on the Western fronts? Btw. you still outnumbered III Reich in own allies abandoned and sold to Soviets. Worst type of betrayal ever, and there are no words vulgar enough to describe such acts.
@Shchetchynianin the French were able to field a number of units from Panthers that had been abandoned by the Germans without a shot being fired. Panthers served in France until 1950, when they were scrapped as obsolete. Shermans soldiered on to the 1970s. Poland was German ally against Czechoslovakia, and Germany attacked them. Soviets were German ally against Poland, and Germany attacked them. France and Britain were German allies against Czechoslovakia, and Germany attacked them. and more...
@DonMeaker as I said - due to western allies absolute supremacy, the delivery of fuel and ammo was extremely difficult. I mean 1943 Tehran conference for example (not to mention Vietnam war in which you actually started to win, but withdrew). And in 1938 we gained back lands conquered by Czechoslovakians in 1920, when we were stopping the red flood.
@Shchetchynianin As I said, Poland conquered those Czechoslovakian lands as ally of Hitler's Germany. Poland and USSR shortly found that "non-aggression pacts" signed with Germany were merely preparation for invasion. Vietnam was was won, and US withdrew. Subsequent violation of the peace treaty by NVA was shameful for those who broke their word. Poles were party to that peace treaty, IIRC and party to its violations.
@DonMeaker 'conquered' - ok, if Canada has conquered Alaska during II WW (when you were fighting against nazis and japs), and you would have tried to get it back after 20 years, would it have been 'conquer' or mere getting back your own land? This was exactly the case of the "Czechoslovakian conquer" you refer to! P.S. don't treat Communist Polish state as Poland. It was nothing more but autonomous state to the Soviet Russia. It was governed by people loyal to Soviets and matters of high importa
@Shchetchynianin It was governed by Poles loyal to Soviets. Not my kind of Poles, but Poles none the less, just as Senator Kerry is not my kind of American, but is certainly an American.
@DonMeaker at least to the end of Stalinist age the governors of the state were mainly people of jewish origin(vide Jakub Berman, Hilary Minc), so was the judiciary (Stefan Michnik, Helena Wolinska), and military - where alot of officers were either Soviet or jewish (Karol Swierczewski, Marian Spychalski - the jewish were removed by force after 6 day war of Israel in 1967, accused of being sionist spies)
@DonMeaker ance were decided not in Warsaw, but at Kremlin. Poles during communist occupation were awaiting US Army as Jewish are awaiting the Messiah.
@Shchetchynianin I met some Poles who worked for the US Army as Labor Service. These were some of the men who fought with us against the Germans, and their children. They were trusted, honorable men, many with US security clearances, who (the ones I met) guarded US ammunition depots in West Germany. After the war several polish units did not return to Poland to be murdered, (after some had) but rather the US was able to make some provision for at least some of them.
@DonMeaker Basically most of the Western (the official government of exile) forces did stay abroad:) Even if you were a private/corporal you were most likely to spend at least few weeks in ex-gestapo prisons (with very brutal hearings), run by Soviets and their servants. But if you were an officer and did not swear loyalty to communists in advance, you indeed were highly likely to get death sentence as servant of imperialists.
@Shchetchynianin And that was after the war. After the soviet occupation, some 20,000 Polish officers were murdered by Soviets at Kaytun wood. Add to that the recent deaths of Polish leadership, in aircraft "accident".
My suspicion is that the "accident" was facilitated by KGB, but what do I know?
@DonMeaker the Katyn massacre happened at 1940. After war there were no more such mass murders by Soviets (there were far more but on smaller scale), but at least 2 000 000 people were murdered by Soviets and their servants. The Sikorsky's death was possible cooperation of Allied intelligence (Sikorsky was opposing being close Allies with Soviets for the murders etc.), enabling them to make the decisions which had been made at Tehran conference, and Soviet's not to recognize official government
@DonMeaker seems that yt removed my comment: that part of Czechoslovakia you refer to was as Czechoslovakian, as Alaska is Canadian. While we re-gained independence in 1918, the Zaolzie (this is Polish name for the region concerned), where Poles were significant majority, was joined to PL. In 1920, when we were fighting with Soviets, Czechoslovakian army captured Zaolzie. And we actually were not an ally of Germany, while getting back our lands. We didn't cooperate with the III Reich.
@Shchetchynianin So your defense is that Poland took back that region by permission of the invading Germans, that Poland had a "non-aggression pact" with Germany, but Poland didn't cooperate with them. As the Polish, acting as dogs of the Nazis marched in, the Czech military commander noted that the Poles wouldn't hold it long. They didn't. After only 11 months the German masters kicked their Polish dogs. The Poles paid a heavy price for that mistake.
@Shchetchynianin Actually no, the US had no agreement with prewar Poland, though we did indeed fight against the same enemies. Your charge of betrayal must be mistaken. Perhaps you mean Great Britain? Poland had a prewar agreement with Britain and France, as did Germany and USSR. US also had a small bit of action going on in the Pacific, though we gave priority to Europe. We also had Navy and Army Air force necessary to get stuff moved Round the world. US had 90 army divisions, 6 Marine Div
@DonMeaker Sutcha interesting subject this is :) The German tacticts was way ahead of their time the "Battlegroups" of modern warfare is a direct copy of the setups the germans used during WW2 "Kampfgruppe" aint that impressive.
Airsupport, Artillery,Panzer, infantery all acting together as a solid unit, this was extremely effective when fighting a enemy who had greater numbers as you could move extremely fast using hit and run tactics with a extreme effectivity agains slow enemies.
So now you're down to pure insults? *Yawn* Haters gonna hate.
I accept your full and utter concession that you're nothing but a completely retarded and mindless troll and that nothing you said or will ever say is anything but complete and utter bullshit, forever. Good day, sir.
"We"? Ah, so now you have a bunch of imaginary friends. And I'd like retarde dkiddies like you even try. Here's a funny fact: German reserve soldiers have a fully functional automatic firearm at home. Your idiotic threats don't impress anyone and if you moron ever try, you're getting ventilated.
Finland is only nation to pay off war bills to criminal russia, for no reason karelia my mothers homeland was stolen by ruski, russians r criminal thieves, Mannerheim knew hitler was a bipolar madman that would bring germany into the stone age after 1943
In reality Finland was seeking a separate peace (had been for a long time) and when the chance came the president simply resigned and the peace was made. Then started the Lapland war to drive our brothers in arms away from the country (forced by Soviet Union). No matter how bad the Nazis were Finland is still thankful for all the help we got (Kuhlmey for example) since it was one of the reasons we managed to keep our independence.
@randomjesse And we won't talk about the Molotov = Von Ribbentropp accord by which Soviet Union invaded Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and Finland... After all the Germans were Finn's good friends...
@DonMeaker A lot had changed in Europe (and in Finland) since the signing of that treaty. The bad geographical position of Germany meant that the Nazis had to do bad deals in the east to be able to focus on the west. The Germans helped Finland during both world wars (WW1 they helped the Whites beat the Reds in the civil war) and Finland was dependant on that help.
@randomjesse Of course Germany could have merely kept their previous agreements,,,Like the Non-aggression pact with Poland which would have allowed them to focus on the west...
Hitler made a practice of invading allies and neutrals. They even bragged that after defeating USSR they would return and invade Switzerland...
@DonMeaker Yes they could have. But what does that have to do with anything? Hitler's first main goal was to expand the territory in the east and bring back the good ol' Prussian glory, give living space for the expanding population and make a buffer against the threat of the USSR. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here?
@randomjesse If his main goal was to expand to the east, then why did he attack France? If his intention was to attack the USSR, why not do it with Poland (which had earlier defeated USSR all on its own) as a ally? How does giving half of Poland to USSR create a buffer against USSR? Rather, it brings USSR closer. The entire German war effort was a sad and confused muddle, intermixed with occasional war crimes. What a shameful record!
@DonMeaker When Hitler invaded Poland he was almost certain the UK (and France) would not declare war. You have to understand that the situation changed constantly. Poland was supposed to become an independent (small) country between the two giants.The USSR did not accept this.Becaus the UK and France declared war Hitler had to give Stalin a lot more than he would've wanted when it came to the east.
@randomjesse Hitler's "strategy" was actually the lack of strategy, the pursuit of short term goals by shorter term improvisation. Not to mention that the entire "Lebensraum" concept was based on a pre-industrial romantic view of the economy. In like manner the Panther was a superior tank in the early war view that guns and armor made a better tank. By that view the Char B was a better tank than Pz III, with better gun and armor, but 3 man crew made PzIII better, able to shoot faster.
@DonMeaker The PzKpfw V didn't enter the war until mid 1943. Do you call that early in the war?
The allied had nothing that could beat the PzKpfw V and VI. They defeated themselves by lack of support, fuel and reliability. But no matter what, no tank has ever stricken, or will ever strike, so much fear in it's opponents as the Tiger. It was as much a psychological weapon as a formidable tank but if Germany had opted for upgrading the PzKpfw IV instead, the war could have ended differently.
@azynkron The Panther was designed to be a counter to the T-34. The metrics by which it was designed were based on early war experience. Those metrics were obsolete once the US tanks showed up with stabilized guns that permitted US tanks to fire effectively on the move. Germany never fielded a stabilized gun during WWII. Because they couldn't.
@DonMeaker The German tanks was not defeated by any US tank. Get your facts right, my friend. It was the lack of resources AND the air superiority that got them on their knees. The allied came up with a couple of tanks late in the war that some what could go toe to toe with a Tiger or Panther, but they weren't better. In a defence battle, which the germans fought at the end, firing on the move is not important so your argument falls flat.
@azynkron German tanks were the best in the world in 1940, because of the 3 man turret that they got right, but French armor and guns were superior, Soviet mobility was superior. German tanks were on the defense at the end of the war because that was the only way they had a chance against the superior Allied tanks. Arracourt was one example of when they learned that. Von Kluge's attack at US First Army was another.
Arracourt? Yeah, nice example for your mythical stabilisers and superior US armor... not. The fact is that even a late-war Sherman was barely adequate when matched up against a Panzer IV F or G or a StuG III G. German tanks were on the defense because the entire fucking army was on the defense against an onslaught in which them killing five times as many enemies as they took losses meant that they were losing.
The stabilisers on WWII tanks US tanks were a joke. Firing effectively on the move was only anything but a waste of ammo at what was considered knife-fighting range for tanks in 1944 and the stabilisers themselves were so finnicky and clunky that many crews outright shunned their use as more of a liability than an asset.
@Magni56 The Soviets who had a chance to use them seemed to really appreciate the stabilizers on their Sherman tanks. The joke was the turrent traverse on the early Pzkw-V. Certainly German tanks could n't hit on the move. The US tanks routinely did, which suited the US tactics.
No tank in the war could hit on the move reliably. And the overall verdict about the stabilisers on Lend Lease Shermans was disastrous. US tanks did NOT routinely fire on the move in anything but urban combat or when it came to chucking HE at fixed positions for supression. Trying to fire on the move in a tank-on-tank situation at anything but point blank was regarded as nothing but a waste of ammunition and a surefuire way to attract fire.
@Magni56 All US tanks had stabilizers, which worked only in the vertical plane, and could of course be overcome by driving too fast over too rough terrain. US tanks, under the influence of LTC Abrams, were trained to fire on the move after approaching closely, If they started shooting at 1000 meters, it would indeed be a waste of time, but within a few hundred, it was effective and accounted for many German tanks, German tanks had no elevation-stabilization at all, and slow turret traverse.
@DonMeaker slow turret traverse is a myth, a running german heavy tank could traverse 360° between 14 seconds of the panter to the 19 of the king tiger this if the engine running at the maximun 3.000 rpm, remeber that electrical powered sherman turret took 15 seconds, but on the other end if the engine was at minimun rpm the time was between the 64 of the panter to the 98 of the king tiger, and if engine was off they had to rely on manual traverse
@Gjldo So if the communications to the driver were out, turret traverse was slow. If engine was out turret traverse was slow. If driver was poorly trained, turret traverse was slow. If tank was surprised, turret traverse was slow.
@DonMeaker well thats kind off, the origin of the "slow turret" myth is that most of the german HTs were found in ambushing position, this means most of the times with engine off to both don't make noise and save fuel, and so the turret was slow; plus on the move the heavys should had go at only 2.600 rpm wich reduced the travers speed unless they stopped (wich by the way was normal) engage neutral gear and increase to 3000
@Gjldo Exactly. By comparison, the Sherman could have fast turret traverse from the battery, with the engine off. The biggest advantage of the German forces in that conflict against the Shermans is the Germans were defending. When they Germans were attacking, they normally did it with light tanks, mostly PzIIs... The exceptions were the Ardennes and Kursk, both German failures
@AKKUPATI And barbarossa was a failure too. Generally German tanks were heavy for their capability, and because of that, their logistics services were overwhelmed, their combat punch was limited in its capability for deep penetration. German attack on USSR was slower than that of Napoleon. In USSR Germany lost 1000 horses a day- on average Soviet counterattack was motorized, thanks to Lend Lease trucks and entire factories provided by the US.
@Gjldo As I said, US tanks could shoot on the move, with fast traverse and stabilized gun. German tanks had to stop, and normally had slow traverse even after that. In ambush, the german tanks had slow traverse, and a quick attack from the flank or rear gave a significant advantage.
The Soviet tankers who got to use the Sherman seemed to really appreciate that the Sherman ammunition burned rather than detonating as Soviet tanks did. Detonation ammunition killed even tankers who had dismounted.
@Gjldo And keep in mind that US fast turret traverse could also take place while moving, so the stabilized gun gave US tankers a good chance of hitting on the move. US tanks would maneuver to shoot from the flank while moving "for it is quite the usual thing to face the way you run, and if you hit him in the flank he will not see your gun" as a contemporary training rhyme put it.
How exactly would they block any units from retreating? German heavy tanks were organised into their own independently acting battalions. (And the unreliable nature of the Tiger I has been vastly exxagerated. Pretty much any WWII tank had a good chance of breaking down on long-distance forced marches.)
@randomjesse Read that a long long time ago. German and US tanks were also used by Soviets. US tanks were cared for lovingly. Panthers were used only so long as they didn't break down, and were regarded as inferior.
@DonMeaker When the Nazis came to power the relations got colder as the Finns didn't like Hitler and his buddies and Hitler didn't care about Finland - not until Barbarossa anyway.
"Germany didn't give Finland much, & Finalnd had to pay for the vast majority of the German equipment & Allied equipment captured by the Germans that it did get."
That is simply wrong.Hitler was a really naive and childish person, and he thought he was really good friends with Finland.When the finns agreed to stay in the war until the bitter end(finns tricked Hitler with this, actually the president said that as long as he is president finland will side with Ger)Hitler gave weapons and grain
These were excellent armoured vehicles concidering the era it was made in. German armoured engineering has never failed to prove to be the best in the world.
@onedOLlarDuDE Except the Germans never did get the "fire on the move" idea during WWII. The US tanks all had stabized guns. German tanks didn't. Germans also didn't get the airburst artillery munition, except indirectly when delivered by the Americans from 4 to 5 miles away.
The Panther tank (after improvements implemented in 1943-1944) is considered, by many experts to have been the best tank produced durind second world war. Perfect combination of mobility, strong armour, and tank gun strenght. American tanks had mobility, but lacked the strong armour and tank guns strenght. Yanks managed to defeat the german tanks only with overpower. Also, the german Leopard tank is considered to be the best modern tank. Don't bother trying to make US look better.
@onedOLlarDuDE Early Pather took 45 seconds to turn turret. Later could turn faster, but took coordination between Driver (to rev engine) and gunner. By contrast Sherman could turn turret 360 degrees i 15 seconds with engine off. Panther could not shoot on the move, because it had no gun stabilization system. That makes its armament far from perfect. Panther was 45 tonnes, which hindered its mobility, esp. when supported by anemic WWII German logistics. Check Fritz Bayerlein's critique
And? The Panther still remains the best tank produced during WWII. The 1944 version of course. And don't forget the Tiger, which caused such havoc to allies, that allied officers were forbidden from making combat reports about engagements with Tigers. And as I said, the Leopard tank is the best modern tank, so german armoured engineering always was and is the most advanced, exept maybe during early WWII, but still.
@onedOLlarDuDE And the Panther was the best tank by 1940 criteria, which didn't consider shooting on the move, reliability, logistics, or radio communications. By 1944 the world had moved on.
I don't think the Leopard II is the best tank, certainly the Leo (1) was not the best tank of its time. Abrams with depleted Uranium armor and DU sabot is superior to Leo II, not least because of its superior integration into the information network.
I'm gonna trust the documentaries more than you, stick to my opinion and withraw from this debate. It's not that I can't think of another argument I just think this is pointless.
@onedOLlarDuDE Ok with me. My point isn't that the Sherman had a better gun than the Panther, It didn't. My point is that there are other criteria that in practice, could, with good tactics, give the Sherman an advantage. The soft advantages of the PzIII over the Char B outweighed the hard advantages for the Char B. The same can be true of the Sherman and the Panther.
@DonMeaker The Leopard II has almost all the features of the Abrams. It's a yankee myth that their tank is superior to the rest. It has never been, and probably never will be, tested against a real opponent.
@azynkron That Yankee myth has depleted uranium armor and depleted uranium sabots. That makes it impervious to weapons which penetrate the Leo(2nd try), while being able to penetrate targets impervious to the Leo(2nd try). More importantly, the Abrams has ability to manage combat information that is superior to the Leo(2nd try).
@DonMeaker And what do you think the other shoots with? Hmm? The Challenger 2 has the best armour of any tank yet. Proven. Look it up if you want to. And as far as the combat systems go, you should check what the Swedish Armoured Forces did to the Leo2:s they bought. But.. I guess it's easier to hide behind some patriotic BS than actually look up the correct information.
also the stug was very popular as a tank destroyer.the stug in my book was no sloutch either. i like seeing these history tanks come back.i would love to have one anyone of em.
Count the road wheels on each vehicle as I see more than 5 on either one. I don't think these are Stug IIIs but Stug IVs. No where near produced in numbers like the Stug III, so these would be very rare vehicles.
I correct my previous statement: The Winter War was pure Soviet aggression and the Finnish alliance with the Nazis was a desperate pre-WWII bid for survival, being that occupation by either the USSR or Germany was certain. However, the Continuation War became morally tainted after they invaded territory where the populace vastly self-identified as Russian (East Karelia). This was highly unpopular in Finland, and the backlash caused Mannerheim to refuse to strangle Leningrad.
Say what you want about the Finns, but even though the Soviets had belligerently attacked them (and gotten booted out of the League of Nations for it) in the Winter War, later on in the Continuation War they stopped at their original national border outside Leningrad and did not attempt to take any land that clearly wasn't theirs.
They did NOT help Hitler's blockade of Leningrad when he demanded they do so, which enraged him. They took their stolen territory back and not a foot more.
@Bullzeye95 The Finns did fight like Lions to keep their country but they did not get back all of their stolen territory. There is still lands today, that orginally belong to Finland and the Russians will not return it. Also the Finnish were their at Leningrad. The Finnish I Corps (2 infantry divisions), II Corps (2 inf divisions), and IV Corps (3 inf divisions), all fought at Leningrad.
@4head11 Well where did you get yours? It is officially announced that Finland did not take part in the siege of Leningrad. Finns halted to the old borders of Karjala.
Germans asked Finns to help and to cut the railway from Murmansk to Leningrad but Finns refused.
@kaahaajaFIN Mine is from Wiki as well a Finnish Veteran. Also just because it was officially announced does not mean it is true. It is like during the Vietnam War, for sometime, America said that it had no troops in Lao and Cambodia but the true was there were many Americans fought in Lao and Cambodia.
@4head11 All depends on how you define the participation to the siege. Sure Finnish troops were north of the city and therefore prevented land connection. However on the Karelian Isthmus Finns did not pass beyond the pre Winter War border. Finns were explicitly ordered not to attack or shoot artillery at the city, and even overflights were banned. Also they had a chance of severing the 'road of life' but chose not to. In this respect they did not actively participate to the siege.
@WandererRTF May it was a misunderstanding on my part. I was thinking he may had been talking about the surburbs around it. I remember him talking about being pin down inside of a old railway car.
Finns stopped their advance in the Isthmus in late summer of 1941. If the sandy terrains and trenches of Karelian Isthmus, 30 km before Leningrad, are the town, then maybe did Finns fight in L-grad... In fact they sat in their trenches the years 1941-44. Finns never bombed or fought in L-grad. Believe it. My dad was there, too. And why do we need that stolen land back?? Everything is ruined and we surely don´t want that russian population in our hands.
@zippinen Get your fucking history right idiot , the nazis tried to wipe the russian 'subhumans' from the face of the earth first, douchebag suck my dick and die
@dutchforces they can do what they like to their own people and also it helped turn russia from a agriculture based country to an industry one, modern russia is born of it.
what have the nazis done with their 'master race' mentality?
As a finn I have many russian friends which I really like.
My both grandfathers fought at war and they didn't had any bad feelings about russian soldiers after war, other took one russian prisoner who was surprised that finns were'nt monster as told to them - wtf so we are just the people and thats all
These could be the same vehicles as depicted in the "Achtung Panzer" volume 5 book (published by Dai Nippon Kaigan - a Japanese publisher). Nice to see them moving! :-)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Are you idiot? I don't support Stalin, I support my native land. You country help Hitler and our soldiers fought against Finland. In 39 - Russian attack. In 41-44 - Finland attack. You planes were droping bombs over Leningrad
Sorry - Finnish Air Force NEVER bombed Leningrad! And why we should had? Such a beautiful city!! Our small Air Force did had enough business with 100:1 Red Army air force!
I know that Stalin was murder and killed the best of scientists, generals and workers of USSR. in 39 Red Army had terrible casualtes, but in 1944 our soldiers capture Helsinki for 10 days. In 1944 our soldiers had expirience.
Well Mr; BalashovM, if your country and your people are so noble like you say you are, why dont you give back all your occupied territories to the rightfully owners, right now!?
I have already said: I think that Russian and Finland are not enemies now. Even USSR and Finland become very good friends after those wars. But teaching of history in my country and in your country is different. :) Good luck :) Viva Russia, viva Finland!
(BalashovM) Ok, I admit it, i got bit carried away. The Finns and the Russian are friends now and let´s keep it that way. War allways sucks. Rusnat is word for Russian Nationalist. Cheers...
No they were shit but the ussr was such an advanced industrial power coupled with the fact that all your tanks were made as simply and as cheaply as possible a bit like the cars you produce now so you outnumbered the finnish/german tanks at least 10/1, "throw enough mud at a wall and some of it will stick"
But I have to give you cred for being the first with sloped armour, but that was 1942 i think
Yes panzer 1 tanks with machine guns, designed for assaults against trenches. It even says in the wikipedia article that the kv1 was vulnerable to a gun as tiny as a 50mm
Hahhahaahahahahahahah. This editor is crazy, if he wrote that KV-1 can be destroyed by 50mm ))))))) Even 76 mm not always can destroy it ))))))
Germans call it "Mobile castle" ))))))) Dude, our KV-1, KV-2, IS-2, IS-3 were one of the best tanks in that time, like Abrams and T-90 now. And other countries have own best tanks - for example, Churchill, Sherman (Allies) and Tiger, Panter (Germany)
Wikipedia is a more viable source than some russian nationalist on youtube, it was a sturdy tank but only in the early part of the war on the eastern front but the build quality was still shit.
Yes just like cars. Our best cars here in Germany are Mercedes, Audi and Bmw, and yours are?
Is your father the soldier? My father is. EVERY MAN CAN WROTE THIS BULL SHIT IN WIKIPEDIA. BECAUSE WIKIPEDIA IS "PEOPLE's encyclopedia. You don't saw historical films, you don't know, how our soldiers fought. Or you are watching american "historical" films , where says, that all AMERICAN IS GOOD, RUSSIAN AND OTHER IS SHIT.
THE QUOTE FROM RUSWIKI:
"The tank under no circumstances did not make the way from German tank guns. The anti-tank artillery to it also was not terrible."
Pretty much my whole childhood has been devoted to history, and my grandfather fought through the whole of ww2, and several others of my kin. And yes, iv'e seen all the films on discovery civilisation and the history channel.
And I'm quite aware of the propaganda of communists of making themselves glorious. Even the picture of the russian soldier on the Reichstag in berlin was edited. Besides we were attacked by russians with pitchforks and shovels in 1941 lol
Who are you? American or German? If you are American, you must know, our soldiers fought against perfect equiped nazists, with own hands and shovels without any weapon in beginning of 1941. And in all - 27 000 000 soviet people died (near 6-8 millions are soldiers, and 20 millions is civilians!!!) American history doesn't know such hero part of war - the blockade of Leningrad, when usual people work hard every day, didn't eat anything, and died thousands. You never fought against conquerors.
I'm sorry, but attack of USSR in 1939 - isn't my fault )))))) Stalin want to move the border frim Leningrad, and give order to capture this territory. But I'm not rusnat, now we are friends. Like we were friends after 2 WW - USSR and Finland were at that time very good friends. )))) I hope we are friends now and will friends later )
Would you? The russians have always been the annihilator of Finland. Greater wrath, many wars, Ten thousand Finns died during the building of Leningrad and the rest who survived we're used as slaves for the rest of their lives. The russian writers wrote that ; The Leningrad is built with Finnish bones.
Actually , Finland an USSR we'rent so good friends after war. USSR was allways threatening Finland. For an example, USA gave many nations who lived under threat aid(Marshall aid), hundreds of millions dollars. And in this case, the threat was USSR. But then the USSR contacted Finland and told us not to accept that aid or there would be new hostilities.
But I agree to the last part, lets try to be friends...
Your soldiers in Normandy, hahaha, if heads of Allies didn't ask Stalin about unready attack (when died many of soviet soldiers), your forces could be destroyed and dropped in ocean. Hahahah. Your soldiers NEVER can fight. They win for better weapon, they fought for politic, and our soldiers fought for life of our people, for our lifes, for example, like my and my parents and other. You government give us and nazists cars, tnaks and get big money. Maybe, I 15 year old, but I know something too.
OK. Just so I get this strait. So the guy with this camera is that same Chinese guy that walked out in front of the tanks at Tiananmen Square, right? That guy is everywhere? A 100 years from now there will be a bronze statue in honor of his bravery. But today, the Stugs win.
Leave it to finns to maintain all this hrdware'.This is from great movie,a running KV1!!!These people managed to shoot things down with Brewster Buffalo's,no other airforce can make that claim.
It wasBrewster Buffalo (No. BW-364), the airframe that shot down most airplanes in history... It was excellent plane. Top finnish ace, Ilmari Juutilainen, who is also top scoring non-german fighter pilot of all time, never even got a scratch to his plane. Usually the aces just died at some point. He lived long life.
The finns stripped down their buffalo's,removed armor plate,replaced worn out C 47 engines.Mafia designed[no shit]Brewster was investigated then shut down,Finnish heroism makes the buffalo succes,not the plane.Eino Luckanene[my spelling]shot down reds and germans with Brewster.Finns even made home grown version of buffalo.Finns made do with what they had
german have seved finnish indipendence 4 times.. red rebellion, winter war, continue war and in lapland's war.. Western countries gave just only empty promises...
lol, fully functional StuG. Rest of the world is desperately salvaging pieces of scrap from swamps and riverbottoms.
rdas188 2 months ago
Dear Santa. ....
Beaglejune80 2 months ago
Ahhhh german engineering :)
barraki150 3 months ago 2
For which movie is this?
metallicafan114 4 months ago
@metallicafan114 tali ihantala
weaklypaskaa2 3 months ago
@CaptainCheap21 too bad cockroaches can survive 4 days without their heads ;)
ModellMeister 5 months ago
@CaptainCheap21 Chinese people are the same as Taiwanese..... in 1949 chinese people went to taiwan and KICKED OUT the original islanders. They just quietly stole all their land. Dirty chinks. Chinese people= same blood and DNA as modern taiwanese. Not unless you're talking about original islander.
ModellMeister 5 months ago
@CaptainCheap21 lol "same thing than"? are you an illiterate redneck? no doubt.
ModellMeister 5 months ago
waiting on a high way "do do do do cant wait to get a mou- OH MY FUKING GOD A TANK!!!
rickythechicken 7 months ago
Two beautiful examples of the GERMAN WAR MACHINE!! Thanks for posting this!!
sum12see 9 months ago
puhukaa nyt ees suomea perkle :P tai ees saksaa
peepertti 9 months ago
German engineering in tanks was certainly not superior. No german tank had stabilized guns. No german tank had fast electric traverse. Germany never fielded airburst fuses in their artillery. Germany never dropped a bomb on the US.
DonMeaker 10 months ago
Its amazing how many tanks the german aces destroyed.
Michael wittman with 141 tank kills, and 132 anti tank guns (confirmed kills), Otto Carius with more then 150 Tank kills, or Kurt Knispel with 168 kills (128 as gunner), Johannes Bölter with 144 Tank kills...and the list continues.
Tacts, Skills, superior engineering and discipline, its damn impressive.
By the way....read Otto Carius "Tigers in the mud" it really takes you back in time, and into the tankbattles. Hes still alive!
Skalmans750 11 months ago
@Skalmans750 Has more to do with German personnel practices. Germany kept skilled people in line, and counted their kills and broadcast them for propaganda. Further, Germany encouraged high counts, again for propaganda. German propaganda intended to keep the fools fighting, though the war was lost.
By contrast Ira Bong was pulled from combat after he had a mere 40 kills. US that way used skilled men to train their very large army to a very high standard. Result: US overran most of Germany
DonMeaker 10 months ago
@DonMeaker If you take Michael Wittman for exemple, he was called to train the panzercrews back in Germany on several occasions but he went hes own way and against Hitlers will(Typical Wittman) .Wittman had sutcha greate respect among higher ranks and was one of the few who could get away with saying no to Hitler.
USA didnt face a fully powered german army, by this time there were old men and kids fighting with what they could lay their hands on.
Skalmans750 10 months ago
@Skalmans750 That must be right: nothing left but old men and children in 1942 when the US kicked Germany out of Africa.
What happened is the US built a combined arms force in imitation of the German practice, and Germany left combined arms, abandoned close air support, and built crude monsters like the Tiger II but failed to build the artillery/air units necessary for combined arms.
S
DonMeaker 10 months ago
@DonMeaker My bad...i came to think of the invasion of germany somehow. :)
Skalmans750 10 months ago
@Skalmans750 The battlegroup definition: An infantry division that has been twice overrun by Soviet Tanks...
DonMeaker 10 months ago
@DonMeaker lol who told you lies that US kicked Germans out from Africa in 1942? Another victim of pathetic Yankee propaganda:(
1. Allied forces in Africa consisted of plenty of forces from different nations (like Poles, or not English, Commonwealth forces)
2. Last German garrissons lasted till first months of 1943 (Tripoli etc.)
3. general American tactic was total air supremacy and withdrawal on the first sight of pzkpf VI
4. You simply outnumbered Germans in every single category of arms.
Shchetchynianin 8 months ago
@Shchetchynianin In particular we outnumbered Germany in Allies not Attacked, and in radar detonated artillery fuses. Germans outnumbered us in Tanks Abandoned because they broke down.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker OMFG if running out of ammo and fuel means, that equipment is getting broken.. Btw. have you ever compared in numbers size of forces on the Western fronts? Btw. you still outnumbered III Reich in own allies abandoned and sold to Soviets. Worst type of betrayal ever, and there are no words vulgar enough to describe such acts.
Shchetchynianin 8 months ago
@Shchetchynianin the French were able to field a number of units from Panthers that had been abandoned by the Germans without a shot being fired. Panthers served in France until 1950, when they were scrapped as obsolete. Shermans soldiered on to the 1970s. Poland was German ally against Czechoslovakia, and Germany attacked them. Soviets were German ally against Poland, and Germany attacked them. France and Britain were German allies against Czechoslovakia, and Germany attacked them. and more...
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker as I said - due to western allies absolute supremacy, the delivery of fuel and ammo was extremely difficult. I mean 1943 Tehran conference for example (not to mention Vietnam war in which you actually started to win, but withdrew). And in 1938 we gained back lands conquered by Czechoslovakians in 1920, when we were stopping the red flood.
Shchetchynianin 8 months ago
@Shchetchynianin As I said, Poland conquered those Czechoslovakian lands as ally of Hitler's Germany. Poland and USSR shortly found that "non-aggression pacts" signed with Germany were merely preparation for invasion. Vietnam was was won, and US withdrew. Subsequent violation of the peace treaty by NVA was shameful for those who broke their word. Poles were party to that peace treaty, IIRC and party to its violations.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker 'conquered' - ok, if Canada has conquered Alaska during II WW (when you were fighting against nazis and japs), and you would have tried to get it back after 20 years, would it have been 'conquer' or mere getting back your own land? This was exactly the case of the "Czechoslovakian conquer" you refer to! P.S. don't treat Communist Polish state as Poland. It was nothing more but autonomous state to the Soviet Russia. It was governed by people loyal to Soviets and matters of high importa
Shchetchynianin 7 months ago
@Shchetchynianin It was governed by Poles loyal to Soviets. Not my kind of Poles, but Poles none the less, just as Senator Kerry is not my kind of American, but is certainly an American.
DonMeaker 7 months ago
@DonMeaker at least to the end of Stalinist age the governors of the state were mainly people of jewish origin(vide Jakub Berman, Hilary Minc), so was the judiciary (Stefan Michnik, Helena Wolinska), and military - where alot of officers were either Soviet or jewish (Karol Swierczewski, Marian Spychalski - the jewish were removed by force after 6 day war of Israel in 1967, accused of being sionist spies)
Shchetchynianin 7 months ago
@Shchetchynianin as I said, they were Poles. Just as we have Americans who are also Jews, I suspect there are Poles and Germans who are also Jews
DonMeaker 7 months ago
@DonMeaker ance were decided not in Warsaw, but at Kremlin. Poles during communist occupation were awaiting US Army as Jewish are awaiting the Messiah.
Shchetchynianin 7 months ago
@Shchetchynianin I met some Poles who worked for the US Army as Labor Service. These were some of the men who fought with us against the Germans, and their children. They were trusted, honorable men, many with US security clearances, who (the ones I met) guarded US ammunition depots in West Germany. After the war several polish units did not return to Poland to be murdered, (after some had) but rather the US was able to make some provision for at least some of them.
DonMeaker 7 months ago
@DonMeaker Basically most of the Western (the official government of exile) forces did stay abroad:) Even if you were a private/corporal you were most likely to spend at least few weeks in ex-gestapo prisons (with very brutal hearings), run by Soviets and their servants. But if you were an officer and did not swear loyalty to communists in advance, you indeed were highly likely to get death sentence as servant of imperialists.
Shchetchynianin 7 months ago
@Shchetchynianin And that was after the war. After the soviet occupation, some 20,000 Polish officers were murdered by Soviets at Kaytun wood. Add to that the recent deaths of Polish leadership, in aircraft "accident".
My suspicion is that the "accident" was facilitated by KGB, but what do I know?
DonMeaker 7 months ago
@DonMeaker the Katyn massacre happened at 1940. After war there were no more such mass murders by Soviets (there were far more but on smaller scale), but at least 2 000 000 people were murdered by Soviets and their servants. The Sikorsky's death was possible cooperation of Allied intelligence (Sikorsky was opposing being close Allies with Soviets for the murders etc.), enabling them to make the decisions which had been made at Tehran conference, and Soviet's not to recognize official government
Shchetchynianin 7 months ago
@DonMeaker seems that yt removed my comment: that part of Czechoslovakia you refer to was as Czechoslovakian, as Alaska is Canadian. While we re-gained independence in 1918, the Zaolzie (this is Polish name for the region concerned), where Poles were significant majority, was joined to PL. In 1920, when we were fighting with Soviets, Czechoslovakian army captured Zaolzie. And we actually were not an ally of Germany, while getting back our lands. We didn't cooperate with the III Reich.
Shchetchynianin 7 months ago
@Shchetchynianin So your defense is that Poland took back that region by permission of the invading Germans, that Poland had a "non-aggression pact" with Germany, but Poland didn't cooperate with them. As the Polish, acting as dogs of the Nazis marched in, the Czech military commander noted that the Poles wouldn't hold it long. They didn't. After only 11 months the German masters kicked their Polish dogs. The Poles paid a heavy price for that mistake.
DonMeaker 7 months ago
@Shchetchynianin Actually no, the US had no agreement with prewar Poland, though we did indeed fight against the same enemies. Your charge of betrayal must be mistaken. Perhaps you mean Great Britain? Poland had a prewar agreement with Britain and France, as did Germany and USSR. US also had a small bit of action going on in the Pacific, though we gave priority to Europe. We also had Navy and Army Air force necessary to get stuff moved Round the world. US had 90 army divisions, 6 Marine Div
DonMeaker 7 months ago
@DonMeaker Sutcha interesting subject this is :) The German tacticts was way ahead of their time the "Battlegroups" of modern warfare is a direct copy of the setups the germans used during WW2 "Kampfgruppe" aint that impressive.
Airsupport, Artillery,Panzer, infantery all acting together as a solid unit, this was extremely effective when fighting a enemy who had greater numbers as you could move extremely fast using hit and run tactics with a extreme effectivity agains slow enemies.
Skalmans750 10 months ago
@CaptainCheap21
Yeah, you're gonna come with the baseball bats. I'm sooooooooooooooooooooo afraid. I'm shivering.
...
No, actually I'm just laughing at a retarded internet tough guy who's trying to threaten someone he has no idea of.
Magni56 1 year ago
@CaptainCheap21
Oh hey, cool. Yeah. Piss off, little troll.
Magni56 1 year ago
Got this film on order. Can't wait to see it. Seen most if not all the other Finnish war films and if it's half as good as Talvisota should be great.
REDTROOP44 1 year ago
Whow Guy's Cool It! Just a Vid about Tanks. Don't Blow a Gasket!!!!
sam6262626262 1 year ago
@CaptainCheap21
So now you're down to pure insults? *Yawn* Haters gonna hate.
I accept your full and utter concession that you're nothing but a completely retarded and mindless troll and that nothing you said or will ever say is anything but complete and utter bullshit, forever. Good day, sir.
Magni56 1 year ago
@CaptainCheap21
"We"? Ah, so now you have a bunch of imaginary friends. And I'd like retarde dkiddies like you even try. Here's a funny fact: German reserve soldiers have a fully functional automatic firearm at home. Your idiotic threats don't impress anyone and if you moron ever try, you're getting ventilated.
Magni56 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
näillähän tankeilla me viel käydää tulevatki sodat ja silti vietäis vaik T-90 vastas xD
leksss4 1 year ago
näillähän ttankeilla me viel käydää tulevatki sodat ja silti vietäis vaik T-90 vastas xD
leksss4 1 year ago
Finland is only nation to pay off war bills to criminal russia, for no reason karelia my mothers homeland was stolen by ruski, russians r criminal thieves, Mannerheim knew hitler was a bipolar madman that would bring germany into the stone age after 1943
1955porsche 1 year ago
In reality Finland was seeking a separate peace (had been for a long time) and when the chance came the president simply resigned and the peace was made. Then started the Lapland war to drive our brothers in arms away from the country (forced by Soviet Union). No matter how bad the Nazis were Finland is still thankful for all the help we got (Kuhlmey for example) since it was one of the reasons we managed to keep our independence.
randomjesse 1 year ago
@randomjesse And we won't talk about the Molotov = Von Ribbentropp accord by which Soviet Union invaded Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and Finland... After all the Germans were Finn's good friends...
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker A lot had changed in Europe (and in Finland) since the signing of that treaty. The bad geographical position of Germany meant that the Nazis had to do bad deals in the east to be able to focus on the west. The Germans helped Finland during both world wars (WW1 they helped the Whites beat the Reds in the civil war) and Finland was dependant on that help.
randomjesse 1 year ago
@randomjesse Of course Germany could have merely kept their previous agreements,,,Like the Non-aggression pact with Poland which would have allowed them to focus on the west...
Hitler made a practice of invading allies and neutrals. They even bragged that after defeating USSR they would return and invade Switzerland...
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker Yes they could have. But what does that have to do with anything? Hitler's first main goal was to expand the territory in the east and bring back the good ol' Prussian glory, give living space for the expanding population and make a buffer against the threat of the USSR. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here?
randomjesse 1 year ago
@randomjesse If his main goal was to expand to the east, then why did he attack France? If his intention was to attack the USSR, why not do it with Poland (which had earlier defeated USSR all on its own) as a ally? How does giving half of Poland to USSR create a buffer against USSR? Rather, it brings USSR closer. The entire German war effort was a sad and confused muddle, intermixed with occasional war crimes. What a shameful record!
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker When Hitler invaded Poland he was almost certain the UK (and France) would not declare war. You have to understand that the situation changed constantly. Poland was supposed to become an independent (small) country between the two giants.The USSR did not accept this.Becaus the UK and France declared war Hitler had to give Stalin a lot more than he would've wanted when it came to the east.
randomjesse 1 year ago
@randomjesse Hitler's "strategy" was actually the lack of strategy, the pursuit of short term goals by shorter term improvisation. Not to mention that the entire "Lebensraum" concept was based on a pre-industrial romantic view of the economy. In like manner the Panther was a superior tank in the early war view that guns and armor made a better tank. By that view the Char B was a better tank than Pz III, with better gun and armor, but 3 man crew made PzIII better, able to shoot faster.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker The PzKpfw V didn't enter the war until mid 1943. Do you call that early in the war?
The allied had nothing that could beat the PzKpfw V and VI. They defeated themselves by lack of support, fuel and reliability. But no matter what, no tank has ever stricken, or will ever strike, so much fear in it's opponents as the Tiger. It was as much a psychological weapon as a formidable tank but if Germany had opted for upgrading the PzKpfw IV instead, the war could have ended differently.
azynkron 1 year ago
@azynkron The Panther was designed to be a counter to the T-34. The metrics by which it was designed were based on early war experience. Those metrics were obsolete once the US tanks showed up with stabilized guns that permitted US tanks to fire effectively on the move. Germany never fielded a stabilized gun during WWII. Because they couldn't.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker The German tanks was not defeated by any US tank. Get your facts right, my friend. It was the lack of resources AND the air superiority that got them on their knees. The allied came up with a couple of tanks late in the war that some what could go toe to toe with a Tiger or Panther, but they weren't better. In a defence battle, which the germans fought at the end, firing on the move is not important so your argument falls flat.
azynkron 1 year ago
@azynkron German tanks were the best in the world in 1940, because of the 3 man turret that they got right, but French armor and guns were superior, Soviet mobility was superior. German tanks were on the defense at the end of the war because that was the only way they had a chance against the superior Allied tanks. Arracourt was one example of when they learned that. Von Kluge's attack at US First Army was another.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DonMeaker
Arracourt? Yeah, nice example for your mythical stabilisers and superior US armor... not. The fact is that even a late-war Sherman was barely adequate when matched up against a Panzer IV F or G or a StuG III G. German tanks were on the defense because the entire fucking army was on the defense against an onslaught in which them killing five times as many enemies as they took losses meant that they were losing.
Magni56 1 year ago
@DonMeaker
The stabilisers on WWII tanks US tanks were a joke. Firing effectively on the move was only anything but a waste of ammo at what was considered knife-fighting range for tanks in 1944 and the stabilisers themselves were so finnicky and clunky that many crews outright shunned their use as more of a liability than an asset.
Magni56 1 year ago
@Magni56 The Soviets who had a chance to use them seemed to really appreciate the stabilizers on their Sherman tanks. The joke was the turrent traverse on the early Pzkw-V. Certainly German tanks could n't hit on the move. The US tanks routinely did, which suited the US tactics.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker
No tank in the war could hit on the move reliably. And the overall verdict about the stabilisers on Lend Lease Shermans was disastrous. US tanks did NOT routinely fire on the move in anything but urban combat or when it came to chucking HE at fixed positions for supression. Trying to fire on the move in a tank-on-tank situation at anything but point blank was regarded as nothing but a waste of ammunition and a surefuire way to attract fire.
Magni56 1 year ago
@Magni56 All US tanks had stabilizers, which worked only in the vertical plane, and could of course be overcome by driving too fast over too rough terrain. US tanks, under the influence of LTC Abrams, were trained to fire on the move after approaching closely, If they started shooting at 1000 meters, it would indeed be a waste of time, but within a few hundred, it was effective and accounted for many German tanks, German tanks had no elevation-stabilization at all, and slow turret traverse.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker slow turret traverse is a myth, a running german heavy tank could traverse 360° between 14 seconds of the panter to the 19 of the king tiger this if the engine running at the maximun 3.000 rpm, remeber that electrical powered sherman turret took 15 seconds, but on the other end if the engine was at minimun rpm the time was between the 64 of the panter to the 98 of the king tiger, and if engine was off they had to rely on manual traverse
Gjldo 1 year ago
@Gjldo So if the communications to the driver were out, turret traverse was slow. If engine was out turret traverse was slow. If driver was poorly trained, turret traverse was slow. If tank was surprised, turret traverse was slow.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker well thats kind off, the origin of the "slow turret" myth is that most of the german HTs were found in ambushing position, this means most of the times with engine off to both don't make noise and save fuel, and so the turret was slow; plus on the move the heavys should had go at only 2.600 rpm wich reduced the travers speed unless they stopped (wich by the way was normal) engage neutral gear and increase to 3000
Gjldo 1 year ago
@Gjldo Exactly. By comparison, the Sherman could have fast turret traverse from the battery, with the engine off. The biggest advantage of the German forces in that conflict against the Shermans is the Germans were defending. When they Germans were attacking, they normally did it with light tanks, mostly PzIIs... The exceptions were the Ardennes and Kursk, both German failures
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker How about operation barbarossa, only about 300 panzer IIs were used there?
AKKUPATI 10 months ago
@AKKUPATI And barbarossa was a failure too. Generally German tanks were heavy for their capability, and because of that, their logistics services were overwhelmed, their combat punch was limited in its capability for deep penetration. German attack on USSR was slower than that of Napoleon. In USSR Germany lost 1000 horses a day- on average Soviet counterattack was motorized, thanks to Lend Lease trucks and entire factories provided by the US.
DonMeaker 10 months ago
@Gjldo As I said, US tanks could shoot on the move, with fast traverse and stabilized gun. German tanks had to stop, and normally had slow traverse even after that. In ambush, the german tanks had slow traverse, and a quick attack from the flank or rear gave a significant advantage.
The Soviet tankers who got to use the Sherman seemed to really appreciate that the Sherman ammunition burned rather than detonating as Soviet tanks did. Detonation ammunition killed even tankers who had dismounted.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@Gjldo And keep in mind that US fast turret traverse could also take place while moving, so the stabilized gun gave US tankers a good chance of hitting on the move. US tanks would maneuver to shoot from the flank while moving "for it is quite the usual thing to face the way you run, and if you hit him in the flank he will not see your gun" as a contemporary training rhyme put it.
DonMeaker 10 months ago
@azynkron Most Tigers were broken down, blocking German units from retreating.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker
How exactly would they block any units from retreating? German heavy tanks were organised into their own independently acting battalions. (And the unreliable nature of the Tiger I has been vastly exxagerated. Pretty much any WWII tank had a good chance of breaking down on long-distance forced marches.)
Magni56 1 year ago
@DonMeaker I suggest you do some reading, "The rise and fall of the third Reich" is a good place so start.
randomjesse 1 year ago
@randomjesse Read that a long long time ago. German and US tanks were also used by Soviets. US tanks were cared for lovingly. Panthers were used only so long as they didn't break down, and were regarded as inferior.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker When the Nazis came to power the relations got colder as the Finns didn't like Hitler and his buddies and Hitler didn't care about Finland - not until Barbarossa anyway.
randomjesse 1 year ago
@randomjesse Hitler cared enough about Finland to give it away to make USSR his ally against Poland.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker My point exactly.
randomjesse 1 year ago
"Germany didn't give Finland much, & Finalnd had to pay for the vast majority of the German equipment & Allied equipment captured by the Germans that it did get."
That is simply wrong.Hitler was a really naive and childish person, and he thought he was really good friends with Finland.When the finns agreed to stay in the war until the bitter end(finns tricked Hitler with this, actually the president said that as long as he is president finland will side with Ger)Hitler gave weapons and grain
randomjesse 1 year ago
germans used to say."finns are exelent soldiers. too bad there is only 400000 of them"
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago 15
These were excellent armoured vehicles concidering the era it was made in. German armoured engineering has never failed to prove to be the best in the world.
onedOLlarDuDE 1 year ago
@onedOLlarDuDE Except the Germans never did get the "fire on the move" idea during WWII. The US tanks all had stabized guns. German tanks didn't. Germans also didn't get the airburst artillery munition, except indirectly when delivered by the Americans from 4 to 5 miles away.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker
The Panther tank (after improvements implemented in 1943-1944) is considered, by many experts to have been the best tank produced durind second world war. Perfect combination of mobility, strong armour, and tank gun strenght. American tanks had mobility, but lacked the strong armour and tank guns strenght. Yanks managed to defeat the german tanks only with overpower. Also, the german Leopard tank is considered to be the best modern tank. Don't bother trying to make US look better.
onedOLlarDuDE 1 year ago
@onedOLlarDuDE Early Pather took 45 seconds to turn turret. Later could turn faster, but took coordination between Driver (to rev engine) and gunner. By contrast Sherman could turn turret 360 degrees i 15 seconds with engine off. Panther could not shoot on the move, because it had no gun stabilization system. That makes its armament far from perfect. Panther was 45 tonnes, which hindered its mobility, esp. when supported by anemic WWII German logistics. Check Fritz Bayerlein's critique
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker
And? The Panther still remains the best tank produced during WWII. The 1944 version of course. And don't forget the Tiger, which caused such havoc to allies, that allied officers were forbidden from making combat reports about engagements with Tigers. And as I said, the Leopard tank is the best modern tank, so german armoured engineering always was and is the most advanced, exept maybe during early WWII, but still.
onedOLlarDuDE 1 year ago
@onedOLlarDuDE And the Panther was the best tank by 1940 criteria, which didn't consider shooting on the move, reliability, logistics, or radio communications. By 1944 the world had moved on.
I don't think the Leopard II is the best tank, certainly the Leo (1) was not the best tank of its time. Abrams with depleted Uranium armor and DU sabot is superior to Leo II, not least because of its superior integration into the information network.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker
I'm gonna trust the documentaries more than you, stick to my opinion and withraw from this debate. It's not that I can't think of another argument I just think this is pointless.
onedOLlarDuDE 1 year ago
@onedOLlarDuDE Ok with me. My point isn't that the Sherman had a better gun than the Panther, It didn't. My point is that there are other criteria that in practice, could, with good tactics, give the Sherman an advantage. The soft advantages of the PzIII over the Char B outweighed the hard advantages for the Char B. The same can be true of the Sherman and the Panther.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker The Leopard II has almost all the features of the Abrams. It's a yankee myth that their tank is superior to the rest. It has never been, and probably never will be, tested against a real opponent.
azynkron 1 year ago
@azynkron That Yankee myth has depleted uranium armor and depleted uranium sabots. That makes it impervious to weapons which penetrate the Leo(2nd try), while being able to penetrate targets impervious to the Leo(2nd try). More importantly, the Abrams has ability to manage combat information that is superior to the Leo(2nd try).
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker And what do you think the other shoots with? Hmm? The Challenger 2 has the best armour of any tank yet. Proven. Look it up if you want to. And as far as the combat systems go, you should check what the Swedish Armoured Forces did to the Leo2:s they bought. But.. I guess it's easier to hide behind some patriotic BS than actually look up the correct information.
azynkron 1 year ago
Comment removed
azynkron 1 year ago
also the stug was very popular as a tank destroyer.the stug in my book was no sloutch either. i like seeing these history tanks come back.i would love to have one anyone of em.
viking8766 1 year ago
Count the road wheels on each vehicle as I see more than 5 on either one. I don't think these are Stug IIIs but Stug IVs. No where near produced in numbers like the Stug III, so these would be very rare vehicles.
MBguy2008 1 year ago
@MBguy2008
Meant to say more than 6.
MBguy2008 1 year ago
@MBguy2008
I count 6 don't know about your eyes :P
FinnDevil92 1 year ago
I correct my previous statement: The Winter War was pure Soviet aggression and the Finnish alliance with the Nazis was a desperate pre-WWII bid for survival, being that occupation by either the USSR or Germany was certain. However, the Continuation War became morally tainted after they invaded territory where the populace vastly self-identified as Russian (East Karelia). This was highly unpopular in Finland, and the backlash caused Mannerheim to refuse to strangle Leningrad.
Bullzeye95 1 year ago
Ruben Lagus trained his Stug crews hard. The Sturmis played a big part in saving Finland.
rattinox 1 year ago
At least, you are friends for me and my family :)
BalashovM 1 year ago
Say what you want about the Finns, but even though the Soviets had belligerently attacked them (and gotten booted out of the League of Nations for it) in the Winter War, later on in the Continuation War they stopped at their original national border outside Leningrad and did not attempt to take any land that clearly wasn't theirs.
They did NOT help Hitler's blockade of Leningrad when he demanded they do so, which enraged him. They took their stolen territory back and not a foot more.
Bullzeye95 1 year ago
They also forbade their airplanes to fly over towns and never bombed a soviet city so the civilians would be unharmed.
aaKonda 1 year ago 4
@Bullzeye95 The Finns did fight like Lions to keep their country but they did not get back all of their stolen territory. There is still lands today, that orginally belong to Finland and the Russians will not return it. Also the Finnish were their at Leningrad. The Finnish I Corps (2 infantry divisions), II Corps (2 inf divisions), and IV Corps (3 inf divisions), all fought at Leningrad.
4head11 1 year ago
@4head11 Those troops did not fight in Leningrad...
kaahaajaFIN 1 year ago
@kaahaajaFIN Hmmm and where did you get your information from?
4head11 1 year ago
@4head11 Well where did you get yours? It is officially announced that Finland did not take part in the siege of Leningrad. Finns halted to the old borders of Karjala.
Germans asked Finns to help and to cut the railway from Murmansk to Leningrad but Finns refused.
kaahaajaFIN 1 year ago
@kaahaajaFIN Mine is from Wiki as well a Finnish Veteran. Also just because it was officially announced does not mean it is true. It is like during the Vietnam War, for sometime, America said that it had no troops in Lao and Cambodia but the true was there were many Americans fought in Lao and Cambodia.
4head11 1 year ago
@4head11 All depends on how you define the participation to the siege. Sure Finnish troops were north of the city and therefore prevented land connection. However on the Karelian Isthmus Finns did not pass beyond the pre Winter War border. Finns were explicitly ordered not to attack or shoot artillery at the city, and even overflights were banned. Also they had a chance of severing the 'road of life' but chose not to. In this respect they did not actively participate to the siege.
WandererRTF 1 year ago
@WandererRTF May it was a misunderstanding on my part. I was thinking he may had been talking about the surburbs around it. I remember him talking about being pin down inside of a old railway car.
4head11 1 year ago
@4head11
Finns stopped their advance in the Isthmus in late summer of 1941. If the sandy terrains and trenches of Karelian Isthmus, 30 km before Leningrad, are the town, then maybe did Finns fight in L-grad... In fact they sat in their trenches the years 1941-44. Finns never bombed or fought in L-grad. Believe it. My dad was there, too. And why do we need that stolen land back?? Everything is ruined and we surely don´t want that russian population in our hands.
remu63 1 year ago 9
@remu63 True but even today, there is till alot of land that belong to Finland and Russia still have their greedy hands on it.
4head11 1 year ago
@4head11 the good news is Russian demographics are not positive. Soon Russia will be a memory.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
hi guys , what other finnish war films would you recomend me, please?
talvisota and jatkosota are great
thanks / kiitos
petrwarry72 2 years ago
If you have seen Winter War then you have already seen best one. New war movies made in Finland aren't that great..
MokomaSusi 1 year ago
i am glad we had these machines when uncle joe tried to wipe our nation out from face of the earth.
zippinen 2 years ago 10
@zippinen Get your fucking history right idiot , the nazis tried to wipe the russian 'subhumans' from the face of the earth first, douchebag suck my dick and die
TheNazified 1 year ago
@TheNazified suck my dick ? iewl..... fag.
And Russians were just as bad as germans, they also killed millions of inocent people, and had more deathcamps then germany...
dutchforces 1 year ago
@dutchforces they can do what they like to their own people and also it helped turn russia from a agriculture based country to an industry one, modern russia is born of it.
what have the nazis done with their 'master race' mentality?
TheNazified 1 year ago
@TheNazified
He's FINNISH, numbnuts.
Magni56 1 year ago
@zippinen Yea i know this was along time ago but....didnt Germany invade USSR first?
ilikewarhammer 1 year ago
Guys, like said one good man: "Let's live in peace, guys!" )))))))
BalashovM 2 years ago 3
As a finn I have many russian friends which I really like.
My both grandfathers fought at war and they didn't had any bad feelings about russian soldiers after war, other took one russian prisoner who was surprised that finns were'nt monster as told to them - wtf so we are just the people and thats all
So absolutrely lets live in peace))))
hopsista321 2 years ago 2
Fantastic assault guns.
seaweed555 2 years ago 2
What s this
Bogatirion 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
IST DAS HETZER
Bogatirion 2 years ago
Nein, das ist Stug III G
ilmari744 2 years ago 6
es ist eine finnishe Stug drei in tali ihantala (sorry for my bad german)
AlexanderIVOfMacedon 2 years ago 4
Ihan jäätävän hiljainen laitos. Suurin ääni kuuluu telapyörästön kolinasta! Tällähän vois hiipiä vihollisen selustaan suorastaan. :)
Kaarlo 2 years ago 2
These could be the same vehicles as depicted in the "Achtung Panzer" volume 5 book (published by Dai Nippon Kaigan - a Japanese publisher). Nice to see them moving! :-)
BigAndTall666 2 years ago
Sisältä karu. käykää parolan panssarimuseossa jos vaunut kiinnostaa :) siellä niitä on sotkasta leopardiin.
valttu94 2 years ago
beautiful ones, congratulations for restoring them !!!
opferkampfer 2 years ago 12
What film was this for?
static242 2 years ago
tali-ihantala 1944.
mannecia 2 years ago 2
The battle of Tali-Ihantala 1944, when Russia attacked Finland.
faxhk 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hahaha You support Hitler, who killed 27 millions soviet people......
BalashovM 2 years ago
Hahaha You support Stalin, who killed 37 millions soviet people....
JapaninArmeija 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you idiot? I don't support Stalin, I support my native land. You country help Hitler and our soldiers fought against Finland. In 39 - Russian attack. In 41-44 - Finland attack. You planes were droping bombs over Leningrad
BalashovM 2 years ago
Sorry - Finnish Air Force NEVER bombed Leningrad! And why we should had? Such a beautiful city!! Our small Air Force did had enough business with 100:1 Red Army air force!
mt451 2 years ago 7
I know that Stalin was murder and killed the best of scientists, generals and workers of USSR. in 39 Red Army had terrible casualtes, but in 1944 our soldiers capture Helsinki for 10 days. In 1944 our soldiers had expirience.
BalashovM 2 years ago
Yes, when our counter-attack begin
BalashovM 2 years ago
Well Mr; BalashovM, if your country and your people are so noble like you say you are, why dont you give back all your occupied territories to the rightfully owners, right now!?
faxhk 2 years ago 4
Comment removed
Volkskraft 2 years ago
I have already said: I think that Russian and Finland are not enemies now. Even USSR and Finland become very good friends after those wars. But teaching of history in my country and in your country is different. :) Good luck :) Viva Russia, viva Finland!
P.S. Who is "RUSNAT"? :)
BalashovM 2 years ago
(BalashovM) Ok, I admit it, i got bit carried away. The Finns and the Russian are friends now and let´s keep it that way. War allways sucks. Rusnat is word for Russian Nationalist. Cheers...
Volkskraft 2 years ago
Lol you only wish you could have built a tank like this in ww2
James007BondSniper2 2 years ago
You - mean USSR? Yes, we have good, one of best tanks in this time - for example, fast and powerful T-34\85, IS-2, KV-1,2
BalashovM 2 years ago
No they were shit but the ussr was such an advanced industrial power coupled with the fact that all your tanks were made as simply and as cheaply as possible a bit like the cars you produce now so you outnumbered the finnish/german tanks at least 10/1, "throw enough mud at a wall and some of it will stick"
But I have to give you cred for being the first with sloped armour, but that was 1942 i think
James007BondSniper2 2 years ago
Oh, KV-1 is shit? Then why german tanks can't destroy it? Just if they attack by 10, or 15 tanks? )))))
BalashovM 2 years ago
Yes panzer 1 tanks with machine guns, designed for assaults against trenches. It even says in the wikipedia article that the kv1 was vulnerable to a gun as tiny as a 50mm
James007BondSniper2 2 years ago
Hahhahaahahahahahahah. This editor is crazy, if he wrote that KV-1 can be destroyed by 50mm ))))))) Even 76 mm not always can destroy it ))))))
Germans call it "Mobile castle" ))))))) Dude, our KV-1, KV-2, IS-2, IS-3 were one of the best tanks in that time, like Abrams and T-90 now. And other countries have own best tanks - for example, Churchill, Sherman (Allies) and Tiger, Panter (Germany)
BalashovM 2 years ago
Wikipedia is a more viable source than some russian nationalist on youtube, it was a sturdy tank but only in the early part of the war on the eastern front but the build quality was still shit.
Yes just like cars. Our best cars here in Germany are Mercedes, Audi and Bmw, and yours are?
James007BondSniper2 2 years ago
Is your father the soldier? My father is. EVERY MAN CAN WROTE THIS BULL SHIT IN WIKIPEDIA. BECAUSE WIKIPEDIA IS "PEOPLE's encyclopedia. You don't saw historical films, you don't know, how our soldiers fought. Or you are watching american "historical" films , where says, that all AMERICAN IS GOOD, RUSSIAN AND OTHER IS SHIT.
THE QUOTE FROM RUSWIKI:
"The tank under no circumstances did not make the way from German tank guns. The anti-tank artillery to it also was not terrible."
BalashovM 2 years ago
Pretty much my whole childhood has been devoted to history, and my grandfather fought through the whole of ww2, and several others of my kin. And yes, iv'e seen all the films on discovery civilisation and the history channel.
And I'm quite aware of the propaganda of communists of making themselves glorious. Even the picture of the russian soldier on the Reichstag in berlin was edited. Besides we were attacked by russians with pitchforks and shovels in 1941 lol
James007BondSniper2 2 years ago
Who are you? American or German? If you are American, you must know, our soldiers fought against perfect equiped nazists, with own hands and shovels without any weapon in beginning of 1941. And in all - 27 000 000 soviet people died (near 6-8 millions are soldiers, and 20 millions is civilians!!!) American history doesn't know such hero part of war - the blockade of Leningrad, when usual people work hard every day, didn't eat anything, and died thousands. You never fought against conquerors.
BalashovM 2 years ago
Yes Im aware of that, the goverment forced civilians to assault the advancing axis troops in an attempt to stall them, it didn't go very well.
Im finnish/german, and my finnish kin were from finnish viipuri.
Which we defended with vintage ww1 rifles against your tanks and bombers in 1939
James007BondSniper2 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but attack of USSR in 1939 - isn't my fault )))))) Stalin want to move the border frim Leningrad, and give order to capture this territory. But I'm not rusnat, now we are friends. Like we were friends after 2 WW - USSR and Finland were at that time very good friends. )))) I hope we are friends now and will friends later )
BalashovM 2 years ago
The only thing I care about is viipuri and the karelian istmus, but would there be a ww3 i'd march with the russians before id march with the US
James007BondSniper2 2 years ago
Would you? The russians have always been the annihilator of Finland. Greater wrath, many wars, Ten thousand Finns died during the building of Leningrad and the rest who survived we're used as slaves for the rest of their lives. The russian writers wrote that ; The Leningrad is built with Finnish bones.
kaahaajaFIN 1 year ago
Actually , Finland an USSR we'rent so good friends after war. USSR was allways threatening Finland. For an example, USA gave many nations who lived under threat aid(Marshall aid), hundreds of millions dollars. And in this case, the threat was USSR. But then the USSR contacted Finland and told us not to accept that aid or there would be new hostilities.
But I agree to the last part, lets try to be friends...
kaahaajaFIN 1 year ago
Your soldiers in Normandy, hahaha, if heads of Allies didn't ask Stalin about unready attack (when died many of soviet soldiers), your forces could be destroyed and dropped in ocean. Hahahah. Your soldiers NEVER can fight. They win for better weapon, they fought for politic, and our soldiers fought for life of our people, for our lifes, for example, like my and my parents and other. You government give us and nazists cars, tnaks and get big money. Maybe, I 15 year old, but I know something too.
BalashovM 2 years ago
I'm not rusnat. I just know history of my MotherLand
BalashovM 2 years ago
Niinhän se on nätti :D
Pääsis vielä ajelemaan tuollaisella.
Lolleds89 2 years ago
On se sitten nätti epeli :)
rabone90 2 years ago
Sturm III on minusta komein rynnäkkötykki mikä on olemassa! :)
valttu94 2 years ago
EI voita mikään varsinkin G malli :)
SirJtR 2 years ago
OK. Just so I get this strait. So the guy with this camera is that same Chinese guy that walked out in front of the tanks at Tiananmen Square, right? That guy is everywhere? A 100 years from now there will be a bronze statue in honor of his bravery. But today, the Stugs win.
RandyBriscoe 3 years ago
nice one 5 *****
petrwarry 3 years ago
Leave it to finns to maintain all this hrdware'.This is from great movie,a running KV1!!!These people managed to shoot things down with Brewster Buffalo's,no other airforce can make that claim.
bv141a 3 years ago
It wasBrewster Buffalo (No. BW-364), the airframe that shot down most airplanes in history... It was excellent plane. Top finnish ace, Ilmari Juutilainen, who is also top scoring non-german fighter pilot of all time, never even got a scratch to his plane. Usually the aces just died at some point. He lived long life.
LapinPete 2 years ago 2
The finns stripped down their buffalo's,removed armor plate,replaced worn out C 47 engines.Mafia designed[no shit]Brewster was investigated then shut down,Finnish heroism makes the buffalo succes,not the plane.Eino Luckanene[my spelling]shot down reds and germans with Brewster.Finns even made home grown version of buffalo.Finns made do with what they had
bv141a 2 years ago
Nice vid, ofcourse added to favorite :)
STUGAUF01 3 years ago
german have seved finnish indipendence 4 times.. red rebellion, winter war, continue war and in lapland's war.. Western countries gave just only empty promises...
Ravenlord79 3 years ago