Barbarossa Visualized: The Battle of Dubno-Brody [June 1941] [Episode 4] 

And the 15th is still looking for them.

You made a video about this battle =)

@@Flow86767 did he ? I can't find it in his channel. :(

I was thinking about your video the whole time watching this haha.

So Pz 2 was patentky apparently useless. T 26 and BT 7 were also apparently useless. So it follows pz 2 vs T 26 or BT 7 was probably a quite interesting duel

and air supremacy...and tested tactical doctrines

Aidan Christy the best russia ever could muster was one in 5 tanks having radios

I think you got that backwards!! The Germans had radios and the Soviets didn't!

That is what he said.

do not forget training and supplies.

Exactly. They would have been devastating against unsupported infantry and soft vehicles

The 45mm Tank gun 20-K of the BT 5s & 7s and the T-26 penetrated every AFV the Germans had in 1941.

True.... however the problem with the Christie suspension is that it taxed the crew greatly. I have been in modern tanks and being on the march for 6 hours... is exhausting, and that is in a M1-A1 and the M60 Patton (Modernized) USMC.

oposite situation with panthers, tigers, or kvs. they were impenetrable, but if they aren't used right, they are not effective at all. any tank without infantry protection is an easy target no matter how good of a tank it is. its not about how good the tank is, it's about how it's used that counts. easily to visualize in German equipment. they had inferior weapons and armor for a good chunk of the war, but they had excellent tactical doctrine, and knew how to use their weaponry, so they excelled.

By tank? Wasn't that the tank where wheels could be put on instead of tracks? I think it was the bt...i may me mistaken. , but I know the communists designed. A tank to go on roads....as the communists were going to attack Europe eventually....thank God. they were forstalled

The 45mm 20-K gun of the BT 5s and 7s and the T-26 could penetrate every German AFV of 1941. Hardly "useless junk", or which ever phrase the narrator used to describe them.

Read my comment again. With some thought this time. Both sides had AFVs that could kill the opponent's AFVs at combat ranges, an AFV is not "useless junk" if it can perform its intended role. It boiled down to tactics. The Soviets had 20,000 AFVs in June -41, the 3rd Reich had 3000 (including p1s and 2s). The Germans traded 1 AFV for every 6 Soviet ones destroyed in 1941. Not because they had better tanks, but because they had better tactical level and operational level leadership. (On a side note: the BT 7 had 40mm frontal hull armor, and the armor on the T26 ranged widly depending the variant m.33 = 15mm, m.39/S. = 25mm, m.40/E. = 50mm. )

poorly trained crews with poor morale, teh german tanks look very much more imposing even though they weren't at the time.

takiri dixon also the Germans had the air, meaning the Russians had little oversight of the battlefield anyways

The early shells were of poor quality , optics not as good and poor service life, imagine the deep joy of being a tanker , enjoy the next six weeks at best

that's complete bullshit, of course

The great communist rise of freedom and squad tactics. Haha ...

@@user-yj8vj3sq6j stalin was a mass murderer. Stop defending him, commie

Interesting, didn't know that.

One could also argue that Konstantin Rokossovsky was the better commander as well. Just that every time he won, Zhukov took part of the credit as he was the superior -- something Stalin specifically set up as Rokossovsky was a Polish noble, while Zhukov was 'good reliable' Russian peasantry. I'm curious how you managed to get such good numbers?

same here

I find the music to be distracting. You are not alone.

@A Google User I'm an American. My grandfather was German.

@Evilstorm11 Not in 1941,not even close to fully.There was serious lack of transport vehicles.And Soviet mechanised corps were incomplete formations,not nearly enough prepared for the war, while German panzer divisions were fully committed to the battle,with their infantry regiments fully motorized (not counting foot infantry divisions).So Soviet tanks had to go into battle without their infantry support, and maintenance and other support units which are essential for just maintaining unit,let alone going into combat.This, poor Soviet training and almost no combat experience,almost uncontested German dominance in the air and complete confusion of Soviet high command lead to such defeats.

The 22nd mechanized corps was very late to the battle. It attacked Dubno on July 1, by then most Soviet forces were already in retreat. Therefore I decided not to include them as a part of this battle.

Not right 22nd Mechanized Corps of General Kondrusew was attack since Beginning 22nd Juny Then have you vorgetten 4 Tankkorpp of General Wlassow and 24 Tankkorp of General Tschistjakow too, so have 15 Korps not alone 700 Tanks

They miss to join in this battle , but they did`t drove to an empty parking slot. They single handed drove right on german reservs and units going foward to Dubno-Brody, they where wipe out by planes, anti-tank units and at the end german panzers in an escape attempt.

CommissarZhukov x losses per kilometer, attrition as a function of distance travelled, does add up when you travel a lot, comrade. Exactly like the quantity of diesel used by a T34 correlates with the length of the movement, commissar.

But 95% losses on a mechanized corps? That contains not just tanks but infantry, artillery and other support units? Just from traveling a few kilometres doing nothing (as he said in the video)? If that was the usual rate any serious advance would have been impossible, divisions desintegrating just by marching on the road. Obviously the 15th saw combat. Heavy combat. And was mauled pretty badly.

Tovarish komisar, wrong. They were not "traveling a few kilometres doing nothing (as he said in the video)". In the video said that they were a few kilometers away from the battlefield, and still did not participate. Because they followed orders, and orders were to move here and there and there again. They travelled all day long following orders, and not fighting. That's a lot of travel. And a lot of attrition too. About support units, most of them weren't even there. Most of support units were left behind before the battle actually started, because the atack was rushed before russian forces were properly assembled. And without support units (mainly logistic, which was already bad in soviet army) attrition rate skyrocketted. Smallest breakdown or running out of fuel and the tank is a loss. So, 95% losses on a mechanized corps that move all day in such conditions is horrendous, but perfectly possible.

I highly doubt they lost 95% by driving around when Russia had oil. I could see that for Germany blowing up their own tanks at the end of the war when they had no oil and didn't want them captured by allies

ryan hawn: 1. It's not all about oil. What's the use of oil if your engine broke down, your transmission fail, your tracks fall apart, or your driver is so inexperienced that he stuck the tank in mud or in a ditch? These are so called "operational losses". Yes, running out of fuel is also an "operational loss", but not the only one. 2. Having oil is not the same as having fuel at hand. What's the use of a huge stockpile of fuel if this fuel is kilometers away? And there is no supply chain to bring it to your tanks? Not having at hand is the same as not having at all. And in summer of 1941, soviet logistics was bad. Really bad.

Why? Soviet tanks were terrible at the time, in fact even T34 was pretty terrible 1on1.

@@lukebruce5234 actually the early models yes , but still proved a threat to Die Wehrmacht , in fact it was the last models like the T-34/85 with it's 85mm gun that proved a bigger threat.

@Somarik Green Yeah you are right, it was pretty good but it wasn't strong enough to be on par with the strongest German tanks later on in the war.

They are told what to do, following your own initiate would of been deadly, for yourself Complex manoeuvres I suspect would never of been an option by the Russians at that time, how do they communicate that

True, but it happens all of the time in war. Orders are badly expressed or written and the commander is left trying to figure them out (which is why commander's intent is so vital in US doctrine). Also, logistics might not allow for a movement to occur. You orders could be as clear as crystal, but if you're vehicles are out of gas then you're not going anywhere.

I'm also agree with your notion. 2 things we need to consider ,1st this battle was happened during early stages of barbarossa so soviet commanders still not realized how well organized Wehrmacht is compared to how badly organized is the red army at the time. Also 2nd Soviet tanks were good (unlike said in the video) as even BTs and T26 tanks were capable of knocking out any german tanks at the time ! So with these 2 factors in mind and also considering the massive numercial advantage the Red Army had (at least in terms of tanks) so it is understandable why Soviet commanders sent 15th Mechanized Corps to the rear of german position ,as they expected and easy defeat of german forces so thought they can spare part of their forces to block the evemy retreat route. no doubt if things were going as russian planed it would have been a super sweet total victory for them

Kursk is the largest battle, as in, it was all happening in a certain area where they all wen't against each other. Dubno Brody was more of a large scale operation with a large front line and etc.

RoKoStudios. Wtf are talking about? This battle was just 90 km of front line. Kursk was over 350km of front line (both the northern and southern sides of the battle). It was a whole strategic offensive of its own, while Brody was just a battle within a strategic offensive (i.e. Operation Barbarossa). Kursk involved three full-strength German armies (actually far more than full strength as they altogether had a tank force as big as the entire German invasion force of 1941) directed against three whole Soviet fronts (army groups). It's only a battle in the same sense that we say "the Battle of Britain" or the "Battle of France", which are large scale operations that are far from the normal idea of a battle. Kursk, if including the Soviet counter offensives, involved an excess of 14,000 tanks from all sides combined. If you are looking for something to compare Brody to, compare it to the Battle of Prokhorovka (one of the big tank battles that occurred as part of the Battle of Kursk).

RoKoStudios The Battle of Kursk was a not a tactical battle. It was a gigantic offensive including around 2000 000 million soldiers and thousands of tanks and airplanes. However what many think of when they hear Kursk is the battle near prokhorovka on 12.July 1943, but it was only fought by about 500 tanks, not thousands of tanks.

You really think 3 traitors would've made a difference lmao Tukachevsky was a fifth columnist for the Germans.

@@55TheOracle55 💀stalin supporter thinks Tukhachevsky was working with the germans