I know he says somewhere he could put on a 7 hour lecture covering the entirety of the Soviet-German war from 1941 - 45. Someone should take him up on that and uploaded the lecture here on RU-vid.
For those who study World War II Eastern Front. The lecturer who is David Glantz is the premier authority on the Soviet side of the eastern front. I have many of his books. Mr. Glantz goes into real depth on all of his books.
COL Glantz USA (Ret) is considered as the authority on the Russian/Soviet side of WW II - His lectures at the War College are legendary and very lively. He speaks/reads Russian fluently and most of his research has been based on original Soviet era manuscripts (before the doors closed again). His lectures are factual and non-partisan. Enjoy, Ciao, L (retired military)
And your credentials are?... And you teach where?... And your degrees are... How about your publications and references... Dr. Glantz has been there, is fluent, published extensively, backs ups his lecture with data from both Allied and former Soviet sources, ... As for you, keep on "LOLing", stick to wrestling comments, Ciao, L
i say the more sources that question instead of pied piper following of known history as many have is both refreshing and timely.his source material is also refreshing and his angle from this a timely march into grey area between both russian given history and allied accounts .
Hi Imaginary Star Studios, I am used to such comments from "wrestling channel "lol" revisionists and from trolls - I try to teach people, to help clarify issues in my field of expertise but once I realize that I am dealing with ignorant people that are actually proud of their opinionated ideas, I back off and offer help to someone else. I know Dr. Glantz personally because it was very important for us (Senior Staff) to understand the perspective of our potential opponent in the days of the Cold War. Over the years, he has modulated/updated his lectures in light of newer discoveries and document releases from the former Soviet Union. He also presided impartially over many very instructive discussions on WW II and its consequences (from the former Soviet/Russian) perspective to help us, senior military officers, to better understand their attitude and possible reactions to our policies/interventions. He is a gifted teacher - this is a well prepared lecture (and lesson for future operations of that scale). The tragic part of this is that Dr. Glantz did so much digging in the former Soviet libraries and archives (over a decade+ of research) that the new leadership saw him as potential danger since he uncovered many of their mistakes AND he was retired American military who possessed outstanding expertise in military science/technology. They started restricting his access to their massive documentation. Have a nice weekend! Peace be with you, Ciao L (Veteran, 3 wars)
Wrestling Shoot Channel you know why he did not mention about USSR plans for invasion in Europe?Because he is real historian and not propagandist that is why he discass real issues not fakes and rumors from mainly old nazi sources and Cold War propaganda
I wish there were as many Glantz videos on youtube as he has books. I have many of his books, and am rapidly getting more every week and from a few others like Lester Grau. I live in KC and grew up in Lawrence and it's cool to think they're all just a couple miles away from me at fort leavenworth and publishing their books at my hometown, I'm hoping he gives talks somewhere civilians can go see I'd love to hear him talk in person.
~ 3:38 whaaaaaat???? Unbelievable! Direct fire from katyusha rocket launchers at advancing panzers... that is intense, that gives a hint as to the determination and desperation of the battle, even if it didn't significantly damage the tank I'd probably piss my pants inside a panzer just from the noise
David Glantz is an awesome historian and author. I highly recommend any lectures or books by him. I can't wait to get my hands on his book series about Smolensk in '41. I'd also recommend the book Kursk: The Battle of Prokhorovka by Christopher A. Lawrence. It's expensive but is absolutely fantastic.
Could you please post links to some other Glantz's lecture? The only other I could find on YT was about myths and realities in WW2 eastern front... Thanks
Glantz isn't entirely accurate about the Panthers. 200 went into battle as as two abteilungs(battalions) in one regiment operating in conjunction with Gross Deutschland's panzer regiment. They did hit a minefield and swampy ground adjacent to a small river crossing just beyond their assembly area. Under fire from artillery and tanks and in a minefield they lost 38 tanks on that first day. Not 120. There was, however a real disaster on the morning of July 7th where those losses did occur. Still, as bad as those early Panthers were, until mishandled on July 7th, there were still 160 available during the initial two days.
The lead lease M3 Lee earned the sobriquet "Coffin for 7 brothers' perhaps unfairly. Alongside the Panthers and the Tigers the Nazis fielded Mk2 and 3 both inferior to the Lee and a number of open topped makeshift Anti-tank/assault guns. The best feature of the M3 Medium was it's 75 MM main gun that fired a very useful HE round and perhaps would have been better deployed as SP Artillery or as assault guns.
Unfortunately this was a lower-quality recording from a live stream. Since it was a free account we didn't have control over the format. Might be a good idea to reupload these from the original recordings since we don't live stream them anymore anyway.
Not exact Glantz's work but here's a video of a youtube channel summarise some points from Glantz's books. watch?v=uzAzpIdDNcI Basically, Manstein made a mistake, probably not deliberately (Glantz did joked as if Mainstein did it out of malice or some ulterior motive). It was a simple case of misjudging the situation. He was one of Hitler's most trusted operation commander, yet he was one of the reason Hitler decided to order Paulus to stand fast. There were many other factors: like Hans Jeschonneck (Chief of Staff of the Luftwaffe) gave Hitler an initial estimation that the Luftwaffe might be able to resupply. He later realised his mistake and confirmed with Hitler but it was too late.
This is almost a decade outdated now. We know even more about the battle since then. Especially when it comes to the Northern part of the offensive under Model
It's Glanze and Beevor who delved deepest into t Russian archives once they were opened up. And , I understand, Glanze's book is quite a bit better. Also, is the q&a section also on utube? And if so, could anyone provide a link please?
the whole problem with operation Citadel that he doesnt mention. Is that Hitler started abandoning it b4 it was launched/ units were already being pulled away. if it went off as planned the soviets would have lost even worse. the Germans had to not only win the battle but hold the ground to recover the lost tanks. they needed these to repair and as parts. they didnt hold the ground cos of the re-assingerd troops not being there.
Is that who this fella is: D. Glantz? He's tremendous. He obviously has a military background. I'm certain that he'd trump most military briefers, and most likely, professors at today's U. S. military academies.
When did the US army fight the Germans with the same number of tanks/men as the Russians had? Of course, the Germans with the same number of men/tanks as it had in Kursk too.
All very interesting but nowhere is there mentioned the fact that the Soviets already had the whole battle plan well before the attack, thanks to the Lucy spy network in Switzerland. As a result the Soviets knew when and where Germany would attack. Still, the Germans gave the Soviets a hard time.
sam kohen the thing is, that’s almost irrelevant because of the situation, anyone with any sort of military knowledge could have told you where the Germans were going to attack next. With the concentration of panzers and the Kursk salient being the most prominent feature in the front, it was obvious.
Lol they sure screwed that up... I guess anzio could have been a big deal but the landing forces stayed close to shore and didn't rush inland in a timely manner, so the germans closed on them and kept them stuck on a tiny beachhead... then clark decided to take Rome instead of attempting to cut off kesselrings retreat, was a stupid campaign from calabria to the po valley, it should not have lasted so long
I bet the wehrmacht wished they had the massive airpower (among other things) the western allies were acquiring. It would be interesting what a strategic bomber force with their hundreds of heavies could do against a "tactical" problem like the Kursk defenses. Although the defenses themselves and the material needed to create them is almost "strategic" in size.
I recommend reading some of COL Glantz's other books, starting with When Titans Clashed. He highlights that Hitler prioritizes the Luftwaffe for manpower, supply, and maintenance first. However, the problem is that he does not mobilize as brutally as the Soviets, convert civil industries to produce war materials, and have a shortage of natural resources for production (iron, manganese) or supply (oil). In addition, he encounters a crisis in manpower post-Barbarossa and pulls workers from the factories to serve in the Wehrmacht and replaces them with slave labor (Jews, POWs, etc.), which as you would figure would not be as efficient for obvious reasons. A lot of compounding issues that not only transferred to the Luftwaffe, but the German armed forces as a whole until war's end.
@@mellowmike1147 Any decision related to research and procurement definitely "snowballs" by the time the Germans are on defensive after the summer of '43; really before that actually. And as heinous as the Holocaust was it was also extremely stupid in terms on manpower and research. Enslaving and murdering millions of your own citizens will always hurt your ability to wage war, on top of being outright awful. But I guess the Nazi hierarchy thought they "needed" to, to get and maintain power. Though these sort of questions are purely speculative and in the end pretty pointless, it is nonetheless an interesting thought experiment to ponder the "what-ifs".
Unfortunately, though the lecture was quiet informative, I had to mark the thumb down because, again, the video recording was too bad. Why are you guys unable or not willing to record in a good image quality and a clear audio quality, as well? And as in the field of mine I dislike the habit when lecturers or their ordering party cut short the lecture due to lack of time! I expect from every visitor (and lecturer), who attends such a lecture, to have plenty of time disposable!
Yes, some important slides are not even displayed. It's too bad that they can't be made available in another link, which could be followed along with this lecture. In fact, it's too bad that Glantz couldn't have been allowed sufficient time to show all his slides and complete the entire lecture he prepared. I wish someone could work with him to produce that. Regardless, this is certainly worth watching.
"At the end of the fighting in Kursk, the German forces had suffered 200,000 casualties and lost 500 tanks, while Soviet losses amounted to 860,000 casualties and ."
@@attila7092 Its insane, Soviets actually lost 6000 tanks and assault guns, many were repaired though because Soviets count losses very differently, While Germans only count those that were entirely destoryed and not those that are repairable. Still 1,000 German tanks and 2,500 Soviet tanks Destroyed is crazy. German Anti-tank guns did a number on those Soviet counter attacks.
@@Brslld Let's not forget the Luftwaffe's contributions in this battle. Rudel and the tank busting Stuka's took out dozens of Russian armor. An entire Soviet attack in the Orel sector was stopped buy German air power alone! In some ways I agree with Manstein that there was a chance for a partial victory in this famous battle
@@attila7092 Yeah, I think air power was one of the main reasons the Wehrmacht gained a huge advantage early war, that and radios. Though if kursk was continued, it would be a phyrric victory or even be a disaster since the Soviets had enough reserves to counterattack in the flanks and acis of advance.
Colonel how long did it take the American leaders of our military and political figures start looking through the Soviet and how they responded to or interpreted things that America did during the Cold war? Why is it that I guess American and NATO allies didn't see it through the horror that the Russians had to go through to defeat Nazi Germany? Seems like to me that we had the Soviet Union outclassed in every area during the Cold war but they blocked us into thinking they were a much bigger problem than they ever were?
@@mattmischnick2926 I've spoken to the colonel many different times I even got his email. He is also one of the foremost experts on the cold war. He is also an old cold warrior himself. You cannot look at the Cold war without looking at the second world war to understand how the Soviet thought. The first part of the war from 40-41-42-43 and early 44 the Russians were fighting the Germans on their own soil without much support from the allies. Sure we invaded North Africa and Sicily but we didn't open a second front until June 1944. The Russians and the Soviet thoughtught that we were going to fight until the last Russian and then get into the war. There huge distrust of the West started in the second world war so you cannot separate the two if you want to understand how the Soviets looked at the west and why they did what they did. The colonel in my opinion it's a national treasure and an expert on the Eastern front!
39 mintues. It was neither the Matilda nor the Valintine that was called the "coffin for the brothers", that was infact the petrol powered Sherman, (as the British called the M4), and earned that reputation in the deserts of North Africa. A darker name was "Tommy cooker". The Valintine but more the Matilda (known as Queen of the Desert) performed relatively well in North Africa. (Oh and, he said the Stuart was a world war one tank. No. Just and early war tank put out there while America got its thinking together.) Otherwise though, this lecture is very good. Apart from the slides and the lecturers inability to provide the audience any clues of emphasis.
No sir, the “coffin for seven brothers” was the M3 Lee, not the Sherman. The M3 had a crew of seven, hence the derogatory nickname. As for the M4, it was well regarded by the Soviets. Let’s also note that “tommy cooker” was applied to all Allied tanks serving in combat in the North African desert for reasons that should be obvious. Exactly how the popular myth got started about this being a reference specific to the Sherman, which was *not* notably more flammable than any other medium tank of WW2, is an unsolved mystery (I blame the poor quality “documentaries” shown on the History Channel).
The Germans had no strategic air force & their R&D was very eratic. Stuff that had been developed and prototypes in existence in 1938 still wouldn't not be in front line units in 42.
The trouble with Russian only sources is that the tank losses of the Germans are overestimated. Unlike Russian manipulated data after the fact while German daily operational losses are most accurate figures available show they lost about half their tanks in 1ss but as with the 48th many tanks were broken down and repaired in one or two days. The reasons that the Germans lost much terrain as the 1ss pz corps and the reserve 24 pzc was pulled out. I am still baffled as why the 2 pz army collapsed on the north side.
Its not that the Soviets or Russians were overestimating. Its the fact that they had completely different way of counting armored losses. For example, the soviets count every tank immobilized as "lost" even those that can be fixed and repaired. They do this for themselves and for the germans just so you know. Meanwhile the germans only count losses for "irrecoverable" tanks (those that cant be brought back) So if we go by your logic, the soviets were overestimating and the germans were underestimating. Which is why I don't exactly trust both sides. Oh btw another example of the german recording styles is operation crusader. The Commonwealth technically lost 800 tanks in the battle, but only 200-300 were actually irrecoverable. The germans were at the same number, but since they list lost tanks differently we can never know how many they actually lost (including repaired tanks)
He's very pro soviet and truly understands the significance of their contribution and gives them plenty of credit. If he seems to be tough on them it's because he knows he'll lose his US military audience if he's too blunt or doesn't put it into context for them to understand.
@@TheGoodChap IMHO, Glanz only appears "pro-Soviet" in contrast to the blatently manipulated & naive view of the Great Patriotic War promoted by western democracies during the Cold War. You & I, and virtually every other person growing up outside the U.S.S.R. have been taught using films, textbooks, etc that were based on a very limited & highly biased view of the character, abilities, and motivations of the Soviets during WWII. The same can be said of those who were raised in the U.S.S.R. . Unfortunately, up until the 1990s, the assumptions, biases, myths, and politically-motivated narratives everywhere continued to be cemented into the minds of the public & even the most well-meaning historians. Since then, Glanz, Citino, and some other historians from Russia & western nations have been fighting together to break down these myths & occupy the minds of amateur & professional historians with more accurate facts & perspectives. So, given his very good understanding of both Soviet & U.S. politics/culture in the 20th Century, AND his emphasis on primary sources over memoirs & other highly biased sources, I will suggest that Glanz is seeing the Axis-Soviet War & the 'behind-the-scenes' factors as close to a neutral, authentic, and accurate view of the entire conflict & key battles as anyone ever has.
I understand and quite enjoy couter-factual history however bringing OB West onto the Eastern Front would have been suicidal as the Allies had just conquered North Africa and were therefore waiting in the wind. Not to mention that OB West's role was one of replenishment and resting from exhaustion for forces on the Eastern Front. Had Sealion been succesful then you can talk about a higher proportion of forces commited on the Eastern Theatre.
+lasa mangla That's why I said "IF" they were free to do so. Obviously they weren't, even if the Americans weren't in the picture, the British Army + the Canadians, Australians, etc, would have been enough reason to station forces in the west.
It´s not lack of manpower and resources that makes citadel a non success. It´s that its a more of a static attack vs well fortified positions. The russian know they where coming. They should have attacked earlier and with a normal german more mobile assault.
At 2:32 he claims Soviet Sappers were armed with shaped charge Anti-Tank weapons !! Show me one of those !! In 50 years of my studies of the Eastern Front, I have never heard or read about or seen any such a weapon used by the Soviet's. So a big thumbs down for stating untruth facts and also for skipping over your presentation files for "times sake", You suck as a presenter of history for "skipping over" things you deem not worthy of your time. I will go to tie my shoes now while you skip over history.............................
He's also referring to captured German weapons they had early shaped charges as well. The German stick grenade was considered a shaped charge. Geez 50 years of education and you didn't know that the Germans used captured enemy weapons?
john erickson & his students like chris bellamy (sandhurst) are far superior, glantz still underestimates the soviet forces & the generalship, like most anglo american commentaries, has a pardon for german generals, that is baseless
if only the german develop a heavy bomber like the b17, they could have carpet bomb, the Russian defense. that is german biggest mistake.they should have treated Kursk .as like battles of the world war 1
Lol you sound strangely pro German... You should be happy they made the mistakes they made so Russia could win! And they DID bomb the hell out of the Russians in Kursk, but they were going to lose no matter what they did, they got a really bad impression of the soviets early on, and once the soviets figured things out there was no way they weren't going to steamroll the weakening Germans. They even stole Soviet military strategy. "blitzkreig" strategy was loosely taught to them by the Soviets after WWI in secret and the Soviets got pilot and tank officer training in return.
Throwing shells with artillery tubes are easier, cheaper, and DOES NOT COST A LOT OF AVGAS. Germany did not have a lot of oil. Panzer divisions occasionally have to siphon gas out of wrecked vehicles and soft skinned vehicles to keep their lead tanks going. In 1942 motorcycle recon was swapped out for bicycle recon because, again, not enough gas. Good luck flying strat bombers.
