Rare film from the "German war files" pack Uploaded only for research and informational purposes only. legal: I do not own any right on this film, nor I will keep it public if any copyright claim will be raised.
Does anyone besides me do this? When I watch awesome docs like this with tons of original footage, I just can't help myself from thinking about all the guys who got filmed, and wondering how many of the people pictured did not survive the war. I mean it has to be a lot, right? TONS of Germans in uniform who were filmed in '39, '42, or '44 were dead by '45, right? I just can't help it, these films sometimes feel like funeral services to me. So I have to bow my head and tip my hat with all the respect I can summon.
This is a little old, but I too have mourned in some ways all the young men sent into meatgrinders in the name of some ideology. I know there were those who did it for love of country, but The Nazi's and even the Commies, sent their own to die, just to show who had the bigger "Balls"
Bow your head,tip your hat with all respect to a murderous invading terrorist army 🔥 that slaughtered and tortured innocent people by the hundreds of thousands and burned and destroyed their homes and property. C'mon! You're either a sick, twisted Nazi yourself or just ignorant of the facts of WWII and operation Barbarossa.
The Panzer III was, conceptually, an excellent "lighter end" medium tank by 1939 standards but, as the war progressed, it rapidly became obsolete (especially on the eastern front where its original 37mm gun was of little to no use versus the more modern sloped armor of the T-34). It's tank destroyer variation, the Stug III, however, destroyed more allied tanks than any other German fighting vehicle.
@@kyle857 Stugs on the offensive would advance in lines meant to compensate for their lack of a turret but, on the defensive, it was certainly far easier to conceal (much lower profile without turret), had a vastly more capable gun, and much thicker frontal armor that its turreted cousin.
The Panzer III was upgunned and was still a sound medium tank design through 1942 and a viable frontline tank through 1943, often still able to outfight a T-34 with 76mm gun, but certainly looking more vulnerable and reaching obsolescence. Stug III with long 75mm gun offered better bang for buck by then and Panzer IIIs relegated to secondary roles, such as training, and quiet theatres such as Norway. BTW the number of the Panzer IIIs at Kursk were Ausf N variant with the short (kurz) L/24 75mm gun. There was now a highly effective anti-tank HEAT round available for the gun and the 75mm had a much more powerful HE round than the long 50mm gun used in the previous version of the Panzer III, the Ausf M. Some thoughts 😄
the tank PKW3 was still able to destroy T34, mainly because of the poor quality steel used by the Russian and the poor reliability! a lot of T34 was lost even before the battle started, left beside because of malfunction, then the poor visibility was another reason too, not to mention that T34 crew was barely able to move inside!
The decision to dilute panzer divisions was a correct one. At the time the panzer divisions had too many tanks and not enough supporting infantry to protect the tanks and fight urban warfare.
There is story Ian Hogg tells about a Japanese fortification in Burma so stout that a 5.5-unch had to brought up at point-blank range to blast it open. Looks like the leFh 18 has the same role. Incredible footage. Nice job of finding it!
Im not exactly sure why but this tank has always been my favorite, if I could own any tank this would be it, well at least if the rarity/value of other tanks wasn't in the consideration
@Belligerent. Most modern tanks now have adopted the narrow tracks like those used by the Panzer 3 in the 1940s, including the leopard 2A7and the Armata.
The Rostov fighting footage is fantastic. Great documentation of a typical attack by a Stuka squadron on a concentrated area. And you truly get a feel of how horrifying it was to be on the receiving end of a Dive Bomber attack.
The Germans knew that the British and French had heavier infantry tanks with thicker armour. Thick armour and big guns were initially not relevant in the strategy of Blitzkrieg. Since the opjective was to look for weak spots in the enemies lines, then strike deep and AVOID direct conflict with heavy tanks, cut them off from the rear lines. The enemies heavy tanks would then rumble around for a while longer before running out of fuel. The Blitzkrieg strategy only worked as long as there were weak spots and the enemy was unprepared (generally not found after 1942).
where the germans encountered char b's they used superior numbers and speed to defeat them more hits from all sides-there is plenty of footage to support this-rate of firing through better design of turrets -particularly the mk3 and 4
@@froggleggers1805 they were mainly use in strikes against railways, infantry concentrations and fixed defences-read strange victory about the fall of france
Panzer III was an amazing tank. Its chassis was the foundation for the production of other tanks. Germans have a fascination with cats...they named their tanks- tiger ,king tiger, panther, puma, leopard .... Great documentary thanks
Most countries name their equipment like that the Germans today still name their tanks off of cats like the leopard 1 an 2 America names their tanks after general’s and their helicopters after native tribes
the Panzer III and IV had a huge issue... the narrow tracks during the bad weather on the Eastern Front. Also German tanks used Gasoline, where other nations used Gasoil (Diesel), which had different freezing points (if at all).
Jackson Stewart well much of the fighting us done in the east plus most tanks that fought in the west are captured, improvised or other vehicles though mostly infantry.
Every wehraboo flexes nuts about the cat tanks (panther, tiger, king tiger, sturm tiger, etc) but never realize it's the Panzer 3 and 4's that did most of the heavy lifting (and StuGs!)
The new panzer divisions had the proportion of infantry to tanks that Rommel sought in North Africa and that the U.S. adopted in 1943, except for two "heavy" armored divisions.
That is correct! The French(Somua) and Russian (T34 & KV1) tanks they faced early were indeed better. Tactics and radio prevailed for them in the face of the tougher tanks. Indeed not until they face large numbers of T34s that they started developing the Tiger and Panther.
+ToonandBBfan Yes but sadly it wasn't ready to face off with the T-34. I am still surprised that such a technically proficient people such as the germans failed to realise the potential of sloped armor. Had they employed sloped armor and high velocity weapons from the outset of the war the world would indeed be a very different place today. Well , Russian practicality proved superior to german ingenuity.
+Avram Cosmin They were using sloped armor. I have no idea where people think the Soviets were the first with sloped armor. Look at the French Suma, and Char 1 Bis. turrets. Also the Pz III and Pz IV as well as the II used sloped armor. They just were not as pronounced as the Soviet T-34. Hell even the Crusader tanks had sloped armor, What I am getting at don't believe everything you hear they (soviets) were the fist with sloped armor. With all do respect I do give credit to the Soviets for their design and being the first to use sloped armor more effectively.
+JuergenGDB No one said that they were the only ones that used sloped armor plates , the germans did too but please , look at the front of a Pz 4 or a StuG or a Pz III , the slope is only on certain parts and it was not as pronounced. Well if we are to draw straws yes I do know the Somoa and Char had sloped armor but if we are to go back in time a little bit we will see that Christie's tank prototypes also had sloped armor to allow for thinner armor to be employed. My point was that the German tanks had a pretty vertical frontal plate and the worst of all they had low velocity weapons on the Pz 4 and had the pathetic 37mm on Pz III. I understand that in their war doctrine the Pz 4 used the low velocity 75mm for fire support and not specifically made to kill other tanks but still! Oh well. It's a pity , and it's more of a pity for me was that in my view the germans somewhat "panicked" when they encountered the T-34 and tried to make the Panther and Tiger to counteract them when they could have streamlined production for the tank killing Pz 4 (F series onward).
+JuergenGDB they were the 1st to embrace the idea wholeheartedly the main reason...it was cheaper to build XD...but the Jerry's had a taste of sloped armour plate with the somua's and FCMs in fact the Tiger 1 was a direct result of experiences trying to defeat the Char B1bis during the invasion of France in 1940...where a more powerful cannon was extremely important to take out the heavy French armour
@David Vance yes, it was a gamble but Hitler was a gambler. But Manstein and Guderian and lots of murderous cronies got really close to the goals, only for Hitler to split forces at crucial times. This gave Russians needed time and helped launched counter offensives. The Third Reich almost did conquer Moscow. But, Moscow alone wouldn't of ended the conflict. Russia had so many armies in reserve. The question isn't really about tanks covering the distance, if Hitler didnt intervene the original plans they would of gone beyond Moscow. It was the unknown armies of Russia, Germans were never good at recon of Russian forces primarily because of racism.
They, the Russians, fought to the last man because if they didn't they would have died anyways when the NKVD blocking groups killed them for being cowards or send them with their families to Siberia. They didn't have a choice. Even when they did, lots of them died in German captivity. When they were released as POW by their own forces, they were still treated as cowards and many sent to Siberia,
at 32:39 you see a massive field of destroyed Soviet armor and motorized units... Its very reminiscent of the Hiway Of Death from the first Iraq invasion by US/NATO forces. The soviets appear to be extremely close together, with turrets aiming in every direction, and little attempt to break formation. It would appear they were entrapped by Panzer forces and annihilated. This would have been a terrifyingly violent and chaotic scene, I wish there was more info on that battle. That alone would have made an incredible documentary. WW2, especially on the eastern front, hosted thousands and thousands of tiny battles across a massive front... they were a daily occurrence, and each battle's scale nullified the magnitude of the last. So much important tactical and historical information will be lost to the sands of time... So many lives were lost like this. They deserve more recognition.
I always wonder what would have happened to the PZ.III if it had been upgunned when Hitler had ordered it to be done so. I also wonder how much longer it effective service life would have been extended if the armour and gun had stayed up to date. Yes, I know that was impossible, but I tend to wonder about this. I believe that, had the Germans taken those steps earlier in the war, it might have made an impact.
Criticism of the decision for the small caliber guns of the German tanks is easy. The Germans certainly had the technology to build bigger guns, so why didn't they? A 50 mm round weighs roughly twice as much as a 37 mm round. Therefore, logically, you would also need twice as many trucks to transport the munition (if you wanted the same number of rounds available to your front line tanks). Germany did not have twice as many trucks, nor the fuel for twice as many trucks.
You could argue that with a heavier round, less rounds would be needed so it evens itself out again. Where the 37mm needs many shots at a tank to take it out, 1 50mm could do the trick.
Orvieta Of course, but then you would also have to hit your target twice as many times (in other words, not miss as often). Since the 37mm round was sufficient to deal with most enemy tanks of the time, it was also enough to "keep the flow" (movement) in the Blitzkrieg advances. German thinking was therefore correct (for the short moment in time), but flawed (long-term), since it didn't bear in mind that the enemy's tanks would become bigger and better in response to the early Blitzkrieg victories. This thinking pattern (of the small "cheap" tanks with small guns) was the result of the idea the it would be a short war, and small tanks were dictated by the fact that Germany lacked the funds and raw materials to improve the designs while there was still peace (say, 1935-39) After the war started, finances played a minor role, and tanks rapidly increased in size as the "generations" of designs (of both sides) began to overlap in ever more rapid succession.
All correct, it follows the general idea that the German army (Air, Ground, Marine) all were build up from a tactical purpose rather than strategical which ultimately helped their downfall.
Orvieta Couldn't have said it better myself. Many people forget that WW2 was practically the concept of Blitzkrieg (a short, decisive battlefield victory against a SUPERIOR enemy). IMHO, many historians and documentaries get it totally wrong when they make claims like "mighty" German Wehrmacht, while in fact the Germans were inferior in almost every mayor respect (except Poland right at the start) The events of WW2 were a tactical concept pitted against strategic concepts (like blockading an enemy, strategic bombing, sacrificing land in return for time, etc.). Guess which concept won :-)
They had the advantage of having to start from 0 and grasping new tactics and building up their army around that while the other nations all were left by the horrible memories of WW1 and the tactics used there. I once read a quote that compared both doctrines. "On one side we have a very armoured knight, sitting on a heavy horse and a big strong sword. On the other side is a much lighter individual, seated on a nimble horse but with new weaponry." The Blitzkrieg was a face off of different tactical doctrines, it's remarkable to think that Germany back then had put very little thought in maintaining their conquests after the inital gains (much like Japan for that matter)
True, but the french tanks were not wholly superior. Because they were designed to be infantry support, high top speed was not considered important, and as such were very slow. They were big, heavy things with lots of armor, but they were slow and their cross country mobility suffered due to their weight.
the Germans destroyed the French by cutting through the Ardenne surprising them from behind. They used their notorious blitzkrieg tactics to punch through the french lines, encircle and the stukas dive bombers did the rest.
@@DracoAvian No the souma with the 47mm gun was probably the best medium tank in the world in 1940 with a good balance of speed, armour and armament.the char b was slow but did the job it was designed to do -infantry assault.i suggest you about the battle at damour where 2 french light armoured divisions gave army group a panzers a hiding over two days and were only forced to retreat because of the failure at sedan
You can find these videos on Amazon.. Die Dutchen Panzer... or its titled something else I cant remember, but they had a Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine series as well.
Even the Panzer IV was relatively light compared to the M4 and T-34 it was pitted against. To be fair, the Panzer IV was a previous generation designed, when tanks didn't often pass 20 tons.
never look or listen to your own job done and cashed... ;-) yes... it's sick!!! (I did some sound engineering... - and I've never been happy of what has been done)
Pz III was better than the Pz IV because of its suspension but it was just too small to allow for the necessary upgrades. It is interesting to ponder that delays in implementing design changes such as the long barrel 50 mm were key in failing in Russia in 1941.
Amazing combat footage. The most informative and educational documentary I've ever seen. Shows what war is really like and not what is seen in Hollywood movies. With wry humour, I laugh at what Hitler did to the German people and how they followed him and let him get away with it. All the killing of the German soldiers and the waste of resources on building military equipment rather than spending on the benefit and welfare of the German people is amazing to behold and all most impossible to believe. Amazing.
Hitler was hooked on pervitin (Methamphetamine+Amphetamine) + cocaine eye drops and many other "hardcore drugs" in which public awareness of it's addictive properties were not known yet as it was a new drug - just like his army was blitzed on pervitin, air force (LuftTabletten) , tankers (PanzerChokalade) were on it too and it made him whack out and make and made him make horrible decisions. The infantry and tankers could march and drive their panzers for days and they could not sleep no matter what they did they were like supermen still fighting whilst wounded and ignoring the pain because they would be so high especially if they popped 2 pervitin tablets at a time. Can you imagine being a polish-french-RedArmy Soldier and having millions of soldiers armed to the teeth with armored personnel carriers + recon vehicles with MG34-42 and panzers and the whole Wehrmacht on meth headed your way with instructions to kill anything that moves. so dangerous.
"for thousands of years germans excelled in millitary operations. german generals held positions of high command in the roman legions, as they would in later centuries command armies in czarist russia, in south america, and in the united states. from the revolutionary war of 1776 to the two world wars of the twentieth century, in both of which the US army was commanded by generals of german ancestry - pershing and eisenhower, respectevely." - Thomas Sowell
I just have to say that the statement is obviously skewed. It even implies that having a German ethnic heritage is a qualification for military command. And it conveniently ignores the contrary evidence, such as the outcomes of North Africa, Stalingrad, Kursk, and the two World Wars. What are we supposed to make of this? That by being an American general with German heritage, you can defeat Germans?
Vlad Ratzen: "eisenhower" was not a German. His ancestry is Swedish/jewish. Remember, Eisenhower HATED Germans and Germany. Never forget the Rheinland Meadows concentration camps where well over 1,000,000 German soldiers were systematically starved, beaten, or shot to death on Eisenhower's orders. How? In the middle of /toward the end of the war, Eisenhower changed the rules of warfare by quietly re-designating captured German soldiers from Prisoners of War to Disarmed Enemy Combatants....... meaning these prisoners were no longer under the Rules of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of captured soldiers and could be basically treated anyway he deemed fit. Eisenhower was a WAR CRIMINAL......... and he wasn't alone.
@@gj8683 "It even implies that having a German ethnic heritage is a qualification for military command." thats true, and believe it or not, this is what i personally believe. i dont understand your "contrary evidence" argument at all. yes, the germans lost wars and battles. and so what? does it mean that sowells claim "for thousands of years germans excelled in millitary operations" is wrong? certainly not.
@@NeoSovrnson i dont think you are right. the german wikipedia page about this man reads as follows: here: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#Familie "Der Name Eisenhower ist deutschen Ursprungs und lässt sich auf Hans Peter Eisenhauer im Rheinland zurückverfolgen." which translates into: the name Eisenhower is from germany, and its heritage can be traced back to the name Hans Peter Eisenhauer from Rhineland. there is a whole paragraph on this page, which explains it all in detail. Maybe eisenhower hated the germans - i dont know.
@Gregory Emmanuel and you have no ignorance at all, right? no argument whatsoever. why dont you explain why you call it simplistic stupidity. Thomas Sowell is a professor who wrote more than 20 books. how many books did you wrote, professor?
i don't know why but whenever i play world of tanks and war thunder i cannot sell them because i like thise tanks its like i have an affinity to this beautiful tank
Just think: it was probably just ONE man that anonymously took the decision to fit the 50mm L42 and NOT the L60 as standard from the outset of production. The implications of that must have been HUGE. I wonder if it was the single most decisive factor in losing the war for Germany.
I mean to be fair Anti tank guns were seen as more useful because previously in france the germans would often just outmanouver the french thus making their armor useless. Meanwhile anti tank units who would often be static had alot of trouble defeating most of the newer french tanks thus anti tank guns were given a priority Even then most t-34 knocked out in 41 and 42 were still by the Panzer 3 and the armor quality of most t-34s could only really hold up against 37mm guns anything bigger would likely knock out the crew despite the fact that the armor of the 34 should hold up against even the 50mm
I cant believe what I'm hearing... Hitler ordered the Panzer III to be upgunned to a long barreled 50mm cannon and generals like Guderian REFUSED to carry it out?? All this time, in all the many years I've been studying World War II I was 100 percent convinced from what I read of the war's progression throughout the nearly 6 years of combat that Hitler himself was responsible for Germany's downfall and utter defeat. Now this documentary is saying that his generals, and generals as brilliant and cunning as Guderian to name one of them, purposely overlooked the significance of a long barreled high velocity gun in favor of a short barrel low velocity simply because they were already available and ready for production?! Wow, I'm utterly shocked. This is something that has never crossed my mind even once. I have always looked upon generals like Heinz Guderian as the pinnacle of brilliance in all things warfare, yet Galloping Heinz who so fervently promoted the use of tanks in warfare never considered the added punch of a long barreled cannon? Interesting.
boneyostrich As prudent as it might seem...I would think that you would want a gun that you KNOW without any doubt has the punch to defeat armor at a much farther range and with fewer shots. The Germans got one thing terribly wrong in that war, they believed that they could get by the tanks and equipment they already had available, when some of those things were as old as 1935. In a war as large and rapidly changing as World War II was, they should have constantly been upgrading and modernizing their tanks especially but also their small arms as well. Nearly every German soldier in the Wehrmacht carried a bolt action K98 K, which was only a shortened version of Karabiner 98....a weapon first produced in 1898! If they had had semi-automatic rifles like the American M1 Garand, it would have made a huge difference. Granted they did produce the Gewer 43 but by that time the initiative had passed from Germany to the Soviets, and certainly by the time the excellent and revolutionary Sturmgewer 44 entered service it was too little too late.
+Commander Shepherd sorry, but Guderian had recommended the L60 50 mm soon after France surrendered. He was shocked to find his suggestion had not been followed by the idiots running production. Guderian was fully behind Hitler's insistence for up gunning the Pz III. So the culprits against were the Nazis running production. no Guderian and, for once, not hitler. It is clearly stated in this documentary. Listen to it again.
Absolutely amazing what this generation and there parents went through , whenever I'm cold I always think about these videos and books of WW2 in Russia and the snow and cold these fellows went through , makes me not so cold . Also I wonder if us WW2 buffs have some kind of connection to this time period or generation, I mean seriously why are we so interested and enthralled in this timeline , I wonder if we are reincarnated? But ty for the videos and ty for all the men an woman who served please GOD BLESS THEIR SOULS , AMEN.
37:32 - I see one of the landsers has equipped himself with a PpsH-41 The Wilking troopers do not appear to have the "SS-camo" yet....looks like Heer camo they are wearing. I wish there was a closeup of the Pak 38 SP....it would be an interesting midel
Gustav Durham The Panzer III was okay in Poland and France... In Russia at 1942 it was all right, Russia was not at all ready for the beginning.... By he time to take Moscow the Germans ran in to new Russia Tank the T34.. also the Russian out numbered the Germans... All the Germans had the Panzer IV, not good enough against the Russian T34 Russians out numbered the Germans in Tanks....
When I was young I was crazy about Tigers and Panthers,but now I realize the Panzer 3 was the primary tool of the German army and besides,all Tigers look alike.
You should try playing forgotten hope 2, it puts the dynamics of the different models of tanks and their versions in to first person combat. The pz3N with the short 75 mm using heat rounds was awesome in the first years of the war, if you can hit with it. Still stunned that the first version of this tank had the 37mm, even looks laughable.
The ironic thing is that all the pro-German enthusiasts talk about the superiority of the late war German designs ...but never seem willing to mention or even acknowledge that ALL the big German victories in the first half of the war were won with the Panzer III as the main tank. A tank that was hardly ever more than average in comparison to it's typical opponents.
The war was what, 5 years or more, yet documentaries use the same tired footage again and again, surely there must be a vast collection of newsreel and videos somewhere??
This tank help Germany the most when the production went straight to Stug III assault guns. Way outdated by 1942 as far as its main armament of a 5 cm gun.
13:37 - Is 'Adj' an unofficial/nickname? 13:50 - Was it normal practice for crew members to dismount with their small arms to capture prisoners, or is this 'staged' footage?
From German Vets I met in Germany in the 70s, tankers did not take prisoners. If no infantry was available to take them in hand, they ignored them, or machined gunned them in passing, depending on the situation.
1400 panzers killed in 41 gd those crews would have been put to good use later in the war wtf I had no idea his best men die young imagine if some of them got into a panther or even just a panzer 4 or even bigger tanks
