How Russia Stopped The Blitzkrieg 

Yo guys I'm currently busy at the Shell Make the Future event so can't reply to comments, but make sure to check out Real Life Lores video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WtblYGKCaRs.html

Hearing hitler in a calm voice is really wierd

I thought you were going to call this "Tanks for watching?"

"If someone quotes me on the internet I probably didn't say it" -Joseph Stalin

Germany: We built some of the most advanced tanks and aircraft to fight this war Russia: HAHA t-34 printer go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Till this video, I never realized that I had never heard Hitler speak in a normal voice.

Russia used Blyatzkrieg to defeat Blitzkrieg

Ah yes, the Japanese with their Molotov cocktails and the Finns with their Kamikadzes

America: Do but die USSR: Do or die Japan: Do and die

Russia rushed B.

"This war was being fought on speed, not power. And power would eventually catch up" Oversimplified

“And it’s forward facing armor can even withstand direct hits from the German heavy tank, the Panzer 4.” Every military enthusiasts: *Inhales*

'Kursk was the Russians last stand' Spoken like a true Wikipedia historian! 👍

It wasnt the Japanese, it was the Finnish who threw cocktail molotovs at Soviet Tanks

T34 factory : how many tank do u want Stalin : Yes

The German panzer IV was not a heavy tank in the attack on France. Its main armament was a short barreled 75mm and it had thin armor. It was considered only good for infantry and not tank-on-tank. Your video shows it with the long barreled 75 which came after the fall of France.

The USSR focused on "quantity over quality" because they have the industry and strategic resources (i.e. oil) to do so, whereas the Germans have less. The Germans knew in the mid-late part of the war they couldn't win in a war of attrition, hence the change in doctrine of "quality over quantity". However, over-engineering their vehicles is also a problem of its own, because they take too long or are difficult to repair when damaged in battle.

"How many T-34 tanks should we build?" "Da comrade"

"It takes a brave man to be a coward in the Red Army" Joseph Stalin.

Germany: Nooo you cant just produce tanks Russia: Industrial capabilities go Brrrrr

6:38 The Landkruezer is so big here's a Godzilla for scale

“Quantity has a quality all its own.” -Joseph Stalin

+Real Engineering. It pains me to say it but... your military history just is not as good as your materials and engineering history (I just came from your "History of Iron and Steel" video, really amazing stuff, it's clear you have a firm grasp of history when it comes to materials and engineering). Good points first. 1. Excellent visualization of how the German armored tactics worked on the operational level at the 2:00 minute mark (side note, "blitzkrieg" is more a propaganda term than a term used by actual military strategists to describe an actual tactic). 2. Good on you for pointing out that the Polish cavalry were armed with modern weapons. Classic charges with sabers and lances was a tactic largely reserved for propaganda footage. And now the rest. 1. The French had plenty of tanks. The allied armies at the time of the battle of France had 3,383 tanks, outnumbering the German's 2,445 tanks. The S35 was accompanied by many other French tanks such as the R-35, the H-35 and the Char-B1. There were even still a few old FT-17's kicking about (it may not have been a match for the German medium tanks, but more than half of the German armor was the lighter Pz1 and Pz2, which it could take on any day). The French's mistake wasn't in failing to build enough tanks, but that the tanks were spread out among the infantry divisions. The Germans meanwhile had their tanks concentrated in Tank divisions, meaning that whenever they met on the battlefield the German tanks always had local numerical superiority (despite having global numerical inferiority). 2. Their wild experimentation in super-heavy tanks definitely was not their downfall. By the time the Germans started designing those tanks they had effectively already lost the war. Even the legendary Tiger and Panther tanks didn't appear on the battlefield until 1943 (although technically the Tiger's first action was in September 1942), by which time the strategic situation for the Germans was beyond repair anyway. It is true that by the late war the Germans were chronically short on tanks. But switching to better tanks at a small cost in production efficiency was hardly a mistake when you consider that even in the later stages of the war the Germans always had more tanks than they had trained crews to operate them. Their biggest blunder really, was that they didn't fully mobilize their industry to the production of war materials until January of 1943, by which time it was too late. 3. Though D-Day (and the rest of the Battle of Normandy) and the Battle of the Bulge may be hailed as turning points, turning points they were not. They took place in mid 1944 and the winter of 1944/45 respectively. By that time the outcome of the war had been long sealed. It is probably misleading to think in terms of turning points anyway. Stalingrad is probably the most deserving seeing as the Germans pretty much permanently lost the initiative after Stalingrad, but even that does a disservice to the massive German casualties inflicted by the Soviets in 1941 that made such a victory possible. 4. The Battle of Kursk was not, by any stretch, Russia's last stand. A German victory there would not have resulted in a loss of lend lease support, nor major industrial capabilities, nor a crippling of the Soviet rail network, or anything else of major strategic urgency for the Soviets. In fact, even if the Germans had won they still would have had to shift forces south to face the Allies in Italy, and they still would have taken heavy losses in the battle itself that they would struggle to replace. It is unlikely they would have had the forces necessary to exploit their victory and more or less the same strategic outcome would have resulted (the blasting open of the eastern front for a general Soviet advance). EDIT, 3 years later: First I would like to say how thrilled I am at the reception this comment has gotten over the years. But, like any good history enthusiast, I have revised my opinions over the years a bit. I think I mostly agree with myself from 3 years ago, but having continued to learn about WW2 I have changed my mind on a few points. 1. For the most part what I said about Allied tanks in France was correct. I should add a bit more nuance though. Most French tanks were spread out among the infantry divisions (French doctrine envisioned tanks primarily as providing infantry support, which is part of why mobility wasn't a priority for tank design), but they were paying attention to how successful the German tanks divisions were in Poland, and they did concentrate some of their tanks into tank divisions of their own (though not nearly as many as the Germans). These ended up not making much of a difference, but they did exist. 2. I still don't think that their experimentation in heavy tanks was anywhere near enough to be their downfall. And, when you consider how long it takes to design and develop a new tank, and what the Germans could have reasonably known at the time they started developing those heavy tanks, I still don't think it was a mistake for them to develop those tanks either (mainly because I believe it is unfair to impose our 20/20 hindsight on people who couldn't have possibly known what the future held in store for them). But considering the cost, and in particular the fuel economy (remember, oil is the critical resource here) of the Tiger and Tiger 2, I do now believe those tanks may have been harmful to the German war effort overall (note that that opinion does not extend to the Panther, which seems to have been a perfectly cost effective vehicle, being produced in similar quantities to the Panzer 4 in 1944). But in fairness to the Germans, they were developing the Tiger in 1941/1942, when they didn't yet know that they would not succeed in securing Soviet oil or that they would be forced onto the defensive. The Tiger was designed to be a breakthrough tank, that would punch a hole in the enemy front line, which would then be exploited by medium tanks and infantry (under such circumstances a very small number of heavy tanks could make a very large difference). But the Tiger was pretty much wasted on defensive operations, which is what the Germans were dealing with by the time it entered service in any serious numbers. Punching a hole to be exploited by the whole army would have justified its cost in spades, but just being a particularly tough hardpoint did not. I am now of the opinion that it may not have made much difference if they had mobilized their industry sooner. They would have been able to produce more tanks and planes if they had done that. But tanks and planes require fuel, and the problem for the Germans was the lack of oil. Also, while I really don't like the term "Blitzkrieg" (since it was not actually used by the Germans to describe their own tactics, and probably originated in an English newspaper (the German term was "Bewegungskrieg" or "mobile warfare")) I have always held that language works on a basis of common usage. Modern linguists believe their job is to describe how a language is actually used, not to prescribe how it ought to be used. People use the term "Blitzkrieg" to describe the German offensive tactics of WW2, therefore, on the principle of common usage, it is a correct term for the German offensive tactics of WW2 (although "Bewegungskrieg" will earn you more brownie points with WW2 experts and enthusiasts).

T-34 : I fear no man. But that thing “Truck Kamikaze” T-34: It scares me!!

Soviet Engineers recognized how quickly the average tank was destroyed or disabled on the front lines, and then they cut corners until the whole tank was designed per that short service life.

Stalin: “ I use blitzkreig to blitzkreig the blitzkreig”

Thank you for this.....i was born in Russia but moved to America when I was young.....in the USA we were taught that the US and UK won world war 2, with barely any mention of the USSR.....it was so frustrating because all the other students believed that’s how it actually happened......completely disrespectful to the 21 million plus Soviets that died in the war.

When he showed Hitler's voice I was actually really surprised since in his speeches and all he has a much different voice and tone, but then again it makes sense.

5:26 *’’ Panzer IV heavy tank ‘’* -Real Engineering

I don’t think I’ve ever heard a recording of Hitler that wasn’t during a speech. Hearing his regular speaking voice is fascinating in my opinion.

That bolt hammer design really summarizes the Russian mentality: it just works.

Germay: send in ze panzer grenadiers and ze tigerz! Ussr: moar farmers MOAR tanks MOAR KATYUSHAAAAAAAS

Not only it is easier to manufacture tracks with floating pins, it also makes it easier to replace broken tracks.

I never knew that many people in the comments are historians

"A bulge that needs to be eliminated to prevent Russia from mounting a counter-offensive on the Germans rear." *heh*

24 February 2022 " How Russia started the Blitzkrieg "

I remember reading a WW2 history book in 8th grade after the standardized tests and was fascinated by the Blitzkreig. Absolutely genius

The T-34 was made of Stalinium

Basically Russia spammed the produce button on the T-34

Very interesting thank you for making

The quality of your videos is admirable!

Why did the French have rear view mirrors? To see the front lines

How the germans saw the T-34's *And they don't stop coming-And they don't stop coming-And they don't stop coming*

Superb and concise !

The Molotov cocktails were Finnish, they would throw them on the t-34s exhaust and that would ignite a flammable material which would ignite the gasoline or alcohol inside it

germany: *takes france* italy: *is part of axis* switzerland: *heavy breathing*

How Russia stopped the blitzkrieg ? they used skill share

"How to counter the invincible Blitzkrieg which already defeated half of the Europe?" "Idk bruh ....more tanks?" "genius!"

Fun fact: When Hitler was asked if he wanted to invade the weakened Spain he responded: "You cannot just invade Spain without permission from Spaniards"

It's common to see people joking about Poland's cavalry, but they were actually really effective against infantry. Also, they knew when to quit.

I think your video is misleading on the reason why Germany steamrolled their enemies. Mechanized troops were not the majority, there were always to few tanks, halftracks and even normal trucks to form a effectiv mechanised force. The key was the combined arms doctrin and the Auftragstaktik(Mission tactics) which made the German units very flexible. The Auftragstaktik gave the final decission to the troops, which made them more efficient and faster at their task compared to the more top down command of other nations. In most battles the enemy had more of everything, but the momentum which spawnend from the flexibility of the Auftragstaktik together with the combinend arms doctrin allowed to outmaneuver the enemy despite their numerical advantage in most aspects.

Wait, don't you mean 3.500 meters at 6:20? 35 kilometer seems a bit far, even for modern tanks. Longest tank kill by an Abrams happened during Desert Storm at a distance of 4.7 kilometers.

Never knew they only invaded holland but not the Netherlands

The molotov did not "Drip through the plates" It was simply thrown at the engine block, and it dripped into the engine, melting components and hoping to stop the tank.

One of my grandfather died at Kursk, the other died at Stalingrad. My grandmothers still tell stories about them..

Really high quality research work, and highly efficient delivery of overlooked information.

And also the soviets made their tank armor incredibly hard making it ridiculously brittle

My great grandpa was apart of the polish Calvary unit. On the first day of the war he was captured. And he was held as a pow for the rest of the war. He died before I was born but he would tell my dad the horror of the charge and how he only had one bullet in his gun.

My great grandfathers died in Stalingrad and the other in Kursk. One was infantry, the other a tank driver. Then my great grandmother remarried and her new husband was a tank driver and reached Berlin. He lives until 1990

Good work.

Luxembourg had just 400 infantry and 12 cavalry I know it wrong to laugh at this but this is Idk what

8:23 Japanese exploited the flaw by throwing Molotovs? Wasn't it Finland?

6:18 What! I didn't know the Maus was armed with a rail gun, capable of taking out targets at 35,000 metres!!!

I can't believe youtube recommended this to me in 2022...

A litle detail: at Kursk germans have middle tanks "Panther" and havy tanks "Tiger". They were practicaly invulnerable for soviet T 34-76. The T 34 could destroy them only in to the side of the tank, from 500m.(T 34-85 appeared only in 1944).

It's almost impossible for me to comprehend 300 days of continuous battle. Lest we forget.

The conversation between Adolf and Gustaf, where Adolf tries to convince Gustaf entering the war against Josef, is one of the more chilling dialogues you can find on youtube. Legend has it that Gustaf lit a cigar to gauge Adolf's reaction (he knew Adolf was opposed to smoking). Since Adolf didn't complain, he knew Adolf was in a position of weakness, and so denied him.

Lesson #1: never invade Russia Lesson #2: never invade Russia Lesson #3: never invade Russia

Please make another war strategy breakdown again, I love it

The Mouse Gun can kill at 3,5000 meters... that's a lot of zeros for three and a half thousand.

OMG, finally someone gets the story of polish cavalry attacking german armour correct, hats off to you fine mams and sirs, Dziękuję

2:12 Every time I hear the word decimate I think 'to reduce by one tenth'

loving the pins!

How to double your tank's armor thickness for free? Math.

Germany: *takes Europe* now on too rus- Russia: imma have stop you right there

Wow, some times engineering can really feel like a warzone of difficult problems

Great job, especially for calling out some misconceptions about ww2

Hitler: I never new a country could have 30,000 tanks Stalin: *WELL NOW YOU KNOW*

The Germans also used speed (Amphetamine) to drive on nonstop .

One huge piece you are missing was the contributions of the Sturmovik aircraft. They were armored, low-level planes which had powerful cannons and even rockets which could bust German tanks into rubble with no problem. They were designed to ruin a tank formation before the battle was even engaged, and did a magnificent job. For reference, I would suggest reading Rickenbacker: An autobiography (1967). Eddie Rickenbacker got to visit Russia in 1943 and saw all this firsthand, and got to observe the Sturmovik's firepower at the factory.

Flawled analysys.

One of the most amazing things the Soviets did was pack up all their factories that were threatened, put them on trains with their work forces, and reassemble them in Siberia close to the natural resources the factories needed. Once they were at full production they expanded those factories. New cities sprang up around them where there were only towns before. 'Tankograd' etc (Chelyabinsk). A monumental effort. I see a lot of people think the Soviets only survived due to Western lend lease. Less than 10% of Soviet war material came from lend lease. Don't believe me? Just look at the number of tanks, guns and planes the Soviets produced and compare that to what they received via lend lease. Probably the most useful thing to come from the West was the license to produce the DC-3 transport plane, which they called the Li-2. If the Nazis had defeated the Soviets they would have had a clear road ahead to link up with the Japanese. China, India and the Middle East could have fallen to the Axis. I am glad that did not happen, so i am grateful to the Soviets.

Your history is wrong mate. The T-26 was the majority of the tank army at the beginning of the war.

Winter did it ..indeed

The best history video of WW2 is from not a historian but an engineer, great.

Good to know. Never make a WW2 unless you have an insane amount of research because everyone will criticize you.

How to make a dutch person mad. Call the Netherlands, "Holland".

Well done Dude! We definitely owe you a beer!!

I keep coming back and re-watching this video every 6 months

The Blitzkrieg was long over before Kursk. Massive T-34 production was only possible due to the the shipping of soviet factories east to the Urals. It was the winter of 41 that stopped the blitz

6:23 thats not three and a half thousand. Thats 35,000

Tik, who addresses WW2 from an economic perspective, explains how Russia stopped the blitzkrieg much more clearly.

Thanks for that part about PL cavalery

Me: Armor RE: Er-mer

How USSR stopped The Blitzkrieg... => Simplified, rugged military designs. (Compare T-34 against Tiger. Tiger is over-engineered to the point of affecting its reliability in operational service. Because its over-engineered, its too complexed to produce quickly.) => Mass production (ability to produce quickly...USSR had mass number of factories compared to Nazi Germany). => Raw numbers (quantity...literally overwhelm one's opponent with sheer numbers). => Get all people involved (include civilians to fight for their homeland and help prepare the battlefield before the fight). => Studied their enemy's tactics in order to use it against them (USSR actually used the pincer movement back on the Nazis at Kursk...Which the Nazis previously used on the French, Polish, etc.) => Better equipped for the local weather and terrain. (Nazi uniform and equipment had serious issues against the thick, sticky mud and cold of the Russian landscape and winter weather respectively. Russian clothing allowed soldiers to fight while staying warm. Where as the German uniform was more suited for Summer weather. As well, the T-34 didn't have overlapping wheels, so the wheels don't stick together when its cold like the German Tiger did. So the Nazis had to waste energy and time unfreezing wheels of tanks before being deployed.) => Didn't have a leader obsessed with complex "wonder weapons". (Hitler had this mass ego when it came to weapons development. Everything had to be big, intimidating, and powerful...to an unrealistic level. ie: A super-sized tank presents a big target for fighter/bomber aircraft...Its also hurts its ability to traverse across difficult terrain, bridges, etc.) => Scorched Earth...There was nothing useful to capture and use. (Stalin ordered its citizens to pack up everything and destroy anything they couldn't take with them; to prevent Nazi forces from attaining anything useful for their war machine. Effectively, the lands were stripped bare; Rail road tracks were ripped out; Telephone wires and poles were taken down, etc...When Germans captured an area, they realised it was barren and worthless for their needs. This caused them to ship their own supplies from their homeland, in order to sustain their own forces...Makes a huge burden on logistics and drains a nation's treasury.) => Outside interference.... (The Allies invading Italy forced Germany to divert some of its forces elsewhere, in order to hold off Allies.) There's also the Russian people's resolve to fight to the death...Where as you see the French surrendering Paris because they don't want the city to be destroyed, the Russians had no qualms in making the Germans pay for every bit of Russian territory they took. The Russians figure a city can be rebuilt back after the war, so its worth the sacrifice in stopping an enemy. (See the Battle for Stalingrad.)

Huge misconception on T-34, it was a well engineered tank built poorly not a bad tank built poorly

Very interesting!

So what did we learn from Hitler and Napoleon? 1. Don’t betray your ally’s 2. Don’t invade Russia 3. Don’t drag on the defeat just bloody surrender already

10:04 Area 51 recovered footage

Even you don't know the definition of "decimated". The polish army was NOT decimated, they were wiped out, defeated, annihilated, massacred or any other word, but they were NOT decimated. If they were then 90% of their forces would have not have suffered any damage at all.