Wehrmacht & Red Army Tactics at Stalingrad
The Tactics of the Wehrmacht and Red Army during the Battle of Stalingrad were quite different, since both sides faced very different problems. The Soviets mainly occupied with delaying the Germans focused on smaller unit tactics, whereas the Germans tried to clear block by block. Wheras the Germans had stronger support by the Luftwaffe, the Soviets possessed more artillery. In this video we look at information based on the 24th Panzer Division and 305th Infantry Division from Adrian Wettstein's book on Wehrmacht im Stadtkampf (Wehrmacht in Urban Combat), similarly we look at information provided by Glantz and Stone.
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - / mhv
» paypal donation - www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««
» shop - www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
»» SOCIAL MEDIA ««
» minds.com - www.minds.com/militaryhistory...
» facebook - / milhistoryvisualized
» twitter - / milhivisualized
» twitch - / militaryhistoryvisualized
» RallyPoint - www.rallypoint.com/organizati...
» tumblr - / militaryhistoryvisualized
Military History NOT Visualized is a support channel to Military History Visualized with a focus personal accounts, answering questions that arose on the main channel and showcasing events like visiting museums, using equipment or military hardware.
» SOURCES «
Wettstein, Adrian E.: Die Wehrmacht im Stadtkampf 1939-1943. Ferdinand Schöningh: Paderborn, 2014.
Stone, David R.: Stalingrad and the Evolution of Soviet Urban Warfare, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 22:2, 2009, p. 195-207
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...
Glantz, David M.; House, Jonathan M.: Armageddon in Stalingrad. The Stalingrad Trilogy, Volume 2: September-November 1942. University Press of Kansas: United States, 2009.
Glantz, David M.; House, Jonathan M.: Endgame at Stalingrad. The Stalingrad Trilogy, Volume 3: Book One: November 1942. University Press of Kansas: United States, 2014.
Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg - Band 6. Der globale Krieg - Die Ausweitung zum Weltkrieg und der Wechsel der Initiative 1941 bis 1943, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt: Stuttgart, 1990
Germany and the Second World War - Volume 6 - The Global War
» TOOL CHAIN «
PowerPoint 2016, Word, Excel, Tile Mill, QGIS, Processing 3, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Premiere, Adobe Audition, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe After Effects, Adobe Animate.
» DATA CHAIN «
Made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com.
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
#ww2 #tactics #stalingrad
If you like in-depth researched videos on Military History, consider supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/mhv/
i watched this video in Volgograd.
Maaan your movies are FULL of awsome historical informations. But... it is difficuld to understand english with your accent and in my opinion you could add more graphics, photos of unoforms, weapons and historical photos from evants. This makes your movies dull and not interesting what is bad because knowledge you give here is top of historical content about WW2 on YT.
I just question the whole tactics of the Germans - why didn’t they just pull out of the city? Then encircle the city and try starving out the soviets?
could you talk about the (admittedly small) Soviet Navy and Armoured River Boats?
Apparently the Wehrmacht was working on a Shield Badge specifically for any surviving veterans of the Battle of Stalingrad. Spoiler alert; it was never awarded.
Carter The Wehrmacht also made a badge/patch for the the capture of Stalingrad before the battle with the famous grain elevator as the symbol.
Who would they have given it to? Hardly anyone ever made it back.
I'm wary of any historical anecdote that sounds too much like a neat morality lesson. Anyone know of any good sources for the story of the patch? Just briefly looking around online I see it pop up frequently, but not with any cited source. According to the Army University Press's series on Stalingrad, the Germans weren't aware of the importance of the grain tower until after the attack started and the soldiers saw how much it dominated the area, so I doubt Paulus picked it as a symbol of victory before the battle began, though it would make sense for him to pick it after it had finally been taken.
About 8000 to 9000 men survived of the approximately 90,000 of the 6th army that surrendered. Only small numbers of soldiers were flown out of the encirclement via the airfield at Kalach. Hitler promoted Paulus to Field Marshal so that he wouldn't surrender, and gave instructions to fight to the last bullet/man. I highly doubt such a patch was ever contemplated.
Common Knowledge 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
Last time I was this early, the Volga wasn't frozen yet!
Climate change.
First rule of a panzer grenadier: "Try not to get squished under the tracks"
Sharpened shovels. What a nightmare.
Could you do a video on the effectiveness of the tank factory in Stalingrad? Kept producing tanks through the battle till the Germans literally burst into the factory. At least from what I've read.
They were mostly repairing tanks, not producing new tank with enemy at the gates.
@@AlexanderSeven Sounds legit. With the city blockaded, there'd be no way to bring in the steel and other raw materials to keep actual production lines going.
0:26 They were a lot of reorganisations and transfers, also. The groups of 50 men you talk about seem to be Soviet platoons. A standart Soviet platoon from 1942 would consist on 3 squads, with 15 men each, plus a "support team" that included the platoon commander (rank of lieutenant usually), a sniper and, depending of the requirements, either a heavy MG team, a mortar team or an anti-tank team, consisting of three men. These platoons later were organised and reorganised into larger units, but the nature of the field of operations, the constant atrittion and the losses of HQ elements of higher echelons (battalion and division HQ) meant that you would have often platoons from a certain battalion acting as de facto part of another battalion. Also you could have reorganisations after certain battles, like on the Magayev Kurban, in which the survivors of one division were reorganised into one single battalion, as casualties had been massive. 2:24 I would say it was the first mayor VICTORY on a city, as they had fought and lost mayor battles on cities during 1941, on Kiev and Smolensk. Also, the Soviets had knowledge from the Spanish Civil War, that involved important urban warfare (in fact they were veterans from the SCW figthing in Stalingrad, like Rubén Ubárruri, son of the Spanish communist Dolóres Ibárruri "La Pasionaria"). 5:05 The example of grenades can be a bit misleading, since it was rather common for the Soviet soldiers to use hand grenades in urban warfare, in contrast to field battles. 5:47 The Soviet soldiers were mostly conscripts, so you have almost everything you can find. I think this figure comes from German propaganda of 1941, and was based on an exageration made around certain stubborn Soviet officers (Budyonni comes to mind, he wasn't bad on the field, but he was just too stubborn). What you mention about the leadership is interesting, also. The Soviet military structure allowed for the commanders in the field and even, if necesary, the soldiers, to have iniciative when certain echelons of command couldn't be reached. I think most people forget that their military doctrine also came from the Clausewitzian theories, unlike the Jovinian theories used by the French or the British in WW1 for example. Of course, in a large scale operation you have almost everything planned from the beginning at the operational level, but even then you had certain room to maneuver, for example the Army General could order to the Division General "use your division to take hill 342" (random hill), but not "attack with this specific strengh on this specific point of the line", as that layout was decided by the Division General. And that going down to the soldiers. For their leadership, it was mostly being built during the war. What I mean is that in 1941 most of the divisions had lack of officers as a result of the movilisation programs, as well as the purges, and had a lot of "rookie" officers with zero experience that had just came from the academies. 8:27 A Soviet equivalent would be the "Guards Mechanized Infantry".
about 2:24 it is about IN a city not about / of a city.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Then I think the first one would be Smolensk, though it was part of a larger operation by both sides.
Your citation for key facts is excellent. I hope this catches on as a trend. Great work.
Interesting to note, "throw a grenade in every cellar we pass" sounds like it would endanger any civilians caught in the combat zone(which happened a lot in Stalingrad, apparently). Not passing judgement on any one side, it's just that when talking about tactics it's easy to forget how many non-combatants get caught up in the middle of urban combat and how that factors into the thinking of one side or the other. For example there are accounts of soviet soldiers having civilians sheltered in a building help in fortifying it, and sometimes even in passing around supplies to the defenders.
the author (Adrian Wettstein) notes that this marked a clear difference, because before Stalingrad (or at least in Poland) there were concerns about civilians, whereas in the Stalingrad report there is no mentioning of it anymore.
There are always more civilians killed in wars vs. combatants.
Westerners aren't supposed to even think about civilians being blown to bits in Soviet/Russian cities. Where do you get this idea and what do you think it means? It is the Soviet sources that are hard to find and heavily redacted which makes the facts that happened disappear from history. If anyone is to blame for "Westerners not to be supposed to know certain facts" it is the USSR. Nothing to do with going against the grain. Are you 12?
That's not true @@geoffdearth7360
In regards to civilians, I've heard that in the case of Rotterdam this city was given a time to surrender before this offer was declined and it was bombed by the Luftwaffe.
You discuss the seeming contradiction of Russian rigid and centralized leadership, but shocking levels of initiative at the local level... this is a Russian pattern from as late as the post-serfdom Tsarist days with Autocracy in the cities, but zemstvos in the countryside where the local citizens had more democratic input than any modern model of governance. It isn't always safe to generalize, but Russians have usually made hardy and smart soldiers, often in spite of their own leadership.
br35ch it falls in line with Soviet philosophy as a whole. In the same way local worker councils had a lot of freedoms on how to produce their goods whilst following the economic plan smaller units had room to take their own initiative as long as they followed overall strategy
The Russians are a tough people, no question about it! ;
Soviet "Auftragstaktik"?
@@TheBoarwild I would argue the Slavic people in whole are really though. Highlighted by the fact that the Yugoslavs were the only able to free themselves from the Germans.
19:41 Also the Soviets had several sub-units attached to the corps level that the Germans gave to the division level, such as supply units, communication units, field hospitals...
@Jose Raul Miguens Cruz Actually they were, but anyway if there was no army corps they were attached to the army.
Ein sehr lehrreiches Video! Danke für diese Doppelanalyse.
excellent video. Just a comment: For many reasons, I really think the use of heavy-caliber assault guns for direct-fire in urban environments makes a lot more sense than using indirect-fire artillery, or standard tanks with smaller caliber cannons; for example, the StuH, Sturminfanteriegeschutz 33B, or Brummbar. There are even accounts of the US military using self-propelled 155mm howitzers in a direct-fire mode in urban areas. My point is the urban environment has entirely different demands, and the armaments and organization should reflect that. Certainly the soviets found the ISU-152 to be of great use in urban settings in the latter part of the war.
As always, absolutely brilliant research.
I just love it thas this Channel exists. A Channel wich anwers the questions rising while watching a Movie oder a ww2 Game
iSaludos desde Mexico! Just wanted to say how I appreciate your videos on both of your channels (VW enthusiast-got my own 68 beetle)
Escuadron 201 !
Weren't the battles for Sevastopol, Voronezh, Rostov and Kharkiv (prior to Stalingrad) give the heer/Wehrmacht important experience about fighting in urban areas? What do people think made Stalingrad so protracted and unique? The fact that the city straddled a major water artery was not the first time the Germans has tackled a city unable to be encircled - again Rostov, Sevastopol, Leningrad, etc. My thoughts on why Stalingrad turned into such an epic battle was the pressure associated with time - for the Germans, the capture of Stalingrad had some political prestige, but also went a long way to fulfilling Blau III's objectives - one might say salvaging them - that being anchoring Army Group B's position on the Volga, perhaps allowing it to race onto Astrakhan-which would have secured Army Group A's position in the Caucasus and thus free up precious forces to renew the drive for Grozny ( If Army Group B can hold the Volga flank, then the armies operating in the Caucasus can be re-enforced, take precedence for supply, win back Luftflotte 4's support (which ironically, previously was when 1st Pz army became bogged down after Lufltflotte 4 was withdrawn to Stalingrad). Remember In Blau, Baku was not named as an immediate objective - rather severing the Caucasus from the supply links to Northern Russia was more imperative. If the land between the Black Sea and the Caspian could be secured, then the Wehrmacht could at least but itself at the most another year of campaigning on their terms, on the condition they can hold the line between Voronezh and Astrakhan.
like the background! very fitting.
thx, it also gives ptsd to RO2 veterans :D
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized haha i just realized that's the grain elevator! wicked. speaking of which, have you considered doing videos on smaller tactical battles, such as pavlov's house, that grain elevator, etc. ?
Nicely done, thank you. Leona.
Thank you too!
Good point about fighting capability of German divisions, a talk I heard by glantz he said the number of fighting troops (jump off) in one division was 4000 the rest were division support. In Manstein book I’m sure it mentioned the actual fighting force engaged at Stalingrad was 5,000 which when that got reported back to hq they queried it and it was confirmed the same. Paulus also asked for 250 replacement troupe a day to cover losses Where as I think the Russian numbers were mostly fighting forces so like you correctly say the comparison is not at all like for like
Grain elevator in the background. Nice!
Really interesting, thankyou
Hey echt cooles Format für ein Video like it :P
"Hugging the enemy" was also used by the Viet Cong, which opened up their ambush at just beyond grenade-throwing range.
Excellent video it helps shed light on the most prominent combat in ww2 the eastern front. In the US their is this complete lack of understanding of the eastern front
Interesting thoughts on Soviet rigidity decreasing at the unit level. In some ways, this is logical and predictable: a squad which blindly charges to its death has not survived, but squads which do innovate survive. It's a horrible way to evolve, but it's how natural evolution works too.
Infantry tends to see tanks as artillery magnates and they try to keep away from them.
@Alexander Challis That's all true, but infantry, not having their own armor and noticing the way tanks draw fire, are leery of staying too close. This is one of the reasons infantry need special training to assist armor.
Thanks leona
Mr Kast, given the Accuracy and precision of air-to-surface bombardment, was soviet heavy artillery targeted by the Luftwaffe?
Thanks for the video. Interesting. I am always interested in various accounts of dissension amongst the leadership of 6th Army about the tactical direction of the attack on Stalingrad. What have your studies revealed? Now poor old Paulus cops all the blame along with Hitler however it does seem that there was some disagreement on how Paulus "attacked" the tactical challenges thrown up by the assault on the city. Very interested to hear your views if you have a minute. Thanks for the videos I enjoy them immensely
I always enjoy listening to your German pronounciation!
Did the germans infantry in Stalingrad have any kind of smoke grenades or flares and such? I'm thinking about the difficulties of coordinating tanks and infantry that hasn't trained with tanks. In a city, there will be buldings that infantry can capture and buildings that are far too reinforced with enemy occupants. So you'd want a way to mark those buildings so the tanks can open fire at them from a distance if possible. Deploying smoke or visible flares can be used as a marker if agreed upon with other units. Even if you can't directly communicate with the tank crews through radio, you can assist them by giving clear visual markers of targets to engage. But maybe they already did that?
yes, Germans used that kind of ammunition quite regularly.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized: Thank you for the clarificartion. I didn't want to assume anything because from your videos I've learned that the german forces were hard pressed for resources in Stalingrad, so I thought that perhaps they didn't have such ammunition at the time.
oh I meant in general, I think - although not sure - that there was also a lack of that in Stalingrad.
Military History not Visualized There was a lack of everything in Stalingrad ;)
If nothing else some small arms fire towards the target would probably be sufficient to direct the larger guns.
Finally :) wacthing it now
Do WW2 partisan tactics.
Simple, throw some farm wire on the road, flip street signs around, rip up railway track. Just cause as much confusion as you can so that the allies face the least amount of Germans possible, while not killing any Germans yourself
@@bigburd875 it was different than that in Polland and the balkans (mainly serbia/greece). at least in greece that ive done lots of study on the subject with the local history buffs group, interviews with old people etc, the guerrilas were armed and did regular raids, ambushes and sabotage. the germans killed civilians as reprisals for this, and as a result, pretty much every village in many regions in mainland greece has a monument in the central square with a long list of (mostly) male names, of people that were executed by firing squads as reprisals for germans (or italians, but not after 43) killed by the resistance. the armed resistance was so numerous and had so many allied and captured axis guns that could field an army, and that led to a somewhat long and bloody civil war after the occupation. i wont go into the civil war story as it would take forever to explain
Most of yugo partisan fighting was in Bosnia/Dalmatia, because those were regions most suitable for guerilla warfare. The partisans had to retreat from Serbia by the end of '41 and didn't return in force untill mid '44.
And while I don't have any exact data about axis casualties in the Balkans, Yugo, Albanian and Greek partisans forced some 500k axis soldiers to be stationed there by 1943. This definatelly shortened the war - Imagine those troops being used at Kursk or in Normandy.
Hell yes, people forget the Partisan war. Everywhere there were German soldiers outside Germany, there were people trying to kill them. It's overlooked because the war has been use so much to strengthen Nationalism in different countries but the people themselves fought the Germans before anyone else. Every occupied country had people willing to fight against the Germans. But we don't remember this and focus on big-unit battles instead.
I recon Grain Elevator in the background.
Just wondering, do you have a discord for this channel?
I just saw that you do own one but it’s $15 dollars for access :/
Wait, the Soviets used blocking detachments at Stalingrad? Didn't TIK do a video on the "Not One Step Back" order where he said the perception that the Soviets would mow down their own men for falling back and not continuing to fight to the death was greatly overblown?
I don't know what TiK said, yet, I guess he addressed the popular depiction in Enemy at the Gates and Company of Heroes. The quote is from Glantz about blocking detachments and I put it there, because I suspected a question like this. From what I know, there is little question about their existence, yet, the frequency and how they operated is - like everything - quite delicate. I haven't read up on them so far.
Order 227. was initiated at Stalingrad and was seldom used afterwards.
>Wait, the Soviets used blocking detachments at Stalingrad? Yes, and not only at Stalingrad. But the ratio of people executed for fleeing from battle was like 0.1%, so it wasn't like it's often portrayed in computer games.
It's not like most people think.They would not shoot their own guys, they would make them go back to the fight, if they would retreat without orders.If they disobeyed, they would trial them and assign to penal batalions, not straight up shoot them.Contrary to what people may think the soviets did not have endless numbers.They took way too many losses in the start of the invasion to afford to do stupid and wastefull things with their men.
blocking detachments employment is something rather complex. One of the biggest reason that they probably weren't mowing down their own men ala Enemy at the Gates is that they had like a Regiment of 650 men to supposedly block the retreat of an entire Army of 60k men. Supposedly they were more useful in rounding up those who were a bit shaky and return them to the front. One of their role later in the war when the Red Army started to retake lost territories were to go through liberated villages and sweeps up any males who can hold a weapon and press them into the ranks. These men were not of great quality; the better ones were already shipped West to be used as slave labour. The Red Army, believe it or not, was short on manpower; so they resorted to rather desperate measures.
It's interesting to know, that Soviet soldiers used small shovel as melee weapon: it even had sharpened edges to decapitate enemy. In some cases Germans were literally shocked, that Soviet squad without any ammunition could fight back and kill them by ambushing German soldiers in small rooms.
This is in fact a common use of field spades or field Tools in all Armies. The germans used this also as weapon. It was teached to ordinary soldiers that the Feldspaten or Schanzzeug is a better choice in hand to hand Combat than the regular Bajonett. I don't think that the germans where surprised of the choice of the weapon, but about the brüte force of the russian soldiers.
@@papaaaaaaa2625 Are you sure about that? Most armies use knives for that, not shovels.
@@ceu160193 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenching_tool Look it Up yourself. Why shouldn't other soldiers use the shovel as weapon? You're carrying it anyway and it is way more effective as a knife.
@@ceu160193 Or Here kzhead.info/sun/eK2AeaaCnIScoYk/bejne.html
Everyone was using spades/whatever they could make in the trenches in ww1 so wasnt all that surprising
Cold in the studio?
Something I've always wondered... at what point was the russian plan to draw in and hold as many germans as possible before a counter offensive surrounded them? Before the battle? During it (if so when)? Or even just a lucky outcome???
They were in fact adopting German Blitzkrieg surrounding tactics
Maybe not getting bogged down in the morass of Stalingrad in the first place would have been a better idea.
I have a question i have always wondered i know in us sqaud they have rifleman/conander/smg gunner/saw But i heard some were (cant remember unfortunately) that the German squad was soley based around the machine gunnr was this true?
Craig: The MG34/MG42 had such high rates of firepower that, rather then, as in the U.S. Army, a Heavy Machine Team had a Gunner, Commander, Assistant Gunner/Loader, and 2 or 3 Ammo bearers, the German RIFLE Squad had a Squad Leader, Machine Gunner, Assistant Gunner/Loader, and the rest of the 10 members of the squad carried ammunition for the Machine Gun. There is at least one video by LindyBeige or someone else here on KZhead (perhaps TIK?) talking about just such a subject.
@@davidbriggs264 thanks for clarifying
kzhead.info/sun/YNaEgthtsYiQmq8/bejne.html By bernhard himself (Probably just butchered his name)
"Friendly Fire" isn't!
Pfsif incoming fire always has the right of way.
German artillery use was very accurate and timely ... Many first hand accounts of this ..
The supporting unit for the Russian army would these be government or army staff and would they be included in any statistics anywhere? There is a lot of debate about the German soldiers quoting high numbers facing them and this disputed by comparing official stats as a like for like , when it seems quite obvious newly formed units cannot possibly have the same structure because time and the emergency of the situations facing the Russians did not allow for that, so story’s like two soldiers for one rifle will of happened I’m sure , in any event two sets of eyes is not a bad thing when your untrained
Sounds like Stalingrad was logistically too out of reach for the Wehrmacht to maximize its combat power throughout the battle. Would a siege of Stalingrad be more feasible or even possible because its local geography was very different from the more boxed in position of a city like Leningrad?
I don't see any icicles in the beard. The winter hasn't kicked in yet.
I don't know why you even mentioned it. Az grenadier units as it was seldom if ever used as such ... that is a front line battle taxes ..
Interesting about difference between Soviet and German divisions re. % of combat personnel. The actual battle seems more and more like a nightmare every time I read about it. Obviously the Soviets lost incredible numbers of soldiers but they felt like they were winning. On the other hand for the German soldiers, the continuous fighting and lack of any safety, and possibly sense of hopelessness must have made their last days utter hell.
The Soviets WERE winning。
What I took from this video: There was a lack of ammunition.
i would hate to fight such a battle on Steel Division 44
Wait till Steel Division 2.
Its a shame the soviets werent mass issueing submachine guns this early in the war. Yes they had some in 42 but didnt have the policy of arming entire squads of men this early
Wonder how much ammo was used there.
Probably not as much as the U.S when the m16 was still fully automatic lol
The germans recorded using 25 million shots of all calibers in stalingrad in september 1942 alone. That was fierce fighting but, it grew even more violent as the battle went on.
@@pare But I would guess that like 80-90% of that ammo was used for suppression and covering fire.
Lets just say 'a whole lot'
Realkeepa 1991 that’s a majority of ammo used everywhere, there’s a reason combat load outs are given lots of ammo and casualties by the end of conflict is very low compared to the amount of ammo given out
Why 'take' a city? I mean if you destroy it's housing, factories and supply lines it will become useless to the enemy. Why did the Wehrmacht focus on taking the city? - or any city?
1) ask Hitler, 2) your assumption is about "useless" is wrong, e.g. look at Leningrad that was besieged and still produced a lot. Similarly, in Stalingrad the produced also tanks that were basically driven right from the factory into the battlefield. Additionally, the Allies bombed plenty of German cities and factories. Did they become useless, nope.
CAPTIONS PLEASE
what was the german/ soviet kill ratio at stalingrad?
If you're referring to a full casualty count it's Soviet/German losses roughly 3:2. This wasn't a consistent ratio over the battle. Over the first month, the ratio was closer to 5:1, but from late Sep 42-mid Oct 42 this evened closer to ~3:2. Battles in the north of the city to wipe out the factories and last landings on the Volga often resulted in higher German losses. This isn't a battle that should only be analyzed by final numbers. More troops fought in the Red Army than the Germans in the battle, but before Uranus they were considerably outnumbered.
@@kkrummelrhs thank you
You should have English subtitles .
BATTLE OF STALINGRAD Whenever there is talk about Stalingrad, please consider the following information that is usually left out for anti German propaganda purposes: Context. During the war Germany’s population was 80 million inhabitants, and its army was fighting against the Soviet Union with 202 million inhabitants, reinforced by the unlimited resources of the United States, the British Empire, and another 30 allies. The German 6th Army was initially led by experienced Field Marshal Walter von Reichenau during the first phases of the war. After he died in January1942 he was replaced by his inexperienced chief of staff General Friedrich von Paulus. During the battle of Stalingrad 6th Army forces totaled 350,000 troops, including two Rumanian divisions. Upon entering Stalingrad on the 17th of September 1942, the 6th German Army clashed with the Soviet 62nd Army under General Vasili Chuikov, which was soon reinforced by the Soviet 16th Army under General Rokossovski, which saved the 62nd from collapsing under German pressure. For the next two months bloody house to house battles ensued, until 9/10ths of Stalingrad was in German hands. Then on the on the 19th of November, the Soviets launched a pincer attack on the northern and southern German flanks. The German 6th Army was encircled by the Soviet 66th and 24th Armies to the North, 65th and 21st Armies to the West, 57th and 64th to the South, and 5th to the Southwest. The German 6th Army, by then reduced to 235,000 troops after 64 days of combat, was battling a total of 7 Soviet Armies, totaling over a one million fresh troops. Nevertheless, under grueling conditions, freezing temperature, dwindling food, ammo and petrol supplies, the 6th Army resisted encirclement 71 days before surrendering on the on the 1st of February 1943. Still some German pockets of resistance withheld their positions until first days of March. 107,800 were taken alive, of only 6,000 remained alive 10 years later. All in all, around one million casualties on both sides, mostly Russian, and perhaps the bloodiest battle in history. The odds were 10 to 1 against the Germans. Their supply lines cut off, and hundreds of miles away. It was just a matter of time before the inevitable outcome. So, talk of bravery and a heroic victory by the Red Army over the Wehrmacht is just idle. The floodgate to invade and subjugate Europe by the Russians for the next 40 years was finally broken.
Love watching these videos. I'm a HUGE history buff, I'm on a Wehrmacht kick lol. The U.S Military is next and the Red Army is some time in the far future hahaha. There is something about the WW2 factions and their military, I just can't help myself and I'm trying to learn about it all. I even 3D printed out a smal Tiger tank, and put my own little camouflage scheme on it.
I remember someone saying recently that German tanks had wide field of view. Now it's narrow.
Wide compared to a Russian Tank, narrow compared to eyeballs
One big advantage for German tanks was the commander's cupola with 360 vision. Soviet tanks lacked this. But still, vision out of a WW2 tank is crap unless you're hatch open with your head out.
All view is narrow in a city. Buildings block every ground level view except straight down streets -- only a few degrees after a couple hundred meters, and even these were often blocked by rubble in Stalingrad. Infantry city view is limited, but it's much worse for tanks (which is already much more limited than infantry) due to height of buildings. Tank view-ports emphasize left-right abilities needed in field combat, not notable elevations like something on a third floor 50 meters away.
@@ianbirge8269T34's had cupolas, with the 1942 model, KV1S had cupolas, IS tanks had cupolas, T34 85 had cupolas, SU tank destroyers had cupolas.Russian tanks had gun sights and radios, contrary to what people think.
I was the 700th like! :-)
Coh2 struggle brought me here
The germans were cheated by russians. They were attracted into a fight for which they were not prepared. I never understood why the Germans simplu didn't surrounded the city (already destroyed by aviation). The strategic idea (block of the Volga transportation system) would've been achieved this way with almost zero losses.
Why play fair when your the one who got invaded fuck around and find out
Believe it or not, most of the fighting for Stalingrad didn't actually occur inside the city. It occured outside the city trying to clear the don bend then the Volga. The problem for the Germans is that they consistently underestimated the importance of army group b in general in favor of getting to the Caucases and also reinforcing army group center. The city fighting for Stalingrad is more important in hindsight than it was at the time.
Stah Lynn graad
We want more metal
Ruth is not a common russian name so, it's unsurprising the the nkvd was ruthless
you have nice Beard
0:42 quote is misleading and mostly wrong. Stalingrad holds an anti-record of misuse of stopping detachments. Many commanders used them as ordinary troops. Also, from 1st of August till October on whole Stalingrad front the stopping detachments stopped around 15000 soldiers. Out of which roughly 250 were shot and the rest returned back to their units. 03:09 they kept closer to Germans not because they like wanted to or had a choice to do so. It's urban warfare - you have to!
Glantz relies heavily on western sources, so he doesnt have the info modern relatively unbiased Russian historians have.
Alexander Benkendorf The words “Russian” and “unbiased” are like Candy and hot sauce. They don’t go together
@@Winthropede i mean just look at this guy's name, he's probably molotov's decendant
warspot.net/198-unknown-stalingrad-enemy-at-the-gates
The German performance at Stalingrad was quite poor, particularly their unimaginative frontal attacks. What happened to manouver warfare? Try attacking on a narrow front from the south with the Volga on the right flank rather than on a wide front at right angles to the river. The flank along the river would have been relatively easy to secure while the depth of the left flank could be expanded as circumstance allowed. Overall they were far too slow and should have been more innovative in forcing attacks through with sufficient men to clear and hold what was taken, they gave the Russians far too much time to build up their forces and infiltrate. There is German video of the area around the rail yards and grain elevators showing the place almost deserted, why wasn't it being occupied effectively? German fail.
because the Germans were simply unprepared to fight the kind of enemy the Soviets turned out to be. Up until Barbarossa they were used to sweeping through unmobalized nations and forcing surrender. In fact half the German strategy of Blitzkireg relied on the enemy surrendering quickly. The Soviets did not surrender nor did they capitulate. Even in the early days when the red army was on retreat the germans encountered heavy pockets of resistance that other nations up until then didn't give them. So when they showed up at Stalingrad they had no real attritional doctrines or strategies that taught them how to deal with a heavily entrenched foe. The only reason they invaded the USSR in the first place was that they believed the red army would just collapse, but it never did. The entire German war machine was built on momentum and once they lost that they burned out. This is also why Britain became all but untouchable to the Germans after they were repelled during the Battle of Britain and why North Africa turned out the way it did. Also, I don't think you give the Soviets enough credit. Their system of fighting in Stalingrad prevented the Germans from being able to organize large movements and detach. When you're constantly being harassed at every inch there isn't much you can do beyond push ahead or remain still.
R Greenup Germans captured %90 of the Stalingrad before Operation Uranus.And you said poor.Just funny...
@@erichvonmanstein1952 In a timespan more than three times as long as it took them to take over France, or large parts of the western Soviet Union.
Russian soldier motto: "Damn it feels good to be a gansta"
needs cc
T34 shoots at the top floor SU 154 shoots at ground level, infantry armed with grenades and sub machine guns shoots everything what still moves. The KISS principle Keep It Simple Stupid.
RUSH A
Do not stop!
RUSH B(erlin)
@@bigburd875 We RUSH B after we RUSH st A lingrad
Nyet, cyka. Always Rush B blyat
You seem to repeat the oft stated myth of what and how NKVD blocking detachments work, and that is just in the first minute of the video !!
Could you specify "myth", cause I know they were used less often and different than commonly portrayed, yet, they were used. Also I put a quote from David Glantz up there, might help to read it.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Yes I have actually read Glantz. Including the newer revisions. NKVD blocking detachments were there primarily to rally routed troops not to gun them down or force them back into the fight before they were settled and reformed. Incidentaly Glantz is not infallible, he veers close to stalinist apologism at times and gives little attention to viewpoints of facts that do not support his viewpoint. I would suggest instead John Ericson's classic two volumes, Road to Stalingrad and Road to Berlin, which are far superior in terms of objectivity.
Ericson died in 2002, his works are likely pretty dated. So I read up on what Hill wrote in his recent book. He notes that it was rather rare, but also adds that they functioned in some cases more like a radicalized military police, which doesn't take nicely to (potential) deserters etc. as such I don't think that they are a myth, just their portrayal is more of caricature and many people lack context.
I'm glad you don't use the crap that Bad Guys At The Front Door created.
?
Enemy at the gates and the human waves myth.
Rokossovsky lol it’s a great movie which dramatizes real life, just like most good stories.
Ze battle of Shtalingrad!
Germans when the buildings start screaming Cyka Blyat: 0_0
Haha this guy really doesn't bother to check pronunciation. "Shtalingrad" 😂
na, that is how we pronounce it in Austria.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized I believe that. The problem is the video is in English :-D Thanks for answering by the way, no hard feelings. It was just fun to listen to Shtalingrad
The Holy trio: Vsauce,Simon Whistler and this guy
Simon Whistler can blow my whistle!
Whistler is a pompous douche bag!
@@Pfsif whats so bad about Whistler? ._.
Blitzkrieg became rattenkrieg.
I’ve always thought about the mental strain this puts on average soldier, I always wondered how American soldiers/officers would react if given same duty? As an American...I believe we would’ve mutinied(to go around city).
Lol if only it worked that way. The LT. Says go this way......you go this way.
Actually, what the Germans perceived as well organized storm groups, most likely were Soviet guys who for some reason got lost from their units, or their units got defeated and they fell back. The so-called traitors, or "predateli". Now, to redeem themselves, they were given granades, knives, and, for instance, told to storm a building at night. If they survived, their honor was redeemed. Back then in Soviet forces, nobody could have had a clear conscience if they retreated.
Stalingrad. Massengrab.
Due to Stalin’s order to ensure all civilians stay in the city, there were often civilians in the basements of the buildings. This grenade through the door technique often resulted in civilian casualties
Except he didn't, they tried to evacuate as many civilians has they could but the retreat was too quick to make sure everyone was taken out of the city (which was already overcrowded with refugees from the evacuation of the Don region). Please stop the fucking stupid propaganda.
Stalin did evacuate civilians from Stalingrad。
In Antony Beevers book Stalingrad it was stated the Soviets killed 13,000 of there own troops. Also Soviets had a huge problem with their troops changing sides to fight for Germany. To this day Russians have a hard time acknowledging this. Their answer at the time was the same it is today once they changed sides they are no longer Russian.
Considering there were around 1 million Soviet troops at Stalingrad, 13,000 looks very small, about 1%.
Most of the people your talking about weren't Russian and also its fucked up to call the Soviets Russian by denying the existence of Ukranians, Belorussians, etc and most that defected were Tartars and other nomadic people living in the USSR
@@jeambeam3173 You completely ignored my point just to complain about something I was correct about? If you read what I wrote 2 years ago I correctly referred to them as Soviets when referencing them during WW2 and correctly called them Russian when referring to both today's Russian Govt and people of Volvograd! Russia that to this very day downplay how many of their troops crossed no man's land to fight for the Axis. Why did you dig up this ancient post of mine that was 100% correct?
Are you sure that＇s not Nazi propaganda？How many Soviets actually fought for the Nazis？
Can not understand your accent..
In terms of fighting capacity and exchange ratio, Germans were indeed the supermen.
Jose Raul Miguens Cruz So France and Britain are dumb?
In the real world the Germans at Stalingrad surrendered。
Watched the first 35 seconds. Heard the phrase 'Nkvd blocking detachments', saw the name Glantz in the sources. No point to watch the rest of the video. It will not be about history. It will be about that map in Call of Duty.
G'day, Well then, Hoppergrass...; thanks to your admissions, voluntarily given - now the whole of the Internoodle KNOWS what a thunderin' foolish Halfwit your parents concieved, birthed, raised-up, and sent forth into the World, to humiliate their Ancestors' lineage by dint of your mis-doings and personally infamous erroneousness. Such is Life, Have a good one... ;-p Ciao !
ah yes no one stopped deserters at all. of course not. every russian soldier willingly fought in that hell hole and didn't think for a second about routing.
Because it was such an "Honour" to fall on the Field Of Battle, gloriously, while obeying Joseph Djugashvilli's infallible Orders to defend their common Motherland from being fucked-over by all those nasty wicked Nazis - determined to enact Adolf's grand plan to reinact Napoleon's World Discovery Tour to the Gates of Vladivostok (did not the Survivors of Paulus's Rabble indeed spend a dozen years in Siberia - as their reward for habing tied their Honour to their Loyalty - obedient unto Hitler's every tiny Brainfart as expressed to them as an "Order". Und Befhel ist BEFHEL ! Thus, God rotted them all, the long & the short & the tall, they turned into Compost..; Soul-Die-Errors, all. Such is life, Have a good one... ;-p Ciao !